25 July 2016, 22:29 · 20th Knesset · vote no. 25064
הצעת חוק שירותי הדת היהודיים (תיקון מס' 21), התשע"ו-2016Bill Jewish Religious Services (Amendment No. 21), 2016 · automatic translation · suggest a correction
אישור החוק
Law passed: 41 for, 35 against
76 of 120 voted — official Knesset result
What was put to the vote
«לקבל את הצעת החוק בקריאה שלישית»
Third reading: The final vote. A bill that passes its third reading becomes law. Glossary →
About the law and the debate
Official summary of the law (Knesset)
The Jewish Religious Services Law (Amendment No. 21), 2016, was passed by the Knesset on 25 July 2016. The Law defines a "ritual immersion pool" as a covered place held by a religious council that is intended for immersion for purposes of ritual purity or conversion. The Law further provides that a religious council may decline to enter into an agreement for the use of a ritual immersion pool, even if the religious council has entered into an agreement with the State or with one of its authorities. In addition, the Law provides that it shall take effect nine months from the date of its publication, in order to allow for preparation for its implementation.
automatic translation · suggest a correction
Hebrew original
חוק שירותי הדת היהודיים (תיקון מס' 21), התשע"ו–2016 התקבל בכנסת ביום י"ט בתמוז התשע"ו (25 ביולי 2016). החוק מגדיר "מקווה טהרה" כמקום מקורה בהחזקת מועצה דתית שמיועד לטבילה לצורכי טהרה או גיור. עוד קובע החוק כי מועצה דתית תהיה רשאית שלא להתקשר בהסכם לשם שימוש במקווה טהרה, אף אם התקשרה המועצה הדתית בהסכם עם המדינה או עם רשות מרשויותיה. בנוסף קובע החוק כי תחילתו תהיה תשעה חודשים מיום פרסומו כדי לאפשר היערכות ליישומו.
What was said in the plenum
Supporters saidautoThe ritual bath is a halachic concept unique to the Jewish people intended solely for the purpose of ritual purification and not for other uses such as conversion not performed according to Jewish law, and the state must protect its halachic character.Speakers who made this point: 2Opponents saidautoThe law constitutes an improper circumvention of the High Court of Justice ruling and harms the principle of equality in receiving a state service funded by public money.Speakers who made this point: 618 members spoke · 8 reservations
By party on the day of the vote
Coalition and opposition voted differently.
- for
- abstained
- against
Zionist Unionהמחנה הציוניopposition0 for · 20 against — majority against
- Michal Biranagainst
- Eyal Ben Reuvenagainst
- Yehiel Hilik Baragainst
- Eytan Broshiagainst
- Omer Barlevagainst
- Isaac Herzogagainst
- Yoel Hassonagainst
- Manuel Trajtenbergagainst
- Yoseph Yonahagainst
- Shelly Yachimovichagainst
- Eitan Cabelagainst
- Yael Cohen Paranagainst
- Tzipi Livniagainst
- Merav Michaeliagainst
- Ayelet Nahmias-Verbinagainst
- Ksenia Svetlovaagainst
- Micky Rosenthalagainst
- Nachman Shaiagainst
- Itzik Shmuliagainst
- Stav Shaffiragainst
Likudהליכודcoalition18 for · 0 against — majority for
Yesh Atidיש עתידopposition0 for · 10 against — majority against
- Karine Elharraragainst
- Yael Germanagainst
- Haim Jelinagainst
- Meir Cohenagainst
- Aliza Lavieagainst
- Mickey Levyagainst
- Yaakov Perryagainst
- Yoel Razvozovagainst
- Elazar Sternagainst
- Ofer Shelahagainst
Jewish Homeהבית היהודי בראשות נפתלי בנטcoalition6 for · 0 against — majority for
United Torah Judaismיהדות התורהcoalition6 for · 0 against — majority for
Yisrael Beytenuישראל ביתנוcoalition3 for · 1 against — majority for
- Robert Ilatovfor
- Orly Levi-Abekasisagainst
- Hamad Amarfor
- Oded Forerfor
Kulanuכולנו בראשות משה כחלוןcoalition4 for · 0 against — majority for
- Michael Orenfor
- Elie Elalouffor
- Roy Folkmanfor
- Tali Ploskovfor
Meretzמרצopposition0 for · 4 against — majority against
- Ilan Gilonagainst
- Zehava Galonagainst
- Tamar Zandbergagainst
- Michal Rozinagainst
Shasש"סcoalition4 for · 0 against — majority for
Roll call (76)
Showing 76 of 76
Numbers and sources
- For
- 41
- Against
- 35
- Abstained
- 0
- Present, did not vote
- 0
Official result: 41 for, 35 against, 0 abstained — adopted. Taking that into account, the roll call matches the official result.
Only members with a record are counted. No record does not mean the member was absent.