Young man dressed as yeshiva student undresses at non-kosher supermarket chain, remaining only with sock covering his private parts.

A 27-year-old man, claiming to be a yeshiva student, decided to launch an unusual protest against a court ruling allowing stores and restaurants to sell leavened food during the holiday of Passover.

The man, dressed as a haredi, arrived Monday afternoon at a store belonging to the non-kosher Tiv Taam supermarket chain in the city of Bat Yam, just south of Tel Aviv. Upon his arrival, he undressed and remained with only a sock covering his private parts.

The man explained that he could not be prosecuted for an indecent act in public, because according to the court's interpretation of the leavened food law, a supermarket is not considered a public place. He even wrote on his stomach, "This is not public."

The store employees alerted the police, who dressed the man, arrested him and took him to the police station. In his investigation, the suspect claimed that he was a yeshiva student studying in different yeshivot in Bat Yam.

He told the police that in light of the court ruling, he did not violate any law. The police were unconvinced by the young man's interpretation of the ruling, and are expected to ask the Rishon Lezion Magistrates' Court to send him to a mental observation.

What is considered a public place?

Several weeks ago, a Jerusalem Municipal Court judge decreed that the indictments against four restaurant owners charged with selling bread and leavened goods on Passover be scrapped.

In her verdict, Justice Tamar Bar Asher-Tzabann ruled that, by law, a store or restaurant is not deemed a public place because, unlike an open market, it is a closed off arena that cannot be seen by passersby. She said that leavened goods may be sold inside stores and restaurants, as long as they are not put on display outside or at the shop window.

About two weeks later, Attorney General Menachem Mazuz published a legal brief endorsing the court ruling. Mazuz noted that the State Prosecutor's Office did not intend to appeal the controversial ruling, as it fell in line with the State's stance.

He stressed that this stance in no way constituted a change in policy, on the contrary: "This has been the State's consistent policy over the years."