Dec 11, 2013
Democracy = 2 Chief Rabbis?
MK Nissim Zeev (Shas) made an interesting argument in favor of keeping 2 Chief Rabbis and not moving to a single rabbi system.
According to Zeev, the position of "Rishon l'Tzion" was established n the days of the Turks, and the chosen Rishon lTzion was head of the small Jewish community of Eretz Yisrael. The Ashkenazim didn't recognize the authority of the Rishon lTzion and set up their own system.
When the Rabbanut was established, 2 Chief Rabbis were appointed - Rav Avraham Yitzchak Kook and Rav Yaakov Meir who was appointed to bear the title of Rishon lTzion. Until today, hundreds of thousands of sefardic Jews have come to Israel, and 2 chief rabbis are needed, each to represent the different communities.
Zeev continues, are people willing to minimize the number of political parties? the public sees the diversity and range of political parties as an expression of democracy. In that same way we need the two chief rabbis in order to represent the range and diversity of people. Zeev even thinks the chief rabbis should be given more authority. The two chief rabbis represent Israel and bring honor and grace to Judaism and to the various united groups within. Any attempt to do away with one of them will result in argument and fighting between the different groups.
(source: Bechadrei)
First of all, I think we should not have so many political parties and we should have just one chief rabbi, if any. So at least in MK Zeevs opinion I am consistent.
Second, if we need 2 rabbis to represent the variety and diversity of people, why stop at 2? Why don't we have an Ethiopian Chief Rabbi? Why not a Yemenite Chief Rabbi? And why not a Polish Chief Rabbi? A Russian Chief Rabbi? Hungarian? American? Egyptian? and on and on. Why is it enough to have 2 - let each group have its own representation!
Third - I get people will be upset. Especially at the beggining. If a Sefardi wins the position, the Ashkenazim (or some of them) will say they can't follow him, and if an Ashkenazi wins it the Sefardim will feel slighted and that the position of Rishon lTzion has not been filled. Eventually they will get used to it. The selected rav will be knowledgeable enough to preserve the various customs and difference in psak between communities. Yes, there will be some fighting in the beginning, but the purpose and intention of those behind the initiative is to get rid of the division of Jews created by the long exile - we are all here now, and we live together and one chief rabbi is enough to represent everybody.
According to Zeev, the position of "Rishon l'Tzion" was established n the days of the Turks, and the chosen Rishon lTzion was head of the small Jewish community of Eretz Yisrael. The Ashkenazim didn't recognize the authority of the Rishon lTzion and set up their own system.
When the Rabbanut was established, 2 Chief Rabbis were appointed - Rav Avraham Yitzchak Kook and Rav Yaakov Meir who was appointed to bear the title of Rishon lTzion. Until today, hundreds of thousands of sefardic Jews have come to Israel, and 2 chief rabbis are needed, each to represent the different communities.
Zeev continues, are people willing to minimize the number of political parties? the public sees the diversity and range of political parties as an expression of democracy. In that same way we need the two chief rabbis in order to represent the range and diversity of people. Zeev even thinks the chief rabbis should be given more authority. The two chief rabbis represent Israel and bring honor and grace to Judaism and to the various united groups within. Any attempt to do away with one of them will result in argument and fighting between the different groups.
(source: Bechadrei)
First of all, I think we should not have so many political parties and we should have just one chief rabbi, if any. So at least in MK Zeevs opinion I am consistent.
Second, if we need 2 rabbis to represent the variety and diversity of people, why stop at 2? Why don't we have an Ethiopian Chief Rabbi? Why not a Yemenite Chief Rabbi? And why not a Polish Chief Rabbi? A Russian Chief Rabbi? Hungarian? American? Egyptian? and on and on. Why is it enough to have 2 - let each group have its own representation!
Third - I get people will be upset. Especially at the beggining. If a Sefardi wins the position, the Ashkenazim (or some of them) will say they can't follow him, and if an Ashkenazi wins it the Sefardim will feel slighted and that the position of Rishon lTzion has not been filled. Eventually they will get used to it. The selected rav will be knowledgeable enough to preserve the various customs and difference in psak between communities. Yes, there will be some fighting in the beginning, but the purpose and intention of those behind the initiative is to get rid of the division of Jews created by the long exile - we are all here now, and we live together and one chief rabbi is enough to represent everybody.
------------------------------------------------------
Reach thousands of readers with your ad by advertising on Life in Israel
------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Related Posts
Disagree.
ReplyDeleteHaving one chief rabbi is merely a matter of convenience, saving some money, with virtually no added value at all except to force him to work even harder. Even two chief rabbis is not enough and they do not rest. There is no Camp David for chief rabbis in Switzerland. Creating artificial unity never worked because no one is going to give up their nusach or minhag avot. Yes, we want Mashiach now to take us out of the galut, but it is too early, perhaps in another generation or two when much less people will be pure Ashkenazi or Sepharadi (except for the racist anti-intermarriage Haredim (the one thing I despise in them)).
The current law says we cannot elect a rabbi who is over 70 years old. If you really do want one hief rabbi, then the age limit will need to be thrown out, and a true 'gadol hador' voted in, nothing less, who really will be able to posek for both communities - nothing less than Rav Ovadia Yosef and Rav Mordechai Eliyahu.
But look at the Xians. They have one pope, but many factions do not accept him (since a long time ago). Why would we want to risk more people not respecting the Rabanut and causing further division. There is nothing wrong with having two chief rabbis with the 10 person Rabanut council.
As for having a Polish rabbi, a Ukrainian rabbi, etc... YES!!! We want a Sanhedrin with 71 members!
Yes, we need halachic practice in Eretz Yisrael to reflect the fact that we have come home and are one nation-exactly as Rabbi David Bar-Hayim of Machon Shilo has been saying for many years. The Ashkenazi-Sefardi divide is a galut-induced phenomenon.
ReplyDeleteThe Ashkenazi-Sefardi "divide" (really more of a "distinction", since it fails to divide all but the most racist) is not a new phenomenon. There were 12 distinct tribes, and when they managed to unite, they split into two kingdoms (which occasionally waged war on each other) in relatively short order.
DeleteAs I commented on your last post about it, I agree with Nissim Ze'ev and believe that 2 chief rabbis should remain until Mashiah comes. In fact, many of the reasons you cite in his name, I cited last time on your last post.
ReplyDeleteWe cannot be a united people in minhag until Mashiah comes according to the majority of opinions (Rav Bar-Hayim's opinion notwithstanding) such as Rav Ovadia ZT"L's instruction to Sepharadim of אל תטוש תורת אמך and the various "Minhagei Ashkenaz" groups who seek to preserve their customs. Not to mention all the Hasidic groups and Teimanim and Italians, etc.
As to why stop at 2, it's b/c there are 2 supercategories - just like Yehuda and Yosef (or Malchut Yehuda and Malchut Yisrael) even though there are 12 tribes. As we learned in last week's haftara, we await the day they will be joined into one. We are not there yet, but we hope.
Represent before whom? Various political parties represent, in theory, different sets of interests in a legislative body. If the position of Chief Rabbi were to be eliminated entirely, who would lose some sort of representation? (I'm not saying that it should be elimination, just that it's not a representative role the way a political party is.)
ReplyDeleteI guess he means they represent the people for their religious needs. It is not the same as the representation of a political party, but they sort of do represent the people. Perhaps they could even be considered the interface between the people and the government for the people's religious needs.
DeleteThere were 12 distinct tribes with one sanhedrin and one rosh sanhedrin.
ReplyDelete