Some see it as an alternative to the Rabbanuts rabbinic council, but Tzohar people say they have no power, and they know it, and are basically just a group of talmidei chachomim who meet to discuss the issues and whoever wants to act in a specific way base don the discussions and conclusions is able to, and those who don't, don't need to. The example is a recent council meeting discussing prenuptial agreements. Any rabbi that wants to promote it to those he marries off, can, and any that don't, don't need to. No decision is obligating. And, they aren't going to deal with Rabbanut issues - such as kashrut and importing food..
Wait - I thought the entire purpose of Tzohar was to be an alternative to the Rabbanut.. They were a rabbinic alternative prior to the council being formed, and remain an alternative after it has been formed. Even though the council has no power.I am not even sure what it means, especially knowing that they have no actual implementation power. I mean - before they formed this "rabbinical council", what did they do to make decisions in halacha or to discuss issues. Isn't a rabbinical council really just a forum of rabbis discussing an issue and investigating the various halachic approaches and possibilities? Until now, when they were deciding a policy or stance in halacha, did they not have a group of rabbis discuss the issues and come to conclusions? Is that not in essence a rabbinical council? I would expect a rabbinic organization to have its rabbis meet to discuss the issues. So, this formation of a council seems to be only natural to the nature of the organization, and makes me wonder why only now.
The truth is, I originally planned on ignoring the announcement. It is an interesting tidbit, but not really all that comment-worthy.
That is, until the opposition to the new council spoke up. According to Kikar, haredi rabbis are opposed to the formation of this council due to its being an alternative to the Rabbanut.
I am not quite sure what that means? Why should this bother the haredi rabbis? The haredi rabbis and public do not follow the Rabbanut at all anyway. The haredi community has a number of rabbinic councils that are alternatives to the Rabbanut - the Litvishe rabbinic council, the chassidishe rabbinic council, the sephardi rabbinic council, the Eida rabbinic council, and you can probably find half a dozen other groups that each have their own rabbinic council. So all these people can have rabbinic councils that are alternatives to the Rabbanut but Tzohar cannot?
Rav Neventzahl is quoted with different opposition - he has a problem with them because he thinks they are planning to pasken against halacha and look for leniencies, whether halachic-based or not. Rav Neventzahl considers the organization to be a danger to Judaism, and just like he, and others, oppose Tzohar in general, he also opposes the rabbinic council and says they will make the country less Jewish, more assimilated.
The haredi opinion on Tzohar is well-known, and I am not going to get involved in that. It came out in all its glory recently when Rabbi Stav ran for the position of Chief Rabbi. No need to rehash it all now. But, as a rabbinical organization, whether I follow them or not, whether I hold by them or not, I would expect of them nothing less than having a forum in which the rabbis can meet and discuss the issues.
------------------------------------------------------
Reach thousands of readers with your ad by advertising on Life in Israel
------------------------------------------------------
Good post - and too bad I missed the radio items about it yesterday but I doubt that no one mentioned:
ReplyDelete- this certainly does not seem to be a replacement for the rabanut at this time but rather a belated 'contra' to the Beit Hillel breakoff rabbinical council. I think that Tzohar has failed to recreate some Rabbinical Council of Israel, too bad for them. The best idea would be to work hard with the current chief rabbis and create this rabbinical council from within.
- pretty wheenie. 'They' 'lose' the race to the rabanut (due to their own bungling, poor planning, and failure to 'read the map') so they accelerate their plan to institutionalize themselves. If they really do want to start now on preparing a rabbi for the race in nine years (may mashiach come before that to put an end to all this) then that rabbi should be 'unaffilated'. A heavily national-religious associated rabbi will not have a good chance next time. In 9 years, there will be even more Haredi MKs in the Knesset.
- makes them look a bit too institutional and rabbinical then previous vague 'good dos' organization. Are seculars still going to like an organization that is going to look like the Haredi organizations with their Council of Torah Sages? I don't think so.
- Although on a different subject, this morning Elazar Stern mentioned how hard it is to 'work with' the Bayit Yehudi because whereas Shas and Yahadut have their council that makes one policy for each, the BY don't and have many rabbis (not really, the party does not have even one but rather each MK might have a private rabbi) - so is Tzohar really aiming to become the rabbinical council of the Bayit Yehudi?
- and let's say that it is an attempt to form a new rabanut. Does Tzohar really think that its main constituents - non Hardali dati-leumi, really care to have a rabanut in the first place? If I was secular, I don't really think I'd care about Tzohar or Beit Hillel psaks because would I follow them anyway? Or maybe I would like them on FB so some occasional status might break onto my timeline.
-Baruch Hashem I stopped donating to Tzohar. They call you and talk about how important it is to provide the wedding service for seculars, but then don't feel too comfortable when you ask them about their political dealings and who pays for that - the advertising campaign over a year ago against the rabanut, and the very expensive election campaign for Rav Stav.