Featured Post
Free The Hostages! Bring Them Home!
(this is a featured post and will stay at the top for the foreseeable future.. scroll down for new posts) -------------------------------...
Sep 3, 2014
Rav Yosef on which Chief Rabbi should remain
Based on comments from the Chief Rabbi, Rav Yitzchak Yosef, it seems that the law proposal to cancel one of the chief rabbi positions and only elect one in the future must be a done deal, even though it has not yet been finalized.
Rav Yosef commented that if one position must be voided, it should be the Ashkenazi rabbi, and the Sephardi rabbi should remain as Chief Rabbi.
Besides for obviously preferring his own, he explained that the Rishon LeTzion position is 380 years old. When Rav Kook established the Israeli rabbinate, he went to the Rishon LeTzion at the time and asked if he would be ok with an Ashkenazi rabbi at his side. The Rishon Letzion agreed, to keep the peace, and the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi position was established. So, Rav Yosef says, if we have to get rid of one of them, get rid of the newer one and leave the one with the longer tradition.
source: NRG
Having a specifically Sephardi chief rabbi is not quite the point of canceling one of the positions, but ok. It looks to me like he thinks the law is a done deal.
------------------------------------------------------
Reach thousands of readers with your ad by advertising on Life in Israel
------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Related Posts
What's the point of having only one (who doesn't even criticize his own gov't when necessary), if we're going to stick with the disunity element anyway?
ReplyDeleteWhy would we have to only have a Sfardi Chief Rabbi? Right now there are three Rabbonim in Israel who have the title (and unique clothing of) "Rishon L'Tzion" (Rav Bakshi Daron, Rav Shlomo Amar, and Rav Yitzhak Yosef), and two more died within the past few years (Rav Ovadia, and Rav Mordechai Eliahu).
ReplyDeleteIf the current chief Rabbis were replaced with a single Rabbi, and they alternated between Sfardi and Ashkenazi every 10 years, the odds are that there will still be at least one "Rishon L'Tzion", but he may not have an official government standing (other than "former chief Rabbi")
Alternatively, if the Chief Rabbi is Ashkenazi, the head of the Beit Din Rabbani could be given the title Rishon Letzion.
Or for that matter, is there any reason why the term Rishon Ltzion can't be given to a Rav with Ashkenazi background? What about other communities - if the next chief Rabbi was Temani, Ethiopian, or Italian, would he represent the Ashkenazi or Sfardi community (or both), could he not be given the title Rishon L'Tzion?
Right now there are three Rabbonim in Israel who have the title (and unique clothing of) "Rishon L'Tzion"
DeleteAfter a US president's term is over, he retains the title President.
I don't see any problem with no having an Ashkenazi Rishon LeTzion, but...
I think this idea to cut down on one chief rabbi is a bad idea, and will also backfire on those who make it law. There are many reasons they want to make it law such as 'saving money', reducing the power of the Chief Rabbinate, and also the 'dream' of voting in some Ashkenazi mamlachti sarug who will fall in line with the politicians.
Well, if the law is passed, I promise you that in nine years, we will get an even stronger Sepharadi Haredi rabbi to make up for the attempt to dilute the power of the Chief Rabbinate. As time goes by, the Haredim and Hardalim sectors are growing, and much faster over this time. The birthrate of those sectors is astounding.
What does the Chief Rabbi even do? The Rabbinate itself is a current necessary evil to make sure that most Jews in Israel are not eating mamash treif, Shabbos violations are limited,...somewhat, keep miqwa'oth open and operating, make sure there aren't too many mamzerim born, due to unions which are assur, and burials.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, I would say get rid of it. Unfortunately, none of these "leaders" are ready to form an effectual Sanhedrin, and thus give up much of their power, including power over mass numbers of Jews.
I would be nice to have a Chief Rabbi for everyone, and have it move away from these divisions, developed in galuth.
However, that's not going to happen. I am sure that whoever is appointed Chief Rabbi can handle the learning of the customs of other eidoth, or have committee heads responsible for that for him..
Esser, I know you have an aversion to mamlachtiness, but the Rabbinate is somewhat of an attempt to bridge between galut and holyland leadership. I really want a Sanhedrin, but that was not created in 1948 (try to think hard 'What if the Sanhedrin had been resurrected in 1948), so this is what we are left with for now. The truth is also that this generation is not ready to let go of the divisions. There are still hundreds of thousands of pure Ashkenazi or Sepharadi olim and forcing some artificial conformity is quite careless, disrespectful and insulting. There is unity in that there are two chief rabbis. There is also a trend of more and more mixed marriages between edot, so the time will come when we really can have one posek, but we are not there yet, not for another generation (20 years) or more, unless Mashiach comes before that of course.
DeleteThe position is also to be a posek, one of the gadolei hador, but also very symbolic as well. What is wrong if Sepharadi kids look up and have 'their' chief rabbi to respect and aspire, and likewise for Ashkenazim too? In our current generation, if we are relegated to one kind, the other side will simply not have as much respect, and IMO that will affect respect for the entire rabbinical industry.
Of course, you're making excellent points. As usual, I'm just not too interested in the "reality." I more interested in changing the reality into a Torah reality.
DeleteGadolei HaDor? Still? Symbolic, yes. But, if he's just a puppet of the state, then he's pretty useless for the matters I listed above, like giving rebuke to its own gov't.
There was outrage against the possibility of R' Shmuel Eliyahu becoming Chief Rabbi, calling him "not Zionist." The truth is that they confuse Zionism with State loyalty. R' Eliyahu is Torah-loyal, which is all that matters, and would [hopefully] not be influenced by pressures from the State or from goyshe enterprises.
IOW, he would be considered dangerous, because he has the audacity to put HaShem and His Torah above the authority of the State.
Back to the reality, you're right about the "intermarriage" between eidoth. Progress, not perfection.
I find it optimistic when I am served spicy Moroccan fish in a Yerushalmi home in Meah Shearim, and Moroccans and Iraqis who tell me how much they love gefilte fish. (They can keep it!) ;-)
lol Josh that jsut reminds me lehavdil when we were still in the US, and a coworker related how it goes when you take your 5 year old to Macy's to meet with Santa - there are many Santas in many rooms so the line doesn't get too long, when it's your turn they ask you "do you have a preference?" "Huh?" I asked. He had to spell it out for me that if you cared what color skin your child's Santa would have.
DeleteI thought the idea isn't to have one *exclusive* posek for the country, rather one figurehead for the Rabbinate, to send a more united message. Almost all religious people don't follow a figurehead announcement for psak anyway and will consult their own Rav. And a psak that is (a) very relevant to the general population and (b) has divergent Sefardi vs. Ashkenazi outcomes in the sources - should be publicized as such, why not?
If the next rav harashi is Ashkenazi, the sfardim will just elect their own. (Ashkenazi m don't have the luxury of unifying. Sfardim will not allow a teimani, italki, non. Conformist.)
ReplyDeleteBy the way, much of that 350 year tradition was "chacham bashi" from (today) Turkey. (Imagine getting permission from erdogan, a requirement at the time.)
Very good points. See the video I posted here.
DeleteThe Ashkenazy one appears to be from the British Mandate, modeled after the Anglican Church.