Corruption in the Chief Rabbinate
Hello,
I’ve seen in your words on pretty much every website that you accuse the Chief Rabbinate of corruption.
Did you mean religious corruption or moral corruption, because apparently I don’t see religious corruption in their actions. As far as I know, appointing relatives is not a halakhic prohibition.
Do you think the courts and other authorities are not equally plagued by corruption?
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Corruption is not a halakhic concept but a moral one. Incidentally, breaking the law and blasphemy are indeed religious offenses.
My impression is absolutely not. But beyond that, the rabbinate was founded and exists in sin because it is a superfluous institution on its own, and therefore its corruption is even more problematic. Especially since it is a religious institution that represents me and God, which also sharpens this problematic nature even if the degree of corruption were no different.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What violation of the law are you intending to commit?
Appointment of relatives
I am surprised by this, if the committee decided to appoint such and such a relative, why is it a violation of the law?
Could it be that you are suggesting that the interference of the rabbis in the appointments of their relatives is a violation of the law?
(Sorry for the ignorance in matters of law).
You wrote that nepotism is not a halakhic offense, and I said that it is a legal offense and therefore halakhic. I simply used the example you gave. That is not the point.
Regarding desecration of God
Apparently, towards observant Jews, as long as it is done according to halakhic standards, there is no desecration of God.
As for secular Jews, I have long been doubtful as to how much one should feel towards them as desecration of God, for them almost any religious act that does not conform to their view is desecration of God; and so what is the limit?
I think that the words of the prophet regarding the use of electricity on Shabbat, even if there is no prohibition on the part of the Shabbat act, it must be prohibited on the grounds of desecration of God, have some bearing on the above, although his words are an innovation and have already been commented on in this regard.
This explanation does not belong to the subject under discussion at all. After all, blasphemy also applies to non-Jews, and certainly secular ones. This explanation was stated only here because what the non-Jews or secularists condemn us for is the very observance of the law – in this there is no fear of blasphemy (they do not like us to keep the Sabbath or study Torah). But if they condemn us morally for an act that the law does not require but at most permits (after all, there is no law that requires appointing relatives) – this is blasphemy by all accounts.
And the Maimonides and other poskim have already written that a scholar must be careful in his actions beyond the law because of blasphemy. Of him it should be said: “How beautiful are his actions – Blessed is his mother and blessed is his father who studied Torah”.
Indeed, how pleasant his words are, blessed is the one who gave birth to him and blessed is his father who learned Torah.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
