First of all, this is not his first piece of nonsense. I see his outlook as thoroughly Haredi and naive, and I don’t regard them as Torah scholars. Second, in his position he did not contribute to broad change in Jewish law the way he should have. He permitted things here and there based on halakhic decisors, and that was the end of it, and likewise halakhic ruling itself is an invention. Third, I won’t deny that I do have appreciation for him as someone knowledgeable and diligent in Torah — but I appreciate more someone whose life did not go well, because all in all he had a very good life and enjoyed learning like a drug addict, so what is there to admire?

I don’t understand what you want from me. You asked whether he deserves to be called a Torah scholar, and I answered yes. Now you’re explaining why you don’t appreciate him. Good for you. What does your appreciation of a person have to do with the title Torah scholar?

Just as an aside.

I don’t think there are many people who have filled themselves with the Talmud and halakhic decisors like Rabbi Ovadia Yosef.
And likewise, your claims are pretty populist. Even if you disagree with him, you can and should appreciate him. The Sanhedrin was not a monarchy; the disputes in the time of the medieval authorities and in the time of the Tannaim were far more extreme, and even so they appreciated one another [unlike now, when even in the age of democracy, ironically enough, they trample and denounce all the unpopular dissenters. Largely the fault of the Haredim, I admit (I’m Haredi)].

With God's help, 15 Av 5780

In principle, it is possible that a person who is expert in the secrets of the Torah and understands the essence and purpose of created beings (which is “the Account of Creation” according to the Ran in his homilies) could reconstruct, based on his knowledge of the purpose of created beings, the laws of nature that fit that purpose. But it does not seem that this is what Rabbi Ovadia Yosef meant in his remarks about Rabbi Aryeh Deri.

In my humble opinion, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef meant that one can learn from the conduct of the Patriarchs, the prophets, the sages of blessed memory, and the sages of the generations, ways of coping with questions of public leadership. When should one act forcefully, and when should one compromise in order to avoid confrontation, and so forth. As the sages of blessed memory said, before every meeting with the Roman emperor, Rabbi Judah the Prince would study the portion of Vayishlach about Jacob’s meeting with Esau.

The experience of the generations and their wisdom can join with and aid the experience and shrewdness of a public leader, and help him identify different processes and deal with them. At the same time, it is clear that this is not an unequivocal “exact science.” Thus, for example, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai was careful not to ask the Roman emperor not to destroy the Temple, out of concern that “if you seize too much, you seize nothing,” and he would not succeed in saving even the little that he did ask for — Yavneh and its sages, and the continuation of Rabban Gamliel’s line. And for this Rabbi Akiva criticized Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai for not daring to ask for more.

Intuition and personal and historical experience do not prevent hesitation and mistakes, but they do add value in the ability to raise lines of thought that even experts in the field do not always think of.

A case in point: many wondered at Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky’s demand not to close the yeshivas because of the coronavirus, but now the “corona projector,” Professor Ronni Gamzu, warned against sending yeshiva students out for the intersession break, because that could lead to more infection and transmission in crowded homes, a risk that is less present when the young men are in supervised “capsules” in their yeshivas.

In short: coordinated thinking by great Torah scholars together with professionals who are experts in their fields is the optimal path to success.

With blessings, Shatz

Shatz, learning and drawing conclusions from the conduct of the Patriarchs and the prophets does not sound like a good idea. Rabbi Ovadia continued a long tradition of chatterers regarding all the wisdoms in the Torah, and the point is, only in my opinion of course, that there is still a big distance between one bizarre opinion (or ten) and sitting on the iron bench and issuing sweeping judgments [when the readers know that the factual basis for the wild statements is reminiscent of that cellphone in the ravines of the streams in the Golan].

I notice you’re really coming on to me. I’m willing to compromise and let you be my slave. I’ll come home and you’ll be there regularly to give me tickles; that I’m always willing to accept.

Good idea

With God's help, 16 Av 5780

To Socrates the Tickler — greetings,

It is hard to say that Rabbi Ovadia Yosef has “no basis” if one examines the “political outcome test.” Before Rabbi Ovadia Yosef founded Shas, the National Religious Party was the dominant religious party with 10–12 seats, while Agudat Yisrael trailed far behind with about 4–5 seats. Shas reversed the picture and captured at least 8–10 seats (and at its peak reached 17), and today it is the dominant religious party, controlling major government ministries. And this dominance has continued for about 35 years. So Rabbi Ovadia Yosef’s political “handiwork” is a success story.

If you had been not only a “tickler” but also a “stickler” in reading the words of the one you are attacking, you would have noticed that I mentioned not only learning from the Patriarchs and the prophets, which is very important in its own right, but also learning from “the sages of blessed memory and the sages of the generations,” from whom one can better learn ways to succeed in sustaining flourishing Jewish communal life when you are not in a position of military and political power. This can be learned better from the sages of the generations, who managed to sustain flourishing communal and spiritual life even in periods of political weakness.

The “name of the game” during the exile was not to go head-to-head with the rulers, and to let them run their state and their wars according to their wishes and whims. The Jews tried to be in a position where they were useful to the rulers as a neutral factor that did not presume to compete for power, but that could help the rulers advance their interests; and in return the rulers gave the Jews protection and autonomy that enabled them to live by their Torah, as far as possible, without outside interference.

Here there was a difference between Spain in the Middle Ages, where Jews were more integrated into the general culture of their surroundings, and Ashkenazi Jews in the Middle Ages, and in modern times also the Jews of Islamic lands, who were more culturally insular.

The conduct of the National Religious Party during the first forty years of the state, until the political upheaval of 1977, was in many ways similar to the Jewry of medieval Spain: high cultural involvement in general society, but without aspiring to be a determining force in political matters. The National Religious Party was a junior partner in the coalitions under Mapai rule, and it took care to advance the Jewish character of the state — public Sabbath observance, kashrut, and marriage and divorce according to Jewish law. Its main concern was to advance religious and Torah education in order to produce a generation of Jews who observe Torah and commandments, proud of their Judaism and integrated into all areas of general activity.

With the upheaval that brought Likud to power, and later the peace agreements that spoke of withdrawals from Judea and Samaria, the Religious Zionist public became a public that wanted to take a significant part in setting the political path, in the direction of greater firmness and preserving the wholeness of the Land.

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef came into politics through a “historical accident” in 1984 because he could not continue in the position of Sephardic Chief Rabbi, while at the same time Shas was established by Sephardi Haredim who were dissatisfied with their representation by Agudat Yisrael. What happened to Shas under Rabbi Ovadia Yosef’s leadership was that it took its place as a coalition partner, without pretensions to political and military leadership, but with a strong agenda of establishing and strengthening a Sephardi Torah educational system that would restore to the Eastern communities their period of Torah glory.

Unlike the National Religious Party, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef did not aspire to integration into general education and culture; but unlike the Ashkenazi Haredim, he remained faithful to the tradition of the great Torah scholars of the Eastern communities, who succeeded in maintaining a strong bond even with the traditional public, which even if it had drifted to a greater or lesser extent from meticulous observance of the commandments, remained proudly connected to its heritage and to those who bore it.

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef followed in the footsteps of the sages of the generations, who, although they had a serious role in political leadership, saw their main task in spreading Torah among the people and giving a halakhic response to every questioner. And since his Torah was primary, his political activity also succeeded. He may be compared to Abraham, who increased and gathered many deeds for faith and Torah, and incidentally also merited being an honored “prince of God” in political terms as well.

With blessings, Shatz

In paragraph 5, line 1:
… the conduct of the National Religious Party during the first thirty years of the state…