Q&A: Scandal
Scandal
Question
To the honorable Rabbi Dr. Michael Abraham,
Greetings, and may salvation come soon,
Attached is an article from the latest issue of HaMa'ayan, and seemingly this is a halakhic scandal,
one the likes of which, it seems to me, has not been seen in the gates distinguished by Jewish law.
I would be glad to hear your opinion, in the week before the election of the Chief Rabbis of Israel.
Best regards,
Answer
Greetings.
Many thanks.
It is indeed a distortion, but I’m not sure there’s nothing else like it. I think we have found distortions like this before, whether inadvertent or deliberate.
The root of the matter is reliance on secondary sources (drawing conclusions about what the Maharshaldam wrote without seeing his words inside, but only on the basis of a whole flock of later authorities quoting him), which as is well known is very common (including with me, for my sins, since what the heart desires, time steals away). After that there is also the distortion in the words of that very flock itself (who in fact did not really understand the Maharshaldam that way), and that is probably due to haste.
All this refers to Rabbi Ovadia, of blessed memory. As for his son, there is no need to elaborate, since he is a famously arrogant fool and it is not worth dealing with his words.
However, at the margins of the matter, I do have room to consider whether bans that were imposed over a halakhic practice can force a person to change his position and not act in accordance with it. Certainly when this is generations later. On the face of it, it is difficult to say that sages have the power to impose their view on others generations ahead without having authority for that. And if my words are correct, that there is no such authority, then there is no need at all to deal with the words of the Maharshaldam, except insofar as clarifying his halakhic position in itself. The ban in his words is not relevant to the halakhic discussion. I can only apply to this the words of Rabbi Yehoshua, who said to the walls of the study hall: “If Torah scholars are defeating one another in matters of Jewish law, what business is it of yours?!” When there is a halakhic discussion, remove from here walls and bans and all other signs and wonders. There is room here only for arguments.
That is what appears correct to me, and so I have written.
Discussion on Answer
I think the Hazon Ish also would not have wanted to join a minyan with him (and not only because of the disqualification of a fool). 🙂
About Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef there is no point talking; last year the matter of “tekhala de-fazlon” was published, and it became clear that all the thick volumes of Yalkut Yosef hardly suffice to stopper the mouth of his flask. Unfortunately I don’t know how to post links here, so I can’t give a link, I only remember that on the Otzar HaHochma forum there was a long discussion full of mockery about him; look there. And likewise the “scandal” you write about regarding him has already been known there for years. There is also more fascinating material there, see under “Ma'aseh Beit Din.” A few weeks ago I collected some more of these gems of his and more, but as I said I can’t link to my drive. Whoever wants it can contact me by email through the site administrator.
Thank you for the answer. Does the fact that he is a famous fool excuse a heap of lies such as, in my opinion, we have not found the like of in a halakhic discussion? And if you noticed, in his halakhic responsum he discusses (at the request of a questioner who is apparently also a fool) whether nowadays one may count for a minyan those who observe the sanctity of the Sabbatical year with regard to produce of non-Jews. From the discussion it appears that, according to him, he would not have counted the Hazon Ish for a minyan…!