[Avodah] Love/Mercy as a Factor in Halakhic Decision-Making - Rabbis Uziel and Halevy

[Michael Makovi]

A few months ago
(http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol25/v25n389.shtml#05), I cited
Professor Zvi Zohar's review of Rabbi Angel's book on Rabbi Uziel, as
saying that in general, the Sephardi rabbis were more open-minded,
more universalistic, and more lenient and compassionate in their
halakhic rulings.

I don't think the assertions of being more open-minded and
universalistic, i.e. in hashkafa (as opposed to in halakhah) will be
hard to justify. Similarly, I think most would concede the same of Rav
Hirsch, even if he was strict in his halakhic rulings (so I hear; I
haven't seen Shemesh Marpeh myself yet). In any case, I have seen
further basis for this view in Rabbi Angel's book Foundations of
Sephardic Spirituality: The Inner Life of Jews of the Ottoman Empire.

Rather, people took offense at the assertion that Sephardi rabbis were
more lenient **in halakha**; this was said to be the sort of assertion
that Conservative scholars would make. Similarly, people take far more
umbrage at Dr. Berkovits's Not in Heaven, than they do at his God,
Man, and History; people are more offended by leniency and
independent-mindedness in halakha than in hashkafa.

A few remarks, then. Now, I don't presume to actually convince anyone
that these views are correct. But I wish to demonstrate at least, they
these views have solid basis in the thought of Rabbi Benzion Uziel
(Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Tel-Aviv/Jaffo at the time of Rav Kook,
Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Israel at the time of Ravs Kook and Herzog)
and Rabbi Haim David Halevi (Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Rishon Letzion
and Tel Aviv, author of the standard Israeli Kitzur Shulhan Arukh used
today).

Rabbi Angel, in Foundations of Sephardic Spirituality, and also in his
The Rhythms of Jewish Living: A Sephardic Approach, in both books, he
cites the Hida as saying that Sephardic poskim are guided by hesed,
whereas Ashkenazim, says the Hida, rule by gevura.

I just read Rabbi Angel's book about Rabbi Uziel (Loving Truth and
Peace: The Grand Religious Worldview of Rabbi Benzion Uziel), and one
is struck by the degree to which Rabbi Uziel wished to make halakha
and Torah bearable for all, and the tremendous respect and love he had
for everyone, and how he actually used this in his halakhic
decision-making. The same conclusion is apparent from Rabbi Angel's
book about Rabbi Haim David Halevy, in the chapter about Rabbi Uziel.
A few examples, then:

--- Rabbi Uziel, confronted with the question of whether grafted
etrogim were kosher or not, decided that although the arguments for
stringency were stronger, nevertheless, he permitted the etrogim,
provided they were grown in Israel, for the sake of strengthening
yishuv ha'aretz.

--- A certain medical treatment for cows involved piercing their
stomachs, possibly rendering them treif. Rabbi Uziel however, for
economic reasons, declared the cows not to be treif.

--- There was the issue of women's suffrage. Rabbi Uziel had a variety
of reasons to permit. Someone argued, however, that in Biblical times,
women did not have political powers, and that we should follow suit.
Rabbi Uziel, in a remarkably non-sequitur response, answered that
since women are created in G-d's image, we are not concerned with the
fact that in Biblical times, they had no political status. (We might
note that Rabbi Uziel also had some qualified permissions for women to
be dayanim and eidim. I wonder, if so, what is the basis for women not
being rabbis? I am being rhetorical, for I know not all agree with
Rabbi Uziel here, but my own beliefs are clear. It is notable that in
making this ruling, Rabbi Uziel has apparently fulfilled the wish, nay
demand, of Dr. Eliezer Berkovits.)

--- Regarding non-Jews voting in Israel, Rabbi Uziel said, "It is
impossible to answer this question negatively, because it would not be
civil justice to disqualify as witnesses those who live among us and
deal with us honestly and fairly. Weren't we ourselves embittered when
the lands of our exile invalidated us as witnesses? If in the entire
enlightened world the law has been accepted to receive the testimony
of every person without consideration of religion or race, how then
may we make such a separation?" (I'll note two things: (1) Rabbi
Eliezer Samson Rosenthal makes the same basic argument in support of
saving nicht judes on Shabbat. (2) Rabbi Kook explicitly says that we
must accept all new novel moral/ethical notions from the world, and
let the Torah explicate them; see
http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/1/28/Marc-B-Shapiro-Thoughts-on-Confrontation--Sundry-Matters-Part-)

In all this, we see Rabbi Uziel being guided by decidedly
non-technical motives and aims. Indeed, his student, Rabbi Haim David
Halevy, explicitly noted this, and endorsed it. According to Rabbi
Angel's translation of Rabbi Halevy's statements, in "The Love of
israel as a Factor in Halakhic Decision-making in the works of Rabbi
Benzion Uziel", Tradition 24:3, Spring 1989, pp. 1-20, quoted in Rabbi
Angel's book on Rabbi Halevy, (quote follows):
"...Anyone who knew at first-hand our teacher, Rabbi Uziel of blessed
memory, knows that his personality was stamped with the love of
kindness and mercy to all people, and certainly to Jews, who are
called children of God. It is not plausible that the heart that beat
with pure love did not wield its influence on his general and halakhic
thinking. I am witness that all his public service was deeply
influenced by that love of Israel which infused him....How would it be
possible that his halakhic thinking not be influenced in this
direction?"

And note Rabbi Halevy's explanation of why Beit Hillel prevailed over
Beit Shammai:
"The law came down on the side of the school of Hillel because its
followers were sympathetic human beings, recognizing human frailty and
the difficult challenges of life. They were sensitive to the human
predicament and tended to be lenient in their rulings."

Now, in both books, the one on Rabbi Uziel and the one on Rabbi
Halevy, the point is made that love by itself cannot produce leniency,
without technical basis in the text. In fact, Rabbi Uziel himself is
quoted to this effect. All the same, Rabbi Uziel himself is again
quoted, that as long as some technical basis is found, love and mercy
will be used by him to make a lenient ruling, even if the technical
basis for stringency might be stronger.

Again, I don't presume to actually convince anyone that these views
are correct. But I wish to demonstrate at least, they these views have
solid basis in Orthodox thought, and are not the sole possession of
Conservative.

We might close with words that Rabbi Uziel said regarding giyur, but
which, as far as I can tell, are representative of his halakhic
thought in general:
“It is incumbent upon us to open the door of repentance; our sages of
blessed memory did much for the benefit of those who would repent….I
admit without embarrassment that my heart is filled with trembling for
every Jewish soul that is assimilated among the non-Jews. I feel in
myself a duty and mitzvah to open a door to repentance and to save
[Jews] from assimilation by invoking arguments for leniency [in
giyur]. This is the way of Torah, in my humble opinion, and this is
what I saw and received from my parents and teachers.” (Me might note
in passing: here too, there is technical justification, and the ruling
is not based wholly on love and mercy. Rabbi Angel has sought to show
that based on Yevamot 24b, that conversion for marriage is valid, and
based on the interpretation of "kabbalat mitzvot" held by those before
Rabbi Yitzhak Shmelkes, giyur does not require the candidate to pledge
to be observant.)

Michael Makovi