[Avodah] Machlokes R Elyashiv and R Ovadia Yosef

[Hankman]

RMB wrote [to Areivim]:
> Actually, many shu"t are built around the meishiv seeing both sides of
> a machloqes and then being someich on the meiqilim because of the human
> cost of being chosheish for the machmirim.

See Today's guest post on RHM's blog that seems to enlarge and flesh
out exactly the point you made which follows below:

Kol Tuv
Chaim Manaster

Differences in the Modus Operandi of Gedolim
Guest Post by Rabbi Dovid Landesman

....
I am not an authorized spokesman for either Rav Yosef Sholom Elyashiv or
for Rav Ovadia Yosef; nevertheless, I think that it is critical to try
and understand where each is coming from. As is the case with many public
issues in Israel, there is a fundamental difference in approach that is
manifested in their opposing views. R' Elyashiv - and the rabbanim who
follow his direction - choose to live in a halachic bubble where the
only issue of concern is what halachah demands.

The political ramifications of a halachic stance are immaterial because,
in their view, the political exigencies of a state and its need to satisfy
the needs of all of its constituents are immaterial and have no bearing
since the state itself has no real legitimacy. In this view, the chiloni
majority in the state has no standing in terms of being a part of the
klal for whom they are responsible and they can therefore be ignored.

Rav Yosef, on the other hand, in his dual role as posek and political
leader, must by force take other factors into consideration. If there
is a means of relying on a lenient opinion, then for the sake of the
needs of the entire klal it is within the posek's authority to do so,
even if the majority of opinions holds differently.

I would posit that Rav Goren zt'l issued his decision on the Langer
mamzerim issue on this same basis. Although the halachic consensus would
have had him declare them mamzerim, the political exegincies at the time,
in his view, called for him to reach a conclusion - with precedent albeit
limited - that was politically potable. The same might be true of the
psak of Reb Yitzchak Elchanan regarding the heter mechirah. The needs
of the time may have caused him to decide to rely on a leniency that he
would not have considered in other situations.

Obviously, Rav Elyashiv is aware of political realities. I would
conjecture, however, that he is reluctant to follow Rav Yosef's analysis
of the political needs at this juncture because he is reticent to create
these kinds of precedents which, in his view, will only lead to demands
for a more amenable approach to questions of halachah vs. medinah. Better
to take a stand on this issue and protect halachah than to compromise
and be subject to pressures.

As such, what we have here is a political debate between gedolai yisrael
on a subject that, in truth, has never really been resolved since the
founding of the State. Until such time as a consensus can be reached
that will bind all poskim [something that only Eliyahu ha-Navi can bring
about], we will continue to be subject to these types of arguments. I
only pray that they remain civil and respectful to both sides.
....