Dynamic Duos: Part 3--Towering Titans

 

By: Jonathan Seidel

This section analyses the dichotomy between two chief rabbis of Israel affecting national policy.

                                                               Chief Options

The last case involves two former chief rabbis R’ Yosef and R’ Goren. Prof. Amihai Radzyner demonstrates the meta-historical vs historical debate in regards to the permission to marry a second wife in Israeli law1. Marriage is one of the particular concepts embedded in halakha. The rabbinate has much control in these decisions2. There are many problems but such an extensive discussion is beyond the scope of this essay. 

The Israeli law prohibits polygamy punishing with five years of prison time (Penal Law 5737–1977 sec. 176, 179). Nonetheless, a married man may obtain permission to marry a second wife (Penal Law 5740–1980, sec. 179). This permission is quite rare but will be discussed in the backdrop of the chief rabbis' opinions. For some background, R’ Isaac Herzog and R’ Uziel reduced the possibility of marrying a second wife3. The proposal to amend the law enriched strife between R’ Yosef and R’ Goren. R’ Yosef was not necessarily a traditionalist and his ruling reflects his controversy with his colleague. As he makes a point to call out R’ Goren. Again this is a case in which the historical view is not necessarily the lenient one but the strict opinion is. At first glance one could propose the ban on polygamy is this meta-historical approach and with current issues we should abandon it. The custom has become dogma in the Ashkenaz community but came from a historical approach brought by Rabbenu Gershom4. Sefardim alternatively, never accepted this ruling and have continued to accept polygamy as a valid option (SA Even Haezer 1:23). In the Makhlouf Biton case, R’ Yosef permitted and R’ Goren declined5. R’ Goren seems to give a traditional view that prior rabbis did not allow but then diverts to the potential social damage. R’ Goren concluded he would need more than infertility to permit, possibly, a defect6.

According to Prof. Elimelech Westreich this was an Ashkenazic monopolistic approach7. Even if R’ Yosef was correct in dissolving R’ Goren’s ruling, Prof. Aviad Hollander has reviewed R’ Goren’s ruling and believes that R’ Goren was instead observing the realistic consequences8. Ironically Prof. Westreich thinks R’ Yosef is historical and R’ Goren meta-historical, while Prof. Hollander believes the inverse. Prof. Hollander contests R’ Goren’s opposition stems from secular opposition and immorality. The author, Prof. Radzyner, discounts this theory but does find a historical approach by R’ Goren9. R’ Goren explicitly wrote that this specific case was his interpretation and conclusion utilising the range of social and ethical considerations10. It is not so formalistic in the review. R’ Goren as an individual doubts consent thus prohibiting. Accordingly, R Goren did permit when it was clear the couple were not living together as seen in the male agunah case11. R’ Yosef misconstrued R’ Goren’s view as Ashkenazic extremism. R’ Yosef was willing to continue an ancient custom that seemingly is untenable in the biblical narrative. R’ Yosef’s metaphysical view that procreation is so central that one should marry a second wife (Yabia Omer Vol. 7, 309)12. This argument can be made by Abraham and Sarah13. That being said, the relationship between the wives does not end well nor does Rachel and Leah (Genesis 30:15)14 or Hannah and Penina (Samuel I 1:6)15. R’ Yosef holds by a long list of sages who do allow polygamy. R' Goren does continue a tradition but does so on certain grounds that parallel his moral and economic considerations. This case mirrors R’ Goren’s permission for a couple to use contraceptives after having completed procreation on realistic variables but R’ Yosef prohibited on traditional accounts16. R’ Goren is blunt about accepting social changes, Ariel Picard in his book on R’ Yosef explains that R’ Yosef did acknowledge them but did not incline towards them17. 

Each of these couples depicted one side very traditional and one very modern. A more in depth analysis would display none of these leaders was fully on one side; they were in the middle. It is interesting to note which cases or better yet categories they inclined innovatively and others traditionally. Nonetheless, each of these leaders in their pious interpretation diverted to their beliefs, demonstrating how external change played a role in decisions. 

Endnotes

1. Amihai Radzyner, “Halakhah, Law, and Worldview: Chief Rabbis Goren and Yosef and the Permission to Marry a Second Wife in Israeli Law” Dine Israel 32 pp. 261-304.^↩

2. The Rabbinate’s 65-year monopoly on marriage and divorce.^↩ 

3. Supp. 1 to the Palestine Gazette, no. 1563, 15.3.1947, 1–2.^↩

4. Ozar Ha-Poskim Even Haezer 1:61.^↩

5. Radzyner, “Halakhah, Law, and Worldview” pg. 281-282.^↩

6. R’ Goren’s archive, letter to R’ Levy Itzhak Rabinovich, 9.5.79.^↩

7. Elimelech Westreich, “The Jewish Women’s Marital Status in Israel—Interactions between Various Traditions,” Pelilim 7 [Hebrew] pg. 308. Dr. Westreich uses the word “ashkenazi imperialism”. R’ Yosef is also clear that he believes R’ Goren is ignoring tradition. Ovadia Yosef, Yabia Omer, Vol. 7 pg. 309.^↩

8. Aviad Yehiel Hollander, “The Halakhic Profile of Rabbi Shlomo Goren” (Ph.D. diss., Bar-Ilan University, 2011), pp. 312-317 [Hebrew].^↩

9. Radzyner, “Halakhah, Law, and Worldview” pg. 291-292.^↩

10. Shlomo Goren, “Grounds and clarification for the High Court of Justice for not granting permission to marry another woman to a man who lived for ten years with his first wife and who did not give birth, if he intends to live with both” archive document 10.10.75.^↩

11. Appeal 122/732, 213. See also Appeal 67/734, supra, no. 103, 172.^↩

12. The Mishnah makes a note of this (Yevamot 6:6). Traditionally it is not simply financial but procreational. Yet the consequences should by far outweigh the commandment.^↩

13. “Sarah said to Abram, ‘Look, the LORD has kept me from bearing. Consort with my maid; perhaps I shall have a son through her.’ And Abram heeded Sarai’s request” (Genesis 16:2). This verse easily demonstrates a second wife for children but that is not the case for other polygamic relationships. Nor does it end well.^↩

14. Verse one does demonstrate envy between Rachel and Leah. Jacob ridicules her for her complaining but in verse four has Jacob marry Bilhah and Leah has Jacob marry Zilpah for more children. It is a race for monopolising children but Jacob’s criticism of Rachel and Elkanah’s response to Hannah demonstrate that while they may believe it to be important, the husband does not care. The strife is caused by children but not the reason they married. This is a reason why polygamy is dangerous as egos and fear become ever apparent. Also vital to note unlike the first example none of the others are brought together by barrenness. Laban tricks Jacob with his custom garbage (Genesis 29:26) and Elkanah’s situation is unknown though exegesis explains that he took a second wife due to Hannah’s barrenness (Pesikta Rabbati 43).^↩

15. This verse along with the exegesis mentioned in the aforementioned footnote is not simply to have a child for power but for comfort. This could also be Rachel’s rationale but Leah saw it as a race, who could be better. Leah saw herself as less loved naming her first children to her helplessness and more children was her hope of recognition and love.^↩

16. “The Pill and Jewish Halakha,” Ma’ariv 10.12.74 (Hebrew) and R’ Goren archive, letter from 14.7.77.^↩

17. Ariel Picard, Philosophy of Rabbi Ovadya Yosef in an Age of Transition (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 2007), [Hebrew] pp. 252, 271.^↩