The High Court of Justice on Monday morning 15 Menachem Av 5773 heard a petition challenging the candidacy in the Chief Rabbinate race of Tzfas Chief Sephardi Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu. The petition was filed by Meretz MK Esawi Frij, as was reported by YWN-ISRAEL.
Frij believes that even though the rav hasn’t been elected to the post, the case must be heard for a candidate to become chief rabbi must set a personal example in his demeanor and behavior. He cites a psak of the rav that prohibits Jews in Tzfas from selling homes to Arabs and contradicting this basic character trait, for he feels a chief rabbi cannot incite against any segment of the population. Therefore he feels the petition should be ruled upon today, before the election, not following it.
Attorney Eviad HaKohen, who represented the rav told the court the case lacks merit and it should be rejected outright. He explained the rav released clarifications regarding his past statements and piskei Halacha. He also argued the state attorney general exceeded the scope of his authority by announcing he feels the candidacy of the rav should be disqualified. HaKohen explained that Attorney General Weinstein was simply expressing his personal opinion, which is unacceptable.
The court is expected to announce its ruling later today or on Tuesday, 16 Menachem Av 5773, a day before the election.
(YWN – Israel Desk, Jerusalem)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
4 Responses
Who’s Meretz or for that matter even the secular high court or any secular group to mix into the election for Chief Rabbi? It’s NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS! What do they understand about Rabbis? Do they also stick their nose in with the election of the pope?
If the High Court Rabbis would elect who should be head of the secular court, there might be something to talk about. As long as charedim do not mix into their affairs, they should butt out of our affairs.
Why should Meretz care who is chief rabbi?
I think Meretz should also protest the fact that an Arab in the PA controlled areas would be shot for selling a home to a Jew.
I find this pretty interesting. I had thought that Meret agreed that the Halacha is not to sell homes to an Arab, but felt that Halacha is not mandatory. Here a Meretz person has problems with the representation of Halacha itself. What does that mean?
Perhaps it represents that they feel that the chief rabbi is a political functionary, representing Religion in the Govt., but not a spokesperson of Halacha. Therefore a politically incorrect rabbi cannot represent Israel. Is that it?