Professor Binyamin Brown is an incredibly erudite and brilliant scholar of Halacha and Jewish thought. He wrote a long intellectual biography of the Chazon Ish which required him to master all of the Chazon Ish's written works - no mean feat. Show me Talmidei Chachomim who have been through and understood all כתבי חזון איש! Not too many... [The Chazon Ish is not an easy read and requires much background and toil]. So I avidly read his articles and papers. On December 11th 2019 'למנין שאנו מונים כאן קיימברידג he gave a talk at Harvard on "Haredi Mizrahi Halakhik Interactions".
Here is a snippet [I wan't there but my shver went to Harvard. It is VERY shver because we haven't spoken in over 14 years. Nothing to do with Harvard. He passed away, leaving my wife orphaned of her father while having to put up with our (then) 4 children and a husband who blogs the night away and makes corny jokes. NOT EASY!!! This should be לעילוי נשמתו - ר' חיים צבי בן אליהו]:
The conflict between the Sephardi ultra-Orthodox and the Lithuanians came to a head
with the issue of the sabbatical year, shmita. According to the Torah, once every seven years
farmers in the Land of Israel must put down their implements for a full year. Observance has
never been easy, but with the renewal of Jewish agriculture at the end of the nineteenth century,
it would have proven ruinous. A number of leading halakhists came up with a creative solution:
the permit of sale. This legal fiction allows Jews to sell the land to non-Jews right before shmita,
thereby removing the obligation to let the ground lie fallow. R. Avraham Yitzhak Kook
established its halakhic basis and the Chief Rabbinate executed it. R. Avraham Yesha'ayahu
Karelitz, the Hazon Ish, vigorously opposed it for two main reasons: in his opinion, the land does
not lose its sanctity through sale, and there is a prohibition to sell land in Israel to non-Jews.
This became a halakhic watershed that separated the (generally) more lenient Religious
Zionists from the stringent ultra-Orthodox. This ruling continued to be followed even after the
establishment of the State of Israel, so the issue was heatedly revisited every seven years.
Rav Ovadiah weighed in on this in his capacity as Sephardic Chief Rabbi. Although
ideologically he tended towards the ultra-Orthodox, he went even farther than the Religious
Zionists, allowing for agricultural work during shmita without selling land! In an article he wrote in
1980, he based his decision on six halakhists from medieval Provence who held that the
commandment of shmita today falls into the realm of the pietistic virtue and is not a strict
obligation. While they constitute a minority opinion, one may rely on such an opinion in
circumstances of great public need. In the end, though, Rav Ovadiah concluded that since the
permit has been executed via sale, this practice ought to be continued. When he served as
Sephardic Chief Rabbi, he continued to arrange the sale. However, after he left office and
headed Shas, this position became problematic. His sons and Shas leaders understood that his
lenient approach to shmita was not just another one of his leniencies, but one that cut to the
core of ultra-Orthodox identity. This would precipitate a crisis, and to head it off they convinced
him prior to the sabbatical year in 1986-7 to sign a broadside stating that one may rely on the
permit of sale only in exceptionally difficult circumstances. It goes on to declare that
fundamentally one should be stringent: “As for yeshiva and kolel students and their families, and
those who fear the word of God, they really ought to be stringent, and make efforts to preserve
every law of shmita as punctiliously as possible, and to purchase products about which there is
no concern whatsoever.” Thus his ruling of 1986. As I remarked earlier, starting in 1992 there
was a severe political rupture between Shas and the Lithuanians, that led to Shas going its own
way. Lo and behold, within a few years Rav Ovadiah had returned to his original position
supporting the permit of sale.
In other words - Rav Ovadiah changed his psak ["halachic ruling" in Old French] for political reasons.
Serious accusation!!!
Let us examine: If one reads the original teshuva [published much later in the tenth volume of Yabia Omer] as I did [I am a complete sucker for Rav Ovadiah's teshuvas. His broad knowledge and mastery of the sources leave me breathless. If this lasts for too long my wife will become a widow - in addition to the orphan she already is - so I take the time to breathe] he will discover [or "she will" if she is female. Do you know any ladies who are into Yabia Omer? I am considering starting a Halacha Kollel for ladies which will include in depth study of Yabia Omer... Then she will go home and say things to her husband like "Did you see Shu"t Mizbeach Adama Yore Deah Simman Ayin Gimmel? He argues with Shu"t Vayomer Yitzchak Orach Chaim Simman Tzadi Gimmel. You didn't see it? What do you do all day??"] that already then Rav Ovadiah was VERY CLEAR that the Heter Mechira is only בשעת הדחק and not the ideal. It was not something he said later for political reasons.
In addition, Brown says "This would precipitate a crisis, and to head it off they convinced him prior to the sabbatical year in 1986-7 to sign a broadside stating that one may rely on the permit of sale only in exceptionally difficult circumstances. It goes on to declare that fundamentally one should be stringent: “As for yeshiva and kolel students and their families, and those who fear the word of God, they really ought to be stringent, and make efforts to preserve every law of shmita as punctiliously as possible, and to purchase products about which there is no concern whatsoever.” Thus his ruling of 1986. As I remarked earlier, starting in 1992 there was a severe political rupture between Shas and the Lithuanians, that led to Shas going its own way. Lo and behold, within a few years Rav Ovadiah had returned to his original position supporting the permit of sale."
Lo and behold [!!!😀], this "broadside" [which means "strongly worded critical attack" - which is not what the letter was. He was criticizing and attacking nobody. So bad choice of words 😏] was REPUBLISHED in that same volume of Yabia Omer in the year 2004. So to say that "within a few years" [of 1992] Rav Ovadiah "returned to his original position supporting the permit of sale" [i.e. and not maintaining that one should be stringent if possible as he wrote in the letter] is flat out .... false😊.
והאמת והשלום אהבו [זכריה ח' ט'].
PS - This article is not racist. Brown is actually white. So he is a person of color [white] with a name of color [Brown]. I am a person of color [white] who talks on the basketball court like people of color [black]. Plus, I once had a close friend named Schwartz which is a name of color [black] for a person of color [nicely tanned Caucasian]. 😂😁
PPS - I must add that almost every person who Brown refers to as "Lithuanian" has actually never been to Lithuania and many couldn't tell you where it is on the map. [At the beginning of his talk he notes that by "Lithuanian" he means "Mitnagdim".]
