Reply To: Ta'arovet Hametz kadma l' Pesach

The historically normative approach for most of Jewish history, for Sephardim at least, was to be like Hillel, not Shammai.

Stringency characterizes the Ashkenazic approach due to the influences of pilpul (no aliba d’hilkhata learning lends itself away from codification, hence the fact that historically, Sefard gave us the Rif, Rambam, Shulhan Arukh, etc., and Ashkenaz gave us casuistry. Many in Ashkenaz opposed the idea of a Shulhan Arukh- see the Yam Shel Shlomo in his haqdamot to both Hhullin and Bava Kamma; we stress bekiut over iyun, in accordance with the Gemara’s statement in Horayot 14b that Sinai trumps oker harim), the historical influence of the Hasidei Ashkenaz (Who emphasized mortification of the flesh, asceticism, monasticism, self-inflicted makkot, and other such spartan values, as seen in the Sefer Hasidim of Yehuda haHasid), and an overall perception that stringency is generally correct, despite instances where the halakha indicates otherwise. The above all comes from am address Hakham Ovadia Yosef gave, and he says that kocha d’hetera adif characterizes our approach.

Our approach is a legitimate one, and it is one I have chosen to follow. And neither the Shulhan Arukh, nor Hakham Ovadia Yosef, nor R’ Moshe Shammah, R’ Yitzhak Abadi (who learned by the Hazon Ish), R’ Ronnie Hasson, R’ Joshua Maroof, Hakham Dr. Isaac SD Sassoon, R’ Yehuda Boroosan (who works for the OU and learned at Ner Yisrael), R’ Yosef Bitton (of the Mashhadi kehilla), or any other host of Sephardic rabbanim are wrong on this. I haven’t seen any mekor say “v’hamachmir tavi alav brachah” and “baal nefesh yachmir” in a context of

If people wish to go beyond the halakha, let them. But I, for one, see no good reason not to, especially since the Torah tells me “haTorah chasa al mamonan shel yisrael” and “kocha d’hetera adif.”