Reply To: Ta'arovet Hametz kadma l' Pesach

Of course you do. Because it isn’t what you were taught, it therefore seems exotic, lax, overly lenient, inauthentic, and because it isn’t what bubbie and zadie did, it must not be correct.

Another teacher of mine, in response to the “mesoyra” proof, says that tradition isn’t a proof of anything. Reb Tevye Judaism, though, is a tour de force for many, for better or worse. The author of Eicha reminds us that our ancestors were ovdei avodah zarah at one time (Eicha 5:7).

When Orthodoxy confuses the second sense of Orthodoxy with the first, its teachings approximate Reconstructionism more than its own self-definition.

My actions have the backing of poskim, including the Shulchan Aruch, and what was common practice for many years among Sephardim, correctly, according to the Kesef Mishneh, Smag, Rosh, Mehaber, R’ Ovadia Yosef, and the other rabbis cited.

Ironically, many things are done in the name of stringency that were not traditionally done, that there is no mesorah for. Likewise, many cite mesorah as proof for ignoring the halakha on certain areas, as well. It can go either way. But, where there tradition is supported by legal valence, it is good, and where traditions lack legal valence, it is no good.

Chozer ve neor is an example of something for which there is definitely legal valence. My approach is corroborated by the Shulchan Aruch and R’ Ovadia Yosef. If some Sefardim choose not to hold like R’ Ovadia Yosef, that is their business, but the approach of Hakham Ovadia is one very closely aligned to the way in which I learn halakha. If you’re at all familiar with his psaq, you’d know that like the Gra, he’s not afraid of overturning minhagim or practices that are not in conformity with the Shulchan Aruch.