Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 034

Sunday, October 20 2002

• Re: More on Klapping during Selach Lanu
• Lehani'ach tefillin
• Maftei'ach leparnasah
• Re: Re: Gedolim
• Re: mi khamokha - ma'ariv (was M'Vorchim HaChodesh)
• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• re: artificial insemination
• Re: Violating the will of the majority
• Areivim V10 #117: Dating; Gedolim
• Fw: 'hakofos sheniyos' (in Eretz Yisroel)
• Re: 'hakofos sheniyos' (in Eretz Yisroel)
• RE: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Re: Hakafos sheniyos
• 'hakofos sheniyos' (in Eretz Yisroel) - minhag Ashkenaz
• Re: Hakafos on Simchat Torah
• Re: 'hakofos sheniyos' (in Eretz Yisroel)
• krias shma
• Re: RMF on microphones and modern gezeirot

On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 01:55:52PM -0400, MPoppers@kayescholer.com wrote:
: >Sefer Chokri Minhagim from R' Eliyahu Gurary deals with the issue...
: >He quotes and anyone including me can see inside: R' Yaakov Emden's Siddur
: >by Slach Lanu (p.257 in new Eshkol) says this
: >in the name of the Shelah... no klapping on days without tachanun...

: I am, too. Why should I 'klap' on Friday morning but not on Friday
: afternoon...

IIUC, the din is in the day. IOW, Friday afternoon yes, because it is
not a "day without tachanun".

-mi

As we know from Shabbos, menuchah isn't merely rest, but a reflective
rest. A chance for introspection, not only sleep (although including
"hasheinah meshubachas").

Given that, "lehani'ach tefillin" isn't only letting the box now rest
on the arm and head, but to do so to inspire thought; to enable
tefillah bekavanah.

Contrast this "ta'am hamitzvah" oriented phrasing to that of "al mitzvas
tefillin". Not wearing tefillin for some deep kavanah but because of a
deep and simple commitment to the tzivui haBorei.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

One thing good can be said about being laid off...

As we learn in the begining of Mes Ta'anis, parnasah is one of the three
mafteichos HKBH never gives to a mal'ach. Thus the mention of geshem in
birchas Gevuros.

So, as opposed to some other oneshim, we could argue that losing one's
job must be hashgachah peratis, and not teva.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 02:22:46PM +0200, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
: I was actually thinking about this yesterday as well in the context 
: of the Daf Yomi and the machlokes between the Maharsha and the 
: Maharshal over whether one would be permitted to disagree with the 
: head of the Sanhedrin if he stated his view first. If one holds that 
: it would be assur to disagree, it would seem to me that would be a 
: source for "da'as Torah" that far predates the last 2-3 generations. 

You'd first have to show that this is true even if the Av Beis Din gave
his opinion on a matter other than pesaq.

Then, show that it's because the ABD must be "right" (*) and not because
the kavod accorded the ABD is more important than correctness.

(* Where "right" could mean that what HQBH wants the person to think,
which may or may not be what is true.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 11:51:39PM -0400, Arie Folger wrote:
: It also seems that most shli'hei tzibbur don't agree that, first, our
: ancestors reacted (after seeing the sea split) "ze E-li", (the comma
: was very important) and, then, they said ... haShem yimlokh le'olam
: va'ed...

R' Michael Poppers gave examples on Mesorah of "anu ve'amru" being
an idiom in Tanach, used as a single verb.

This would explain nusach "Sfard"'s Shacharis, "besafah verurah uven'imah
qedoshah, kulam ke'achad onim ve'omerim beyir'ah..." (As opposed to
"besafah verurah uven'imah, qedushah kulam ke'achad onim, ve'omerim
beyir'ah..."

But then we also have "onim be'eimah ve'merim beyir'ah" proving a
non-idiomatic use.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

> I answered her by mentioning that hilchos lashon hora are complicated and
> that if we hear a gadol saying something that sounds like lashon hora,
> we can assume that he already considered the halachic implications......
> She was still uncomfortable listening to the tape......)

: Sounds like another version of the infallibility discussion. Since we
: often are in the position of learning from a "mmaseh rav" what halachot
: in lashon hara would she/you take away from the tape?

I think we both agreed not to learn any halachos from the tape,
and just take it for granted that R' Gifter knew what he was
doing when he said what he said. This mindset reminds me of this
week's dvar torah based on the teachings of R' SY Weinberg, z'l.
See <http://www.aish.com/torahportion/kolyaakov/Knowing_Your_Place.asp>

B'kitzur, this piece explains why the Torah used different words to
describe Lot's actions when he went with Avraham.

Excerpt: 
(Genesis 12:5): And Lot went with him - Vayelech Ito Lot. 
(Genesis 13:1): Abraham went up from Egypt with his wife and all that
was with him, and Lot was with him -- V'Lot Imo.
<snip>
In translation, the difference is not even noticed. In English both words
mean 'with him.' But in the actual Hebrew, the first verse says 'Ito'
while the second one uses the word 'Imo.' The Torah never haphazardly
chooses words or expressions. Why would two expressions, which seem to
mean the same thing, use two different words?
<snip>
Let us return to the two Hebrew words for "with him" -- 'Imo'
vs. 'Ito'. Yes, both words mean 'with.' But in Hebrew, 'ito' has
its word root as 'et'. 'The word 'et' is used to precede a subject
in order to give emphasis to the subject. In its very essence, then,
'et' is subordinate. When Lot was originally with Abraham he knew his
role. Abraham was the wise, talented, teacher and leader. Lot was the
faithful, trusted, and able student.

In order to succeed in virtually anything, one has to know his talents
and limitations. Imagine an offensive lineman in football who thinks he
is the quarterback. Or imagine a gifted auto technician who thinks he
is the CEO. Such people will not only fail in their dream positions,
they will also fail in the jobs in which they are truly talented.

Lot went from a proper perspective of 'Ito' -- subordination -- to a
disastrous one of 'Imo'. 'Imo' means I am with you as an equal. When
Lot returned from Egypt laden with wealth and resources, he became
'Imo'. He no longer viewed himself as subordinate to Abraham.
<snip>

(See the entire article for more.)

KT and Gut Shabbos,
Aryeh

Re the Israeli kohein and his wife who opted for a girl because "A
daughter, they explained, would never go up to read from the Torah; the
community would not know that she was not their biological child; and
they wouldn't have to tell her either," will they make sure that she
marries only a kohein or a leivi?  Otherwise, her first child, if male,
would need a pidyon haben and would not be nifdeh because of the mistaken
assumption that the mother is a bas kohein.

Elazar M. Teitz 

On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 12:37:45AM -0400, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: > Besides, if the process were CI based with no formal rules, than anyone
: > can vote themselves into the CI and create a new Torah that your process
: > would then endorse. It's still circular, and therefore still meaningless
: > as a criterion.
...
: Micha's point is - reductio ad absurdum CI CAN be cirucular.

No, my point is that it /is/ circular, and it can therefore be abused.

: Let's say ein hachi nami for the sake of arguemnt
: A) it does NOT have to be cirucular ...

Yes it does. The CI definition says "halachah is that which is observed
by those who observe halachah".

:                                     B) Since even formal rules have
: many excpetions even the rule based model CAN become circular in certain
: circles!

I do not believe they have "*many* exceptions". Rather, there are numerous
rules, most of which add weight to an argument (or reduce it).

Second, exceptions and circularity are different things.

Last, a rule based system is supposed to be self-referential. It's not
circular because the rules rest on *earlier* versions of the rules. You
can't justify a change by pointing out that after the change it would
be valid.

: WRT eilu v'eilu it is my understanding that Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel
: intermarried despite differing opionions re" Yibum {see Yevamos perek
: aleph}"

: Lich'roa THEIR eilu v'eilu allowed a toleration for competing opinions
: re" mamzerus.

IOW, in a community where people actually cooperate, one can tolerate
a wider range of opinion. However, in one where our contemporary BH
won't keep track of who is a mamzer to accomodate the Shammutim, you
can live with far less variation.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

Occasionally things come up that I feel that I cannnot pass over in silence, 
lest it be said that shetikah k'hodo'oh. Two came up in this issue of Areivim: 

1. Dating: 

> This is actually related to a well known problem in probability theory - 
> nicknamed the "secretary problem" 
...

I am in utter disbelief that someone can purport to draw an analogy
from a situation where emotion should be nothing (if you have romantic
feelings toward your secretary, you are in deep trouble) to a situation
where emotion is everything (if you have purely functional approaches
to a potential spouse, you are in deep trouble).

The analogy is, therefore, spurious, irrelevant, and incorrect. 

2. Atzas Gedolim: 

> You hold by the Daas Torah point of view.  Some of us don't.  We don't 
> mean it personally as a slur on anyone else.  That you take it personally 
> is sad, but I can't help that.  Even some (e.g. R' Simcha Weinberg, who 
> I cited) who hold by the existence of "Daas Torah" don't necessarily hold 
> that it magically grants expertise on non-Torah matters, while believing 
> that his father, a noted Rosh Yeshiva, had that kind of Daas Torah. 
> 
> Would you ask a doctor what kind of house to buy?  Would you ask an 
> accountant if a chicken was kosher? 

Torah is not medicine nor accounting. Torah is Toras Chaim, and Chacham
adif me'Navi. True, they are not infallible, but they are blessed with
far greater insight, and often with connections to the Heavens.

Let me clarify that this is NOT a Charedi viewpoint. The Chardei
viewpoint may well veer towards infallibility. This is a minimal
Torah-true viewpoint (Prof. Kaplan u'd'imyhu notwithstanding - they
have agendas, and not Torah agendas).

This is why when I was at Sha'alvim, the Rosh Yeshiva, no Da'as Torah
man, sent tme to R' Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt"l to determine what I
should do with my future.

A variation on the theme is why R' Chaim zt"l sent questions to R'
Yitzchok Elchonon zt"l... you know the rest of the story.

To contend otherwise, methinks, is in direct contradiction of the Gemara
in BB, and skirts the issue of "Mai ahanei lan Rabbanan."

KT, 
YGB 

From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
> From: Phyllostac@aol.com
>> 1) What is the idea of 'hakofos sheniyos'? ...
>> I told the fellow that I believe it is basically a dati-leumi thing,
>> not engaged in by chareidim. Is that correct ?

> I don't think so.
> AFAIK it was instituted by the Ari Hakodesh.

The Chido z'l writes that the Arizal was makpid to make 7 proper Hakofos
on Motzo'ei YT. He adds that the Sefer Kavonos says to make Hakofos ST -
Shachris, Mincha and Motzoei YT.
Also that the Maharash Sharabi was thus noheig and said that there are
"rozin ilo'in bozeh'.

SBA  

In message , Phyllostac@aol.com writes
>1) What is the idea of 'hakofos sheniyos' ? He had trouble understanding
>it - he said something like 'has anyone ever heard of a second seder ?

hakafos shniyos (actually hakafos reviios - or more, as you will see) is 
a Sephardi (edot hamizrach) minhag done both in chu"l as well as in 
Eretz Yisroel.   The minhag of the edot hamizrach is to do 7 hakafot by 
ma'ariv on Smichas Torah, 7after Musaf, 7 by Mincha, and then 7 Motzei 
Chag.

Among certain communities in chu"l (the shul Robert attends is one of 
them) they do 49 hakafot - 7 by ma'ariv on Shmini Atzeret, 7 after musaf 
on Shmini Atzeret, 7 by mincha on Shmini Atzeret, 7 by ma'ariv on 
Smichas Torah, 7 after Musaf, 7 by mincha, and then 7 motzei chag.

>2) Is one allowed to take out sifrei Torah for such an event which
>(licheora) has no source in the past ?

It is certainly not true to say it has no source in the past - the 
minhag is documented in the Kaf Hachaim (siman taf resh samech tes si'if 
lamed to lamed gimmel) quoting, inter alia the Chida, and brings a 
ma'ase rav who was makpid to ensure he did seven full circuits (either 
with, in front of or behind the sifrei torah) on motzei chag (and then, 
on his way home, would join with any shul he passed and make sure he did 
7 full circuits with their sifrei torah).

>3) Is it proper for a ben / bas chutz lo'oretz to take part in such an
>event if it includes music, etc., which is prohibited to them at that time
>(when it is still yom tov for them) ?

Inter alia, Rav Ovadyah has no problem with this when we are discussing 
the motzei chag hakafot in Eretz Yisroel.  He also holds that it is 
quite proper to use live music for the motzei chag hakafot (whereever 
such hakafot are being done, although I don't think most of the sephardi 
shuls around here do, mostly they don't make a big thing of it, they try 
and get it done and get home - in Robert's shul, the Rabbi drives the 
kehilla nuts by insisting they are done properly, when a good portion of 
the kehilla has its foot out the door).

>4) Licheora a ben/bas chu"l cannot be yotze hakofos Simchas Torah by
>attending 'hakofos sheniyos' - since the bnei EY putting them on have
>no chiyuv to make them, while the bnei Chu"l do - correct ?

Weel, given that they are part and parcel of the same minhag, if the 
bnei EY putting them on are edot hamizrach, then they do have a chiyuv - 
is it the same chiyuv as per the night before - dunno, especially if the 
bnei chu"l are Ashkenazi, and would not have the chiyuv were they to be 
bnei EY.

It would seem that it might be the same chiyuv, if we are talking edot 
hamizrach and edot hamizrach however.  The reason many Sephardi shuls do 
not do the hakafot on Shmini Atzeret, is a chashash of the Chida, which 
worries that if they are done on Shmini Atzeret, it might lead them to 
being not done, or not done properly on Simchas Torah (others reject 
this, which is why you find the differences).  On the other hand, the 
Chida groups the Simchas Torah ones and the motzei chag ones together, 
which would seem to suggest a similar level of chiyuv (ie he is not 
concerned that knowing that there are more to do, people will be 
mezalzel in the hakafot of Simchas Torah itself).  On the other hand, 
because they come last, maybe he would not have his chashash whether or 
not they are less important.  The ma'aseh rav brought in the Kaf 
HaChaim, however, does suggest that a) they are as important) and b) 
there is concern that people might be mezalzel in them (ie just wanting 
to get home).

>I told the fellow that I believe it is basically a dati-leumi thing,
>not engaged in by chareidim. Is that correct ?

Sephardi charedim certainly do it.

>Any comments on the inyan ? Are there are teshuvos (Rabbinic responsa)
>on it ?

As you can see, quite a bit.

Shavuah tov
Chana

-- 
Chana Luntz

>> 1) Why did so many frum Jews have to die? We don't know and can't 
>> know.
>> 2) All of the Jews in the US and England and what have you that
>> were not frum and saved from the shoah were NOT saved because they were
>> not frum, but for some other reason. 

> You make these two claims, but asserting one over the other as Truth
> implies that you have some 
> kind of nevuah to tell you that it is Truth. You cannot be certain of
> claim 2 if you make claim 1.

> IOW, if you can make the theologically difficult claim that God had
> direct control over each 
> death and survival, then one has to allow the claim that God killed
> out frum Jewry far more 
> than not non-frum Jewry to tell us that frumkeit should die out.

I think that we can all be very certain that Hashem didn't kill people
because they were frum Jews. No, not because I have nevua [I am not an
idiot, thank you :-)] but because everything that I have ever learned
says the opposite. 

In the Torah, Moshe Rabbeinu exhorts Bnai Yisrael to "choose life",
meaning to do what Hashem requests us to do. In the explanation of the
little boy who was killed after doing the mitzvah of shiluach hakein it
is explained that we were not lied to about the reward for the mitzvah
[long life means in Olam Haba]. 

Our entire religion is based on doing Hashem's will. In the Torah that
was dictated to Moshe Rabbeinu, many times we read that this or that
punishment that we suffered came from not doing Hashem's will by being
lax in one mitzva or another. There is no way that anyone could
logically state that the same Hashem who created the worlds and who
continues to sustain them at every moment and gave us the Torah, which
is a blueprint for how we must live, would then deliberately kill off
those who follow that blueprint because He doesn't want people to do
what He has told them to do! 

> God doesn't send these destructions without sending a message.  In the

> first Destruction, it was a punishment for avodah zarah, and subtly gave the 
> message that we should observe shmitta/yovel (which had not been done). 
> In the second Destruction, it was not obvious what the punishment was for, 
> but the message was given that it was for interpersonal sins (the students of
> R' Akiva, etc., confirming the anti-LH message of the actual destruction). So
> too here, the message has to be one verified by history - and the
> history tells 
> us that God killed out frum Jewry at a much higher percentage than
> non-frum Jewry...  

It is true that Hashem wishes us to get a message from everything we see
and hear, not just cataclysmic happenings. However, the message that you
say seems to come from the shoah is so illogical as to be impossible, as
it flies in the face of not only logic, but contradicts the words of
every Holy Jew who has ever lived and published words of Torah as well
as the Torah itself.

---Rena

On 17 Oct 2002 at 21:32, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> From: Elazar M Teitz <remt@juno.com>
> <<What obligation is imposed on the individual, that he has to be
> yotzei?>>

> Related question: I always find it strange that people will go through
> all kinds of gyrations to ensure that they've made one complete circuit
> around the bima on each day of Sukkos, and seven on Hoshana Raba.

I'll go a step further. My Rav when I was in my late teens and early 
20's - Rav Mordechai Savitsky zt"l - held that the last direction in 
which you go during Hoshanos should be Mizrach - something I try to 
continue to be makpid on to this day. 

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

I recently spoke with someone - I don't know if I should give his name,
so I will just refer to him as 'Rav Zalman' at this time.....I don't
know that he will agree with my conclusions, but he gave me some ideas....

When I asked him about the inyan, he said something along these
lines.......I have taken the liberty of expounding and elaborating
somewhat on his words.....I am not totally certain that I fully understood
him .......but here is basically what I think he said....

The hakofos are al pi Kabboloh. (One of ?) the big inyon(im) of Shemini
Atzeres is achdus among Klal Yisroel (only one par is brought then after
the seventy porim of Sukkos kineged the umos, kosheh olai preidaschem,
etc.).

Hassidim and (some ? all ?) Sepharadim / Eidos Hamizrach in chutz lo'aretz
have hakofos on Shemini Atzeres (some only at night, some in day too,
IIRC - which can be another interesting topic potentially) (which is
Simchas Torah in EY, but not in chu"l) in order to have achdus with EY and
celebrate ST together with them (leaving aside time zones, differences,
etc.). After the benei chu"l show achdus with EY by having hakofos on SE,
the benei EY reciprocate by doing similarly on their motzei yom tov -
which is leil Simchas Torah in chu"l - by having 'hakofos sheniyos'.

Ad kan....

If the above is correct, however, it would seem then that 'hakofos
sheniyos' is really, at it's root and origin not a minhag of Ashkenazim
. Minhag Ashkenaz doesn't have hakofos on shemini atzeres in chu"l -
so I don't see why they should have them on motzei yom tov. Rather, it
would seem that it is a minhag Hassidim / Sepharadim , etc., possibly
from the AR"I himself (?) that may have been adopted by some Ashkenazim
in EY to a limited degree (as has happened in some other cases, due to
the proximity of the different eidos, etc., there).

If the above is correct (I assume I will hear from people if it is not),
then I assume there are Ashkenazim in EY today who do not engage in
this minhag. Perhaps esp. some 'hard-core' :) Ashkenazim like Brisk'ers,
etc. Can anyone with contacts among such groups check into this ? This
sounds like a good question for Rav Hamburger shlit"a of 'Mochon Moreshes
Ashkenaz' actually. Maybe I will drop him a line one of these days and
mention the inyan. Until then - can anyone shed additional light here ?

Mordechai

> From: Phyllostac@aol.com
>  sba@iprimus.com.au writes:
>> I don't think so.  AFAIK it was instituted by the Ari Hakodesh.

> Can anyone shed any light on this attribution of the initiation of
> 'hakofos sheniyos' to the AR"I ? Any mareh mikomos for reliable written
> sources ? Reasons ?

Our current minhag of "Hakafot" is first found in the reports of the
students of the AR"I. There are earlier customs that removed all the
Torah's from the Aron, and may have had a single "hakafa" of the shulchon,
but the "hakafa" was not the ikar. That is only found following the AR"I.

The primary source of the AR"I's minhagim is R. Chaim Vital in Shaar
Hakavanos. For this minhag, see shaar shishi, (translation mine) "Simchat
Torah: The custom to remove all of the Torah's from the heichal and to
go around with them in the morning, at mincha, and at Arvis of Motzai
Yom Tov, it is a true custom [brings source from Zohar], and I saw my
master [AR"I] was very careful [nizhar meod] in this [goes on to talk
about AR"I taking part in hakafot of motzei yom tov, but not seeing him
at shacharit].

The issue is that Shaar HaKavanos was not published until 1852. Various
manuscript versions were floating around, and in 1712 R. Yitzchuk Zemach
published "Negid U'Mitzvah" and included this segment of Shaar HaKavanos,
but was not exact in his language, did not refer to mincha at all, did
not use the languague of motzei yom tov, just included that the AR"I
did the hakafot at night, but that he was not seen during the hakafot
of the day. So due to that, the minhag developed on doing the hakafot
on the night when yom tov started and the following morning. It is
pretty clear that this is actually a minhag taut - incorrect minhag,
but at this point has spread to pretty much all of Klal Yisrael.

In this aspect, although this is almost certainly not the reason it
started, what is called in Israel "Hakafot Sheniyot" is actually closer
to the original custom started by the AR"I and his group.

For more information, and a generally wonderful reading book on Simchat
Torah, see A. Yari - Toldot Chag Simchat Torah (Hebrew only, as far as
I know).

Avi Feldblum

In message , Phyllostac@aol.com writes
>Can anyone shed any light on this attribution of the initiation of
>'hakofos sheniyos' to the AR"I ? Any mareh mikomos for reliable written
>sources ? Reasons ?

Don't know about the Ari zl, but the Kaf Hachayim brings a source that 
attributes it to the Zohar (parshas pinchas, daf  256 amud beis)

Regards
Chana

-- 
Chana Luntz

>In Meseches Brachos daf 16b

You mean 15b.

>                       the Maharsh"a in the chidusei agodos dibur
> hamaschil Bphros say that the name shin-daled-yud comes out from
> the parsha of krias Shema. Does anyone know what the Maharsh"a is
> refering to?

The Maharsha notes that the Gemara is saying one who is mdakdek in krias
shma is protected from the pains of Gehinnom.  This protection is learned
from a passuk using the name of Hashem, "Sha**ai"

The Maharsha finds it curious that this name of Hashem is used even though
it is not mentioned in krias shma.  This he answers is because this Name is
associated with protection after death as per the Gemara in Shavuos 15b.

I hope this answers your question.

Kol Tuv,
Shlomo

In message , Arie Folger <afolger@ymail.yu.edu> writes
>Considering the two examples I gave, abortion being a possible
>transgression of retzi'hah, and microphones a possible 'hillul Shabbat,
>we can see that he restricted such pronouncements to particularly
>grave cases.

>It seems that RMF wanted to use all the support he could muster to avoid
>that, as he saw it, Klal Yisrael would fall into a dangerous trap.

...

>Furthermore, it is
>like a gezeirah because he *may* have been more worried about the side
>effects of following the opposition than about the issur itself, although
>this is pure speculation (more about this in next paragraph). But most
>importantly, it is like a gezeirah in that he asked blanket acceptance
>(although that is not entirely obvious in the case of microphones, as one
>'Oveid pointed out that he permitted people to daven in a microphone shul,
>if it relied on the maqilim), like the parent saying no to a child. He
>clearly overstepped the habitual limits to a moreh horaah's authority
>because he felt that it was necessary, and that, as president of the
>then most important rabbinic organization, he could get away with it
>and expect to be followed by many. And yes, the effectiveness of such
>measures is severely limited, but RMF used it very sparingly.
...

>The notion that RMF was making modern day gezeirot, as for example in
>the case of timers on Shabbat, is held by many rabbanim, including my
>one time RY, rav Yehudah Aryeh Treger of Antwerp, SIL of RSZA, who is
>the first to have introduced me to this issue.

>In fact, none less than RMF's grandson, RMT junior, has an elaborate
>theory why RMF could make binding gezeirot, while nobody else
>can. Essentially, it is based on a notion that there is a particular
>legislative power granted to ubergedolim, and RMF was so much such a
>gadol, that nobody of his contemporaries where his peers. In fact, says
>RMT junior, RMF was so great, that the only people in his league died
>20,30 or 40 years before him. A little short of claiming he was a rishon.

>Now most of us may disagree with RMT about the justification for RMF
>making gezeirot, but he does agree with the observation that RMF was
>making gezeirot bizman hazeh.

Couple of observations - but before I make them, I would refer everybody 
to Parts 4, 5 and 6 and aspects of Part 3 of the Addendum to RR's Aryeh 
Frimer and Dov Frimer's article in tradition 32-2  entitled "Women's 
Prayer Services- Theory and Practice".  Despite the title, the portions 
of the Addendum I am referring you to are entitled:

a) Part 4: Examples of Prohibitions Based on Public Policy 
Considerations [which discusses le-mi-gdar milta, which is what you are 
discussing above in terms of gezeros];

b) Part 5: Ruling that Something is Biblically Forbidden, When it is 
Not, may violate Bal Tosif (Adding to the Torah) [Micha asked a few 
weeks ago if anybody other than the Rambam held that this was Bal Tosif, 
see here for a much fuller discussion than I could give - as you can see 
from here, it is a much wider list that you have to contend with]

c) Part 6: Misrepresenting Halakha May Violate the Prohibition of Lying 
[which discusses mi dvar sheker tirchok in the context of rulings in 
halacha]

d) Part 3: is entitled Views and Cases Demonstrating the Ziyyuf HaTorah 
Does not require Martyrdom [much of which has relevance to our 
discussion].

If R' Areyeh Frimer is still a list member, maybe these portions of the 
Addendum could be provided to the list, as they are right on point for 
the matters being discussed.

That is because there are two issues coming out of what has been written 
above:

a) can RMF make gezerahs?

b) if he can make gezerahs, can he, as you are suggesting  at least in 
the abortion situation, make a gezerah but claim that it is not in fact 
a gezerah,  but a full fledged Torah issur (in the case of abortion, an 
issur chayav misas beis din).

Very briefly, given the mass of material and opinions referred to above, 
the probable answer to a) is Yes, but the probable answer to b) is No. 
Even those that allow some falsification, tend to draw the line where 
additional punishments would result from the higher classification.

I would also note, paranthetically, that one of the principles of gezera 
making is that b'makom d'ikar tzara ei gazaru rabbanan - It is harder to 
think of a greater case of tzar for all concerned than for a tay sachs 
baby to go to its certain death, slowly and painfully, over the first 
few years of its life.  The circumstances discussed in the abortion 
teshuva is hardly the place to implement a gezera of the nature you 
describe.

Shavuah tov
Chana

-- 
Chana Luntz

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]