Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 161

Fri, 30 Nov 2012

• 1. Re: Who decrees? (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: HaKafos (was HONORING SHABBOS LUNCH etc) (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Who decrees? (David Riceman)
• 4. Rashi question (David Riceman)
• 5. Re: Was Eisav a Rasha by nature? (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Was Eisav a Rasha by nature? (Marty Bluke)
• 7. Re: Taam haMitzvah - Sotah Formula (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Rashi question (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Was Eisav a Rasha by nature? (Micha Berger)
• 10. Historical and Mythical Iyov (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Historical and Mythical Iyov (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Historical and Mythical Iyov (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Historical and Mythical Iyov (Lisa Liel)
• 14. Re: Historical and Mythical Iyov (Micha Berger)
• 15. male yichud (saul newman)
• 16. Re: Who decrees? (Micha Berger)

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 01:29:03PM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
> Often, when a mishna or beraisa says Rabbi A oser and Rabbi B matir, the  
> gemara explains Rabbi A sover gazrinan X atu Y and Rabbi B sover lo  
> gazrinan, or, alternatively, Rabbi A gazar X atu Y, and Rabbi B lo gazar.

> Let's consider the former formula first.  I reject the explanation that  
> it was the Sanhedrin who decreed, since (a) I don't understand how  
> record keeping could be that bad, and (b) this would be a machlokes  
> about metzius.

It could be a machloqes about whether the taqanah was nispasheit.

After all, authority rests more in the community that accepts or doesn't
accept a gezeira than in the beis din that makes it.

>                            As far as I know an individual Rabbi has no  
> authority to make a gezeirah, so I construe the latter formula to mean  
> Rabbi A ubeis dino.  But then the authority of the edict stems from the  
> authority of a local beis din, and should not have authority elsewhere....
> Yet we find the rishonim take these arguments to be arguments about  
> normative halacha, not descriptions of varying local customs.

But if we see that a ruling caught on globally, and now we're looking
to see if it's binding, then the local nature of the original court
district isn't as relevant.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Worrying is like a rocking chair:
mi...@aishdas.org        it gives you something to do for a while,
http://www.aishdas.org   but in the end it gets you nowhere.
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 10:22:52AM -0000, Chana Luntz wrote:
:> The site you quote omits one very important point, which demolishes
:> the entire question: "rikud" means jumping; dancing in which both feet
:> leave the ground at the same time. The sort of dancing we do, in which
:> we go in a circle while one foot is always on the ground, is called
:> "mochol", and that is permitted on Shabbos, even without resorting to
:> the Tosfos that permits "rikud". We do rely on the Tosfos for clapping,
:> but not for dancing.

: That is the Aruch HaShulchan's argument to allow for (our kind of) dancing
: on shabbas (Aruch HaShulchan Orech Chaim siman 339 si'if 9)- it being
: clear from there (see eg si'if 8) that he finds Tosphos (and hence the
: Rema) problematic as a justification, but feels it imperative to find one.

The AhS does limit the gezeira to a specific kind of dancing, but not this
one. I think this is from the Toras Shabbos, someone I hadn't heard of until
this discussion.

In fact, the Y-mi (Beitzah 5:2 20a) appears to say the reverse of this
definition.
    "Velo meraqdim":
    R' Yirmiyah [and] R' Ze'irah in the name of R' Hunah:
        "Qiputz" is when he uproots both his feet as one;
        "riqud" is when he uproots one and rests one.

But in any case, the Y-mi is clear that the gezeira didn't include all
dancing. Now it's a matter of understanding this chiluq.

The AhS says that our dancing is different from what was prohibited:
    because in Chazal's time, it was that when they played music,
    people would clap hands, clap on their laps, and meraqdim "al pi
    seder hashir". And so it seems from the Yerushalmi.

Which is why I said earlier that the AhS was banning dancing when it
was pounded to the rhythm of the music. Assuming that rhythm is what
he means by "al pi seder". But somehow the dancing is being done in a
specifically instrument-like way, as an accompaniment to the instruments.


That said, I'm not sure how either chiluq actually exclude all forms
of our (sad little "walk around the circle") riqudim of today.

The "dance" with the foot-stomp timed to match the song's downbeat would
seem to fit the AhS's definition of riqud.

And it is common when doing the hora (which at least qualifies as
a dance), when switching from one kick to the other, that both feet
are off the ground at once. (Especially, but not only, the fancier
spin-on-the-kick version.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nearly all men can stand adversity,
mi...@aishdas.org        but if you want to test a man's character,
http://www.aishdas.org   give him power.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      -Abraham Lincoln

RMB:
> It could be a machloqes about whether the taqanah was nispasheit.
The Sanhedrin left Lishkas HaGazis, and, at least according to the 
Rambam, lost the authority to make global gezeiros, forty years before 
hurban habayis.  If we're talking about the generation of (say) R. 
Yehudah, R. Meir, and R. Yosi HaGlili we are close to 100 years and two 
national traumas later.  Is there no statute of limitations on a 
gezeira's acceptance? If so, how do you explain the recurrent phrase 
"gazru  A v'lo kiblu ... and then generations later gazru B v'kiblu"?

Furthermore I am unfamiliar about any discussion in Hazal or poskim 
about how to determine whether a gezeirah has been nispasheit (witness 
the recent discussion here on Avodah about smartphones, which has not 
only been woefully lacking in polling data, but even in claims about 
what the necessary data should look like).  If that's the mahlokes 
shouldn't there be extended discussion about it in some basic text 
(like, for example, the Beis Yosef)?

> After all, authority rests more in the community that accepts or 
> doesn't accept a gezeira than in the beis din that makes it. 
But (as I often said in my yeshiva days), that's not what the words say.
>>    
>> But if we see that a ruling caught on globally, and now we're looking
>> to see if it's binding, then the local nature of the original court
>> district isn't as relevant.
>>
>>
At some point, though, doesn't it become a minhag which originated in a 
gezeirah which was not fully accepted, rather than an actual gezeirah? 
That distinction certainly has halachic ramifications.

David Riceman

In this week's parsha (VaYishlah 33:11) Rashi says "ain hanan b'lo shnei 
nonim".  How does he deal with the verbal forms of hen like "elokim 
yohncho bni" (Miketz 43:29), which Rashi ad. loc. construes as a form of 
"hanan"?

David Riceman

On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 02:51:56PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote:
:                                               Rashi a few pesukim later
: comments on the phrase mimayayich yiparedu, "min hamayayim heim nifradim,
: zeh l'risho vzeh l'tumo".

: From Rashi it seems clear that already in the womb Eisav was a rasha who
: wanted to worship avoda zara. The obvious question is why?

And I answered:
> We all have innate tendencies. This one is born with a shorter fuse
> and more exteme temper than the other. That one is predisposed with
> depression. Take someone born with a craving for spirituality, but it's
> overshadowed by an impatience and desire for instant gratification and
> a lust for power, and you have someone predisposed for AZ.
> 
> People aren't judged for where they are, but for what they did with what
> they were given.
...
> A yeitzer hara is a drive down the ladder. Not which rung you were born
> upon.
> 
> Similarly, a rasha is someone bent on descent. Not the person as per his
> innate character propensities.

I see the other RMB asked a similar question in Nov 2009 (probably also
shortly after it was read), and that produced a thread of discusison
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?sectio
n=W#WAS%20ESAV%20A%20RASHA%20IN%20THE%20WOMB>
or <http://j.mp/TsIPFn>.

At that time, RDR replied:
} He can be blamed for not overcoming his predisposition...

To which I added:
> Just like someone born with a bad temper. Also touches on the West's MZ
> debate -- it makes no difference if the taavah is innate.

> Besides, if bechirah is only at the nequdas habechirah, and a person
> isn't judged by where he is in an absolute sense, but rather how he
> has moved that nequdah has moved during the course of his life, then it
> really makes no difference. It's like coming from an abusive home or
> any other challenge HQBH throws one person and not most. Just another
> thing taken into account.

Same idea as 3 years later, but perhaps someone will find the phrasing
more comprehensible.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Life isn't about finding yourself
mi...@aishdas.org        Life is about creating yourself.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Bernard Shaw
Fax: (270) 514-1507

R' Micha Berger wrote:
<Take someone born with a craving for spirituality, but it's overshadowed
by an impatience and desire for instant gratification and a lust for power,
and <you have someone predisposed for AZ.

That is fine but you didn't answer the question that I asked. Predisposed
to AZ is one thing, running to worship it from the womb is another and that
was my question. How did Eisav start worshipping AZ even before he was born?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121128/fd6fb5fe/attachment-0001.htm>

Back on Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:22pm EST, I wrote:
: What do we suggest is the connection between Aqavia ben Mehalalel's 3
: things and the mitzvah of sotah? It's not inevitable that a woman given
: water with text dissolved in it and dirt floating on top is going to think
: "Oy, I came from liquid, I'm going to the grave, and my soul will have
: to stand in judgment -- what am I doing?" So how to we understand this
: mitzvah makes this ta'am manifest?

: I see a scale of various possibilities, each of the following options
: overlaps with those immediately before and after it:

: 1- One could suggest it's mystical...

: 2- There are levels of the soul which reach above those we are aware
:    of...

: 3- It needn't be a lofty, otherworldly explanation... It could be that
:    the person is shaped by associations even if they are [not
:    consciously] aware of those associations.

: 4- RSRH's position is that mitzvos involve communication from the RSBO
:    via symbols. ... [N]atural symbols (tears and laughter) as well as
:    those established by convention. ...

: The problem I have with this... is that symbols are only of value to
: those who are aware of them....

: Personally, I believe #2 and #3, with the caveat that in my own
: idiosyncratic metaphysics, there is no difference between forces in
: higher olamos and more abstract ideas and ideals...


I'm revisiting the post because

(a) I had a 5th item for the list:

5- RYBS understands the search for taamei hamitzvos not in terms of
   understanding why HQBH commanded something, but as lessons to take
   post-facto, derashos. RYBS even uses the word "hermeneutics".

This position is very consistent with the Brisker notion that halakhah
only stands on halachic terms with no


And the second reasong for my revisit:

(b) I was disappointed by the relative silence on my question. Only
my comment on #4 was touched. And anyway... yes, the BD shel kohanim
could have standardized explaining the symbology to the sotah but

i-   if they did it's not mentioned by Chazal -- which makes it either
     less likely or ...

ii-  less important. We know such explaining not mandatory, meaning the
     mitzvah has value without the explanation anyway. And...

iii- The question is a general one about the Hirschian Symbologic approach
     to taamei hamitzvos, not just sotah. I phrased it in terms of sotah
     because it's an example from chazal rather than RSRH, an acharon
     from after Ashkenaz's split into derakhim ("Isms").

To rephrase the question around another example:

What does RSRH believe is the value of basar bechalav to people who
don't know anything about an association to keeping human creativity
separate from animal procreativity? Did the more than 99 44/100% of the
observant Jewish population over the history of time gain nothing from
obeying the issur because they didn't know the key to the symbol and
thus didn't get the truth being communicated?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
mi...@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 08:20:12PM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
> In this week's parsha (VaYishlah 33:11) Rashi says "ain hanan b'lo shnei  
> nonim".  How does he deal with the verbal forms of hen like "elokim  
> yohncho bni" (Miketz 43:29), which Rashi ad. loc. construes as a form of  
> "hanan"?

To elaborate the question...

IIUC, and I'm far from sure I do, Rashi is saying the shoresh is /ch-n-n/
and therefore the word "hanneini" has the first nun degushah to represent
the two nun-in of the shoresh. (The second nun is the "-ni" suffix.)

Rashi needs to say this, because he didn't have the notion of every
shoresh having three letters. He could have held that the shoresh was
simply /ch-n/.

The pasuq in Miqeitz has no dageish -- only one nun. So how could the
shoresh be /ch-n-n/?

No answer, just sharing the fact that I'm also intrigued. Try Mesorah.
(The email group, not the notes in your Miqraos Gedolos).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
mi...@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 03:28:24PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote:
:> Take someone born with a craving for spirituality, but it's overshadowed
:> by an impatience and desire for instant gratification and a lust for power,
:> and <you have someone predisposed for AZ.

: That is fine but you didn't answer the question that I asked. Predisposed
: to AZ is one thing, running to worship it from the womb is another and that
: was my question. How did Eisav start worshipping AZ even before he was born?

You take it for granted that fetuses can sense what is outside their mothers
and actually make coordinated motions toward one point or another.
I took the medrash to be more metaphoric.

Rivqa was worried because she never expected twins and it didn't feel
like one baby's motions. That's all the pasuq says. Chazal elaborate --
not only twins, but very different twins, with different propensities
even since conception.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
mi...@aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:42pm EDT, I wrote:
: On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:57pm CDT, Lisa Liel wrote Areivim:
:> The authorship of Iyov is a machloket.  I don't have to accept that it  
:> was written by Moshe Rabbenu, and even if it was, it wasn't written  
:> under the influence (so to speak) of Nevua, or it'd be in Nevi'im, at  
:> the very least.

: BB 14b does not record other shitos.

: On the next amud this is
: tied to the shitos that says that Iyov lived in the days of Moshe --
: either tying him to life in Mitzrayim or to the time of the meraglim --
: or all the way from Moshe's time through Ezra's. (R' Elazar calls him
: one of the olei golah [15a] AND alive during the Shofetim [15b].) This
: is also contrasted with R' Shemuel bar Nachmeini saying that Iyov is
: mythical. None of those shitos rule out the plain gemara on 14b about
: the author.

: In any case, you agree that the book is of a quality where amoraim
: consider it debatable whether or not MRAH did. So what's in it should
: be taken seriously, perhaps more so than books they wouldn't attribute
: to MRAH, such as the rest of Nakh (minus some Tehillim)....

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 5:59am EDT, I replied to someone who asked
privately for clarification of this post:
:> IOW, did you mean to say that even if Iyov was miBenei haGolah, the
:> book was just as likely written by Moshe as it could have been written
:> by Ezra if Iyov was from among the Egyptians? ...

: ... But, I am not sure saying he was miBenei haGolah is to the exclusion
: of saying he was a contemporary of Yotze'ei Mitzrayim or the Shofetim.

: First, as I noted on list, R' Elazar is both one of the two amoraim
: who said that he lived during the Shofetim and the one who said miBenei
: haGolah. Implying that it's not a machloqes.

: Second, the middle of the sugya outright says "yeshno le'oso adam
: sheshinosav arukhos ke'eitz".

: So, it might be that everyone agrees with the opening quote from R'
: Leivi bar Lachmah, and the rest of the sugya is showing how miraculously
: long Iyov lived.

: In which case, it doesn't require invoking nevu'ah to say MRAH wrote
: about one of the Benei haGolah.

: Admittedly, an aggadic story that makes supernatural claims, like
: saying Iyov lived twice as long as normal or living from Galus Mitzrayim
: through Purim, can very well be ahistorical mashal. The Rambam, I think,
: would insist it *must* be. But RLbL says the derashah that places him
: in Moshe's era is mesayei'ah to the statement one the previous amud
: about Moshe having written the book. So, if the question of his age
: is mythical, ascribing the authorship to Moshe would be part of the
: same mythos....

Why am I revisiting the thread? Because the topic comes up on Sunday's
daf Yerushalmi, Sotah 5:6 25b. The opinions there, each backed by a
gezeira shava:

Reish Laqish: Iyov lived in the days of Avraham.

R' Aba: Of Yaaqov. And in fact, his wife at the beginning of the story
is Dinah. Which implies (although the gemara doesn't say so, that it's
the story of the suffering and death of Dinah and her children too!)

R' Levi: contemporary to the shevatim.

R' Yosi bar Chalafta: He went down with them to Mitzrayim, and died when
we returned. Iyov was the qorban thrown to the satan to keep him from
prosecuting while the Jews were redeemed, like a shepherd placing a goat
between a lion and his flock.

R' Yishmael: Iyov was among the slaves of Par'oh, and part of his honored
retinue. (Consistent with the medrash about Par'oh having three advisors:
Yisro, Bil'am, and Iyov.)

Rabbi Yosei bar Yehudah: He lived during the Shofetim.

R' Shemuel Bar Nachman besheim R' Yonasan: In the days of the kingdom
of Sheva (and thus, of Shelomo haMalekh).

R' Nasan: In the daves of the Kasdim (Bavel).

R' Yehoshua b Qorcha: Achashveirosh.

R' Yehoshuva b Levi, R Yochanan: Mei'olei Golah. R' Yachonan adds that Iyov
was a Jew. I'm not sure why, since who else left the golah? And from Iyov
we learn that an aveil supposed to stand while tearing qeri'ah.

(From the sequence of those last two positions I would conclude that the
redactors of the Y-mi held that Purim predated bayis sheini.)

I would have to conclude that R' Yosi bar Chalafta disagrees with the
picture I drew of the Bavli.

Back to the opinions in the gemara:

Reish Laqish: Iyov lo hayah, velo asid lihyos.

The gemara notes the contradiction in Reish Laqish -- did he live in
the days of Avraham (top of the list) or never lived at all?

    Ela, hu hayah, veyisurin lo hayu.
    Velamah nikhtevu alav?
    Ela lomar she'ilulei ba'u alav, hayah yakhol la'amod bahen.

The gemara describes Reish Laqish's opinion as being of a historical Iyov
and a mythical Iyov. The ahistorical version went through the yisurim.
Why did this myth grow around Iyov? Because the author of the seifer
knew he would have been capable of it.

Notice this answer needn't be aimed at Reish Laqish's first quote in
particular. Yes, we are forced to find a resolution because RL appears
in the list of people who place Iyov in history.

You'll notice that R' Yosi bar Chalafta is the only one who could not
be fitted into a single long lived biography. Iyov, either the real one
or more probably the myth that grew from his life-story, was born in the
days of Avraham, married Dinah in Yaaqov's days, went down to Mitzrayim
with the Jews where he was a slave who was an advisor, lived through
the shofetim, Shelomo, Bavel, Achashveirosh and the return.

Each tanna or amora ties an element of Iyov's suffering to times in
history. That doesn't requre them denying the tying of other elements
to other times in history. Again, with the exception of RYbC's mashal
of placing the goat in the lion's way, who rules out the opinions listed
after him, although not those before.

I still think the evidence points to the norm among chazal being to
assume Iyov had a very long life. With no consideration to the question of
how much of the story is historical. We still have the bavli quoting R'
Elazar twice -- one that Iyov lived during the shofetim and once that he
was among the olei golah. We have the gemara citing a number of opinions
that place Iyov as contemporary to centuries after Moshe and yet doesn't
connect it to the claim that Moshe wrote the book. (Although leaving
machloqesin implied rather than commented upon is common.)

But the yerushalmi, breaks out of the all-or-nothing, real-vs-fiction
model I took for granted in July. The bavli doesn't have the need to
answer why RYbC calls Iyov mythical, since they don't assign him a date.
But now we have Reish Laqish saying that Iyov was a real person around
whom grew a myth. This could be RYbC's meaning as well, or at least
RYbC's peshat in RL's opinion.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
mi...@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

If Iyov outlived MRAH, whether by just a short time or by at least
920 years, and especially if he was in the midbar with MRAH, how did
MRAH write about him as an historical figure from long ago and far
away, "ish haya be'eretz Utz"?  And especially a fictional story;
first, how could such a myth arise or be recorded about a man who is
alive and well and living among those who are reading and telling it?
Even if this wasn't an existing myth but something that MRAH made up,
using as his protagonist a tzadik whom he knew would have been able
to act as his character does, how could he write it about someone who
was likely to read it and to interact with those who had read it?
If nothing else, wouldn't it be embarrassing for him?   I mean, we
have "gedolim stories" about living people, but they're usually the
kind that could well be true, and not the kind people would ask them
about, and the subjects themselves don't read the books.  But surely
if MRAH wrote a book Iyov and those close to him would read it!



-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

: If Iyov outlived MRAH, whether by just a short time or by at least
: 920 years, and especially if he was in the midbar with MRAH, how did
: MRAH write about him as an historical figure from long ago and far
: away, "ish haya be'eretz Utz"?

If we assume a minimum of machloqesin (which pretty well summarizes my
position) then they're saying that the suffering of the character Moshe
invented (based on the contemporary of Avraham who lived in the city of
Utz, named by Nachor in honor of his son) parallels the trials of Jewish
history from Dinah through Zerbavel.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 11/29/2012 10:34 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> R' Shemuel Bar Nachman besheim R' Yonasan: In the days of the kingdom
> of Sheva (and thus, of Shelomo haMalekh).

Does it say ???? [mlkt] or ????? [mlkvt]?

Lisa

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 07:36:45PM -0600, Lisa Liel wrote:
> Does it say ???? [mlkt] or ????? [mlkvt]?

With a vav -- ???? ????? ??? (biymei malkhut Sheva). But there is too
little precision in the Yerushalmi's girsa for it to mean much one way
or the other.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

http://haravaharonfeldmanarticle.weebly.com/index.html
with respect  to paragraph 2  on page   22, is  it a unanymous  approach
that  the laws  of yichud  can be  transposed ie   for those  thusly
attracted just  substitute  the word  ish everywhere isha   appears in the
sources?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121130/d0fbab99/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 08:35:54PM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
>> It could be a machloqes about whether the taqanah was nispasheit.

> The Sanhedrin left Lishkas HaGazis, and, at least according to the  
> Rambam, lost the authority to make global gezeiros, forty years before  
> hurban habayis...

I understand the Rambam very differently. Global gezeiros simply require
global acceptance. What makes the Sanhedrin different is that one doesn't
get a choice as to whether the Sanhedrin is "their rabbi".

But in the haqdamah to the Yad, "halakhos" 29-33
<http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/0000n.htm#29>. The Rambam applies the
concept of nispasheit bekhol Yisrael to explain the authority of the
Bavli. RYBS, on more than one occasion, pointed out that although
#32 says there hasn't been a universally accepted court "lo fashtu
maasav bekhol Yisrael", this is a statement of fact at the time,
not of necessity. Which is how RYBS explains the authority of the
Greater SA. (Which admittedly is not absolute, but then neither is
the Rambam's example of the gemara.)


He says that the rulings of Rav Ashi and Ravinu and the beis din who
compiled the bavli,
    fashtu gezeirosam vesaqanosam uminhagasam
    bekhol Yisroel, bekhol meqomos moshevoseihem.
But I don't know if that was true of Ashkenaz yet by Rambam's lifetime.)

> Furthermore I am unfamiliar about any discussion in Hazal or poskim  
> about how to determine whether a gezeirah has been nispasheit...

My entire point requires that there NOT BE a single rigorous definition
and way to measure whether a gezeira was nispasheit. If there were,
then all these A omer gazrinan, B omer lo gazrinan disputes would be
experimentally resolvable. (The thread's opening problem.)

> the recent discussion here on Avodah about smartphones...

Which has a second problem... We don't hold like the Rambam that a
court of non-musmakhim (in the real sense of the word semikhah) can
make gezeiros altogether. (A fact raised in discussions of bicycling
on Shabbos, for example.) When Rabbeinu Gershom wanted to make a din,
he phrased it as a cheirem -- I hereby preemptively excommunicate anyone
who reads another's mail (takes a second wife, reminds a geir of his
origins, etc...)

So, even when there is a rav or court whose gezeiros could be nispasheit
to a large community or all of Benei Yisrael, most acharonim said they
couldn't make gezeiros -- they would de facto become minhagim.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
mi...@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 161
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."