Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 3

Sun, 03 Jan 2010

• 1. Re: Seeing G'zeiros Everywhere (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: reform and conservative (Harry Maryles)
• 3. Re: Seeing G'zeiros Everywhere (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 4. Re: Just How hot is Yad Soledes Bo anyway? (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 5. Re: Hilchos Kaddish (Arie Folger)
• 6. Re: Hilchos Kaddish (D&E-H Bannett)
• 7. Seeing G'zeiros Everywhere (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 8. Re: Seeing G'zeiros Everywhere (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Hilchos Kaddish (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 10. Re: Hilchos Kaddish (Micha Berger)
• 11. Seeing G'zeiros Everywhere (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)

On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 10:43:44PM -0000, Chana Luntz wrote:
: RAF writes:
: >                                           RRW is quite 
: > obviously intentionally misusing the term gezeirah, as he 
: > himself stated. He is not investigating the creation of 
: > mitzvot derabbanan, but investigating whether any legislation 
: > binding on at least some people can be created nowadays 
: > lemigdar milta.
...
: I do think that it is an extremely interesting question, and one that it is
: valuable to explore.  What I am trying to say is that exploring the question
: is not helped by misuse of terminology, rather it is severely
: hindered...

For example, our opening case. The question of whether bicycle riding is
prohibited on Shabbos. If ROY would say it is permitted because we can
not make gezeiros today, it's because he feels that such a ban would be a
din derabbanan designed to avoid violation of a deOraisa due to accident
or habit; ie it would be a gezeirah in the technical, narrow sense.

Those who believe it is assur are arguing that while this is
sociologically a new prohibition, from a legal perspective the methodology
by which it came to be is not that of gezeirah.

Neither side is arguing that new gezeiros, in the technical sense of the
word "gezeirah", are permitted.

And both agree that these new prohibitions due to change in pesaq,
metzi'us, spread of a minhag, and perhaps even charamim (like Rabbeinu
Gershom), as well as other mechnisms are possible.

I feel that by using the term loosely RRW is obfuscating the entire
topic originally under discussion!


BTW, we get into similar confusion when discussing hilkhos shemiras
halashon. People use LH both to mean the specific issur of telling
something that is true but negative and unnecessary for the person to
know, but also to mean shemiras halashon in general. Now, when a writer
says "XYZ isn't LH" is he saying that XYZ is not the specific issur of
LH, but might be avaq LH or rechilus or... Or, is he using LH loosely,
to mean that XYZ is altogether mutar?

Gut Voch!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Strength does not come from winning. Your
mi...@aishdas.org        struggles develop your strength When you go
http://www.aishdas.org   through hardship and decide not to surrender,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      that is strength.        - Arnold Schwarzenegger

--- On Fri, 1/1/10, Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com> wrote:


from daily halacha

1186. One may not count one who denies the truth of Torah Sh'baal Peh
- aka The Oral Torah (and certainly one who denies The Written Torah
received at Sinai via Moshe Rabbeinu) towards a minyan. [One may not
count Conservative or Reform Jews towards a minyan.] Shulchan Aruch
w/Mishnah Berurah 55:11, Piskei Tshuvos 55:21


1187. One should also not answer Amein to a Kaddish made by any of
these people, even at a burial. Piskei Tshuvos 55:21? >>

Obviously the brackets were added by the email editor and is not in
the mishna berura.
Is this agreed to by everyone? It is not what i have seen
---------------------------------------
?
I can't believe there is a blanket Issur to not count a C or R Jew to a
Minyan. Should'nt it depend on his individual beliefs? Not every C or R Jew
believes fully in the Kefira of the Movement's ideologues. I'll bet most C
& R Jews are ignorant of it. Many join C shuls because they see them as
the middle of the road Judaism between O and R. Not too Frum and not to
liberal.
?
I would presume therefore that every C & R Jew should be looked at independantly.
?
There are however 2 problems. 
?
1) How can we know for sure what they believe?? It's not like we have the
abilty to question them about their beliefs just before Barchu at Maariv. I
think the answer lies in the concept of following the Rov. That is what we
do with O Jews after all, isn't it? How can we know if someone who lives as
an O Jew isn't a Kofer in his heart? We do not question anyone about it. If
a Minyan of O Jews gather for Maariv, we say Barchu.
?
I would venture to then say that at least as far as the average C Jew
goes,?he is?very? likely are not a Kofer and doesn't even think about such
matters?and should be counted into a Minyan based on the same principles of
Rov that we follow for O Jews. A C rabbi might be a different matter. But
even there he may or may not be a Kofer. Some are and some aren't.
?
2) As to whether the level of Mitzvah obsevrance is an issue, I was once
told by a very Chashuva Rav who is member of this list the follwing story.
IIRC he asked RAS whether he could Daven Mincha in a Mechitza-less
Traditional Shul where there when no women were present.?Part of that
Minyan?consisted of?members who were there were probably not Shomer
Shabbos.?IIRC?RAS?answered that?at that moment they were not doing any
Aveiros and could be considered as possible Baalei Teshuva -?so he could
Daven with them.
?
HM

Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 

Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/




      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100102/c3167838/attachment-0001.htm>

RAF:
> From my perspective, I see this as a most interesting question
> nowadays, when outside of Europe and of 'hassidishe communities (and
> also of KAJ and Elisabeth), there are no qehilloth. (nu, there m,ay be
> another few exceptions, but the US and Israel have few qehillot). How
> do you define the group on whom edicts are binding? Can such edicts be
> introduced from a back door? Can they, over time, spread and become
> real worldwide minhaggim that are very close to actual gezeiros?

Actually my first hypothetical is my prime interest

Here are Two illustrations and they are about the ability to be "gozeir"
and NOT the efficacy of the resulting g'zeira

1 the first is coulf RMF as Rosh aGudas Harabbonim ban smoking?

[This was the specific query that ellicated my chaveir's anonymous
response which is AFAIK straight out of Haqdamah of the Rambam #34]

2 the case of prohibitting bicycles
Can a Rav prhobit bicycles on Shabbas?

And if some rav [call him Rabbi X] c laims that we [call us W]cannot be
m'chdeaish NEW g'zeiros -- then why didn'Y HE see it as merely taqqanah!

Either Rabbi x thinks that W lacks the authority to make taqqanos too,
or Rabbi X realizes that these taqqanos are NOT Taqqanos but g'zeiros!

And I suspect that Rabbi X and I agree to the terminology "g'zeir"
only Rabbi X says that they are verbotton -- while we all know better!

It's not vebotten at all! It is simply perhaps ineffective outside a
certain circle.

So mah nafsach

If forbidden bicycles and mircrophones are ONLY taqqanos -- and everyone
here agrees taqqanos are Kosher then what is Rabbi X's problem.


Micha
> I feel that by using the term loosely RRW is obfuscating the entire
> topic originally under discussion!?

Actually aderabba

I am definitely using the term PRECISELY as the Rambam used it - and my
anonymous colleague confirmed it - as well as a respected Sepahrdic Rav
just last Thursday night

Let's look at Eisensteins's Otzar Yisroel G'zeira

P'saq din
G'zeiras hachamim
G'zeiros BD
...
Rosh says no post Rav Ashi g'zeiros
But we DO make taqqanos b'heskeim BD

[As proven earlier Rambam would have found this Rosh astounding! His only
limitation is that postItalmudic g'zeiros are NOT national - unlike Bavli]

Otzar Yisroel says also see Taqqanos - and so I did.

Taqqanos [vol. 10 p. 301]

Hatavas davar l'yasher ha.'Muvas GZEIRAS HAZAL V'HARABBONIM l'tzorech
hazman. O l'hanhagas haq'hal

Thus the term g'zeira is a valid term BENEATH the rubric of taqqanos
haqahal, aside from the use proscribed by the Rosh!

[Maybe the Rosh is the source of the g'zeira of no post-talmudic g'zeiros
- because that might explain the Rambam's contrary position]

To quibble because we are not used to using the rambam's verbiage or
the correct verbiage is simply beyond my ability to comprehend!

And making lists in order to induce a deifintion is deinfitively how
induction is defined anyway.

There have been quibbles about several items that I termed g"zeiros that
were on the edge or gray areas. So What? If it made you think and learn
I'd do it again

Look at how loose Hazal use the term p'sullos when dicussing b'sullos
in the first mishnah of K'subos chapter 3 [elu Naaros]. At no time is
a single category [viz. p'sullos] work or not work 100%.

For those whose minds are too fixated to accept new explanations, accuse
away! I will not be able to sway anyone who already knows it all anyway.

OTOH For the others willing to see examples of how Rambam SA and Rema
use this term please stay tuned to learn more Torah


Micha:
> If ROY would say it is permitted because we can
> not make gezeiros today, it's because he feels that such a ban would be a
> din derabbanan designed to avoid violation of a deOraisa due to accident
> or habit; ie it would be a gezeirah in the technical, narrow sense.

Question:
Why didn't ROY simply label it a taqqanas haqahal that didn't apply to
his q'hillah?

As I labeled it, even as g'zeira it's no. Different than the 3 Halachos
Micha upload from the Rambam which are Local "minhag-g'zeira"

IOW what about the g'zeira/p'saq/ruling/Taqqnah on bicycle impelled
this reaction?

Illustration:
KAJ does not feel bound by MB to read zeicher/zecher
Nor feel bound by RMF's t'shuva to avoid burials on YT sheini

What is it about bicycles [and other such cases] that illicits a reaction
aside from mere indifference?

Gut Voch
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

RDR: 
> The Aruch HaShulhan in YD 
> 105:19ff seems to view kli sheini eino m'vashel as a consequence of 
> temperature and speed of diffusion (which he discusses particularly in 
> SK 20)
 
IIRC this is a svara of tosafos that the walls of a cool kli sheini coll
down the boiling of the tavshil
 
Which is why afaik why a hot piece of meat or a hot potato is still considered
a kli rishon even after placed in a kli sheini, since it is solid it does
not get its eat diffused into the walls of a kli sheini the way a liquid
[EG soup] would.
 
Gut Voch 
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile 

I wrote:
> and in Basil, we say le-ejlo, le-ejlo mikol birchohsso ...

I apologize for having my head in spices and cooking, and thus
misspelling the town where I live and where the minhag I described is
in force. The name is not Basil, but Basel.

RMB: I know the above was not halakhic, and is only of very borderline
interest to Avodah, but I ask you to please allow this correction. I
feel like I have some egg on my face, considering I am the one who has
occasionally harped on about how it is Mishnah *V*erurah (and now know
that a: many siddurim do have safah *v*erurah, and thus, b: it is an
unintentional error in Roedelheim and Awaudas Jissroel, to state safah
*b*erurah, in contradiction to Tanakh) and still is A*bar*banel, not
A*vra*vanel (the name is Spanish, not Hebrew -- different rules). I
fell in my own trap. But, with this postscript, I have rescued the
post for halakhic/hashqafic relevance ;-)).

Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Was die j?dische Frommigkeit animieren soll
* Equal Justice for All - even in Israel?
* The Warmongering Laboring Amazons
* But is it Still Pork?
* Glaubensweitergabe ? Ein Videovortrag

Re: <<"Tzitzis" is found four times in Tanach (according to 
Mandelkern). Three times in the Shma, and once in Yechezkel 
8:3. All four have only one yod, the first one. Does that 
prove anything>>

Sure it does.  It proves that gematriot are fun . they  have 
no serious significance. They are not meant to decide 
halakha. They are meant to enjoy the amazing coincidences 
that can be found by human ingenuity. As the mishna says: 
tekufot ugematriot, parp'raot l'chokhma

Didn't I write in my post, as introduction to 28 = koach, 
"that, however, proves nothing"?


David 

Given: someone claims g'zeira means coercion

1 SA Ch M 2:1 "..Danin bein Missa, bain mammom bein kol dinei onesh..."

A Is G'zeira - as a form of coercion - a greater or lesser coercion than
  the list above?"
B If less would it be muttar for a BD to impose it by kal vachomer? 
C If not - why not?

2 Can someone explain to me SA Ch. M. 11:1 the Remaks use of the term
g'zeira?
In particular the phrase "..g'zeiras BD o hacham.."

[Email #2. -mi]

> With regard to speaking to a person wearing hearing aids, three possible
> prohibitions should be considered:
> 1. Molid 
> 2. Hashma'at kol 
> 3. Gezeira Shema yetakein
... 
> C. Gezeira shema yetakein (Lest one make repairs) The Shulchan Aruch
> rules that on Shabbat "it is forbidden to produce sound with a musical
> insturment."47 the reason given is that it may lead to the repair of
> musical instruments, in violation of the biblical prohibition against
> completing the construction of an object.48

> Although the Talmud seems to limit this prohibition to the production of
> a "sound of song," the wording of Shulchan Aruch clearly indicates that
> in his opinion this prohibition includes the production of any sound on
> a musical insturment.49

> Ramo takes it a step further and prohibits the production of sound on
> any instrument designed for that very purpose (such as a doorknocker)
> even if it is not used to play music. As a result, numerous authorities
> prohibit speaking into a microphone on Shabbat since sound is being
> produced on an instrument whose function is to produce sound (and is
> often used to accompany sounds of song).50 since a hearing aid and
> microphone are identical in terms of their operation,51 it must be
> determined whether there is any distinction52 between them with regard
> to this gezeira shema yetakein.53

> Some authorities suggest that the proscription of the Sages was never
> intended to include an item such as hearing aids for the following
> two reasons:...

The Use of Hearing Aids on Shabbat \ Rabbi Elysha Sandler
http://www.daat.ac.il/DAAT/english/Journal/sandler-1.htm 

KT 
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 05:07:58AM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: Given: someone claims g'zeira means coercion

Nispasheit implies coersion?

: 1 SA Ch M 2:1 "..Danin bein Missa, bain mammom bein kol dinei onesh..."
: 
: A Is G'zeira - as a form of coercion - a greater or lesser coercion than
:   the list above?"
: B If less would it be muttar for a BD to impose it by kal vachomer? 
: C If not - why not?

The making of law would require official authority to make law. The
notion that they can coerce in other, notably case-wise ways, wouldn't
prove the point.

Otherwise, the concept of Ravina veR' Ashi sof hora'ah wouldn't mean
much either. Your argument for gezeiros would be equally applicable to
hora'ah.

R' Gershom used a cheirem, thereby using the tool of coercion that is
permitted to be used at the talmid chakham's discretion to protect the
kavod haTorah and those who represent it to enforce his own words. It's
a clever loophole, but I would think that it's one that only works
bedavka because of the role of cheirem in protecting kavod harav.

: 2 Can someone explain to me SA Ch. M. 11:1 the Remaks use of the term
: g'zeira?
: In particular the phrase "..g'zeiras BD o hacham.."

There the word is meant as "ruling". It refers to someone who doesn't
come to court and doen't care what the BD or any chakham says about him or
the case anyway. The context is clearly not legislation or interpretation,
but litigation.

...
: [Quoting from] The Use of Hearing Aids on Shabbat \ Rabbi Elysha Sandler
:> With regard to speaking to a person wearing hearing aids, three possible
:> prohibitions should be considered:
: ... 
:> C. Gezeira shema yetakein (Lest one make repairs) The Shulchan Aruch
:> rules that on Shabbat "it is forbidden to produce sound with a musical
:> insturment."...
:> Although the Talmud seems to limit this prohibition to the production of
:> a "sound of song," the wording of Shulchan Aruch clearly indicates that
:> in his opinion this prohibition includes the production of any sound on
:> a musical insturment.49

So here it seems that the whole debate is the extent of a gezeirah that
does date back to a Sanhedrin. Not the creation of a new one.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
mi...@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                                - R' Binyamin Hecht

db...@zahav.net.il 
> Sure it does. It proves that gematriot are fun. they have 
> no serious significance. They are not meant to decide 
> halakha. They are meant to enjoy the amazing coincidences
 
Actually IIRC there is one exception in Talmud viz. The 30 days of Nazir
is derived by the g'matriya of "yihyeh"
 
[I know we can see this passage as not literal and as an asmachta of
sorts, but I'd rather not go there now :-)]
 
KT 
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 02:46:21PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: [I know we can see this passage as not literal and as an asmachta of
: sorts, but I'd rather not go there now :-)]

Personally, I thought that gematria is part of the remez quarter of the
PaRDe"S schema. And, translating it literally, I would think remez means
"mnemonic", very much an "asmachta of sorts".

IOW, I would suggest that gematrios are memory aids. However, their
post-facto status doesn't belittle them. An entire quarter (if it were
developed to the same extent as the other three) of the mesorah exists
"just" to help us enrich and internalize ideas that are actually derived
in other ways.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
mi...@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Earlier discussions on this same topic

[I don't mean to burst anyone's balloon - especially on shabbos]

Mail-Jewish Volume 26 Number 71 
http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v26/mj_v26i71.html


?From: <millerr@...> (Reuven Miller)
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 16:34:09 +0300 (WET)
Subject: Playing with a Balloon on Shabbat

My daughter asked me a question on Shabbos.
Is it ok for my 7 year old son to play with a inflated balloon or is it
mukza? The ballon is a simple one costing a few aggorot that is inflated
and tied with a knot.

The Shamirat Shabat K'Hilchata doesn't discuss balloon but brings the
halacha from the Badei Hashulchan
that a ball which is inflated and tied
is mukza because of a concern that the ball may deflate on Shabbos and
one may come to inflate it again thereby transgressing 3 prohibitions-
1. Fixing a keli on shabbos and 
2.untying and 
3. retying the knot.

I have two questions:
1.Is a simple balloon included in the gezeira(prohibition) of the Badei
Hashulchan? It seems to me as not as it would be very unusual to untie
the knot on the balloon and reinflate it. It is more usual to simply
discard the ballon.

2. How is it that the Badei Hashulchan can establish a "new" prohibition
that is not mentioned on the Talmud? We learned that we maintain the
enactments of the Rabbis(Chazal) but we ,after the closing of the Talmud,
no longer have the ability to make new enactments.?



Mail-Jewish Volume 26 Number 74 
http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v26/mj_v26i74.html#CWS

?From: Rafi Stern <rafistern@...>
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 01:26:21 PDT
Subject: Bike Riding on Shabbat

Please could someone give me a convincing argument why riding a bicycle is
not permitted on Shabbat. Whilst I am pretty sure that it ought to be
forbidden and I accept that it is, I have a hard time explaining why. 
The two reasons which I have been told are as follows.

1. The chain may derail and you may come to repair it. The chances of a
chain derailing on a well maintained bike (without gears) are pretty slim.
Replacing a derailed chain is also a pretty involved business -
not the kind of thing that you would do with "Hesech HaDaat"
(automatically, without thinking). Maybe using gears (derailleur / hub
?) is an Issur and this may be a reason for forbidding the use of a bicycle altogether?

2. The pneumatic tyres may puncture and you may come to repair them. The
ammount of effort required to repair the puncture is so great that again, the assertion that you may accidentally come to repair it is not
really relevant here.

I am of course assuming that carrying is not the issue.

Mail-Jewish Volume 26 Number 75 
http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v26/mj_v26i75.html#CXH



From: Michael and Abby Pitkowsky <pitab@...>
Date: Tue,  1 Jul 97 09:13:16 PDT
Subject: Bicycles, Ketuvim

>Please could someone give me a convincing argument why riding a bicycle
>is not permitted on Shabbat. Whilst I am pretty sure that it ought to
>be forbidden and I accept that it is, I have a hard time explaining
>why. The two reasons which I have been told are as follows.

R. Yosef Hayyim from Baghdad permits riding a bicycle on Shabbat for 
anyone when there is an eruv and when there isn't he says when someone is
needed by the public, e.g. to be a shaliah tzibbur, to hear kaddish,
or to read torah, it is permitted even without an eruv (Rav Pealim, vol. 1
Orah Hayyim, no. 25). R. Yosef Hayyim was referring to very basic
bicycles which are still available today. He does not feel that one
should be worried about the possibility of fixing it b/c the chances of
something happening are slim and he only suggests to fill up the tire
with air before shabbat.


R. Eliezer Waldenberg (Tziz Eliezer, vol. 7,
no. 30) disagrees with all of R. Hayyim's points.

R. Ovadiah Yosef (Yahveh Daat, vol. 2 no. 42) says that one should
be stringent and not ride a bicycle although he agrees with many
of R. Hayyim's points as to one it should be permitted. As to the
possibility of fixing (shema yitaken), R. Yosef says that many other
things could be forbidden if it is possible for them to break such as
sitting on chairs yet we don't. forbid something when there is a slight
chance of breakage. In addition R. Yosef says that we should not make
enactments (gezerot) which are not in the Talmud.?

?http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v54/mj_v54i87.html


From: Avinoam Bitton <avib@...>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 08:00:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Bicycle on Shabbat

> From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
> Several people have suggested that the reason not to ride bicycles on
> Shabbos is the chance that one might come to fix it. This is the reason
> behind the prohibition on musical instruiments, but I thought that it is
> NOT used for any other prohibitions.
> If one wants to use this as a reason to personally refrain from some
> activity on Shabbos, that is fine. But are there any other examples of
> where we are *forbidden* to use a device that is currently in fine
> working order?

I have read a of a Rav who discussed the issues of bike riding on Shabbat
at length with Rav Ovadia Yosef, who proceeded to raise and then
refute numerous objections to it.(Similar to his teshuva on Shabbat
swimming).

When asked why then he would not publicly give a heter for Shabbat bike
riding, Rav Yosef was quoted: "If I did they would stone me".

Avinoam Bitton?

*****************
[Avodah] Gezeiros after Sanhedrin 
http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/2009q3/013238.html


Micha:
> I understand legislation -- gezeiros and dinim derabbanan -- to be
> solely the purview of a Beis Din haGadol. I would point to Hil' Mamrim
> pereq 2, but we don't follow that WRT considering a pesaq or minhag
> binding. We seem to follow anything that was nispasheit, even if it
> didn't pass through a Sanhedrin. Therefore, how can I use it to buttress
> my point WRT new gezeiros and dinim?

RZS
> AIUI, the BD Hagadol's decrees are binding on everybody, whether they
> like it or not. Other BD's decrees are only binding on those who accept
> their authority.

Micha
> But my understanding was that the need for a Beis Din haGadol is why
> Rabbeinu Gershom's laws needed to be snuck in as charamim against
> someone who did X, Y or Z, rather than direct issurim.


RZS:
> I don't see why that should be. AIUI the charamos were to strengthen
> them beyond mere decrees, which people could ignore without penalty.
> But he could have made stam decrees, which would be binding on the
same people on whom the charamot were binding, i.e. those who accepted
> his authority.

------------------------
The Real Shliach: 1-800 GEDOLIM
http://therealshliach.blogspot.com/2009/09/1-800-gedolim.html

> CA: Ostensibly that amolike rabbis have more authority than the
> heintike. So if the Talmudic-era rabbis made crazy far-fetched gezeiros,
> that was OK. Because their gezeiros have intrinsic value. The heintike
> rabbis' gezeiros are valuable only as far as they protect the essential
> core of Judaism which was formed--I mean revealed--during an earlier era?

+++++++++++++++
Daf-Yomi: HaRav Elyashiv Shlita on Smoking on Yom Tov
http://dafnotes.blogspot.com/2007/09/harav-elyashiv-shlita-on
-smoking-on-yom.html

> Other Acharonim (BIRKEI YOSEF OC 511) write that this reason cannot
> be used as grounds for prohibiting smoking on Yom Tov, because it is
> accepted that the sages today do not enact new Gezeiros. Since this reason
> entails making a Gezeirah (that one may not smoke lest he transgress an
> Isur d'Oraisa), today's sages cannot enact a rabbinical prohibition to
> prohibit smoking on Yom Tov in order to prevent one from transgressing
> Isurei d'Oraisa

A Daf A Day (daf yomi): Wearing rings on Shabbos (Shabbos 57a)
http://adafaday.blogspot.com/2005/06/wearing-rings-on-shabbos-sh
abbos-57a.html

> Rav Hershel Shachter has explained that there are two different types
> of gezeiros. Some are made with the reason so the point is that once
> the reason no longer applies then the gezeira doesn't either. That was
> the situation here. The chachamim said you can't wear rings because you
> might come to carry them in reshus harabim. If we know that the reason
> doesn't apply anymore then you could wear rings. However, by shofar
> the reason was only stated later. There was a takana made not to blow
> shofar on Shabbos and then years later Rabba explained why the takana was
> made. The gemara wasn't even sure. They knew you couldn't do it but didn't
> know why. Therefore, even though the original reason for not blowing may
> have been because otherwise you might come to carry it, even if you know
> that the reason doesn't apply anymore the gezeira still lasts.

NB: This was my very point several months ago! VIZ. That rabbah's
explanation was merely a post facto rationale and not the ETZEM reason
for the G"zeira at all
Rather the g"zeira was axiomaitcally given by the Mishnah and Rabbah's
reason is an answer to a question, not the definitive rationale.

BH RHS was mechavein! :-)

And therefore the query re: being gozeir on a sukkah is really a
meaningless speculation. Not to mention "ein l'damos g'zeirah!"
__________________
More sources on "edicts"

On the issue of
Location Location Location - see comments section!

Disclaimer the website itself uses "GEZEIROS" as a keyword, IOW I did
not apply that myself...


The Bais Yaakov Edicts -- Are We Next? | Cross-Currents
http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2007/01/
11/the-bais-yaakov-edicts-%e2%80%93-are-we-next/

> The Bais Yaakov Edicts are a reference to the topic of the previous posts
> by Shira Schmidt and Jonathan Rosenblum. They were first described in the
> Hebrew Yated on Dec. 8 and 15, and in the English language press in an
> article that appeared in Ha'aretz about a week ago. I cannot bring myself
> to provide the link to the latter, which can always be relied upon to
> distort just enough to put religious commitment in a bad light. Briefly,
> the edicts eliminate some of the educational advancement options from
> within the Bais Yaakov system, pointing to their leading to careerism
> among the women, problems of shalom bayis, and an inadequate supply of
> instructors within the charedi world?
__________________
Nefesh HaChaim: August 2006
http://nefeshchaim.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_archive.html

> However, the Ran understands "lo sasur" as only applying to derashos
> and gezeiros decided by the Sanhedrin in the Beis HaMikdash.

[RRW: Note Professor Agus [and maybe P. Feldblum, too] seemed to have
said that the true end of the era was the hurban. This started "rabbinic
Judaism" and "tutorial authority"

IOW we cannot halachically argue with a bona fide Sanhedrin. Not arguing
with Talmud is. A "convention" which Minhag Ashkenaz trumped when in
conflict. See Ta Shma's quote of Or Zarua -end RRW]

> R' Elchanan explains based on the Rambam in his intorduction to the
> Yad and the Rambam in the beginning of Hilchos Mamrim that there are
> two qualifications for a psak to be included in "lo sasur". The first is
> mefurash in the Rambam in Hichos Mamrim that it has to be a psak coming
> from the Sanhedrin located in the Beis HaMikdash. (Exactly what type of
> psak is a different question all together, and maybe I will discuss it
> later). The second qualification is that if teh majority of the chachamim
> decide a halacha then one is not allowed to go against it. The source for
> this is based on the loshon of the Rambam in his hakdamah to the Yad. R'
> Elchanan then adds that with this we can explain why the amoraim were not
> allowed to argue on the tanaim. (This is the Kesef Mishna's question in
> Hil Mamrim Perek 3). Since the chasimas hamishna was established by rov
> chachamim, it comes out that to argue on the mishna would be a violation
> of lo sasur. The same reasoning would explain why we can no longer argue
> on teh gemara after the chasimas hatalmud.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 3
*************************************

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..."