[Avodah] Gezeiros after Sanhedrin

[Micha Berger]

On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 11:30:36AM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
:>                         I think the only way to understand which things
:> get a gezeirah is to assume that in practice at the time when there was a
:> Sanhedrin that /could/ make a gezeira, those were the things that people
:> actually did err on.

> : Just to nitpik - it is not only the Sanhedrin. To my mind one
> : of the strangest gezerot is that of Rabbah not to blow shofar when RH fals
> : on shabbat (as this year) and so we dont keep shofar from the Torah
> : and similarly in EY there will be no lulav on yomtov.

(I think you mean Rava, as it's called gezeira deRava.)

RMLevin pointed out in a previous iteration
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol16/v16n003.shtml#04> that the Mateh Dan
(who he was translating at the time, now published by Yashar) sets out to
prove that yes, the amei haaretz in those days were often ignorant enough
to make such a mistake, and the possitility wasn't that rare after all



As for whether this gezeirah was made by Rava...

The Y-mi sais it's de'oraisa, from "yom *zikhron* teru'ah" (RH 4:1). Not
a gezeirah at all! Our machzor appears to leverage that idea. At least
the Ashk machzor, I have no idea whether Sepharadim say "yom zikhron
teru'ah" in RH Shabbos qiddush, etc...

According to the Bavli...

It starts out like the Y-mi, but when pushed to explain why then the
mishnah says it is blown in the Miqdash, we get gezeirah deRava about
hotza'ah.

But before that, RYBZ only allowed shofar blowing before a beis din. If
Rava made a second taqanah, it was that he found RYBZ's position to
be too loose, and there was still too much of a risk of hotza'ah.
Alternatively, he could have been pasqening that without a Sanhedrin
in the lishqas hagazis, none of the batei din qualified for RYBZ's
permission. (Much like their loss of authority WRT dinei nefashos.)



But to get back to the wider point, about gezeiros without a Sanhedrin...

Even if we take the idiom at face value and Rava made a second gezeirah,
that doesn't rule out it being made by a Sanhedrin.

The last Sanhedrin was either that of R' Hillel II, in something like
358 CE (if we take the traditional explanation for his standardizing
the calendar), or R' Gamliel IV who was executed in 425 CE. With his
execution, the Romans (under Theodosius II, a Nestorian Christian)
also banned the institution.

Rava lived 270-350 CE, and could very well have submitted a proposal to
the Sanhedrin. His friend R' Zeira made aliyah, so we know travel from
Bavel to Maaravah was done. Rava also had a say in picking the next nasi
(along with R' Zeira and Rabah bar Masnah) after R' Yoseif (Horiyos 14b),
indicating that he did have some kind of remote role in the running of
the Sanhedrin.

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?

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.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow
micha at aishdas.org        man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries
http://www.aishdas.org   about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter