[Avodah] Gezeiros after Sanhedrin

[Zev Sero]

Micha Berger wrote:

> 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.

There's no contradiction.  Hillel II standardised the calendar because
he could see how the political winds were blowing, and that there would
soon come a time when kiddush hachodesh would be impossible.  The fact
that the final blow didn't come for another 67 years shouldn't pose any
problem at all.  It's not as if Hillel II was a navi; he was merely a
chacham haro'eh et hanolad.


> 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.

R Yosef was not nasi of the Sanhedrin!  He was RY of Pumbedisa, like
Rabbah before him.   It's also not clear from that gemara at the end
of Horiyos (14a, BTW; there is no 14b) that they were picking a
successor for R Yosef; from the text itself it sounds more like they
were picking a head for their little chaburah.  It's only from the
context of what came before, and from the fact that we know (at least
I *think* we know) Abaye did succeed R Yosef as RY, that we can infer
that this is what that gemara is talking about.


> 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?

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.


> 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.

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.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
zev at sero.name                 eventually run out of other people’s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher