[Avodah] Seeing G'zeiros Everywhere

[Richard Wolpoe]

Further Clarification re: Taxonomy of G'zeiros

Given A g'zeiro may act to prohibit what is Halachically permitted as a syag
   1. for a community
   2. for an organization

EG Kashrus orgnaization NOT permitting to sell broiled livers that were
broiled after the 3-day Gaonic limit had expired.

AND
Given a g'zeiro may also prohibit what is Halachically permitted as
"policy decision" almost like a minhag
   1. for a community
   2. for an organization

EG Letting Decisions by RMF stand reg Eruv even in the face of opposing
Halachic arguments as when KAJ/Breuer's opposiedg Mt. Sinai's Eruv in
Washington Heights
Or
Dr. Lamm Honoring RYDS by insisting upon abiding by his p"saq as when
Stern college
women were not allowed to leinMegillah for other women even though there
are numerous Halachic authroties to permit. The women were not given
a p'saq to NEVER read, just NOT to do this AT STERN COLLEGE. This is
local policy NOT p'saq and AISI it's NOT on the Halachic merits, but
due to a POLICY decision to Honor the Rav's legacy. Also Note that YU
was not AFAIK ever the day-to-poseiq at YU and his minhaggim were not
generally followed.

Psaq uses SHAS and posqim, and should start from scratch
G'zeira is about s'yag or policy and could take into consideration k"vod
RMF or RYDS and another non-rigorous considerations and requires no such
rigor, but I would love to see it so labeled.

If you want to term this NEITHER p'saq NOR g'Zeria but a third kind of
"animal" fine. Call it "MINHAG" if you will but as we see by Qitniyyos
and the Three cases in MT hilchos hametz uMatzah that the Minhag NOT to
do what was really talmudically permitted is termed g'zeria

Also see SA orach Hayyim 476:1 re: ZLI at the Passover Seder uses this
same formula. Where the Maqom has the Minhag not to eat Zli ...G'zeira
against eating Kodoshim bachutz. [classic s'yag even though it is also
minhag hammaqom] thus Rambam and Mechabeir "conflate" minhag and g'zeira
if you wish to see it that way. OTOH I choose to say that these g'zerios
ARE a subset of minhag anyway and such perceived conflation is only in
our imgination.

Of course if following posqim such as Rambam, R Y Caro and R Moshe
Isserles is deemed as "radical" than that shoe fits me well, and i'll
gladly wear it any time - except on 9 Av and YK of course [?] !

[email #2. -mi]

Re: Choshen Mishpat 2, an illustration 
> R. Kook had basically the same viewpoint. In Da'at Kohen no. 7, he too
> is asked about a shochet whose non-religious sons live at home. R. Kook
> replies that while technically the actions of the sons do not destroy
> the hezkat kashrut of the father, nevertheless, the matter is very
> distasteful (מכוער). Even if the father could not be blamed at all in
> this matter, nevertheless, it is a hillul ha-shem. Since the beit din
> has the power to legislate in matters beyond the strict law, "there
> is no migdar milta greater than this." He explains the reason for his
> uncompromising viewpoint:

See 
Tradition Seforim Blog: Marc B. Shapiro -- Responses to Comments and
Elaborations of Previous Posts III
http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/8/29/Responses-to-Comments-and-Elaborations-of-Previous-Posts-III 

-- 
Shalom uVRacha
RabbiRichWolpoe at Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nishma-Minhag/