[Avodah] Seeing G'zeiros Everywhere

[rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com]

"Look for the S'yag"

Dear Readers, this in an exercise to exorcize some flawed notions!
I have many flaws of my own. EG for 50+ years I pronounced vayhi wirh a
sh'va na, but as hazal note it's VAY HEE no sh'va na, and I have had to
do t'shuvah. My laining is worse now than 10 years ago because I need
to relearn and unlearn.

I do not wish to make a klal and have everything fit neatly into that
klal - why?

1 we don't learn much
2 it don't stick
3 [main reason] I myself haven't fleshed it all out yet!

I'm working hard to research this so that we have a robust list and
someday it might be comprehensive

I started re-reading SA-Rema - esp. Rema- in choshen mishpat because it
rocked my own boat several years ago. I'm just sharing this now [except
for a quickie post which shocked some way back when]

Let's at least give the primary motive Avos 1:1 "asu s'yag latorah"

IOW adding on or subtracting is less about p'saq than abour g'zeira WHEN
we are protecting something else!

A tipoff bittuy would be: "X is assur shema Y". Even when psoqim omit
the words g'zeira. [FWIW Rambam is one of the few who seems to be
dedaqdeiq in saying it. I contend it's still virtually ubiquitous but
not articulately blatantly!]

Now let's jump to  my 3 favorite codes
TUR-SA-Rema-L'vush.
I will treat them as divisions within the same mega-code

One of the biggest fundamental arguments in Halachic methodology and
meta-halachah is in YD 1:1

I will outline 2 g'zeiros
One is obviously innovated but may be more properly a taqqanah, but I
will frame it as g'zeira nevertheless.
The 2nd is framed as minhag but it can be shown that a minhag WHEN a
s'yag is either a G'zeira or at least a quasi-G'zeiram

[Conversely EG a minhag [n'viim] to take aravos or a minhag to do haqafos
is a NON-s'yag]

For now YD 1:1

G'zeira 1: thou shalt not shecht [lechatchilah] without a kabbalah on
sh'chita even if you know the halachos inside out! [Sounds like driving
w/o a license perhaps? ;-)]
[Indeed this might be a taqqanah but please stick with the program for a while]

G'zeira 2: [Whilst the Halachah permits women to shecht] thou shalt not
allow women to shecht - Rema ein manichin... [Note Levush phrases it
differently also Note Rema quotea Agur and Shach defends Agur against
the BY's attack]


The question on Rema is why not allow women to slaughter? In the Yeshiva
urban legend was lest women faint. And guess what the Levush actually
states this verbatim!
"..
Nireh lee mishum ..they faint at the sight of blood!".


If Levush is correct, then we have the following as a g'zeira [perhaps
in conjunction with minhag - similar to qitniyyos in which the terms
are used interhangeably]

My formulation
Ein manichin isha lishchot - g'zeira shema tisaleif.

Back to the first case

Ein manichin shochtim lishchot - blee kabbalah, shema lo yishchatu o
yiv'd'ku yafeh [or kedas]

Hint on parameters:
Since these 2 g'zeiros [like qitniyos] is ashkenazi-centric it may help
define what I'm driving at as a "more robust defintion of Post-talmudic
g'zeiros."


Tangent
In g'mara it would be termed something "R X gozeir v'R Y eino gozeir EG
Think of hour 5 erev pesach
R Yehudah gozeir mishoom yom ham'unana, v'R. Meir eino gozeir.

Nimshal
Agur-Rema-L'vush-Shach gozrin on nashim lest they faint
And BY eino gozeir.

[email #2. -mi]

Remember the Hypothetical - Could RMF uveis dino issue a ban prohibitting
cigarette smoking.?..

A colleague who chooses to remain anonymous e-mailed me the following:
> A beit din can decide to enact a ban on anything it thinks needs
> to be banned, and the ban is only enforceable in the community which
> recognizes the beit din as its authority for such matters, and only to
> the extent that that beit din has the power to enforce its rulings or
> to the extent to which people follow the ruling anyway in the absence
> of enforcement power

FWIW this is how I see it, too. [I will show BEH how this may be
extended below]

And so does the following Beis Din abide by this:

> Rabbi Norman Eisenstein... decreed that no Dayan - no judge on a
> conversion court would be accepted if they believed the universe was
> more than 5770 years old.

So within the "community" - such as it is - a Beth Din may indeed issue
a g'zeira or decree.

Now add a hypothetical:

What if every Yeshiva in the USA accepted this ban?

What if every Ashkenazic or Sephardic community abided by this ban
[think qitniyyos or bigamy!]

What if all of klal Yisroel accepted this ban [think of "maariv" going
from reshus to chov]

And so even a local BD may create a national g'zeira
Provided that you accept "Catholic Israel" as a bona fide ratifying body!

[Note: Who is it that decides that all of Israel has voted is a legitimate
issue for another thread]

Alternatively, it might be promoted to a national level by a consensus
of Posqim and Rabbanim who choose to further the cause of this ban.


[Similarly: Who is it that decides that there is a auch concensus of
posqim is another legitimate issue for another thread]

Disclaimer: Note Micha did not request that I drum up more business! ;-)

__________________

Now let's say people quibble and say RMF did not BAN burial on YT sheini,
they may have a point. But l'maaseh - l'mai nafqa minah? RMF's authority
as. a poseiq was probably co-extensive with his authority as an Av Beis
Din issuing a ban. IIRC this point was indeed made to me off-list

I think issuing a ban instead of working it into a shu"t is simply 
A more straightforward approach, and not subect to quibbling.


[And in interest of full disclosure, I actually have questioned this
online as to why RMF paskened this when a g'zeira would have been more
straightforward!]

"Aha! Rabbi Wolpoe - doesn't this prove that RMF didn't think he had
the authority to issue such a ban! And this is a kasha on your entire
g'zeira thesis!"

Maybe so. Or maybe RMF was merely couching g'zeiros in the language
of p'saq! And this has led people to THINK that rabbis may not issue
g'zeiros - but in fact they could all along!

I request anyone to find a definitive source stating that a Beth Din is
NOT allowed to issue a g'zeira! And then, of course, I will show you that
this source is ITSELF issuing [or at least perpetuating] a g'zeira! ;-)

[Email #3. -mi]

Notice the use of Decree in the following context:
> Rabbi Norman Eisenstein... decreed that no Dayan - no judge on a
> conversion court would be accepted if they believed the universe was
> more than 5770 years old.

If this was originally in ivrit then it would have used "g'zeira" and
then we have another case of a modern g'zeira

[Email #4. -mi]

Daas Torah - Issues of Jewish Identity:
The Syrian ban on Converts
http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/05/syrian-ban-on-converts.html

    Notice decree and ban used below:

    We, the undersigned rabbis, constituting the Religious Court, together
    with the Executive Committee of the Magen David Congregation and
    the outstanding laymen of the community, do hereby decree, with
    the authority of our Holy Torah, that no male or female member of
    our community has the right to intermarry with non. Jews; this law
    covers conversions, which we consider to be fictitious and valueless.

    We further decree that no future rabbinic court of the community
    should have the right or authority to convert male Or female non-Jews
    who seek to marry into our community. We have followed the example
    of the community in Argentina, which maintains a rabbinic ban on
    any of the marital arrangements enumerated above, an edict which
    has received the wholehearted and unqualified endorsement of the
    Chief Rabbinate in Israel. This responsa is discussed in detail in
    Devar Sha 'ul, Yoreh Deah, Part II to Part VI. In the event that
    any member of our community should ignore our ruling and marry,
    their issue will have to suffer the consequences. Announcements to
    this effect will be made advising the community not to allow any
    marriage with children of such converts. We are confident that the
    Jewish People are a holy people and they will adhere to the decision
    of their rabbis and will not conceive of doing otherwise.

    Chief Rabbi Haim Tawil, Rabbi Jacob Kassin, Rabbi Murad Masalton,
    Rabbi Moshe Gindi, Rabbi Moshe Dweck Kassab

[email #5 -mi]

ROY
"ain l'chadesh gezerot achar chatimat
hatalmud ... "

Most ironic because
This itself is a brand new g'zeira!

Here is qn offlist observation by a rabbi who specialises in Gaonica

Q: Can G'zeirot be made post-talmud?

A:
> Local Takkanot and Gezeirot yes. Not binding on all of Israel. See
> Rambam's intro to Mishneh Torah.

I send several links off list re: G'zeiros being made NOW.

Now if Rn Chana means to quailify what ROY means to conform with the
Rambam and Rema in Choshen Mishapt, then by all means she can and then
ROY would NOT be making a new g'zeira at all. But as stated, 'tis indeed
itself a g'zeira


[email #6 -mi]


Re: Microphones on Shabbos - a Clarification

[NB: Sources provided below]

The issur against using a microphone on shabbos was indeed a p'saq -
perhaps extenuating an existing g'zeira of shema Y'taqein klei shir -
but mostly a P'saq

The g'zeira comes AFTER this p'saq!

VIZ. That anyone who relies upon a Meikil P'saq instead of this p'saq
is now deemed a m'chaleil shhabbos! THAT is the g'zeira aspect.

Illustration:
A chaveir of mine once opined:

"Any one who carries on shabbos relying upon the Manhattan Eruv is
passul l'edus!"

This is g'zeira
Why?

Here is how it works
P'saq1: one may not carry in a city w/o an eruv.
P'saq2: one who does carry w/o an eruv is passul l'edus
P'saq3: the manhattan eruv fails to meet a certain defintion of Kosher Eruv

Here the g'zeira starts:
Therefore: anyone relying upon this "mieklidicke" version of that eruv
is guilty of violating 1+2 above.
Similarly anyone relying upon the "meikeldicke" p'saq on microphone is
m'challel shabbos - THAT's g'zeira - LFAD.

GS
RRW

PS
Some sources courtesy of chaveir RDE

> I have a category in Yad Moshe called  Shabbos:Microphone

try OC 4:91.6 p 174
YD 4 64.2 page 315
YD 2:4 page 5
YD 2:5 page 6»

NB: I began reviewing these shu"t after first seeing 2 over 33 years ago.

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile