[Avodah] Seeing G'zeiros Everywhere

[rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com]

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