[Avodah] Seeing G'zeiros Everywhere

[rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com]

Earlier discussions on this same topic

[I don't mean to burst anyone's balloon - especially on shabbos]

Mail-Jewish Volume 26 Number 71 
http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v26/mj_v26i71.html


«From: <millerr at ...> (Reuven Miller)
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 16:34:09 +0300 (WET)
Subject: Playing with a Balloon on Shabbat

My daughter asked me a question on Shabbos.
Is it ok for my 7 year old son to play with a inflated balloon or is it
mukza? The ballon is a simple one costing a few aggorot that is inflated
and tied with a knot.

The Shamirat Shabat K'Hilchata doesn't discuss balloon but brings the
halacha from the Badei Hashulchan
that a ball which is inflated and tied
is mukza because of a concern that the ball may deflate on Shabbos and
one may come to inflate it again thereby transgressing 3 prohibitions-
1. Fixing a keli on shabbos and 
2.untying and 
3. retying the knot.

I have two questions:
1.Is a simple balloon included in the gezeira(prohibition) of the Badei
Hashulchan? It seems to me as not as it would be very unusual to untie
the knot on the balloon and reinflate it. It is more usual to simply
discard the ballon.

2. How is it that the Badei Hashulchan can establish a "new" prohibition
that is not mentioned on the Talmud? We learned that we maintain the
enactments of the Rabbis(Chazal) but we ,after the closing of the Talmud,
no longer have the ability to make new enactments.?



Mail-Jewish Volume 26 Number 74 
http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v26/mj_v26i74.html#CWS

«From: Rafi Stern <rafistern at ...>
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 01:26:21 PDT
Subject: Bike Riding on Shabbat

Please could someone give me a convincing argument why riding a bicycle is not permitted on Shabbat. Whilst I am pretty sure that it ought to be forbidden and I accept that it is, I have a hard time explaining why. 
The two reasons which I have been told are as follows.

1. The chain may derail and you may come to repair it. The chances of a chain derailing on a well maintained bike (without gears) are pretty slim. Replacing a derailed chain is also a pretty involved business -
not the kind of thing that you would do with "Hesech HaDaat"
(automatically, without thinking). Maybe using gears (derailleur / hub
?) is an Issur and this may be a reason for forbidding the use of a bicycle altogether?

2. The pneumatic tyres may puncture and you may come to repair them. The
ammount of effort required to repair the puncture is so great that again, the assertion that you may accidentally come to repair it is not
really relevant here.

I am of course assuming that carrying is not the issue.

Mail-Jewish Volume 26 Number 75 
http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v26/mj_v26i75.html#CXH



From: Michael and Abby Pitkowsky <pitab at ...>
Date: Tue,  1 Jul 97 09:13:16 PDT
Subject: Bicycles, Ketuvim

>Please could someone give me a convincing argument why riding a bicycle
>is not permitted on Shabbat. Whilst I am pretty sure that it ought to
>be forbidden and I accept that it is, I have a hard time explaining
>why. The two reasons which I have been told are as follows.

R. Yosef Hayyim from Baghdad permits riding a bicycle on Shabbat for 
anyone when there is an eruv and when there isn't he says when someone is
needed by the public, e.g. to be a shaliah tzibbur, to hear kaddish,
or to read torah, it is permitted even without an eruv (Rav Pealim, vol. 1
Orah Hayyim, no. 25). R. Yosef Hayyim was referring to very basic
bicycles which are still available today. He does not feel that one
should be worried about the possibility of fixing it b/c the chances of
something happening are slim and he only suggests to fill up the tire
with air before shabbat.


R. Eliezer Waldenberg (Tziz Eliezer, vol. 7,
no. 30) disagrees with all of R. Hayyim's points.

R. Ovadiah Yosef (Yahveh Daat, vol. 2 no. 42) says that one should
be stringent and not ride a bicycle although he agrees with many
of R. Hayyim's points as to one it should be permitted. As to the
possibility of fixing (shema yitaken), R. Yosef says that many other
things could be forbidden if it is possible for them to break such as
sitting on chairs yet we don't. forbid something when there is a slight
chance of breakage. In addition R. Yosef says that we should not make
enactments (gezerot) which are not in the Talmud.»

«http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v54/mj_v54i87.html


From: Avinoam Bitton <avib at ...>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 08:00:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Bicycle on Shabbat

> From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller at ...>
> Several people have suggested that the reason not to ride bicycles on
> Shabbos is the chance that one might come to fix it. This is the reason
> behind the prohibition on musical instruiments, but I thought that it is
> NOT used for any other prohibitions.
> If one wants to use this as a reason to personally refrain from some
> activity on Shabbos, that is fine. But are there any other examples of
> where we are *forbidden* to use a device that is currently in fine
> working order?

I have read a of a Rav who discussed the issues of bike riding on Shabbat
at length with Rav Ovadia Yosef, who proceeded to raise and then
refute numerous objections to it.(Similar to his teshuva on Shabbat
swimming).

When asked why then he would not publicly give a heter for Shabbat bike
riding, Rav Yosef was quoted: "If I did they would stone me".

Avinoam Bitton»

*****************
[Avodah] Gezeiros after Sanhedrin 
http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/2009q3/013238.html


Micha:
> 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?

RZS
> 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.

Micha
> 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.


RZS:
> 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.

------------------------
The Real Shliach: 1-800 GEDOLIM
http://therealshliach.blogspot.com/2009/09/1-800-gedolim.html

> CA: Ostensibly that amolike rabbis have more authority than the
> heintike. So if the Talmudic-era rabbis made crazy far-fetched gezeiros,
> that was OK. Because their gezeiros have intrinsic value. The heintike
> rabbis' gezeiros are valuable only as far as they protect the essential
> core of Judaism which was formed--I mean revealed--during an earlier era»

+++++++++++++++
Daf-Yomi: HaRav Elyashiv Shlita on Smoking on Yom Tov
http://dafnotes.blogspot.com/2007/09/harav-elyashiv-shlita-on-smoking-on-yom.html

> Other Acharonim (BIRKEI YOSEF OC 511) write that this reason cannot
> be used as grounds for prohibiting smoking on Yom Tov, because it is
> accepted that the sages today do not enact new Gezeiros. Since this reason
> entails making a Gezeirah (that one may not smoke lest he transgress an
> Isur d'Oraisa), today's sages cannot enact a rabbinical prohibition to
> prohibit smoking on Yom Tov in order to prevent one from transgressing
> Isurei d'Oraisa

A Daf A Day (daf yomi): Wearing rings on Shabbos (Shabbos 57a)
http://adafaday.blogspot.com/2005/06/wearing-rings-on-shabbos-shabbos-57a.html

> Rav Hershel Shachter has explained that there are two different types
> of gezeiros. Some are made with the reason so the point is that once
> the reason no longer applies then the gezeira doesn't either. That was
> the situation here. The chachamim said you can't wear rings because you
> might come to carry them in reshus harabim. If we know that the reason
> doesn't apply anymore then you could wear rings. However, by shofar
> the reason was only stated later. There was a takana made not to blow
> shofar on Shabbos and then years later Rabba explained why the takana was
> made. The gemara wasn't even sure. They knew you couldn't do it but didn't
> know why. Therefore, even though the original reason for not blowing may
> have been because otherwise you might come to carry it, even if you know
> that the reason doesn't apply anymore the gezeira still lasts.

NB: This was my very point several months ago! VIZ. That rabbah's
explanation was merely a post facto rationale and not the ETZEM reason
for the G"zeira at all
Rather the g"zeira was axiomaitcally given by the Mishnah and Rabbah's
reason is an answer to a question, not the definitive rationale.

BH RHS was mechavein! :-)

And therefore the query re: being gozeir on a sukkah is really a
meaningless speculation. Not to mention "ein l'damos g'zeirah!"
__________________
More sources on "edicts"

On the issue of
Location Location Location - see comments section!

Disclaimer the website itself uses "GEZEIROS" as a keyword, IOW I did
not apply that myself...


The Bais Yaakov Edicts -- Are We Next? | Cross-Currents
http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2007/01/11/the-bais-yaakov-edicts-%e2%80%93-are-we-next/

> The Bais Yaakov Edicts are a reference to the topic of the previous posts
> by Shira Schmidt and Jonathan Rosenblum. They were first described in the
> Hebrew Yated on Dec. 8 and 15, and in the English language press in an
> article that appeared in Ha'aretz about a week ago. I cannot bring myself
> to provide the link to the latter, which can always be relied upon to
> distort just enough to put religious commitment in a bad light. Briefly,
> the edicts eliminate some of the educational advancement options from
> within the Bais Yaakov system, pointing to their leading to careerism
> among the women, problems of shalom bayis, and an inadequate supply of
> instructors within the charedi world»
__________________
Nefesh HaChaim: August 2006
http://nefeshchaim.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_archive.html

> However, the Ran understands "lo sasur" as only applying to derashos
> and gezeiros decided by the Sanhedrin in the Beis HaMikdash.

[RRW: Note Professor Agus [and maybe P. Feldblum, too] seemed to have
said that the true end of the era was the hurban. This started "rabbinic
Judaism" and "tutorial authority"

IOW we cannot halachically argue with a bona fide Sanhedrin. Not arguing
with Talmud is. A "convention" which Minhag Ashkenaz trumped when in
conflict. See Ta Shma's quote of Or Zarua -end RRW]

> R' Elchanan explains based on the Rambam in his intorduction to the
> Yad and the Rambam in the beginning of Hilchos Mamrim that there are
> two qualifications for a psak to be included in "lo sasur". The first is
> mefurash in the Rambam in Hichos Mamrim that it has to be a psak coming
> from the Sanhedrin located in the Beis HaMikdash. (Exactly what type of
> psak is a different question all together, and maybe I will discuss it
> later). The second qualification is that if teh majority of the chachamim
> decide a halacha then one is not allowed to go against it. The source for
> this is based on the loshon of the Rambam in his hakdamah to the Yad. R'
> Elchanan then adds that with this we can explain why the amoraim were not
> allowed to argue on the tanaim. (This is the Kesef Mishna's question in
> Hil Mamrim Perek 3). Since the chasimas hamishna was established by rov
> chachamim, it comes out that to argue on the mishna would be a violation
> of lo sasur. The same reasoning would explain why we can no longer argue
> on teh gemara after the chasimas hatalmud.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile