X hits on this document

Word document






141 / 157

225*.Similar comments were independently expressed by R. Aharon Lichtenstein with regards to women’s hakafot; see note 213, supra.

225**. R. Shapiro explained that this was the basis of the halakha of arketa de-misana; see Sanhedrin 74a-b. For a similar understanding of the Sanhedrin text, see R. Abraham Borenstein of Sochaczew, Resp. Avnei Nezer, Likutei She’eilot uTeshuvot, sec. 149; R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, as cited by R. Zvi (Hershel) Schachter, supra, note 61, p. 133. It should be pointed out that R. Shapiro pushes the middle approach quite close to that of the Rav,   Rabbi Ahron Soloveichik and R. Gedalia Schwartz (vide infra, Section E). Yet there is a clear distinction between the two approaches: R. Shapiro allows for a case-by-case determination of the “policy” issues, while the Rav and Rabbi Ahron Soloveichik view these issues on a broad base, as inherently related to the nature and essence of women’s prayer groups. See also note 224, supra.

226.See, inter alia, Encyclopedia Talmudit, IX, Halakha veEin Morin Kein,” p. 339; R. Solomon ben Aderet, Resp. Rashba, I, end of sec. 98; R. Isaac bar Sheshet Perfet, Resp. Rivash, sec. 394, s.v.Od re’itikha”; R. Zvi Hirsch Chajes, Darkei Hora’a, Heilek Sheni, s.v. veKhen ha de-amru.” For a list of examples, see the Addendum section of this paper, Part 4.

226*. R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik cited by R. Zvi (Hershel) Schachter, miPeninei haRav, pp. 181-182. R. Soloveitchik’s view is based on Tosafot, Sanhedrin 31b, s.v. ve-Im amar.

227.We have discussed above the prohibition of bal tosif—adding to the Torah; see supra, text and note 91. Based on bal tosif, Maimonides forbids one to claim that something is biblically forbidden when it is actually rabbinic in origin. In M.T., Hilkhot Mamrim 2:9, he writes: “If the [court] forbids fowl [seethed in milk], claiming that it is included in “goat” and is forbidden biblically, this is an addition. However, if it said that goat flesh is biblically permitted, but we forbid it and we notify the people that it is a [rabbinic] edict . . . this is not an addition. . . .” Ra’avad, ad loc., dissents, arguing that biblical verses are often cited in the Talmud as source-texts for rabbinic prohibitions. See Kesef Mishne and Lehem Mishne. For further discussion, see the Addendum section of this paper, Part 5.

228.See the Addendum section of this paper, Part 6, for a discussion of various aspects of lying. As discussed therein, many leading posekim maintain that it is forbidden to knowingly misrepresent halakha or the rationale behind a given ruling even if the purpose is to prevent possible future violations; others dissent.

Document info
Document views233
Page views234
Page last viewedMon Oct 24 22:49:01 UTC 2016