X hits on this document

Word document






57 / 157

(p) As discussed above, Addendum, Part 2, it is unlikely that Rabbeinu Jonah agrees with Maharshal’s position on ziyyuf haTorah.

Part 4: Examples of Prohibitions Based on Public Policy Considerations.

As discussed above, text at note 226, rabbinic authorities are empowered to forbid otherwise permitted actions or innovations because of public policy considerations. Such prohibitions commonly appear in the halakhic literature under the general rubric of le-mi-gdar milta (protective ordinances). Several leading references are cited in note 226. The following is a list of examples culled from the Talmud, codes and responsa literature.

(a) Brief citations from Talmud and codes: Hullin 15a (where Rav was publicly stringent regarding food cooked on Shabbat but lenient for his students); Shabbat 139a (where the rabbis refused to reveal grounds for leniency in spreading a bed canopy—see R. Hananel ad loc.); Shabbat 153b (where the rabbis were publicly stringent regarding carrying in a public domain in segments of less than 4 cubits); Bava Kama 30b (where the court, if consulted, counsels against taking possession of a forfeit object on the grounds of theft—see Addendum, Part 3j); and Avoda Zara 59a (where R. Yohanan forbade the unlearned to eat lupines [turmisin] cooked by non-Jews). Similarly, Rama, O.H. sec. 317, no. 3, forbids opening a non-permanent stitch in front of the unlearned. See also Rama, Y.D. sec. 160, no. 16; Shakh, ad loc., no. 22; Resp. Rashba, I, sec. 98.

(b) In a lengthy letter to his relative, Rabbeinu Jonah of Gerondi, Nahmanides (Teshuvot ha-meYuhasot leRamban, no. 184) argues in favor of the permissibility of concubines. Nevertheless, he concludes his responsum by admonishing Rabbeinu Jonah not to permit the practice for fear that the laws of Nidda would not be observed and promiscuity would be encouraged. Cf. R. Jacob Emden, She’eilat Ya’aveits, II, sec. 15, and Getsel Ellinson, Non-Halachic Marriage (Tel-Aviv: The Dvir Co. Ltd., 1975), pp. 72-79, who questions the authenticity of this concluding reservation.

(c) R. Yair Bachrach, Resp. Havvot Ya’ir, no. 222, ruled against the recitation of kaddish by a daughter, lest it weaken the customs of Israel. See also text and notes 280-283, supra.

(d) In a letter appearing in the introduction to Yalkut Yosef, VII, R. Ovadiah Yosef suggests that although a mourner is permitted to dance at his own wedding, R. Jacob Ettlinger, Binyan Tsiyyon, sec. 139, forbade dancing, lest mixed dancing would result. A similar understanding is suggested by R. Gavriel Zinner, Nitei Gavriel—Hilkhot Aveilut: Dinei uMinhagei Hishtatfut beSimha, page 29, note 21. See discussion, Addendum, Part 6.

(e) R. Yehezkel Abramsky, HaPardes 30:1 (5716), pp. 1-4, reprinted in the introduction

Document info
Document views613
Page views614
Page last viewedTue Jan 24 23:34:18 UTC 2017