to Resp. Tsits Eliezer, IV, and again in his Sefer Hazon Yehezkel, III, Responsa, sec. 5, in a letter to the then President of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada (Agudath HaRabbonim), R. Israel haLevi Rosenberg, demonstrates that gelatin is permitted. He nevertheless maintains that it should be publicly prohibited since its non-kosher origins will confuse the unlearned and strengthen the hand of those who erroneously claim that the Rabbis rule according to their whim. See also note 272*.
(f) Late Chief Rabbi Isaac haLevi Herzog, Resp. Heikhal Yitshak, O.H. sec. 4, rpt. in Pesakim uKhtavim I, She’eilot uTshuvot beDinei O.H., sec. 14, urged the South African community not to change its Hebrew pronunciation—despite solid halakhic grounds to do so—for fear of playing into the hands of Reform Jewry.
(g) The late Chief Rabbi of Rehovot, R. Elimelekh Bar-Shaul, indicates that a Torah reading with berakhot is halakhically permissible on Yom haAtsma’ut. He nevertheless opposes it lest some view the new holiday as a bona fide Yom Tov and not put on tefillin. See R. Elimelekh Bar-Sha’ul, in Hilkhot Yom haAtsma’ut veYom Yerushalayyim, Nahum Rakover, ed. (Jerusalem: Misrad haDatot, 5733), p. 310.
(h) Taz, O.H. sec. 585, no. 5, Y.D. sec. 117, no. 1, and H.M. sec. 2 (at end) maintains that one cannot forbid that which the Torah has explicitly permitted. See also R. David Cohen, Gevul Ya’aveits (Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Publications Ltd., 1986), “Kuntres Heter Me-furash baKatuv,” pp. 70-111. Nevertheless, R. Aron Maged, Sefer Beit Aharon, VIII, s.v. “Ein le-ha-hakhamim la-asor davar ha-me-furash baTorah,” sec. 27, pp. 158-160, cites many sources demonstrating that even where the Torah explicitly permits an action, the rabbis can forbid it le-mi-gdar milta ve-tsorekh ha-sha’a.
(i) According to R. Israel Yacov Fisher, in comment 10 of his approbation to Titen Emet leYa’akov, the incident of Keritut 8a (see Addendum, Part 3l) suggests that in extreme situations, one may rule leniently against accepted halakha for the purpose of preventing future violations (le-mi-gdar milta le-heteira). This also seems to be the view of several commentators regarding the incident of R. Hanina and the two young Babylonian scholars (Berakhot 63a; see Addendum, Part 3d). See R. Menahem Azariah De Fano, Resp. Rama miFano, end of sec. 108, s.v. “ve-anahnu”; R. Samuel Eliezer Edels, Hidushei haMaharsha Berakhot 63a; R. Hayyim Palagi, Hafeits Hayyim, sec. 19, no. 22; R. Hayyim ben Atar, Heifets Hashem, Berakhot 63a; and R. Jonathan Shteiff, Hadashim Gam Yeshanim, Berakhot 63a, second interpretation. Rosh, cited in Shita Mekubetset to Bava Batra 166b, seems to differ. In order to prevent mass desecration of the Sabbath, R. Isaac Leibis, Resp. Beit Avi, I,