beDinei Orah Hayyim, sec 32, argues that in theory, there are grounds to permit accepting a bequest from an apostate towards the construction of a synagogue. Nevertheless, R. Herzog leaves it up to the discretion of the local rabbi to forbid it in practice because of mi-gdar milta, lest the publicity of the receipt of such a donation ease the way to other acts of apostasy.
(l) R. Asher Weiss, maintains that the prohibition against the use musical instruments at weddings in the Old City of Jerusalem, was in fact instituted to prevent mixed dancing (see sec. d above); it had little to do with remembering the destruction of the Temple as suggested by R. Judah Leib Diskin. See: Minhat Asher al Inyanei Erusin ve-Nisuin, Responsa sec. 9 and Kuntress Shevui Matot-Masei 5763 [3rd Year, Kovets 41 (122)], sec. 2.
(m) R. Eliyahu Bakshi-Doron said in 1995 that any permission to enter "permitted areas" of the Har haBayit (Temple Mount) in Jerusalem will be ineffective because people will not differentiate between the permitted and forbidden areas. Nor will people worry about ritual purity. He argued that "the best way to strengthen Jewish sovereignty is to say that the entire Mount is holy. To say that some sections may be entered will weaken the Jewish right to the other, more important forbidden area." R. Eliyahu Bakshi-Doron, "On Defiant Ascenders to the Mountain," Hatzofe, 26 May 1995; cited in Yoel Cohen, “The Political Role of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate in the Temple Mount Question,” Jewish Political Studies Review, Volume 11:1-2 (Spring 1999) at note 54.
(n) See also: Resp. Maharash Mohliver, sec. 6, s.v. “Hen emet”; Nefesh haRav, p. 180.
Part 5: Ruling that Something is Biblically Forbidden, When it is Not, May Violate Bal Tosif (Adding to the Torah).
As mentioned in note 227, based on bal tosif, Maimonides forbids claiming 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, ad loc and Pri Megadim, O.H., Petiha Kollelet, Part I, secs. 34-35. Several poskim suggest that Maimonides’ prohibition applies exclusively to a Jewish court or the Sanhedrin, but not to the individual posek; see: R. Isaac Judah Shmelkish, Resp. Beit Yitshak, O.H., sec. 13. no. 2; R. Moses Schick, cited Meir Hildesheimer, “She’eilot uTeshuvot Maharan Schick,” Tsefunot,