[Avodah] Kashrus and Shabbas

[Chana Luntz]

RIB writes:

If you go to a Sefardi house where they,
> for example, rely on Ain Bishul after Bishul even on a Davar Lach,

This BTW, is something a misstatement of the situation.  The majority
Sephardi position is yesh bishul achar bishul on a dvar lach.  In fact, the
Ashkenazi position (of doing chazara when soup is still warm) is based on
the position of ain bishul achar bishul on a dvar lach as the ikar hadin
(leaving concerns of machshei kmevashel etc remaining), meaning that
actually the Sephardi position is more machmir regarding bishul achar bishul
on a dvar lach.  There are some Sephardim (Yeminites, I believe, and some
Moroccans) who hold ain bishul achar bishul even on a dvar lach, but also
apply the more lenient Sephardi positions regarding chazara, which may be
what you are referring to.  The other factor is that even more mainstream
Sephardim (if I can put it that way) have a  more lenient position (or
different position) as to what is a dvar yavesh, holding that if the
majority is yavesh, then the fact that it comes with gravy does not make it
a dvar lach, whereas the Ashkenazi position is not so. 

 and
> you are presented with something warmed and lach, that you are
> permitted to eat it, as I recall.
> 
> The other consideration is the method of Psak. R' Chaim and his student
> R' Chaim Volozhiner did not encourage the use of Tziruf in heteirim.
> The Briskers, adopting perhaps the more rationalist mode of Psak, said
> that the Posek has to be convinced that something is muttar (or assur),
> They can't take two doubts/heterim and combine them. Someone once said
> that this is why Brisker Poskim were less prevalent. On the other hand,
> this was in my opinion also one of the hall marks of R' Moshe (and R'
> Shlomo Zalman) who were able to Pasken often from first principles and
> deal with any questions on their Psak, more in the mode of the Brisker
> shita perhaps.
> 
> I wonder whether some of the triangle K issues relate to this issue
> because in times gone by they used tzirufim (and there is nothing wrong
> with that in my opinion)

Glad to hear it, given that, since we are on the subject of Sephardim, if
you read Rav Ovadiah Yosef's discussions about how to arrive at psak (he has
got some chapters on it, I think at the end of Yachave Daat), he holds that
the essential way to pasken is to utilise tziruf - or as he would put it, to
look at the sfekos that arise in both in halacha and metzius  by considering
different views and possibilities in order to permit.  He is actually
somewhat critical in fact (not by name of course, but by genre) of people
who go back to first principles and in doing so ignore the history of psak
in the area.  That is what underlies his philosophy about being
encyclopaedic (and why he believes you need to be encyclopaedic).  To do
otherwise is to negate Jewish halachic history and discount (and perhaps
even disrespect) the views of important gadolim over the ages.  

He holds that perhaps one of the most important principles in psak is safek
d'orisa l'chumra, safek d'rabbanan l'kula.  And while safek d'orisa
l'chumra, what results is an issur d'rabbanan, meaning that a safek sfeka is
mutar l'chatchila.  To say that something that is a safek d'rabbanan is
metame es halev (as has been suggested here) I suspect would be considered
as of necessity undermining the whole principle of safek d'rabbanan l'kula
(given that safek d'rabbanan l'kula is also a rabbinic principle) and hence
I don't imagine he would have much truck with it.

Regards

Chana