[Avodah] Kashrus and Shabbas

[rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com]

Rn Chana
> Yes. But Rav Ovadiah in many earlier teshuvos spends a lot of time
> arguing (or demonstrating, depending on whether you accept his view
> or not) that this is the correct position halacha l'ma'ase, ie that we
> posken like those rishonim who hold that safek d'orisa is a d'rabbanan.

If ROY himself is the source for this decision then 
I would call this a form of bootstrapping! If it has already been
established so, I'm curious to know the precedent because if it is indeed
a Pre-existing "kayma lan" then I'm unaware of it. AFAIK EG the Shach
on s'feiqos does not make a call one way or the other

> Well of course he doesn't just say that we cannot do this, in true ROY style
> he quotes a Yerushalmi (perek 2 b'Shvi'it halacha 4) that says we can't do
> this.

I will try to see Yerushalmi BEH

But if so that this is a ruling from Y-lmi then all the subsequent
g'zeiros in Bavel - both by Bavli and G'onim licho'ra would also be
transgressing this!

But first, what poseiq - previous to ROY - cites this Y-lmi as an active
precedent and I wonder how ROY inderstands the Rambam's haqdama?

Or the Y'rushalmi in Shabbos that as per R Yochanan and Reish Lakish
each av m'lachah has 39 tolados! Which shows beyond a doubt that the
talmudim are NOT exhaustive documents! Aderabba they are. Blueprints
for TSBP not the structure itself!


How about Bet Yosef re: fish and milk? Which Darchei Moshe and taz term
a ta'us sofer but is minhag Sefard anyway?

> Clearly ROY also holds that applying an existing gezera to a new situation
> is not a new gezera (and your example of shema yachta extending to electric
> controls is apt).

But he objects to applying "shema y'taqien" as a g'zeria by bicycles as
a "new g'zeira" when clearly it seems to be merely extending exisiting
g'zeiros EG shema YKtaqein klei shir!

IOW it's OK for ROY to say - misvara I don't extend it, but others might -
IOW a judgment call. But to say that when posqim using ko'ach hadimyon
they are devising brand new g'zeiros seems a reach for me!


>> Any S'yag
>> can be added on - especially if somewhere down the chain a d'oraisso is
>> protected EG: as in Bishul or Hav'ara on shabbos.

> On what do you basis this? 

Avos 1:1!
Also See Rambam's haqdama

Also see Rambam Hametz uMatza re: 3 g'zeiros of g'onim EG 5:3 nahagu
...leesor gKzeria shema...

The only limitation I know is that other communities can choose to ignore
that g'zeria, but that could have been said about g'zeiros made even by
Ezra - [viz. rov hatzibbur einam 'ycholim laamod bo]

> Please can you be more specific. We are not talking here about the
> Rishonim explaining a gemora to say that there is a gezera,

Rather we are talking about posqim applying talmudic principles "davar
mitoch davar" to a new situation!

I'm sure hazal did not specify g'zeiros about shooting guns or rockets
either, but they sure can be inferred by a poseiq!

Talmudism opposes fundamentalism and I would say it opposes "Luddism",
too.

> You would need to read eg the Tzitz Eliezer to see
> whether you agreed (the cite is chelek 2 siman 6) that what he seemed to be
> doing was imposing a new gezera rather than applying an existing one. 


FWIW I don't have a Tzitz Eliezer 


See RMF-IM re: opposing burial on YT sheini b'yameinu.

RMF tries to infer this from shas, I have taanah'ed he should have
simply been gozeir against it rather than forcing Shas against precedent
in Posqim.

[Micha:]
> but Hil' Mamrim is quite clear that both require a beis
> din hagadol."

No rambam has several w/o BD hagadol
So you are using the term too narrowly!