[Avodah] Kashrus and Shabbas

[Chana Luntz]

RRW wrote:

> Rn Chana
> 
> <and since a safek d'orisa is a d'rabbanan, >
> 
> This itself is a machlokes rishonim...

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.  And this principle
then forms one of the cornerstones of his view on how to pasken (he has in
various places, inter alia at the end of Yachave Daat, discussions on the
fundamental principles of psak - it is interesting BTW to compare and
contrast these with Klalei Hora'ah of R' Berkovits to be found at
http://www.thejerusalemkollel.com/online_classes.php).

> <It is in true Rav
> Ovadiah style.>
> 
> 
> <He does note that various modern poskim (Tzitz
> Eliezer, Rav Moshe) disagree with him regarding cooking on a shabbas
> platter, but he feels they are creating new gezeras, and that we cannot
> do
> this.>
> 
> I wonder how many times ROY says that
> "they are creating new gezeras, and that we cannot do
> this."?

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.

> It seems common if not ubiquitous!
> 
> First of all who says applying an existing g'zeira to a new situation
> is ipso facto a "new" g'zeira? It seems even ROY understands shema
> yachta to extend to electric controls!

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).  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. In the
case of the Tzitz Eliezer, there may well also be a disagreement between him
and ROY as to any applicability of the halacha regarding magis and its
general applicability to bishul (the portion quoted suggests that the Tzitz
Eliezer is relying primarly on a Ramban that ROY does not believe is the
etzem halacha - magis of course originally arising vis a vis tzovea).  But
part of ROY's argument is that we do not worry about shema magis when we do
shehiya on something that is grufa and katuma even if it is not fully cooked
and so a Shabbat platter should be similar and so any extension of any
concern regarding magis to a shabbas platter is creating a new gezera.   

> Second of all, who says g'zeiros cannot be introduced?  Afaik 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?  I agree if we were talking about a legitimately
reconstituted Sanhedrin, but as far as I was aware absent a Sanhedrin nobody
had the power or authority to add to gezeros today (takanos are different
and so are chumros.  An individual is permitted to take on a chumra if
he/she wishes, although there are times when this is not recommended.  And a
community is entitled to make takanos for the welfare of that community if
the correct procedures are followed.  And sometimes what starts off as a
chumra may, if practiced widely enough, become a minhag, which then becomes
more generally binding).

> [EG See AhS YD siman 90 re: k'chal]

Please can you be more specific.  We are not talking here about the Rishonim
explaining a gemora to say that there is a gezera, as that is merely an
explanation of a gemora which then roots the gezera in the times of the
gemora or earlier.

> KT
> RRW

Regards

Chana