[Avodah] Kashrus and Shabbas

[Chana Luntz]

RRW writes:

> <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 this is ROY (in lots of places).  Here is one example where it seems to
be nicely grouped together in a slightly easier way, it is from Yabiat Omer
Chelek 5 siman 19 oit 7 (it is about half way down).   "In any event, since
the opinion of the Rambam (perek 9 of hilchos  Tumat met) that the chumra of
safekot in issurei torah is only d'rabbanan, and so is the opinion of the
Ra'avid (perek 10 of Hilchot Kelaim halacha 27) and so is the opinion of the
Ramban which is brought in the Ran and in the teshuvot of the Radvaz.  And
according to what is written in the Beit Yosef in teshuvot Even Haezer and
so is the opinion of the Rif in the first perek of kiddushin.   And so is
the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah HaChassid in sefer Chassidim (siman 262) and
which is brought in the Aruch Hashulchan (siman 608 si'if katan 2).  And the
Machzik Bracha writes (siman 589 si'if katan 6) in the name of the Achronim
that this we teach in accordance with the Rambam that safek d'orita l'chumra
drabaanan ... And so is written explicitly in the Pri Chadash Yoreh Deah
(siman 55 si'ifkatan 16) ... And so writes the Aruch Hashulchan in Yoreh
Deah siman 62 si'if katan 6... And see in the teshuvot Chakrei Lev chelek 1
of Yoreh Deah siman 118 ...

If you go to some of the other places, you can find  other lists of
achronim, where ROY shows that various positions that they have taken
demonstrate that they must hold safek d'orisa l'chumra is a derabbanan (the
issue at hand in the teshuva in question had to do with issues of kelayim by
way of a benei noach, so these were the kinds of places he takes you in the
achronim in this particular teshuva).

The irony of your response is that the usual criticism of ROY is that he is
*not* innovative, only encyclopaedic.  This is a classic example of why I
(personally) don't agree with the "usual criticism", but I do agree that
unless you have a completely encylopaedic knowledge of the rishonim and
achronim it would be much harder to have teased this out as a basic
principle and be able to demonstrate the extent to which it is actually a
guiding principle that underlies a whole host of responsa, even where it may
not have been explicitly articulated.

> 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?

I think RMB has been addressing this much more fully, but I would note that
this statement by ROY does not come as a surprise to a lot of people on the
list. To my mind it is a bit ho hum really, and it is you that are odd for
questioning it.  Not that you are not entitled to question, but I think most
people knew of this as a principle, and are not the least bit surprised to
see it.  I think if ROY had really felt that it was something that needed
defending he would have given his usual ten pages on it, and I am absolutely
sure he could find enough material to support that.  But I would not have
expected him to have gone to those lengths because I did not expect anybody
to question it, and clearly, neither did he.

And I agree with RMB that most of your examples seem to be confusions
between minhag, takana, psak and gezera, with the first three something in
operation today and the last one something that is not.  And since I gather
from RMB that precisely the same set of arguments took place right at the
beginning of Avodah, there doesn't seem a lot of point in rehashing it.  

> KT
> RRW

Regards

Chana