Look, honorable Rabbi. One of the people signed on it is considered among the greatest halakhic decisors of the generation…
Besides, this is how many rabbis in certain circles spread their views.
Primitive? Undignified? Maybe.
But insofar as this is their way, I pay less attention to the form and more to the content.
And in terms of content, the question stands.
Who is right — the slaughterer with the Shulchan Arukh in hand?
Or the elderly decisor who either already forgot an explicit section [or more] in the Shulchan Arukh? Or does he have a new Torah that is somehow supposed, at some point, to obligate everyone?
The question is serious even if it’s in a pashkevil.

If your question were serious, then I really think you don’t understand the issue. When people sign a pashkevil, they do not mean to make a halakhic statement. Even though if you ask them, they’ll answer that of course this is a serious matter and that this is indeed the Jewish law. Maybe they’ll explain that the leading rabbis of the generation can enact a new decree when necessary, and so on. Pashkevils are not to be examined with halakhic tools, even if they are phrased in halakhic language. This is propaganda and preaching, that’s all.
Nobody forgot any section in the Shulchan Arukh. They simply want to say that in their opinion it is forbidden to own such a phone, and this is the way they say it.

The Rema wrote (Yoreh De’ah 1:1): “Therefore the custom is that no person slaughters until he has received authorization from a sage, and the sage does not give him authorization until he knows that he knows the laws of slaughtering and is skilled by hand.”

And the Arukh HaShulchan wrote (section 23): “And when the sage comes to give authorization, ‘The beginning of wisdom is fear of the Lord,’ and especially in our generation, when heresy, frivolity, and doubts regarding the words of our holy sages of blessed memory have increased, and they say, ‘This teaching is pleasing and that one is not pleasing,’ and severe matters become to them like light ones — may God have mercy — it is obvious and beyond obvious that before all else one must inquire about the ways and conduct of the one receiving ‘authorization,’ and afterward examine them on the laws of slaughtering and inspection, whether he knows them היטב according to the words of the Shulchan Arukh and the great later authorities.”

What remains to be discussed is this: perhaps the slaughterer can receive “authorization” from the smartphone? 🙂

With blessings, Sh”tz

Paragraph 2, line 3
… before all else the sage should see to inquiring about the one receiving …

Our rabbi Michi,
you have come to slander the ruling with what is mentioned in the confession of Rav Nissim Gaon as the description of a significant sin — “What I permitted, I forbade.”

A not-smart phone is a ‘fool-phone,’ and deserves to be called a ‘fool-o-phone’ 🙂 And a foreign-made phone is a ‘xenophone’ 🙂

With blessings, Samson son of Tzalelphone

It is written about a slaughterer that he must be “greatly God-fearing.”

I saw in a Hasidic booklet that in Belz it was accepted that the definition was: any stringency in town that two people observed, the slaughterer had to be one of them.
And it also said there that the slaughterer who slaughtered for the townspeople of Belz (who were not Hasidim) stood under the supervision of the Rebbe there. Among other things, the rebbetzin, the Rebbe’s wife, was sent every month to make sure the slaughterer’s wife shaved her hair as was the custom.
Failure to shave the hair would lead to an announcement that the slaughterer was disqualified.