See Shakh, Yoreh De’ah sec. 196, subsec. 20, where he brings that the responsa are fabricated, and these are well-known things. But he never imagined that one should therefore not rule in accordance with him.

So then one also should not rule according to the Shakh on Choshen Mishpat either (which, according to the lecture, is where he wrote this claim that one should not rely on non-practical rulings), because it was not written in response to practical questions? And what about the Talmud, the Rif, Maimonides, the Rosh, the Tur, Sha’arei Dura, and the Shulchan Arukh—what about them? My guess is that if you randomly select a Jewish law from the final Shulchan Arukh as integrated with later authorities (Acharonim), most likely the source underlying it is not a responsa book. And we have also never heard of anyone on earth attributing more authority to the Rashba’s responsa than to his Torat HaBayit. The straightforward reading in Bava Batra 130b is that if the rabbi states a practical halakhic ruling, that is enough, and it does not need to be an actual case that came before him.

And to Rabbi Michi: surely everyone knows that your second name, from the day you were founded until this very day, is “Radar for Locating and Exposing Circular Objects, Ltd.”; if so, it must be understood how you overcame the urge here to point out and discuss circularity—even if the circle can be straightened into a simple line. Perhaps some character refinement is at work here, and who can fathom the mystery.

See Rabbi Eitam Henkin’s article, “Should Responsa or Books of Halakhic Rulings Be Preferred,” on the HaMa’ayan website.

Best regards, Peretzor Fishel Pri-Gan, may he live long