[Avodah] r. ovadia; bullfighting; eiva, etc....

[Zev Sero]

harveybenton at yahoo.com wrote:

> HB:  why would chazal waive a rabbinical prohibition
> (muktzeh) to alleviate the pain of an animal, while at the same time we are
> told that we can save an a”y on shabbas only because of “eiva” (enmity)?*

Because that's d'oraisa.

> Can we apply the following kal vechomer: if to prevent an
> animal from suffering that is not mechuyav on any mitzvos then for sure we
> should be able to save a life of a ben adam, who is chayav 7 mitzovs and who
> was/is created in Hashem’s image, by violating the shabbas?? [either 
> midoraisa (a"y), or midirabonnon (muktzeh - animal) or  both...]

That's a chomer vakal!   You can use this to justify drabanans, maybe,
but how can it justify de'oraisas?  For that we need the eiva argument.

But in fact even for derabanans your kal vachomer doesn't work.  Tzaar
baalei chayim is an explicit de'oraisa ("lo sir'eh"), so it makes sense
that it overrides issurim derabbanan.  But where do you see an explicit
de'oraisa for tzaar nochri?


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
zev at sero.name                 eventually run out of other people’s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher