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

[Zev Sero]

Micha Berger wrote:

> The argument extending lo sachsom shor bedisho to human employees
> presumes that TBC is lo kol shekein about people too.

What extension?  For people we have a separate pasuk.  Had we only had
the pasuk about a shor, would we have extended it to humans?

 

> That said, about the original question...
> When we say "mishum eivah" is docheh Shabbos, is that really derabbanan
> too? RHB's question is based on assumption -- I'm starting by asking if
> someone can verify that assumption.

1. I don't understand your question.  If it were derabanan then it
*couldn't* override a d'oraisa.  Or do you mean that we only need
"mishum eiva" to override de'oraisas, but for derabbanans we don't
need any heter and can do them bepashtus?

2. The heter to be mechalel shabbos to save a nochri is very very
recent.  The Shulchan Aruch, and even SA Harav, which is late 18th
century, know of no such heter.  They say openly that we should tell
them we only break shabbos for those who keep it, and they will accept
that.  Presumably this was true until the early 19th century, which is
when we start to see this heter mishum eiva.

Going back to my second hava-amina in item 1, if this were so, surely
we would see this distinction made in SA and the rishonim and achronim.
They would say that de'oraisas we can't do, but derabbanans we can.
But AFAIK they all forbid chilul shabbos, without distinguishing
between de'oraisa and derabbanan.  Maybe it's because it was so poshut
to them that of course derabbanans were permitted; but that seems a
bit strained.

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