[Avodah] heter mechira produce

[Chana Luntz]

RRW writes:

> I would posit the hypothesis that an essential d'orraiso that 
> has been reduced to Derabbana status is stronger than a 
> simple  "pure" Derabbanan.

While there are clearly some d'rabbanans that fall into the category of
stronger d'rabbanans, because it is understood that when the rabbis
enacted the d'rabbanan, they enacted it like a d'orisa prohibition (see
for example my discussion of the view that this is what occurred in
respect of trumos and ma'aaros at
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol16/v16n133.shtml#07 - under the subject
heading "Tevel", and the thread there) I find it difficult (although not
impossible) to believe that this is what most people hold regarding
shmitta.  This is because one of the primary reasons to understand
shmitta today as being d'rabbanan is because of Abaye's statement to
that effect on Gitten 36b.  There, the gemora is discussing how Hillel
could ever have enacted the prozbul, and one reason advanced by Abaye as
to how come Hillel could have enacted the prozbul is because he held
like Rebbe (against the Rabbanan) that shmitta b'zman of Hillel is
d'rabbanan.  However, as this is being used as a justification for a
specific leniency (prozbul) which by implication Hillel would never have
enacted had shmitta not been d'rabbanan, it would seem logical that the
kind of d'rabbanan that shmitta was deemed to be was not one which had
all the chumros of a d'orisa, otherwise the question just reverts.  [Of
course, the gemora does also give annother answer as to how Hillel was
able to enact prozbul, by means of hefker beis din hefker, but it is not
clear that these are indeed alternatives, because either way, you need
the hefker beis din hefker response to counter the question as to how
the rabbis could deem loans nullified if the Torah itself did not]


Regards

Chana