[Avodah] taker but not giver

[Micha Berger]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 07:23:49PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> > This is simply presuming your conclusion, isn't it?
> 
> No, it's basic halacha, that everyone knows.  Where do you find a heter for
> chilul shabbos, other than pikuach nefesh?  The heter for healing a Yisrael
> is "vachai bahem", or "mutav shetischalel shabbos achas".  Where do you find
> any other heter?

Since in general mishum eivah does not refer to murderous rage, allowing
chilul Shabbos for mishum eivah would itself be the very case.

In other words, your argument boils down to the quite circular: This
isn't chillul Shabbos for the sake of anything but piquach nefesh and
I can prove it because there aren't any such cases of chillul Shabbos
for the sake of anything but piquach nefesh.

(It isn't even clear that piquach nefesh is a matir for chilul Shabbos.
It appears only a chance of further shemiras Shabbos is. The effect is
similar, but only for a subset of potential victims.)

...
> What do you mean, my perception?   Are you seriously asserting that breaking
> shabbos to heal nochrim *was* permitted before 1800?! ...

Are you seriously suggesting achronim in the 19th cent changed halakhah?
Obviously no matter what, we are assuming the metzi'us changed, not
the set of permitted activities.

I would suggest that at a time when people respected both national
identity and ritual more, not being mechalel Shabbos for the sake of an
outsider wouldn't cause eivah. Just as they wouldn't expect their own to
do so for others. (Or, to paraphrase RMMS about translating a particular
paragrpah of the Tanya to English: The only people who would take notice
and get angry about it are people who are already antisemitic.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Every second is a totally new world,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   and no moment is like any other.
Author: Widen Your Tent              - Rabbi Chaim Vital
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF