Questions about Tractate Shabbat

I even wrote a book about this episode (which was ultimately not published). 1. A collection of works on the Rambam makes this difficult, and cites the Pani (I think B.K. 35) who claims that the shalal is a Torah prohibition, but that it is not punished (stoning and sin). Of course, the other systems have a problem. Although there is room for the claim that the shalal is a more severe prohibition than regular rabbinic prohibitions, it is still a decree for decrees. Although they also disagreed on this (as I think the Rambam and Torah scholars do) whether there are no decrees for regular rabbinic prohibitions or only for decrees. 2. I didn’t understand the question. What does it matter what interests him and what doesn’t. The Gemara discusses what is permissible and what is forbidden. And if someone is not interested in pork, is he allowed to eat pork? And if there is someone who hosts it, then perhaps he really is forbidden to save it. What’s the problem?! Although there is a kind of reasoning in Toss Shabbat 3:1 (regarding the lowering of the loaf of bread), that we do not decree something that a person will certainly not hear (not to lower the loaf of bread, and then the person who stuck it in the oven will be liable to death). This (together with question 1) raises in me the suspicion that perhaps all of this is actually declaratory law and there is no real expectation that it will be upheld. At most, a person will be extinguished by the change. Furthermore, there is room for another question: After all, according to many opinions, it is possible to violate the prohibitions of the rabbis in the place of great loss. If so, the prohibition to extinguish and the decree not to save lest it be extinguished are prohibitions of the rabbis. So why is it impossible to violate this prohibition itself in the place of great loss? But this is of course a tricky question, since this itself is prohibited here, and therefore here it is clear that it is not rejected in the face of losses. 3. I remember that the commentators also make this difficult. But it is not similar. In the R.A., the explanation is that when a person is stressed, it will lead him to commit prohibitions, and therefore they allow him a minor prohibition so that he does not violate a severe prohibition. With us, the situation is different. The fear is that if we allow him to save, then in the midst of the activity, he will come to turn off the light out of a panic that he will not notice the Sabbath (not that he will intentionally violate it because of the desire to save the house per se). In addition, turning off the light is a public action that everyone sees, and a person will not commit an offense in front of everyone. For example, shaking a wallet. 4. In Gemara 17a, this is specifically asked, and Amoraim disagree on this. Although, according to the law, the definition of an invader here is different from its definition in the Eruvin. 5. The people worked for him and they receive wages for their work. And doesn’t a plumber who saves you from trouble take money? Their piety is such that they don’t take the food itself because they didn’t give it up wholeheartedly. Furthermore, these are not righteous people, but people who obey the law. Magzals do not want to enjoy themselves, but want to be paid for their work. But beyond all that, the Gemara discusses a question of principle and states that they have the right to receive money for their work and that this is not Shabbat pay. If they decide to give up, they will be blessed. The discussion here is of principle, what their rights are. It has nothing to do with the question of what it is recommended that they do in practice.