Studying the Law of the Untouchables from the Seventh Day

Peace and blessings!
I had an argument with a number of people and would love to hear your opinion. In Yerushalmi Pa’ah (P”6 Halacha 1), a dispute is presented between R. Y. and R. R. regarding the origin of the term “faqar-seventh” or “pah”. The commentators of Yerushalmi disagreed as to whether the Gm is satisfied with the origin of the property of the faqar or whether Yerushalmi discusses the exemption of the faqar from donations, tithes, and akhmal. The discussion revolves around the side according to which Yerushalmi discusses the origin of the concept of faqar:
For the sake of argument, it appears that if the seventh is a divine act and an act in which God is the doer [God forsakes], then it is not possible to learn from it the concept of a defilement that is the work of man. Even though the mechanism is the same [the object is forsaken], the mere fact that God is capable of a certain thing does not constitute evidence that man can even perform it. And if that is so difficult for the aforementioned Jerusalem Bible, it would be easier to learn from it the concept of a defilement that man acts upon through his actions. How can God be taken as a model? After all, He can do things that man cannot do at all?
We will expand on our words: For the sake of argument, behind most sermons, even those based on interpretations and the like, there is a logical basis leading to the conclusion that this is the sermon that should be taught. This is especially common in midrashic studies where different sages demand different sermons from the same interpretation. From this, we can conclude that each sage had a number of options before him and he chose precisely the option that he said because, in his opinion, according to the explanation, it was appropriate to say so. In other words, behind every sermon there is solid logic, and if I am not mistaken, you have also elaborated on this in several places.
So, as long as there is no logical basis for the parallel between the unbeliever and the seventh, there is no reason to demand this sermon. After all, the Jerusalemite was probably faced with other alternatives. They could have studied this for other departures, in which it is possible to say that the doer is God, the Holy One, or they could have taken the sermon in a completely different direction, not necessarily for studying a different departure, but for studying a different type. And why should they take God, the Holy One, as a model? After all, He can do things that man cannot do at all?
Therefore, from the very fact that the Rabbi did not see this sermon as problematic, we must conclude that, similar to the seventh, even in the case of desertion, God, blessed be He, applies the laws, and man, through his actions, only prepares the ground. Indeed, many Aharonim say that desertion is a law by virtue of the Torah.
In both Sheveit and Faker, the Torah stated that in reality x, God will apply chalot. God does not need man’s consent, but rather stated that in this reality He chooses to apply chalot as He chose to apply at the beginning of Sheveit. That is, the need is not for man’s approval but for a certain reality that God defined in advance “and by chance” in Faker, this reality depends on man, but this is an external and not essential thing.
Many have disagreed with my words, and I would love to hear your opinion.