Coffee, it’s true that chazal only suspended mitzvos in circumstances which weren’t constant, such as YT that falls on shabbos, but not fully, because tefilin are a mitzvah that medoraysoh is fulfilled at night, and chazal forbade it, because you might fall asleep, etc…chazal also, in the times of amoraim, forbade yibum because of abba shaul. There are other times when chazal suspended mitzvos too, as you said, yesh koach etc…
Also, with muktzeh, i think you’re mixing up cause and effect. An esrog in only muktzeh on shabbos because chazal said there’s no mitzvah; they didn’t cancel the mitzvah because it’s muktzeh.
In the beis hamikdash they didn’t have shvusim…i think i remember seeing meforshim say that the cohanim are nizharim and won’t come to violating issur shabbos. But don’t quote me on that. Either way, I don’t see what that has to do with the discussion.
Am i correct that you’re saying that according to my logic, no one should live in EY because some might sin, and you’re saying that we see that chazal only forbade mitzvos partially, allowing others to do them? If so, there’s a misunderstanding. I never said that no one should live in EY – no gedolim to my knowledge ever said that literally no one belongs there. There was always a torah community in some form in EY, as there should be. It’s an incredible mayloh in one’s torah and avodas Hashem if they can live there, but it’s also a lot worse to be a sinner there, too.
Not supporting the state doesn’t mean no one should live there – but supporting it in many ways does. At least it means that you’re supporting the frei who currently live there to continue living under a government which does not require shmiras hamitzvos. To those who say that the state is a good thing, because it facilitates mitzvos, my answer is that since it facilitates and encourages aveiros, that outweighs any good that it might do, since chazal viewed the loss of an aveirah as more devastating to the klal than neglecting a positive mitzvah.
However it should also be said that mitzvos in general weigh a lot more than aveiros, and this, says the tomer devorah, is the reason why Hashem doesn’t cancel out mitzvos and aveiros and just give us olan haba without gehinnom. The ramak says that it would be a horrific loss for us, because the schar for one mitzvah is far, far more than the punishment for an aveirah.
But that’s on an individual level. On a societal level, we see that chazal did everything in their power, even being mevatel mitzvos, to prevent jews from sinning. How much more so should we not support an institution which encourages and facilitates those and worse sins.
As for kiruv, we’re doing our hishtadlus according to halacha. We can’t force people to become frum, and if they end up sinning after we invite them for shabbos, it’s not on our cheshbon – but the halacha is that you must make accomodations for them available, because otherwise the poskim say that it is takeh lifnei iver.