rational frummie, with all due respect, you are misreading the rashi on 4a. Rashis point is not that bal yeiraeh is midrebanan, but that bedikas chametz is. His point is that the Socher (according to the Gra thats who Rashi was concerned for being over on the lav of bal yeraeh) doesnt need to be worried about getting rid of the issur of bal yeraeh because he could simply do that by doing bittul chametz. Tosafos as well does not mean to say that bal yeraeh is only drabbanan. The gemara in pesachim 5b clearly explains that both bal yeraeh and bal yimatzei are assur min hatorah (and the rembam counts them as two seperate issurim). But to say that anyone at all, from a newborn baby to moshe rabbeinu, would suggest that bal yeraeh is an issur drabbanan, is not true and has no basis in any source.
Menu