web analytics
June 30, 2015 / 13 Tammuz, 5775
At a Glance
Judaism
Sponsored Post


Home » Judaism » Parsha »

Stumbling The Blind

Taste-of-Lomdus-logo

One of the many different mitzvos mentioned in this week’s parshah, Parshas Kedoshim, is the prohibition of lifnei iver – placing a stumbling block in front of a blind man. There is a discussion as to what sort of “stumbling blocks” are included in this prohibition.

On that pasuk, Rashi quotes the Toras Kohanim, which says that the pasuk refers to offering someone bad advice, i.e. advising someone to sell his field for a donkey.

There is a machlokes in the Gemara in general whether a pasuk may be entirely taken out of context, or whether we are always bound to the basic text. Here, the dispute would manifest itself as to whether it is actually prohibited to place a stumbling block in a blind man’s path. We pasken that we are bound to the wording of a pasuk; therefore, it is also prohibited to place a stumbling block in a blind man’s path.

The Gemara says that making an aveirah available to someone who otherwise would not be able to sin falls under the prohibition of lifnei iver. For example, it is prohibited to give a nazir – who is prohibited from drinking wine – a glass of wine that he could not otherwise have gotten, for this will create a “stumbling block” for him. A man unable to control himself from transgressing is considered an iver (blind sighted in this case).

The Gemara, in Avodah Zarah 22a, says that someone should not rent his field to a kusi because the kusi will work the field on Chol HaMoed and people will wrongfully accuse the landlord of working on Chol HaMoed. The Gemara asks: why are we only concerned that this will give the landlord a bad name but not concerned that the landlord will be transgressing the prohibition of lifnei iver? After all, the landlord has given the kusi a field that he can work on during Chol HaMoed that was otherwise unavailable to him. The Gemara answers that this is indeed a prohibition of lifnei iver and thus someone should not rent his field to a kusi for this reason.

Tosafos there points out that this Gemara serves as a proof to Rabbeinu Tam, who says that the prohibition of lifnei iver even applies to making rabbinic prohibitions available to others. Why? Because in Tosafos’s opinion, performing work on Chol HaMoed is only prohibited mi’de’rabbanan.

In stark contrast, the Ramban there disagrees with Tosafos on both points. The Ramban proves that working on Chol HaMoed is prohibited mi’de’oraisa from the fact that the Gemara says that someone will transgress the prohibition of lifnei iver by creating a situation whereby one can work on Chol HaMoed. According to the Ramban, lifnei iver only includes making de’oraisa prohibitions, not rabbinic ones, available to others. The Ramban disagrees, positing that working on Chol HaMoed is prohibited mi’de’oraisa. Tosafos, in Chagigah, also opines that the prohibition of lifnei iver only applies to de’oraisa prohibitions.

The Minchas Chinuch (mitzvah 232) asks the obvious question on the Ramban and Tosafos in Chagigah: how can making a rabbinic prohibition available to someone not fall under the prohibition of lifnei iver? Is telling someone to transgress a rabbinic prohibition not considered bad advice? Why then is placing a rabbinic “stumbling block” in the path of someone who will be blind sighted not included in the prohibition of lifnei iver?

I would like to suggest an answer to this question. There is a difference between giving bad advice and placing a form of stumbling block in the path of a “blind man.” When one gives advice to someone who trusts him, the trusted advice is the stumbling block. If his advice is faulty, it is considered a stumbling block in a blind man’s path.

About the Author: For questions or comments, e-mail RabbiRFuchs@gmail.com.


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

One Response to “Stumbling The Blind”

  1. Karen Bryant says:

    Not if the Rabbi is contradicting or ignoring Scripture. God’s word is ultimate authority.

Comments are closed.

Current Top Story
A "rifle-holding" lesson at a Palestinian Authority summer camp.
Palestinian Authority Incites Summer Camp Kids with AK-47 Rifles
Latest Judaism Stories
Staum-062615

Amalek, our ultimate foe, understood that when unified, we are invincible and indestructible.

Torat-Hakehillah-logo-NEW

Perhaps on a deeper level, the mitzvah of parah adumah at this junction was not just to purify the body, but the spirit as well.

Rabbi Avi Weiss

Halacha isn’t random; it’s a mechanism guiding individuals and society to a higher ethical plateau.

Q-A-Klass-logo

Question: Should we wash our hands in the bathroom with soap and water, or by pouring water from a vessel with handles three times, alternating hands? I have heard it said that a vessel is used only in the morning upon awakening. What are the rules pertaining to young children? What is the protocol if no vessel is available? Additionally, may we dry our hands via an electric dryer?

Harry Koenigsberg
(Via E-Mail)

Less clear, however, is whether the concept applies to the area of civil law such as the law of transfer of property.

The greatest of men, Moshe, had to wait for Hashem to sprinkle purifying waters on Bnei Yisrael to mark the conclusion of the period of death.

My Plate, My Food
‘My Loaf Is Forbidden To You’
(Nedarim 34b)

Of Chukkim “Satan and the nations of the world made fun.” They may appear irrational & superstitious

I realized from this story that I was sent as a messenger from above. Hashem has many helpers in this world to help do his work.

Tosafos answers that nevertheless the sprinkling is a part of his taharah process.

“What difference does that make?” replied Shraga. “What counts is the agreement that we made. I said two hundred fifty and you accepted.”

Zaidie’s legacy of smiles and loving words was all but buried with him, now the family fights over $

Israel’s complaining frustrated Moshe, making it increasingly hard for him to lead effectively

Dovid’s musical Torah teachings were designed to penetrate the soul and the emotions.

It occurred to me, as my brain rattled in my skull on a two-hundred mile ride through rural Virginia, that our souls work in much the same way.

More Articles from Rabbi Raphael Fuchs
Taste-of-Lomdus-logo

Tosafos answers that nevertheless the sprinkling is a part of his taharah process.

Taste-of-Lomdus-logo

Performing ketores outside the Beis Hamikdash, and at the wrong time is an aveirah.

Ten of the twelve spies returned with a negative report, stating that this would be impossible.

The flavor of the mon was not artificial; the mon would now consist of the actual flavors from the desired food.

Tosafos suggests several answers as to how a minor can own an item, m’d’Oraisa.

The question is: What about pidyon haben? Can one give the five sela’im required for pidyon haben to a kohen’s daughter?

The mitzvah that parents must give their son a bris milah is a mitzvah that they must perform for someone else – namely their son.

The Bach writes that he mentioned his insights to many of the leading gedolim and no one disproved him.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/judaism/parsha/stumbling-the-blind/2014/04/25/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: