Din & Daf: Conceptual Analysis of Halakha Through Case Study with Dr. Elana Stein Hain
לפני עור לא תתן מכשול – What if a stumbling block is necessary to keep the peace? AZ 14a-15b
In the first perek of Avodah Zarah, we learn about the prohibition to make it possible/easier for a person to transgress. Are there exceptions to this rule? For instance, what if giving someone something that make it easier for them to transgress is necessary for keeping the peace between the two parties? And what if giving something to another person will make it only indirectly possible for them to transgress?
Questions? Comments? Email dinanddaf@gmail.com
Avodah Zarah 14.-15:
Listen here:
Watch here:
Sources:
לפני עור לא תתן מכשול – What if a stumbling block is necessary to keep the peace? AZ 14a-15b
In the first perek of Avodah Zarah, we learn about the prohibition to make it possible/easier for a person to transgress. Are there exceptions to this rule? For instance, what if giving someone something that make it easier for them to transgress is necessary for keeping the peace between the two parties? And what if giving something to another person will make it only indirectly possible for them to transgress?
- עבודה זרה טו.-טו:
רַב הוּנָא זַבֵּין הָהִיא פָּרָה לְגוֹי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא: מַאי טַעְמָא עֲבַד מָר הָכִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵימוֹר לִשְׁחִיטָה זַבְנַהּ.
The Gemara relates: Rav Huna sold a certain cow to a gentile. Rav Ḥisda said to him: What is the reason that the Master acted in that manner? Rav Huna said to him: I can say that he purchased it in order to slaughter it, not to use it for labor.
וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא דְּאָמְרִינַן כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא? דִּתְנַן: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: לֹא יִמְכּוֹר אָדָם פָּרָה הַחוֹרֶשֶׁת בַּשְּׁבִיעִית, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְשׁוֹחְטָהּ.
Rav Huna added: And from where do you say that in a case like this we say that the animal will be slaughtered, and one is not concerned about placing a stumbling block before the blind, despite the fact that the animal could be used to violate a prohibition? As we learned in a mishna (Shevi’it 5:8) that Beit Shammai say: A person may not sell a cow that plows in the Sabbatical Year, as it is prohibited to plow during the Sabbatical Year and the buyer presumably wants it for this purpose. And Beit Hillel permit selling the cow, since the buyer can slaughter it rather than use it for plowing. This shows that according to Beit Hillel, whose opinion is accepted as halakha, one may assume that an animal will be used for a permitted purpose, rather than for a prohibited action.
- משנה שביעית ה:ח-ט
בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, לֹא יִמְכֹּר לוֹ פָרָה חוֹרֶשֶׁת בַּשְּׁבִיעִית. וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לְשָׁחֲטָהּ…
Bet Shammai says: one must not sell him a plowing cow in the seventh year. But Bet Hillel permits, since he may slaughter it…
מַשְׁאֶלֶת אִשָּׁה לַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ הַחֲשׁוּדָה עַל הַשְּׁבִיעִית נָפָה וּכְבָרָה וְרֵחַיִם וְתַנּוּר. אֲבָל לֹא תָבוֹר וְלֹא תִטְחַן עִמָּהּ…
A woman may lend to her neighbor who is suspect of transgressing the laws of the sabbatical year, a sifter, a sieve, a hand-mill, or an oven. But she may not sift or grind with her…
- תוספות גיטין סא. ד”ה משאלת
וקשה לר”ת ותיפוק ליה דהוה שרי משום דאיכא למיתלי בתבואה של היתר כדאשכחן במסכת שביעית בפ”ה (מ”ח) ב”ש אומרים לא ימכור לו פרה החורשת בשביעית וב”ה מתירין מפני שיכול לשוחטה…ואומר ר”ת דהכא בידוע שאין לה אלא פירות שביעית הלכך אי לאו משום דרכי שלום הוה אסור ובמכר דלא שייך דרכי שלום אסור היכא דליכא למיתלי…
And this is challenges from Rabbeinu Tam, as the reason to allow it should have been because perhaps the woman will use it for non-shemita grains, as in mishnah Sheviit 5:8: Beit Shammai says: One should not sell a ploughing cow during Shemita, while Beit Hillel allows it because perhaps the buyer will slaughter it and eat it rather than use it for work…
And Rabbeinu Tam says that here is it known that she only has Shevi’it produce. Therefore, if not for the need to keep the peace, it would have been prohibited to lend the vessels to her. On the other hand, in a sale, there is no concern about keeping the peace, and therefore it would be prohibited unless there’s a possibility that the consumer will slaughter and eat the animal rather than using it for labor.
- ירושלמי שביעית ה:ד
רִבִּי זְעִירָא בָּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא מַתְנִיתָא בִסְתָם הָא בִּמְפוּרָשׁ לֹא. אָמַר לֵיהּ וּסְתָמוֹ לָאו כְּפֵירוּשׁוֹ הוּא אֲנִי אוֹמֵר נָפָה לִסְפּוֹר בָּהּ מָעוֹת. כְּבָרָה לִכְבּוֹר בָּהּ חוֹל. רֵיחַייִם לִטְחוֹן בָּהּ סַמְמָנִים. תַּנּוּר לִטְמוֹן בָּהּ אוּנִּין שֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן.
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Zeїra asked before Rebbi Mana: Does our Mishnah deal with the implicit case, rather than the explicit? He said to him, is the implicit case not explicit? I can say a coarse sieve to count coins, a sieve to sift sand, grindstones to grind spices, a stove to put in flax bundles.
- חידושי הריטב”א שם ד”ה משאלת
And there is an opinion that in this case too it is possible to depend on (the woman not using the vessels to transgress Shevi’it), as is stated in the Yerushalmi: the sieve can be used to choose among coins, the finer sieve can be used to filter sand, the millstone can be used to grind herbs, the oven can be used to cook bundles of flax; yet even so, if not for the issue of the “ways of peace” they would not have allowed it. And there (in the case of a sale) it is permissible because it is possible to depend (on the person not using the animals to transgress shevi’it). And the reason for the difference seems to me: that there in the case of the sale because one is trying to earn money – there is both the reason of earning money and the possibility that the buyer won’t use it to transgress; but here in the case of the borrowing, even though it is possible that the borrower will not use the vessels to transgress, if not for the reasoning of the “ways of peace” this would not be permissible because why should a person enter such a doubt? And still Beit Shammai forbid the sale case even though one is looking to profit because there is no issue of “ways of peace” in a sale, while in this case of borrowing because there is* an issue of the ways of peace, no one disagrees….
*the original says “is not,” but footnote (ג) that we’ve included from the כור לזהב makes clear that it should say “is”
- שולחן ערוך יורה דעה קמח:יב
יש אומרים שאין כל דברים אלו אמורים אלא באותו זמן אבל בזמן הזה אינם בקיאים בטיב אלילים לפיכך מותר לשאת ולתת עמהם ביום חגם ולהלוותם וכל שאר דברים:
הגה: ואפילו נותנים המעות לכהנים אין עושין מהם תקרובת או נוי אלילים אלא הכהנים אוכלים ושותים בו. ועוד דאית בזה משום איבה אם נפרוש עצמנו מהם ביום חגם ואנו שרויים ביניהם וצריכים לשאת ולתת עמהם כל השנה. ולכן אם נכנס לעיר ומצאם שמחים ביום חגם — ישמח עמהם משום איבה דהוי כמחניף להם (הכל בטור).
ומ”מ בעל נפש ירחיק מלשמוח עמהם אם יוכל לעשות שלא יהיה לו איבה בדבר (ב”י בשם הר”ן).
Some say that all these things are not meant except at that time, but at that time they are not familiar with the nature of idols, therefore it is permissible to negotiate with them on their holiday day and accompany them and all other things:
Reference: Even if they give the money to the priests, they do not make an offering or an ornament to idols from it, but the priests eat and drink from it. And you also argue about this because of enmity if we withdraw ourselves from them on their holiday day, and we are among them and have to negotiate with them all year round. Therefore, if he enters the city and finds them happy on their holiday day – he should rejoice with them because of a faded enmity, as if he were flattering them (all in the column).
And from the rabbinical perspective, a person with a soul should refrain from rejoicing with them if he can do so without having enmity about it (in the name of the Lord).
- עבודה זרה יד.
תָּנָא: וּמִכּוּלָּן מוֹכְרִין לָהֶן חֲבִילָה, וְכַמָּה חֲבִילָה? פֵּירֵשׁ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא: אֵין חֲבִילָה פְּחוּתָה מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה מָנִין.
The mishna taught that selling frankincense to gentiles is prohibited. Rabbi Yitzḥak says that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: The mishna is referring specifically to pure frankincense, which is used as incense for objects of idol worship. A Sage taught: And with regard to all of these items whose sale is prohibited, one may sell to gentiles a large bundle of merchandise, as it is clear that the gentile intends to sell the merchandise rather than sacrifice it to his object of idol worship. And how much does such a bundle weigh? Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira explained: For the purposes of this halakha, no bundle is less than the weight of three hundred dinars.
וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא אָזֵיל וּמְזַבֵּין לְאַחֲרִינֵי וּמַקְטְרִי! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אַ״לִּפְנֵי״ מִפַּקְּדִינַן, אַ״לִּפְנֵי״ דְּ״לִפְנֵי״ לָא מִפַּקְּדִינַן.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But let us be concerned lest the buyer go and sell these items to another gentile, and they sacrifice them. Abaye said in response: This scenario is certainly possible, but we are commanded only not to “place a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14), i.e., one may not be the direct cause of a gentile’s idol worship. We are not commanded not to place a stumbling block before one who may subsequently place it before the blind.
- עבודה זרה טו:
רַבָּה זַבֵּין הָהוּא חֲמָרָא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל הֶחָשׁוּד לִמְכּוֹר לְגוֹי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מַאי טַעְמָא עָבֵד מָר הָכִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל זַבֵּינִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְהָא אָזֵיל וּמְזַבֵּין לֵיהּ לְגוֹי! לְגוֹי קָא מְזַבֵּין, לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לָא קָא מְזַבֵּין?
- The Gemara relates: Rabba sold a certain donkey to a Jew who was suspected of selling large livestock to a gentile. Abaye said to Rabba: What is the reason that the Master acted in this manner? Rabba said to him: I sold the donkey to a Jew. Abaye said to him: But he will go and sell it to a gentile. Rabba responded: Is the only possibility that he will sell to a gentile, and he will not sell it to a Jew? Since there is no reason to assume that he will sell specifically to a gentile rather than to a Jew, there is no problem in selling to him.
- תוספות שם
לעובד כוכבים מזבין ליה לישראל לא מזבין כו’ – ובמסקנא מסקינן דאסור למזבן לישראל חשוד וא”ת מאי שנא מלפני דלפני דלעיל (עבודה זרה דף יד.) וי”ל דהתם מיירי בעובד כוכבים שאינו מוזהר על לפני עור לפיכך אין אנו חוששין אם העובד כוכבים ימכור לחבירו אבל הכא דמיירי בישראל החשוד אנו מוזהרין שלא יבא שום ישראל לידי תקלה על ידינו הר”ר אלחנן ועוד דחד לפני הוא שלא יחטא ישראל בשאלה ושכירות ונסיוני:
- רמב”ם משנה תורה הל’ עבודה זרה ט:ו
דְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵן מְיֻחָדִין לְמִין מִמִּינֵי עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁבְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם אָסוּר לִמְכֹּר לְעוֹבְדֵי אוֹתָהּ עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁבְּאוֹתוֹ הַמָּקוֹם לְעוֹלָם. וּדְבָרִים שֶׁאֵינָן מְיֻחָדִין לָהּ מוֹכְרִין אוֹתָם סְתָם. וְאִם פֵּרֵשׁ הָעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁהוּא קוֹנֶה אוֹתָם לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים אָסוּר לִמְכֹּר לוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן פְּסָלוֹ מִלְּהַקְרִיבוֹ לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים. לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מַקְרִיבִין חָסֵר לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים:
Articles which are distinguished by their use [in the worship] of one of the false deities in a particular locale may never be sold to the worshipers of that deity in that locale. Articles which are not characterized by such uniqueness may be sold to them without enquiring [about the purpose for which they will be used].
If, however, an idolater specifically states that he is purchasing the article for the sake of idol worship, it is forbidden to sell it to him unless one blemishes it in a manner which disqualifies it for use as an offering to the idol. An animal lacking a limb is not offered as a sacrifice to an idol.
- ספר באר יהודה על הרמב”ם הל’ עבודה זרה ט:ו Rabbi Avraham Shluzever (19th century Warsaw)
והנה מאי דהקשו הכ”מ והלח”מ על מאי דהשמיט הרבמ”ם ז”ל דין חבילה דמותר למכור לו לפע”ד י”ל קצת דסובר הרמב”ם ז”ל דע”כ אידך ברייתא דקתני אין מוכרין לכותים כלי זיין וכל דבר המזיק משום דימכרו הם לאחרים ע”כ סוברת דאפילו אלפני דלפני מפקדינן ולא ניחא ליה לחלק דכותים לענין זה דינם כישראל וגם אלפני דלפני מפקדינן אלא ודאי דסוברת דלעולם מפקדינן אלפני דלפני משום הכי פוסק כזו הברייתא לחומרא ממילא גם חבילה אסור למכור להם.
That which the Kesef Mishnah and Lechem Mishnah ask about Rambam leaving out the ruling that selling a bundle is fine, in my humble opinion one might say the following: The Rambam believes that the baraita that we do not sell weapons to Kuthim, or anything that can cause damage because they will sell it to others assumes that we are indeed commanded even to refrain from a secondary stumbling block (lifnei de-lifnei), and he does not want to differentiate. After all, here the Kuthim are treated just like Jews in this regard, and we are commanded not to cause a secondary stumbling block. Rather, the baraita certainly holds that we are commanded about secondary stumbling blocks, and therefore Rambam rules stringently like that baraita, so one may not sell the bundle to a non-Jew either.
- עבודה זרה טו:
תַּנֵּי. אֵין מוֹכְרִין לָהֶן לֹא זַיִין וְלֹא כְלֵי זַיִין…
And furthermore, it is taught in a baraita: One may not sell weapons to gentiles or the auxiliary equipment of weapons…
מַאי טַעְמָא? אִי נֵימָא דַּחֲשִׁידִי אַשְּׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים, וּמִי חֲשִׁידִי? הָאָמְרַתְּ: וּמְיַיחֲדִין עִמָּהֶן! אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּאָתֵי לְזַבּוֹנַהּ לְגוֹי.
Abaye analyzes this baraita: What is the reason for the prohibition against selling these items to Samaritans? If we say that they are suspected of bloodshed, that is difficult: But are they suspected of this? Didn’t you say that one may seclude oneself with them, which indicates that they are not suspected of bloodshed? Rather, it is prohibited to sell these items to Samaritans because they will come to sell them to a gentile. According to this reasoning, it should likewise be prohibited to sell a donkey to a Jew who is suspected of selling animals to gentiles.
Questions? Comments? Email dinanddaf@gmail.com
Hadran’s Beyond the Daf shiurim are also available by podcast on
Beyond the Daf is where you will discover enlightening shiurim led by remarkable women, delving deep into the intricacies of Talmudic teachings, and exploring relevant and thought-provoking topics that arise from the Daf.
