Parshas Kedoshim - לפני עור לא תתן מכשול

The passuk says in this week’s sedrah (19:14)

לֹא תְקַלֵּל חֵרֵשׁ וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשֹׁל וְיָרֵאתָ מֵּאֱלֹקֶיךָ אֲנִי ה'

You should not curse a deaf person and you should not place a stumbling block before a blind person and you should fear your G-d, I am Hashem.

The gemara says in Avodah Zarah (6a)

אמר רבי נתן מנין שלא יושיט אדם כוס של יין לנזיר ואבר מן החי לבני נח ת"ל (ויקרא י"ט, י"ד) ולפני עור לא תתן מכשול

Rabbi Nosson said, “How do we know that a person should not stretch out a cup of wine to a נזיר or אבר מן החי to a non-Jew? The passuk comes to teach us ולפני עור לא תתן מכשול – before someone who is blind [in the matter of not transgressing an איסור], you should not place before him a stumbling block [by allowing him to transgress the איסור].”

The gemara says in Succah (10b)

אתמר נויי סוכה המופלגין ממנה ארבעה רב נחמן אמר כשרה רב חסדא ורבה בר רב הונא אמרי פסולה.

We have learnt; Succah decorations that hang more than 4 tephachim lower than the סכך: Rav Nachman says this is כשר (because since the decorations serve the purpose of beautifying the succah, they are בטל to the succah. And Rav Chisda and Rabbah bar bar Huna says this is passul.

רב חסדא ורבה בר רב הונא איקלעו לבי ריש גלותא אגנינהו רב נחמן בסוכה שנוייה מופלגין ממנה ארבעה טפחים אשתיקו ולא אמרו ליה ולא מידי אמר להו הדור בהו רבנן משמעתייהו אמרו ליה אנן שלוחי מצוה אנן ופטורין מן הסוכה

Rav Chisda and Rabbah bar bar Huna visited the house of the exilarch on Succos. Rav Nachman lodged them in a succah whose decorations hung down more than 4 tephachim from the סכך. They were silent and said nothing to him. He said to them, “Have you changed your minds about this halacha?” They said to him, “We are שלוחי מצוה and we are patur from the Succah.”

The Ritva comments on this gemara:

פירוש ואע"ג דאכתי לא ידע ר"נ דהדרו משמעתייהו או דהוו שלוחי מצוה אגנינהו לפום דעתיה ולא חש דהוי חתיכא דאיסורא לדידיה ויתבי בסוכה פסולה ומברכי התם שלא כראוי והוה כנותן מכשול לפני פקח

Even although Rav Nachman did not originally know if Rav Chisda and Rabbah bar bar Huna had changed their minds, or that they thought they were patur from a Succah because they were שלוחי מצוה, he still lodged them in a succah in which the berachah that they would make on the mitzva of sitting in a succah would be a ברכה לבטלה, which would seem to be a transgression of the איסור of לפני עור לא תתן מכשול [This was acceptable because since according to Rav Nachman the succah was כשר, their ברכה was not a ברכה לבטלה. Furthermore, since it was obvious and self-evident that Rav Nachman was going according to his opinion in lodging them in such a Succah, it was as if he had explicitly pointed out the discrepancy to them, and left the decision whether to make a ברכה or not, up to them].

It would appear that the Ritva is not concerned about the fact that Rav Nachman was making Rav Chisda and Rabbah bar bar Huna eat outside of a succah according to their opinion, and was only concerned about the fact that they were making a ברכה לבטלה, if indeed the succah was passul.

• Why is the Ritva not concerned about the fact that Rav Nachman was making Rav Chisda and Rabbah bar bar Huna eat outside of a succah, according to their own opinion?

The ספר החינוך says (mitzva 232)

לא להכשיל בני ישראל לתת להם עצה רעה, אבל ניישר אותם כשישאלו עצה, במה שנאמין שהוא יושר ועצה טובה, שנאמר (ויקרא י"ט, י"ד): "ולפני עור לא תתן מכשול". ולשון ספרא, לפני סומא בדבר והיה נוטל ממך עצה אל תתן לו עצה שאינה הוגנת לו

The 232^nd mitzva is not to cause a Jewish person to stumble by giving them bad advice, rather we should direct them correctly when they ask us for advice, by telling them that which we believe to be good and straightforward advice.

• Since the gemara in Avoda Zarah (quoted above) says that an example of לפני עור is giving אבר מן החי to a non-Jew, why does the ספר החינוך say that the איסור of לפני עור only applies to the בני ישראל?

Rabbi Chaim Schmuelevitz z”l explains that there are two separate איסורים that are included under the general category of לפני עור.

• One איסור is to give someone bad advice that relates to practical matters. For example, you may not advise someone to sell a field if that is to his detriment, and the reason you advised him to sell the field was only because you wanted to buy it. This איסור is a הלכה בין אדם לחבירו, and only applies to Jewish people, as do other הלכות בין אדם לחבירו.

• The other איסור that is included in the איסור of לפני עור is to cause someone else to do an עבירה. This is a הלכה בין אדם למקום, in which you are held partially responsible for the עבירה that you helped to facilitate. This איסור applies to non-Jews also, and you are still responsible for their עבירה בין אדם למקום, regardless of the fact that the חיובים בין אדם לחבירו do not apply.

Subsequently, when the ספר החינוך says that the איסור of לפני עור applies to Jewish people, he is talking about the איסור בין אדם לחבירו of giving bad advice. On the other hand, when the gemara in עבודה זרה says that the איסור of לפני עור also applies to non-Jewish people, the gemara is referring to the איסור to enable someone else to do an עבירה. Since this is an עבירה בין אדם למקום, is also applies if you enable a non-Jew to do an עבירה.

Based on this reasoning, Reb Chaim Schmuelevitz z”l explains the Ritva in Succah as follows:

Rav Nachman invited Rav Chisda and Rabbah bar bar Huna into his succah in order to be מקיים the מצוה of הכנסת אורחים on Succos. According to Rav Nachman the succah was כשר, and therefore it was incumbent on him, because of the מצוה of הכנסת אורחים, to invite Rav Chisda and Rabbah bar bar Huna into the Succah.

The fact that according to Rav Chisda and Rabbah bar bar Huna the succah was passul, was immaterial relative to Rav Nachman’s mitzva of הכנסת אורחים, because since the basis of the איסור of לפני עור for a Jewish person is a דין בין אדם לחבירו, therefore the judgement of the applicability of the איסור follows the general guidelines of הלכות בין אדם לחבירו, and since from the perspective of Rav Nachman, who had a מצוה of הכנסת אורחים, the succah was כשר, it would have been deemed that Rav Nachman invited Rav Chisda and Rabbah bar bar Huna into a succah that was כשר.

However, the mitzva to make a ברכת המצות is a דין בין אדם למקום, and was not part of Rav Nachman’s mitzva of הכנסת אורחים. In other words, Rav Nachman did not benefit Rav Chisda and Rabbah bar bar Huna in enabling them to make a ברכה. Therefore the definition of whether or not Rav Chisda and Rabbah bar bar Huna were sitting in a succah that was כשר or פסול, would be judged from their viewpoint, because they had the חיוב to make a ברכה. (I.e. the section of the איסור of לפני עור which would now be applicable would be the בין אדם למקום consideration of לפני עור which would follow the הלכות בין אדם למקום which were incumbent on Rav Chisda and Rabbah bar bar Huna).

That is why the Ritva is only concerned that Rav Nachman caused Rav Chisda and Rabbah bar bar Huna to make a ברכה לבטלה, לשיטתם, and not that he caused them to eat outside of a succah.