The first point is what exactly does the prohibition (Vayikra 19:14) include? The verse is understood to mean to not give something to another person who will sin with it. (If the person would be able to commit the sin anyway it is not the Torah prohibition of lifnei ivair - but it is prohibited by rabbinic decree.) Thus a nazir should not be given wine. If the person is not going to say a beracha -do not give him food (Shulchan Aruch O.C. 169:2). If he is a drug addict - don't give him money that will enable him to buy drugs. It also includes a prohibition about doing something which causes a sin as a reaction - such as a parent hitting an adult child when there is a possibility the child will react by hitting the parent. Finally there is a prohibition of giving bad advice.
Second points is - what if there is a loss by not giving the person the object. For example, if your business partner comes to your house and asks for food but you know he will not say a beracha or wash on bread(Chullin 107b). While the Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 169:2) says not to give food - however Rav Moshe Feinstein (OC 5 13) says that if you stand to lose money because of not giving him food - there is no prohibition against giving it. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach says that if it causes hatred - then the food should be given. Rav Moshe also permits it if not giving causes a chilul hashem. Clearly we see in a normal situation that if it causes a loss by not giving it to the sinner - then it is permitted to give. Other example include: If someone steals your car - there is no obligation to give him the car to prevent him from sinning. If a person says that he will eat a ham sandwich if he isn't allowed to cut off someone arm - there is obviously absolutely no obligation to save him from sin at that price.
Third point: In the literature about divorce, I haven't found anyone who says that there is an obligation to give a divorce in a case where the wife threatens to commit adultery. There are clearly rabbonim who are worried about that happening - but this is not expressed as a concern that there will be a violation of lifnei ivair. Similarly if someone threatens to violate Shabbos if he isn't given an expensive present - there is no requirement to give in to the extortion to prevent sin.
Bottom line, I have not found any examples in the literature that lifnei ivair is invoked to require someone to suffer a loss in order to prevent another person from sinning. If someone has such a case - please let me know. Rav Moshe Feinstein compares it to tochacha. One does not have to be beaten up or even be yelled at in order to prevent someone from sinning - and surely you do not have to suffer financial loss.
I was discussing with some colleagues another related shayla that goes the other direction:
ReplyDeleteA woman demands to be released from marriage because she claims her husband is mentally incompetent. Later the husband is willing to give her a get. Can she even take a get from her husband or do we say that since she claims he is mentally incompetent, even if there is no real evidence to back up her claim, for her it's "shavya anafsha chaticha d'isura" that he is mentally incompetent and thus for her the get would be invalid even if he shows no signs of incompetence?
The overwhelming consensus is that shavya anafsha would not apply for numerous reasons;
1. She could always give an "amatla" to her original claim which nullifies the "shavya nafasha".
2. A claim of mental incompetence for the purposes of kiddushei taus is not necessarily a claim of being totally insane to the point that a get would not be valid.
3. Shavya anafsha only applies to halachos which, once they take effect, cannot be spontaneously reversed. Thus, if one claims a piece of meat is neveila, if it is true, it is irreversible forever. If a woman falsely says she is a nidah, the status of nidah - if it is true - is irreversible for the required time period. A nidah cannot spontaneously become not a niddah. So the shavya anafsha will hold for the time period. But if somebody is deemed to be insane at a given time,it is not impossible for him to regain his sanity at a later time so there is no application of shavya anafsha since she can say he was truly incompetent at that time but is competent now.
Despite all this it was interesting food for thought and helps to emphasize how ridiculous this whole story is.
Assuming the wife's 'no knowledge' situation which 'lifnei iver' can (but as you state above is not the situation) the 'lifnei iver' applies to RNG and RSKs, not AF.
ReplyDeletemelamed lehoil 61 discusses mother suicide if child does not write on shabbos. answer no permission to write
ReplyDeleteYou bring up an interesting side issue. Assuming a husband can be (temporarily) cured of his mental issues (or be woken from a coma.) However, this is against medical advice, and against the wishes of the husband's family.
ReplyDeleteCan / should he be woken or treated against medical advice for such a purpose? (Side issue: the couple are / are not happily married?)