(ב) ולפני עור לא תתן מכשול. לִפְנֵי הַסּוּמָא בְדָבָר לֹא תִתֵּן עֵצָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ הוֹגֶנֶת לוֹ, אַל תֹּאמַר מְכוֹר שָׂדְךָ וְקַח לְךָ חֲמוֹר, וְאַתָּה עוֹקֵף עָלָיו וְנוֹטְלָהּ הֵימֶנּוּ (שם):
(ג) ויראת מאלהיך. לְפִי שֶׁהַדָּבָר הַזֶּה אֵינוֹ מָסוּר לַבְּרִיּוֹת לֵידַע אִם דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל זֶה לְטוֹבָה אוֹ לְרָעָה, וְיָכוֹל לְהִשָּׁמֵט וְלוֹמַר לְטוֹבָה נִתְכַּוַּנְתִּי, לְפִיכָךְ נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ וְיָרֵאתָ מֵּאֱלֹהֶיךָ הַמַּכִּיר מַחְשְׁבוֹתֶיךָ; וְכֵן כָּל דָּבָר הַמָּסוּר לְלִבּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם הָעוֹשֵׂהוּ וְאֵין שְׁאָר הַבְּרִיּוֹת מַכִּירוֹת בּוֹ, נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ וְיָרֵאתָ מֵּאֱלֹהֶיךָ:
(2) ולפני עור לא תתן מכשל THOU SHALT NOT PUT A STUMBLING BLOCK BEFORE THE BLIND — This implies: "Give not a person who is "blind" in a matter an advice which is improper for him. Do not say to him: "Sell your field and buy from the proceeds of the sale an ass", the fact being that you are endeavouring to circumvent him and to take it (the field) from him (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 2 14).
(3) ויראת מאלהיך BUT THOU SHALT BE AFRAID OF THY GOD — Because in this case it is not given to human beings to know whether the intention of this man (the offender) was for the advantage or the disadvantage of the person whom he advised, and he thus might be able to evade the responsibility by saying: "I meant it for the best", Scripture therefore states with reference to him: "But thou shall be afraid of thy God" Who is cognizant of thy secret thoughts. Similarly in all actions where it is given only to the heart of him who does it to know the motive that prompts him and where other people have no insight into it, Scripture states, "But be afraid of thy God!" (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 2 14; Bava Metzia 58b).
What's Bothering Rashi
By Avigdor Bonchek
aish.com
RASHI
Whoever misleads the blind - RASHI: One who is blind regarding a particular matter and he offers him bad advice.
Rashi takes this verse in a metaphorical sense, that is, not one who is physically blind, but one who is ignorant, regarding a particular issue. The prohibition is against intentionally giving bad advice to someone, ("lead him astray") since he cannot adequately evaluate the advice, as he is "blind" in this particular area of expertise. This is similar to Rashi's comment on Leviticus 19:14.
QUESTIONING RASHI
A Question: The simple meaning of this verse is not to lead a blind man in the wrong direction while he is walking on the road. Why does Rashi prefer the allegorical interpretation to the simple meaning?
Hint: See this verse in its context.
Your Answer:
WHAT IS BOTHERING RASHI?
An Answer: All the curses in this section (27:16-26) refer to transgressions done in secret, out of sight of potential witnesses. See verse 16 where it speaks of making idols and placing them "in a hidden place." And verse 24, which speaks of one who hits another "in a hidden place." All the other curses refer to transgressions which are either done at home or can be done in a surreptitious way. But our verse does not seem to fit in with that theme. It speaks of misleading a blind man "on the way." If we take the verse at face value, meaning misguiding a blind man as he walks on the road, that is an act done in full public view and would deviate from the list of hidden transgressions recorded in this section of accursed behaviors. Therefore Rashi looks for an interpretation that will fit the context.
How does his comment accomplish that?
Your Answer:
UNDERSTANDING RASHI
An Answer: Rashi transforms our verse into a "hidden transgression." No one can see another man's intentions - so that when he gives his misleading advice he can always claim that he did so innocently, with no devious intent. In this sense it is a "hidden transgression."
h
Lifnei Iver
Dinonline.org
Bad Advice and Causing Sin
As noted, the simple reading of the verse is that it forbids placing a physical stumbling block before a blind person. However, Chazal (in Toras Kohanim) understand it as a reference to offering bad advice: If somebody consults with you, you must offer him the best possible advice. The Rambam writes (Sefer Ha-Mitzvot, Negative Commandment 299):
“It warns against any of us leading anyone else to stumble when we offer advice. Meaning, if someone asks you for advice in some matter… the prohibition is issued against tricking him and leading him to stumble. You should rather lead him straight to the matter as you feel is good and correct, and this is what is meant when He said, `You shall not place a stumbling block before the blind’… They said that this prohibition also includes one who assists in committing a sin or who brings one about… But the simple meaning of the verse is what we mentioned first.”
According to the Rambam, the simple meaning of the verse refers to bad advice, and the prohibition also includes assisting others in committing a sin. The Rambam maintains that placing a physical stumbling block before a blind person is included in a different prohibition of “you shall make a parapet for your roof, so that you do not bring bloodguilt on your house if anyone should fall from it” (Devarim 22:8; see Sefer Ha-Mitzvos 298).
The Gemara (Niddah 57a) records that the Tzeddukim insisted that the verse should be interpreted according to its simple meaning alone; Chazal, however, understood that the instruction applies to giving bad counsel and to causing others to sin.
Talmudic Sources for the Prohibition
The Gemara notes the prohibition of lifnei iver in a number of contexts: It is forbidden for a person to hit his grown-up son, for this will cause the son to retaliate against his father and transgress the obligation of honoring his parents (Mo’ed Kattan17a and commentary of Rashi). It is forbidden to lend money without witnesses, because this can lead to the borrower forgetting about the loan and denying it ever took place (Bava Metzia 75b).
One who lends or borrows money with interest transgresses the prohibition of lifnei iver (because he causes the other party to transgress the prohibition; Bava Metzia 75b) in addition to the direct prohibition involved in lending or borrowing money with interest.
Another situation which involves the issue of lifnei iver is commerce with idolaters, within three days of one of their festivals (Avoda Zara 6a-6b). The Mishnah teaches that such commerce is forbidden, and the Gemara adds that it is likewise forbidden to give an animal to an idolater during the three-day period. One reason for the prohibition is that the idolater will offer thanksgiving to his god as a result of his gain, and the Jew will thus be considered as participating in the festival. A second reason is lifnei iver: The idolater will use the animal for pagan sacrifice, and by facilitating idol worship the Jew thus violates lifnei iver.
A practical difference between the two approaches arises in a case where the idolater already owns other animals suitable for sacrifice. The concern about the idolater’s thanksgiving still applies, but the issue of lifnei iver doesn’t apply because the idolater could have offered sacrifices from his own animals irrespective of his dealing with the Jew.
The Gemara concludes that the prohibition of lifnei iver applies whenever the potential transgressor could not have independently transgressed the prohibition, a principle known as “two sides of the river” (“terei ivri denahara”). It is forbidden to hand a person standing on the “other side of the river” food that is forbidden for him to eat, if the person cannot obtain the food independently. However, if the person has, or can obtain, the food on his own (a case of “one side of the river”) the prohibition does not apply.