בענין מלקות בלפני עור

The Hinuch, in Sefer haChinuch, Mitzvah 232 says that as it relates to the issur of "lifnei iver lo siteh michshol", "de'ein lo ikken alav". You don't get malkos for lifnei iver lo siteh michshol "lifnei she'ein ba'maaseh". So, lifnei iver lo siteh michshol is a "lav she'ein ba'maaseh", and because it's a "lav she'ein ba'maaseh", "ein lo ikken alav". The Hinuch says you don't get malkos. The Hinuch says that to me, I I have no havana in the world of what's going on in this Hinuch. Lifnei iver lo siteh michshol is a "lav she'ein ba'maaseh". I say it could be a "lav she'ein ba'maaseh", right? For example, if somebody comes to you for advice, you give him bad advice. Okay, you're over lifnei iver lo siteh michshol and uh you did a good dibbur. A dibbur is your classic example of "lav she'ein ba'maaseh". The "lav she'ein ba'maaseh" "ein lo ikken alav". But, what if you did a "maaseh"? What if you uh took a stumbling block, you put it in the path of an iver, he tripped on it, and you were just over lifnei iver lo siteh michshol, and you did it with a "maaseh". So, fake the Minchas Chinuch. What's going on over here? "Eina chinami", it's possible. It's possible to be over on a "maaseh", but it's also possible to be over with a "maaseh". And to the extent that it's possible to be over with a "maaseh", so when you do it with a "maaseh", you should get malkos. So, the Hinuch says "ein lo ikken alav lifnei she'ein ba'maaseh". That's all good if you did it on a "maaseh", but what would be if you went ahead and you did it with a "maaseh"? "L'chumra", in that case, you should get malkos. Says the Minchas Chinuch that at first glance, I think this is a "raya" to something that I've always thought, something that I think is very "meduyak" in the Rishonim. And that is that if somebody would go and he would violate lifnei iver lo siteh michshol, we've spoken about this so many times. Somebody would be would violate lifnei iver lo siteh michshol in the "pshutei shel mikra digazelans", he would not be over for lifnei iver lo siteh michshol. In other words, if somebody would go and he would put a michshol in the pathway of an iver, and the person would fall and harm himself, you would not be over for lifnei iver lo siteh michshol. If that's true, "zogt der Minchas Chinuch", then I have no problems over here. Cuz what would emerge is the only way you could be over lifnei iver lo siteh michshol is on a "maaseh". The only way you could be over on a "maaseh". In that case, it's going to be a "lav she'ein ba'maaseh", and if if it's a "lav she'ein ba'maaseh", now what's this "chiddush" that the Minchas Chinuch mentions that we've spoken about so many times? It comes from the Mishneh Halachos who brings it from the Knesses Hagdolah who said that if you look at the Rishonim, you look at the Sefer haChinuch, and you look at the Rambam in his Sefer haMitzvos, and you look at Rabbeinu Yonah in Shaarei Teshuvah, different Rishonim in different places, when they talk about the issur lifnei iver lo siteh michshol, they say what's the issur? The issur is not to give somebody bad advice. Read the Hinuch. give all of the "noitel heimanu". This is the way the Rishonim present the halacha of lifnei iver lo siteh michshol. And that message at first glance is "apela". Why would they present it that way? I mean, it's true, this is a "se'if", it's a "se'if [laughter] katan", but that's not the "ikkar". The "ikkar" is there is there is don't go ahead and put a michshol in front of an iver. Says the Mishneh Halachos from the Knesses Hagdolah who said that you see from here that if somebody would go ahead and do that, "hitaku" wouldn't be over lifnei iver lo SITEH MICHSHOL. IT'S "DAFKA" IF YOU DO IT in this funny way. It's "lifnei sumah be'eitzah davar". But, if it would be in front of a literal iver, a literal sumah, in that case, you wouldn't be over. The question is why? "Mei achas teisei hadas", do the Rishonim know this? So, over the years we've mentioned two "mahalos", and they both come from this Minchas Chinuch, and there's really two "mekoros". One is the Kli Yakar. The Kli Yakar says it says in the Torah "lo siteh kal cheresh lifnei iver lo siteh michshol vi'yareisa mei'Elokecha". Rashi says what does it mean "vi'yareisa mei'Elokecha"? So, Rashi says that being that this "inyan" of lifnei iver lo siteh michshol is not something that's "mesur l'eiv bashal adam". Right, the "chevreh" around, they don't really know if you're being over lifnei iver or not being over lifnei iver. So, you would think I'M NOT AFRAID, BIG DEAL, LET ME go ahead and do it. The Torah says "vi'yareisa mei'Elokecha". That even though the "chevreh" don't know, but I know, and as a result, you should be afraid of me because I'm "makir" your "machshava", and I know whether you're you have in mind the right thing or you don't have in mind right. Straight to the Kli Yakar, why are you saying lifnei iver lo siteh michshol is is that an "aveira" that the bystanders are not going to If somebody sees you go and you put something in the way of a "sagi nahor", and he's going to fall on it, so uh they're going to have you doing an "aveira". What's the "vi'yareisa mei'Elokecha"? Says the Kli Yakar, "V'eistois", that's not lifnei iver lo siteh michshol. "V'eistois" "vi'yareisa mei'Elokecha" is teaching me that the only time you're over lifnei iver "de'Oraisa" is if it's something that's "takken d'as mesur l'eiv". What does it mean it's not "mesur l'eiv"? Like an "eitzah she'eina agunas". How does anyone know if the advice you're giving is something you have in mind or you don't have in mind? You have to really trust the person. "Zogt der Eibershter", I'm saying you're not afraid of him because, right, he has no way of proving that you're doing something wrong, but be afraid of me. So, in the words of the "vi'yareisa mei'Elokecha", we know to be "meitzei mikra midei pshuta". The other "mahlokes" that we said over this is from the Malbim. What the Malbim said that the "pasuk" says "lifnei iver lo siteh michshol". It shouldn't have said "siteh". Really, what it should have said was "leisasem". Just in the world of "dikduk", "leisasem" means to to place something in front of somebody. "Siteh" means to physically give something to somebody. So, says the Malbim from the fact that the Torah said "leisitein" and it didn't say "leisasem", that's what the "dikduk" is. But, either way, "k'fi rabbos haparshenim" to try to figure out where in the Again, the fact that Chazal could say what Chazal said, that's "Talmud Bavli" 101. But, that being "meitzei mikra midei pshuta", that's a "chiddush". And by the way, to say over the "kasha" with the "gishmak" is cuz we know Rava says in "Maseches Yevamos" that "b'chol haTorah kulah ein mikra yotzei midei pshuta" with the exception of the "parshas Yibum". That's the only time where "v'haya b'chaya ish tela", it's the only "pasuk" in the Torah where "mikra" is "meitzei midei pshuta". What do you mean? What happened to "lifnei iver lo siteh michshol"? "V'eistois" in the "pshutei shel mikra gufa" of "lifnei iver lo siteh michshol", right in the "pshutei shel mikra", you see already "meforash" that it doesn't mean the "pshutei shel mikra". But, "Al haPanim" says the Minchas Chinuch, this Hinuch would be a "raya" to that. Oh, it's very "gishmak". What was my "kasha"? My "kasha" was "l'chumra", why is it a "lav she'ein ba'maaseh"? You could be over lifnei iver lo siteh michshol in the regular way. That that's not true. If you were over lifnei iver lo siteh michshol in the regular way, you wouldn't be over lifnei iver lo siteh michshol. This is a "raya" to the Knesses Hagdolah says the Minchas Chinuch that the Mishneh Halachos brings that if you're over the "pshutei shel mikra" of lifnei iver lo siteh michshol, in that case, you're not going to have a problem. But, the truth is this is all "apela". It's all "apela". All the "chiddushim" and "kashas", Minchas Chinuch is a "mitzvas ye'ush". And the reason Minchas Chinuch is a "mitzvas ye'ush", yesh "yishuvim" by the way. Yesh "yishuvim". But, it's it's a "mitzvas ye'ush". And that is Minchas Chinuch is asking on the Hinuch, how could you tell me that lifnei iver lo siteh michshol is a "lav she'ein ba'maaseh"? "L'chumra", you could do it with a "maaseh". How? The "pshutei shel mikra" of lifnei iver lo siteh michshol. It's a "raya" to all this "gishmakerei" that if you do the "pshutei shel mikra", you're not over lifnei iver lo siteh michshol. Forget about the "pshutei shel mikra". Have another case. If you're "moshiach ko se al an ozer", if you're "moshiach even na chait uven ayach", are you also over lifnei iver lo siteh michshol? It's not the "pshutei shel mikra" that you're over lifnei iver lo siteh michshol. "L'chumra", in that case, it's a "lifnei iver de'Oraisa". Like, "lifnei iver de'Oraisa" is only "eitzah she'eina agunas"? Is that "pshat"? I don't know. I thought it's just not the "pshutei shel mikra" that you're over lifnei iver lo siteh michshol. But, the two cases that Chazal always talked about, which is number one, "eitzah she'eina agunas", and number two, causing someone to do an "aveira", right, that "b'reishis bara Elokim eis hashamayim v'eis ha'aretz", that for sure is a "lifnei iver de'Oraisa". Right, we spoke at the "Tzitzis Eliezer", the "Ba'al Meginnei Shlomo", who said lifnei iver when you "machshil" a "goy" because "Rabbenu Yonah haGadol" was "shtei tumos" in "Aggados haMechtavim" in the end of the "sefer". So, within maybe it's only an "issur d'Rabbanan" because they only get "chaligein" "mitzvas ye'ush". Anyways, but by a "Yisrael", for sure it's an "issur d'Oraisa". No one ever said that that's not an "issur d'Oraisa". And that's also a "lav she'eish ba'maaseh". So, you could "vada'i" do it with a "maaseh". So, what what's what's going on over What's "tzamud haHinuch"? And what's "tzamud haMinchas Chinuch"? MINCHAS CHINUCH ALREADY went down this road. He says, how could the Hinuch say that it's a "lav she'ein ba'maaseh"? There are cases where it's a "lav she'eish ba'maaseh". Oh, "mahlokes", there's no case. Why? Cuz the "pshutei shel mikra" is not the real thing. What about being "moshiach ko se al an ozer"? At first glance, this "kasha" is "apela". It's "apela" on the Minchas Chinuch. And again, it brings back the Minchas Chinuch's "kasha" on the Hinuch itself. What's going on over here? Right, what's "poshut pshat"? What's going on in the Hinuch? So, "demeshes", I want to get to one last "ara", but as it relates to the Hinuch itself, this seems to be a "gishmaki yishuv". Minchas Chinuch "bam meretz" it, right? He touches on it, doesn't love it, I assume, but the "poshut hahalacha" seems to be based on another Hinuch. And this Hinuch is "mitzvas reish mem alef". The Hinuch over there is talking about the "lav" of "lo sikka". Right, a Jew is not allowed to take "nekama". So, what if he takes "nekama"? Right, somebody hits you and you hit him right back. Says [snorts] the Hinuch, "aval ein lo ikken alav zeh". You don't get malkos "lifnei she'ein ba'maaseh" because it's a "lav she'ein ba'maaseh". "The klal zeh yehei b'yadcha" says the Hinuch. I'm going to teach you a rule of thumb. "B'chol makom she'ne'emar lav she'ein ba'maaseh, ein lo ikken alav". Every time you find "lav she'ein ba'maaseh" "ein lo ikken alav", it's true, "af al pisha asah ba'shum maaseh". Even if you did it with a "maaseh", "ein lo ikken alav lifnei she'ein still you're not going to get malkos" "mikivan she'efshar la'avor al ha'lav b'li maaseh". Says the Hinuch, "Anytime a person is over a lav, anytime a person is over a lav that you could do without a "maaseh", even if you're over the lav with a "maaseh", you're still not going to get malkos" "lifnei she'efshar la'avor al ha'lav b'li maaseh". Says the Hinuch, "I'm telling you a rule. Klal zeh yehei b'yadcha". And then he says at the end, "V'tizkor davar zeh b'chulah". Remember this by all "mitzvos". "Ki davar barur ein tzorich l'shanos b'makom acher". I'm not even going to review it anywhere else. So, I'm telling you a rule says the Hinuch. Hinuch talking. That if you do a "lav she'ein ba'maaseh", you don't get malkos. If you do a "lav she'eish ba'maaseh", you get malkos. What if I do a "lav" that I could have done without a "maaseh", but I now went ahead and I did it with a "maaseh"? I'm still not going to get malkos. The truth is this b'li is the exact opposite of the famous where the says that any love that a person can do with a even if he does it with Adam, I saw you're going to get Malcus right the truth is who do the on the but goes all the way around but we in the past we've tried reconciling this with the you have to they're both but we've tried but the bottom line is this is the of the and the makes a big deal about it. Right again. That if there's a love that you could do on a even if YOU DO IT WITH A YOU'RE STILL NOT GOING TO GET MALCUS. The love [snorts] of you could do it on a so You can MAYBE BE OVER THE BUT YOU COULD DO IT ON A YOU COULD GIVE SOMEONE A AND YOU COULD DO IT ON A so this at first glance would be the most obvious seems to touch on it he doesn't love it. Came and he said