Subscribe
Daily Daf Dose
The Chazon Ish (Y”D 62:25) wonders if one would transgress the prohibition against placing a stumbling block in front of a blind man if the man subsequently does not fall into the trap. If one would hit his adult son and the son would accept the rebuke lovingly and would not retaliate and hit the father back, is it still regarded that the father placed a stumbling block in front of his son.
He cites our Gemora which relates the occurrence with the maidservant of the house of Rebbi. The maidservant of the house of Rebbi saw once one beating his grown-up son, and she said: Let that man be excommunicated, for he has transgressed the commandment [Vayikra 19:14]: You shall not put a stumbling block before the blind (the son might retaliate and transgress the prohibition against striking his father).
It would seem that the maidservant excommunicated the father immediately upon seeing the father hit the son even prior to the son retaliating.
Reb Itzele (Peri Yitzchak 2:49) maintains that one is not transgressing this prohibition unless it results in a transgression, but the maidservant nevertheless had the right to rebuke the father immediately since one cannot place someone else in a position where he might transgress a prohibition and this was cause enough for the excommunication.
He cites our Gemora which relates the occurrence with the maidservant of the house of Rebbi. The maidservant of the house of Rebbi saw once one beating his grown-up son, and she said: Let that man be excommunicated, for he has transgressed the commandment [Vayikra 19:14]: You shall not put a stumbling block before the blind (the son might retaliate and transgress the prohibition against striking his father).
It would seem that the maidservant excommunicated the father immediately upon seeing the father hit the son even prior to the son retaliating.
Reb Itzele (Peri Yitzchak 2:49) maintains that one is not transgressing this prohibition unless it results in a transgression, but the maidservant nevertheless had the right to rebuke the father immediately since one cannot place someone else in a position where he might transgress a prohibition and this was cause enough for the excommunication.
4 comments:
The Chazon Ish I think was Referring To the Electric Company in Israel On Shabbos There was an attempt to be Mattir the electric on this Heter that it is not "Lfnie Iver" because the only time they need a Jew there is if somethings breaks normally it runs itself so he quoted our Gemorah and said you see here we don't see that he actually hit just the Chsash that he would hit back.For an interesting Teshuvah about it see the Shulchan Shlomo from Shlomo Zalman Auerbach
ok, why did she place him I'm shamta? every time someone does an aveira he gets shamta? from Gemara above it seems like there was no justification to the shamta, but out of deference to Rebbe's maidservant, Chachamim honored it.
I don't think the Gemora is saying that there was no justification; even for her, they waited three years.
the lashon is that they weren't noheig kalus rosh in her shamta. sounds to me that there was room to "laugh it off."
Post a Comment