Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
There are classic examples of having to choose between two positive commandments (e.g. if one only has money for one, do you buy wine for Shabbas or candles), and there are known cases where a positive commandment comes up against a negative (e.g. stolen lulav, doing a brits on shabbas).
I was wondering if there was a classic example of someone who had to choose between transgressing on one of two "lavs" (negative commandments), and how you decide which to transgress.
R' Chanina and R' Yonasan were once faced with a fork road leading to either a non Jewish temple or a house of prostitution, proximity to both of which present potential temptation to sin (Avoda Zara 17a). It does not seem from the G'mara that they considered just turning around rather than passing by either one so this is tantamount to a forced choice.
The transgression in either case seems to derive from the same source (cf. Tosafos "nezil"), which is the pasuk in Mishlei 5:8,
הַרְחֵ֣ק מֵעָלֶ֣יהָ דַרְכֶּ֑ךָ וְאַל־תִּ֝קְרַ֗ב אֶל־פֶּ֥תַח בֵּיתָֽהּ׃
Keep yourself far away from her; Do not come near the doorway of her house
The actual prohibitions involved are at least mid'rabanan, with the prohibition of physically approaching an opportunity for sexual misconduct being mid'oraisa according to some (e.g. Ula). I'm not sure what the status of physically approaching an opportunity for theopractical misconduct is in this g'mara.
This qualifies as "classic" by appearing in the G'mara, but I don't know how often it is quoted.
One case that comes to mind is the Mishnah in BM 33a, where one must decide between "you are not able to hide" from taking your father's lost object and "you are not able to hide" from taking your Rebbi's lost object. One should take his Rebbi's unless his father is also a Talmid Chacham. It continues with other cases of deciding between positive commandments, but those aren't applicable for the sake of this question. Nevertheless, even this case is deciding between two applications of the same prohibition.
The Mishnah in Horayos 13a gives a few other cases, which are still applications of the same prohibition to two people: "you are not able to hide" of a man's lost object versus a woman's (man wins) and "do not stand [by idly] by your friend's blood [being spilled]" of a man versus a woman (man still wins), in addition to several positive commandments between man and woman (in which woman wins).
The tenth perek of Eiruvin opens up with several cases involving bringing lost pairs of tefillin inside the Eiruv on Shabbos; this is both "you are unable to hide" and disrespecting the Tefillin (which, although their place is unspecified in the Mishnah, may very well be on the ground or in a place where they will be ruined) versus violating Shabbos (of which the passuk says שמור, an expression of a negative commandment). The Mishnah paskens that Shabbos is more important, and one should either wear the Tefillin into the Eiruv and then take them off, or, if there are too many or if they're tangled (as untying is a violation of Shabbos) one must stay by them until after Shabbos and then carry them back inside.
