0

For example, if one man does not commit idol worship, or eat chametz on Pesach, but attempts to get another man to violate these mitzvot. Would an ancient Beit Din find this man guilty of a capital offense (in the first case)? Would he be worthy of Karet (latter case)?

  • Regarding chametz it would seem not- you are not liable for actually committing their shogeg act, you are only liable for your part in causing them to stumble. The only place where we see full transference of culpability is by conspiratorial testimony, but that only applies to court cases. Inciting another person to idol worship (mesit/mediach) is a capital crime punishable by death. – Isaac Kotlicky Feb 29 '16 at 20:28
  • The Lifney Iver does not make a transfer of the punishment. It is a prohibition independent of the thing that makes it possible to do. It is in addition a Lav Shebiklaluth SheEyn Lokin Alav – kouty Feb 29 '16 at 21:15
  • @kouty, it sounds like you have an answer to post. – msh210 Feb 29 '16 at 21:23
  • @IsaacKotlicky, it sounds like you have an answer to post. – msh210 Feb 29 '16 at 21:24
1

The question which I decided to answer (this is how I interpreted the intention of its author), is if a global ban, called "...nor put a stumbling-block before the blind..." (Leviticus 19, 14)is considered as if the 'placer' makes this himself (indifferently that its action had the effect that the other fault or not).

It is a question about "ולפני עיוור לא תתן מכשול" = "nor put a stumbling-block before the blind".

See sefer Hachinuch Mistva number 232 The Chinukh says that it has no action, so we do not fight for the offense, there is no mention of Kareth. (If the lake of action is the only explanation[1], then, the Tana Rabbi Yehuda should punish by 'flogging').

The problem is to make possible a transgression as a bad thing, there is no relation to the nature of the transgression that was permitted.

There are some bans that are prohibited in both directions (to do or to let the other do) as se same action as "lo takifu" (the prohibition of cutting hair in the temporal area) see Makoth 20B

תני תנא קמיה דרב חסדא אחד המקיף ואחד הניקף לוקה אמר ליה מאן דאכיל תמרי בארבילא לקי דאמר לך מני רבי יהודה היא דאמר לאו שאין בו מעשה לוקין עליו רבא אומר במקיף לעצמו ודברי הכל רב אשי אומר במסייע ודברי הכל

May be that the 'client' remains in crouching position to help the hairdresser and so he participates. But it is not the rule in generalBut lifnei Iver is different. MOREOVER, here, "lifne Yver" not need that the facilitated fault has been committed.

In conclusion

No execution, nor Kareth .

[1]One question. It seems that this Lav is lav shebiklaluth (comprehensive ban) and according to all the opinions Ein Lokin Alav, see Ramban on Shoresh 9. Attempt of response: Perhaps there is 2 reasons for the lake of malkuth. 1.- Ein bo maasse (a ban without physic action), 2.- lav shebiklaluth (comprehensive ban).

  • What about being מסית? Doesnt that have a penalty? – mevaqesh Feb 29 '16 at 23:13
  • מסית is not = to lifney Iver. It is not included in the question. – kouty Feb 29 '16 at 23:15
  • if one man does not commit idol worship... but attempts to get another man to violate these mitzvot – mevaqesh Feb 29 '16 at 23:16
  • In the principle you may be right but I think Messith is a very circumscribed case in halacha and does not correspond to the wording of the question. In addition it seeks a ban that is common to AZ and chametz. As sale a white rooster or equipment for idolatrous worship. Messith is to say secretly etc etc. It was as I had heard the question. But I understand and do not exclude yours at present that you explained it to me. – kouty Feb 29 '16 at 23:28
  • 1
    @mevaqesh מסית is mentioned in the Torah separately, and is about the transgression of spreading idol worship. לפני עור is about the בין אדם לחבירו aspect of getting someone in trouble. – HaLeiVi Mar 2 '16 at 13:48

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .