3

Are there any sources that the following case would constitute causing others to sin?

A person addressed a nonreligous Jew about keeping kosher, and tried to make him keep kosher. The non religious Jew said he doesn’t keep kosher but does not eat meat and cheese. The religious Jew replied “You might as well eat meat and cheese if you're eating nonkosher.” The non religious one took this advice and started eating meat and cheese.

Does this mean that the religious Jew caused the nonreligious one to sin, and will receive punishment every time the latter eats meat and cheese?

  • "Meat and cheese" together or as separate categories of food, i.e. a vegan diet? – Josh K Nov 22 '18 at 17:19
  • 5
    That's such an oddly specific scenario that I'm fairly certain there are no sources directly addressing it. – Double AA Nov 22 '18 at 17:22
  • 1
    Note that the person in this case, even if he didn't "cause the other person to sin" (whatever that means), he certainly told a lie. – רבות מחשבות Nov 23 '18 at 3:28
0

He didn't actually cause anyone to sin.

The prohibition of eating Meat & Milk together applies only to Kosher animals*, and presumably, this is what the religious Jew meant. There would be no prohibition [of cooking/eating Meat & Milk together] if the food was from non-Kosher species.

*(This excludes only species that are not Kosher, not Kosher species which died without a valid Shechita. Neveila & Treifa are subject to Basar veChalav.)

-1

There is a prohibition against inciting a person to sin, which is referred to as מסית לדבר עבירה.

Source: See Iggros Moshe (OC 1:99) that even though Beis Din only punishes a person who incites to idolatry, the prohibition against "inciting", applies to all sins, and in any case he is punished by the laws of heaven.

See also ibid. (OC 2:7) for further discussion of this point.

The critical question is whether the relevant statement by the religious Jew constitutes "incitement to sin".

  • The above case is not a case of mesit. – chacham Nisan Nov 23 '18 at 6:38
  • Thank you for weighing in on the question. I see it as an open question, which would depend on the intent of the one making the statement, and how it was received by the other person. – IsraelReader Nov 23 '18 at 16:19
-2
  1. Yes, to give someone a bad advice is a negative commandment (a prohibition) of "לפני עוור" - so-called "putting a stumbling block before a blind man". As the additional sinning is bad for the non-religious guy, the advice was bad and the statement was a transgression.

  2. No, the religious guy will not be punished every time the other guy eats non-Kosher, he only sinned once, by giving that advice.

  • מחטיא את הרבים? – Ploni Nov 22 '18 at 21:32
  • 1
    @Ploni Where do you see רבים here? – Al Berko Nov 22 '18 at 21:37
  • 1
    Can you edit in support for your claim that he won't be punished for every time the other sins? Yes, he himself sinned only once, but maybe his punishment is for every consequent sin? – msh210 Nov 22 '18 at 21:52
  • 1
    "punishment has no measure" and therefore it is "completely useless to argue if it is a single or plural"? So are you saying that if someone once does a single Aveira, he could keep on doing Aveiros non-stop since there is no measure for the punishment? And if one does a single Mitzvah, he never needs to do another one since "reward has no measure"??? – Salmononius2 Nov 22 '18 at 22:45
  • 1
    I'm not 100% sure if this is lifnei iver, since it is chad avra denahara, not trei, meaning he could have eaten that treife food without you. – רבות מחשבות Nov 23 '18 at 0:24

You must log in to answer this question.

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