Jewish Value: Do Not Place a Stumbling Block

The Gemara asks: What is the story mentioned by Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani involving the maidservant in the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? It was related that the maidservant in Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s house saw a certain man who was striking his adult son. She said: Let that man be excommunicated, due to the fact that he has transgressed the injunction: “You shall not place a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14), as it is taught in a baraita that the verse states: “You shall not place a stumbling block before the blind,” and the verse speaks here of one who strikes his adult son, as the son is likely to become angry and strike his father back, thereby transgressing the severe prohibition against hitting one’s parent.

However, a nazirite and a leper, even if they had the time to do so before the Festival, they are permitted to cut their hair. Why are they granted this special allowance? So that they will not delay bringing their offerings. Both a nazirite and a leper must cut their hair before sacrificing their offerings in completion of their purification process. Therefore, if they are not permitted to cut their hair, they will not be able to sacrifice their offerings at the proper time.”

He said to him: We already learned this in a baraita: With regard to all those about whom the Sages said that they are permitted to cut their hair on the intermediate days of a Festival, they may do so only if they did not have time to cut their hair before the Festival. But if they had time before the Festival began, then they are prohibited from doing so.

However, a nazirite and a leper, even if they had the time to do so before the Festival, they are permitted to cut their hair. Why are they granted this special allowance? So that they will not delay bringing their offerings. Both a nazirite and a leper must cut their hair before sacrificing their offerings in completion of their purification process. Therefore, if they are not permitted to cut their hair, they will not be able to sacrifice their offerings at the proper time.”

The Sages from the school of Rabbi Sheila say: This verse is referring to one who gives charity to a woman in private, as he subjects her to suspicion, for people might think that he is engaging her services as a prostitute. Rava said: This is referring to one who sends his wife meat that is not sliced, i.e., that has not yet had the prohibited sciatic nerve removed, on Shabbat eve. Since she is in a hurry she might not notice and will perhaps cook the prohibited meat.

The mishna continues: But the ḥaver brother may not say to the am ha’aretz brother: You take the wet produce and I will take the dry produce. Nor may he say: You take the wheat, and I will take the barley. The principle of retroactive designation does not apply to objects of different types. If one brother would take wheat and the other barley it would be considered a trade. And it is prohibited for a ḥaver to sell or transfer impure produce or produce that is susceptible to impurity to an am ha’aretz, who does not strictly follow the principles of purity, as this would involve the prohibition of “You shall not place a stumbling-block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14).

And he would further lash one who nullifies a bill of divorce he had earlier sent by declaring in the presence of witnesses that the bill of divorce is nullified. This action is effective, but by doing so he transgresses the rabbinic ordinance of the Sages that bans such an action as it might lead his wife to unlawfully wed another. And he would also flog one who delivers a declaration preemptively invalidating a bill of divorce, by informing three people before giving a bill of divorce that he is not doing so of his own free will and he wants to cancel it ahead of time. Here too he will mislead his wife, who will assume it is a valid bill of divorce.

§ The Gemara begins clarifying the mishna. The mishna states: One who issues a warning to his wife. By employing the descriptive phrase: One who issues a warning, and not the prescriptive phrase: One issues a warning, the tanna indicates that after the fact, yes, it is effective if he issues a warning in this manner, but ideally, no, one should not issue a warning to his wife at all ab initio. Apparently, the tanna of our mishna holds that it is prohibited to issue a warning to one’s wife ab initio in a manner that can cause her to become a sota, and all the halakhot concerning a sota are for one who issued a warning when not obligated to do so.

The mishna taught that selling frankincense to gentiles is prohibited. Rabbi Yitzḥak says that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: The mishna is referring specifically to pure frankincense, which is used as incense for objects of idol worship. A Sage taught: And with regard to all of these items whose sale is prohibited, one may sell to gentiles a large bundle of merchandise, as it is clear that the gentile intends to sell the merchandise rather than sacrifice it to his object of idol worship. And how much does such a bundle weigh? Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira explained: For the purposes of this halakha, no bundle is less than the weight of three hundred dinars.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But let us be concerned lest the buyer go and sell these items to another gentile, and they sacrifice them. Abaye said in response: This scenario is certainly possible, but we are commanded only not to “place a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14), i.e., one may not be the direct cause of a gentile’s idol worship. We are not commanded not to place a stumbling block before one who may subsequently place it before the blind.

Apropos the baraita that discusses the prohibition against selling weapons, the Gemara relates that Rav Dimi bar Abba says: Just as it is prohibited to sell to a gentile, it is prohibited to sell to an armed bandit who is a Jew. The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of this prohibition? If the thief is suspected of killing, isn’t it obvious that it is prohibited? After all, he is the same as a gentile. Providing a Jew who might kill with weapons is no different from giving a weapon to a gentile, as in both cases one violates the prohibition: Do not place a stumbling block before the blind.

The Gemara challenges: But let us be concerned that perhaps this Jew will go and sell to one gentile, and the other owners of the adjacent houses will go and sell to two other gentiles, resulting in a gentile settlement. Abaye said: We are commanded about placing a stumbling block before the blind (see Leviticus 19:14), but we are not commanded about placing a stumbling block before someone who may place it before the blind. In other words, this prohibition applies only when one causes another to sin by his direct action, not in a situation such as this, where the prohibition is two stages removed from the Jew’s action.