Originally published 4/22/08, 9:34 AM, Eastern Daylight Time.Link no longer works
To be honest, I have only marginally been following the debate in Israel over the chametz law, so in many ways, I am really not prepared to comment. I found it interesting, though, to have found out that the judge who sparked this whole debate is actually observant. See http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1208179714721&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull.
This fact must inform us that the issue is not simple a battle between leftist forces attempting to liberalize Israel and observant forces attempting to foster a fully observant Israel. There is much more to the debate. In many ways, it may really be about how Orthodoxy should relate to the non-Orthodox.
Of course, at the root of Orthodoxy is a principle that observance of mitzvot is a requirement of all Jews. Kol Yisrael aravin zeh l'zeh. We all are guarantors for each other before God. The question is how to achieve this goal.
The law of lifnei iver, causing another or assisting another to violate halacha is pivotal in this regard. An investigation of this law, though, reveals a most interesting perception of the law by various commentators. They understand the law to be based on policy rather than the usual technical understanding of the law. In general, a law is concerned with specific behaviour without contemplation of the consequences of this behaviour. With policy considerations, consequences become important considerations.
So the question emerges in the mitzvah of lifnei iver. Is the prohibition technical, ie is its focus the specific technical behaviour before us? IOW is it absolutely forbidden for me to pass a piece of pork to another Jew (given the specific circumstances of lifner iver)? Or is the prohibition to consider policy considerations? Am I thus to consider how the person will respond to my not passing the pork and evaluate whether in not passing the pork, I will develop a negative response to Orthodox Jews that will ensure that this person will continue eating pork in the future, rather than passing the pork in this circumstance and developing a relationship with this person that may have more positive Torah implications in the future? Technical means the only concern is the battle; policy means the concern in the entire war.
Now of course, the issue in not black-and-while. Of course, if you can politely not pass the pork without evoking a strong negative reaction from the other person, that would be best. There must also be the consideration that in passing the pork, the person may incorrectly interpret your behaviour as permitting him/her to eat the pork and that you accept a pluralism of Jewish standards that is incorrect -- with further potential negative consequences.
Understanding lifner iver as a policy statement actually makes it much more complex, demanding more thorough analsyis of each situation. It may be that because we want things to be simple, we tend to gravitate to the technical -- that way we have the one right answer. The reality may be though that the issue is actually a policy one and what is really demanded is thought.
As I do not know the actual details of the chametz law, I really don't have a definite position on it. There are policy reasons for both sides. The key though is to recognize that it is, according to many commentators, a policy matter and, as such, demands thought and analysis. The rhetoric on both sides must end, in order to fulfil the goal of obseving the mitzvah of lifnei iver.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
3 comments:
Yonasan Rosenblum has an excellent piece on this which summarizes the importance of the debate.
In short, Israel must promote someting of a Jewish identity to justify its survival and necessity. A state like all others, when pitted against the specific demands of Islamofascism, cannot survive.
Thus the avoidance of chometz on Pesach isn't simply a halachic issue but an existential one.
What is interesting is that polls show both that the majority of Israelis avoid chometz on Pesach AND would davka eat it if the law specifically forbid it.
The words of the sages are best heard when said gently, or something like that.
You are absolutely correct in identifying this as an existential issue and not simply a halachic issue. A Jewish state that has not uniqueness to it does not have any force or energy to withstand attacks against it. It is necessary for Israel ato be a Jewish state. The further fact is, as such, that Halacha provides an existential answer to this need for uniqueness. Halacha can make the state Jewish. Yet, is this the point of Halacha? Is there a problem with Halacha serving as an existential base for Jewishness without meeting its prime definition of reflecting the Will of God? I think there is and that is why this issue is so confusing and problematic. This is also the reason why a majority of Israels may refrain from eating chametz on Pesach -- it reflects a existential uniqueness to Jewishness -- but dont want it imposed -- for that would make it more that this solely existantial value. That ultimate answer cannot be found outside of the most basic halachic reason for its observance -- it is the Will of God. Observance for any other reason may have short term value but ultimately is part of the problem not the solution.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
I have a long post about lifnei eiver here Are you allowed to give a non-religious Jew food to eat?
The following excerpt is very germane to your post.
רעק"א takes an interesting tack regarding לפני עור. In Yoreh Deah Siman קפ"א סע' ו the Shulchan Aruch writes that it is prohibited for a woman to cut off the payists of a man according to some opinions. רעק"א comments that according to everyone there would be an issur of לפני עור on the woman. He then states the following chiddush. If the man could cut his own payists and is going to do it, the woman can cut them for him and will not violate לפני עור. He explains as follows. If the man cuts his own payists, he violates 2 issurim, מקיף and ניקף. If the woman cuts them, he only violates the issur of ניקף and not מקיף. Meaning, that if the woman cuts them she is saving him from an additional aveira and therefore there is no issur לפני עור as her action is saving him from an additional aveira.
It comes out according to רעק"א that if your action reduces the total number or severity of aveiros committed then there is no issur of לפני עור.
Post a Comment