[Avodah] lifnei iver/kanaus

[Chana Luntz]

RDB writes:

> R' Zalman Nechemia Goldberg holds that the Rav has the status 
> of a Shomer Chinam in this case. The Ptur from golus is 
> because it was done in the context of what the Rav deemed 
> necessary for chinuch, but in the case of taking the item - 
> taking the item serves the purpose of chinuch w/o the Rav 
> being negligent in making sure he could return it.

But even if the Rav is not negligent, if the item is lost or stolen,
then he has been put in the position of having to swear that he was not
negligent.  Why should he be put in this position if what he did was not
only mutar but a mitzvah?

And is it so clear that the Rav in the hitting case was also not to some
degree negligent?  After all, the pupil died, so it would seem prima
facie that the Rav must have applied too much force.  And this case is,
in the Mishna, paralleled to the case of the shaliach beis din where the
person died under his hand - and is there not a whole maklokus about
this question - because the person has to have been assessed by the
court as to how many malkos he could take without dying, so prima facie,
if the shaliach beis din gave the requisite number of malkus, he should
be considered onus, and no question of galus should arise, so why do you
need a special heter - and at least some of the answers given to this
question relate to the shaliach beis din having given an extra lash over
and above the court recommended amount, and even so he is considered
patur for the reason given in the Mishna - namely that his action is not
considered rishut but a dvar mitzvah.  So why if the Rav was a bit
negligent in relation to the object, since it was in the course of what
the Rav deems necessary for Chinuch, which RZNG learns is a dvar mitzvah
based on a kal vochomer why is the Rav not patur from a degree of
negligence?

And further, having finally had the opportunity to review the Mishna
regarding the Rav killing the talmid and the related gemora (I
apologise, I should have done this previously, I do try and look things
up rather than rely on memory of things I learnt a long time ago, but
things have been so busy lately), it seems to me that if you did want to
learn this as a kal v'chomer it has an ever greater consequence.

Because, unlike as I remembered it, the reason given in the mishna for
the ptur of the Rav is not because of remoteness in the pursuit of a
mitzvah, but specifically because of the mitzvah aspect.  That is (for
those on the list who are not familiar with it) - the Mishna in Makos 8a
quotes Abba Shaul as explaining that the reason the Torah brings the
case of exile specifically for where somebody was inadvertently killed
in the course of the person to be exiled chopping wood is because just
as chopping wood is a dvar reshus, so a case of exile must be for a dvar
reshus, to exclude a father killing his son or a rav his talmid or the
shaliach of beis din (ie because these are engaged in a mitzvah and so
the act is not one of reshus).   And then the gemora further down brings
a Rabbi who asked Rava- how can Abba Shaul say that the chopping of wood
is necessarily voluntary, as maybe the chopping was being done to build
a sukkah or for the misbeach.  And Rava answered that in those cases it
is still considered reshus, as if the person were to find ready chopped
wood suitable for the sukkah or the mizbeach, it would not be a mitzvah
to chop, so here too it cannot be considered a mitzvah.   And then
Ravina asked, but if this is correct, then the Rav (or father etc)
should not be patur from galus, as this too should be reshus, as if the
talmid would learn then he wouldn't need to hit and so hitting wouldn't
be a mitzvah, so here too hitting should not be a mitzvah.  And then
Rava answers back that it is still a mitzvah to hit a talmid even if he
would learn without being hit, and he quotes the pasuk from Mishlei
29:17.  And although Rava goes back and gives another answer, it does
not seem he is resiling from the idea that hitting even in the absence
of need for the immediate lesson is not a mitzvah

On the basis of this interchange and pasuk though, it would seem that,
if hitting can be considered a mitzvah even if not needed for the talmid
to learn the particular lesson in question, then according to RZNG the
taking of a talmid's property could also be considered a mitzvah even if
not needed for the talmid to learn the particular lesson in question -
maybe perhaps on the basis that one only really learns well on bread and
water and sleeping on hard benches, so maybe a Rav should confiscate all
of a talmid's wealth so as to ensure he learns well.  Which does seem a
huge consequence.+

 (Of 
> course, if the Rav thought that the necessary objective of 
> chinuch would be best served by destroying the object, he is 
> within his rights according to RZNG.) 

And the same should therefore be true about destroying a talmid's
wealth.

Regards

Chana