[Avodah] lifnei iver/kanaus

[Doron Beckerman]

<<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?>>

<You could ask the same question on a Shomer Aveida, who is also involved in
a Mitzvah and yet he is either a Shomer Chinam or a Shomer Sachar. (BK 56).>

    No comparison. In the case of aveida, the shmira is itself part of the
mitzva.

This just reinforces the point. Why does the Torah not impose a Chiyuv
Shmirah K'lapei Shmaya, where there is no monetary claim on the side of the
loser in case of Geneiva/ Aveida (if Shomer Sachar) or suspected P'shia?
There is no contradiction between being involved in a Mitzvah and the Torah
imposing attendant Chiyuvim upon you.

(Even a Zaken V'Ainah L'fi Kevodo who volunteers to do the Hashava would
have either a Shomer Chinam or Shomer Sachar status - L'chorah depending on
the two explanations in the Gemara there for why he is a Shomer Sachar).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070926/39b68517/attachment-0002.htm>