[Avodah] shabbas/yom tov invites...

[Chana Luntz]

RHBwrites:

> 1. if someone were to?set a hammer and nails (or a 
> skillsaw/electric drill, etc.) in front of a person with 
> a?pile of 2x4's on shabbas/yom tov; would that person be over 
> on lifnei iver???
> ?
> 2. if someone invites a fellow jew to a meal on shabbas or 
> yom tov to?his/her house/shul/bar mitzavah, etc,?knowing 
> full-well 100 % they will drive either to the meal or from 
> the meal, are they being lifnei iver??? and if not (what i 
> have usually heard) then why not???hb

And then RRW replied in relation to 2.

> This is an easy "slamdunk"
> 
> Before inviting - simply ask a Rav! Only a Poseiq can weigh 
> all the halachic pros and cons in each given situation

However, I didn't take this question as being about what to do in a
practical situation.  I took this question as asking about the parameters of
lifnei iver.  What the questioner seems to be asking is - how can it be that
anybody ever allows for invitions - what about lifnei iver?  And for that
one needs to explore the parameters of lifnei iver.

The key thing to mention about lifnei iver is that the biblical form of
lifnei iver does not apply in situations where the person could manage to do
the averah without the help of the other.  This is normally phrased in terms
of the one side and two sides of the river as per Avodah Zara 6b and passing
the wine to the nazir, but in many ways that is a complicated example, and
it may be easier to see it in terms of the discussion in Baba Metzia 75b.

In Baba Metzia 75b the discussion is about the numbers of different issurim
a person is over in relation to ribus - the lender is over on six issurim
including lifnei iver, the borrower is over on three issurim including
lifnei iver, but the guarantor and the witnesses are only over on one issur,
which does not include lifnei iver.  And Tosphos comments there that the
reason it is phrased like that is because if the lender and the borrower
would have been prepared to go ahead with the ribus transaction without a
guarantor or witnesses, then lifnei iver does not apply, even though in fact
there is indeed a guarantor and witnesses to this loan, it is only where the
lender and/or borrower would not be prepared to go ahead with the ribus
transaction without the guarantor or the witnesses that the guarantor or the
witnesses is over on biblical lifnei iver. This is despite their presence
clearly strengthening the loan and making it more desirable (Note btw, that
even where there is no biblical lifnei iver, there may be an applicable a
rabbinic form, mesaya lei, but the parameters of that get even more
complicated - and that is not the question asked).

So, in case 1. you first have to assertain - would the person have been able
to obtain the hammer and nails (or whatever) without your help?  If he
would, then you are clearly outside the biblical form of lifnei iver - it is
a straightforward application of the Avodah Zara 6b and the one side of the
river, two sides of the river discussion.  Even if he could not though, it
is not necessarily so clear that it is the same case as that of the nazir.
A nazir is forbidden to touch wine, so by passing him the wine he is clearly
going to be over on an issur - there is nothing he can do with wine that is
permitted.  On the other hand here it is of course possible (although
perhaps unlikely) that the person will ignore the 2x4's and use the hammer
to open some nuts for immediate consumption (and we must be able to think of
a similar permissible application for the nails).   I am assuming here that
the use of the hammer and nails on the 2x4s by the person would constitute
the issur d'orisa of bone - if it does not, and for some reason you are in
d'rabbanan territory, than the biblical form of lifne iver is not going to
apply in any event.

So this is where it gets complicated  vis a vis inviting the fellow Jew over
for a meal.  Can you be sure that the fellow Jew would not have driven his
car without your invitation?  If you are sure of that, ie the only reason he
would be driving his car is because of your invitation, you may get to
lifnei iver territory. But if he always goes out for a meal by driving on
Friday nights, and the question is whether he goes to a restaurant or to
your house (leaving aside complications about whether there are more issurei
d'orisa violated if he goes longer or shorter distances), then you cannot be
said to be over on biblical lifnei iver because he would have done the
averah anyway.  And even if you are pretty confident that he would not have
driven his car without your invitation it is not really the same as either
the nazir or the ribus case (or even the hammer case), because you are not
providing him with the means to do the issur.  He owns the car anyway, he
could take it into his head to drive anyway (even if he doesn't usually).
What you are providing to him is, at most, the *motivation* to do the issur
(a nice meal at the end of it), rather than the means.  

In addition, if you offer him the option of staying over with you (or
somebody within walking distance) and arriving before shabbas, (or he is in
fact within walking distance, even if you happen to know he is not the type
to walk anywhere) then it is hard to argue that lifnei iver is being
violated.  In the classic cases of lifnei iver, there is nothing a nazir can
do with wine except be over on an issur.  A loan with ribus is a loan with
ribus, no matter how you cut it.  But here, the meal itself is not assur, -
only the means of getting there is. If there are permissible ways of getting
to the meal, the fact that you know he has opted for one of the
impermissible ones does not mean that you have led him down that path.  

So there are lots of doubts on whether you actually have a biblical form of
lifnei iver here.  And note that many people hold that a safek in a d'orisa
turns it into a d'rabbanan and a safek safeka, ie two different kinds of
doubts make it mutar (this is standard Rav Ovadiah Yosef type analysis).
That is why it is probably sensible to get all the doubts weighed up - and
why RRW's advice vis a vis a practical situation and asking a Rav is
advisable.  But merely from the analysis you can see why most people hold
that one is unlikely to have a full fledged biblical form of lifnei iver
operating in this case.

Regards

Chana