[Avodah] assur l'ha'alos al hada'as

[Zev Sero]

On 17/04/2011 3:10 PM, David Riceman wrote:
> But why isn't the Rambam over on lifnei iver? Surely I'm being ma'aleh
> al hada'as by reading the halacha.

Not at all.  Accidentally forgetting is not exempted because oness
rachmana patreih, it's exempted because the issur is deliberately
removing the words from your heart.  Here too, the issur is
deliberately considering that these things might be true; there's no
issur in the thought occurring on its own, because of what you read
beheter.  Compare to "maksheh atzmo loda`as", or "me'abed atzmo
loda`as"; it's the intention that counts.  (BTW, putting oneself in
danger is *not* a violation of "es dimchem lenafshoseichem edrosh",
but of "venishmartem"; i.e. it's the danger itself, not the result,
that's the problem.  If there were no "venishmartem" there'd be no
problem in taking even reckless risks.)

Consider also the closely related issur on studying AZ ("eichocho
ya`avdu").  In that case the passuk itself explicitly limits the issur
by saying that it's only forbidden if the intention is ch"v "ve'e`eseh
chein gam oni"; if it's for any other purpose it's permitted.

Following this, here's an even straighter answer to your original
question: the issur the Rambam brings in Hil' AZ is to *seriously*
*consider* the possibility that the idolaters may be right.  Bringing
up their arguments for the purpose of refuting them, or even just to
provide an example in an unrelated argument,  is not assur at all.
In Hil' Yesodei Hatorah he brings up the possibility of two gods
only for the purpose of demonstrating how it logically contradicts
itself, "if we were to consider it we would have to immediately
dismiss it", and that was never assur.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
zev at sero.name                 eventually run out of other people’s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher