daf bit: Nedarim 48

[cellio]

The mishna discusses using an intermediary to get around a vow. Suppose a father has vowed not to benefit from his son. His son wants to host a banquet for his own son's wedding, and the mishna proposes that he give the banquet (that is, the resources to pay for it) to a neighbor on the condition that his father be invited. The gemara debates whether this is valid, and concludes that if he says "so that my father can come" it is legal but if he says "on condition that my father can come", it is not a legitimate gift. The decision must be left to the recipient, but the giver is allowed to make a request. (48b)

Comments

Re: Tangential, but significant I think:

[cellio]

Thank you for sharing that. I'm sorry to hear that so many people are that patronizing and/or pushy.

The passage you're looking for is Lev 19:14 (do not place a stumbling-block before the blind). 19:1-18 makes up what is sometimes called the holiness code, by the way, including "love your neighbor as yourself".

The stumbling-block passage is understood both literally and figuratively. It is the (a?) basis for the laws on modest dress, for instance -- the rabbis hold that men are easily aroused sexually, so women shouldn't tempt them. (I don't see the countering question asked nearly often enough: given that we are responsible for our own actions, why is the burden placed so disproportionately on women, as opposed to telling men "avert your eyes" or "learn to control yourself"? But I digress.)

Anyway, yes -- our tradition tells us not to place obstacles and to help others (but not to just do for them; there's a famous discussion of how we must help someone unload his burdened donkey but he has to help). The Rambam (Moses Maimonides, 12th-century big-name scholar) outlines eight levels of "charity" (the word's complicated; that'll do), with the top of the list being to teach someone a trade. That's pretty different from "give lots of money to the poor" -- which is also called for, but handouts are inferior to helping people get on track so they don't feel beholden to anybody.

I think you're right that this passage of talmud is part of it too. The only giver who can command us about use of the gift is God. And he's pretty flexible, so where do mere people get off trying to add all sorts of conditions?

Re: Tangential, but significant I think:

[chaos-wrangler.livejournal.com]

The Rambam (Moses Maimonides, 12th-century big-name scholar) outlines eight levels of "charity" (the word's complicated; that'll do), with the top of the list being to teach someone a trade. That's pretty different from "give lots of money to the poor" -- which is also called for, but handouts are inferior to helping people get on track so they don't feel beholden to anybody.

There's also the common thread through the lower levels that the less possibility of the giver & receiver knowing each other's identities the better, so as not to make the giver feel more powerful (socially) or the receiver feel in debt or less powerful.

Re: Tangential, but significant I think:

[zevabe.livejournal.com]

There is actually a debate if the command to not put a stumbling block before the blind is understood literally at all. It is certainly understood to prohibit giving self-beneficial advice without an explicit caveat of such (telling you to buy stock x and sell stock y when I plan to buy y and sell x), as Rashi does. It is also understood to prohibit enticing others to sin or aiding them in such, as Rambam does. However, while a person who puts a banana peel in front of a blind person in hopes that he'll comically fall is certainly sinning, he may not be violating this verse. Some commentaries claim it ONLY means metaphors, because the literal is so obviously a violation of the rest of the Torah.

Second, modesty has its basis in many things besides the metaphorical stumbling block. Also, it applies to more than women's attire, even if that is where the noise about it comes from. A person is not supposed to lounge about his or her home in the nude, even alone. Nor can someone behave in an immodest way in public, even fully clothed (unfortunately this is only heard about women, even though it also applies to men).

As for the suggestion that men avert their eyes or such, yes the suggestion that men are this out of control is offensive (common question). I tried to imagine a comparable situation and had difficulty. Perhaps the person who must for whatever legitimate reason eat on a fast day. Although Darren Diabetic could pack a lunch to bring to shul on Yom Kippur, and eat it in front of everyone in the social hall, most people eat it discretely. Why? So as not to serve as a temptation/tease to others. Shouldn't his fellow worshippers control themselves and resist the urge to eat, even though Darren Diabetic is eating? (Realistically, I think most people would resist the temptation to eat, but suffer greater hunger pangs because they see someone eating.)

Re: Tangential, but significant I think:

[cellio]

However, while a person who puts a banana peel in front of a blind person in hopes that he'll comically fall is certainly sinning, he may not be violating this verse.

Hmm, ok. I had assumed that there was no reason to be shy when counting reasons not to sin. :-) But if it's meant only figuratively, you're right that there's other coverage available for the literal reading.

Also, it applies to more than women's attire, even if that is where the noise about it comes from.

I was also thinking of kol isha but wasn't sure I wanted to get into it. Tzniut (modest dress, in case anyone else is still reading) is an easier case in one way: it is almost always possible to avert one's eyes, but sometimes harder to not listen.

Thanks for the additional information on modesty.

Eating on Yom Kippur: I had assumed that the reason one isn't blatant is not so much tempting others as leading them to think negatively of you (marit ayin).

(Realistically, I think most people would resist the temptation to eat, but suffer greater hunger pangs because they see someone eating.)

Speaking only for myself: I've seen people eat on Yom Kippur, and it didn't affect my actual or perecived hunger. I am, of course, only one person -- not known to be atypical, but still just one person.

Re: Tangential, but significant I think:

[zevabe.livejournal.com]

Ordinarily there is no reason to be shy in counting reasons not to sin. Toward the end of Masechet Makkot, they count up how many prohibitions punishable by lashes a person can simultaneously violate (which isn't quite the same thing). However, I recall having heard in a class once that it may not be literally because it is so obviously metaphorical.

Again, tzniut does not mean ONLY mean modest dress, even if that is the area most likely to get "TZNIUS!!" shouted at you on the streets of Mea Shearim.

Marit ayin probably also factors in to the discresion shown by those eating on YK. I'm still inclined to think in a non marit ayin situation (small shul where everyone knows you, or very obviously pregnant, etc), people would be inclined to be discrete.

Re: Tangential, but significant I think:

[cellio]

(light dawns) Oh! I thought tzniut referred specifically to the subset of modesty that was about dress; I didn't realize it was the whole category. Thank you.