Can Saying Hello Be Lifnei Iver

Bava Metzia (5:11) | Yisrael Bankier | a month ago

The Misnah (5:11) lists the negative prohibitions that are violated when a loan with interest (ribit) is drawn. Those violating all or some of these prohibitions are the lender, borrower, guarantor, witnesses and, according to the Chachamim even the scribe who drafts the contract.

Regarding the scribe, the Tosfot Yom Tov explains that in a case where the lender would not have agreed to the loan without a contract, then the scribe violates the prohibition of lifnei iver -- literally, "one should not place a stumbling block in front of a blind person". The understanding is that the prohibition of lifnei iver is violated when enabling another person to sin.

If we return to the previous Mishnah, we will find that the prohibition of lifnei iver in the context of ribit is even broader.

In the previous Mishnah we saw the opinion of R' Shimon that the even words can constitute interest. The example brought is if the borrower volunteered information to the lender, where he would not have done so if he had not borrowed money from him. The Gemara adds that even if the borrower greeted the lender, when he would not ordinarily do so, it would constitute ribit. This is derived from the passuk "neshech call davar" (Devarim 23:20) -- with the word davar implying even a word. One might ask, would the prohibition of lifnei iver apply in this case also?

The Chazon Yechzkel (6:6 Chidushin, s.v. Af) cites the Kiryat Sefer who explains that the derivation from the pasuk cited in the Gemara is an asmachta and a greeting would constitute avak ribit -- rabbinically prohibited ribit. He reasons that even when it comes to a monetary payment, it would only be considered biblically ribit, if it was a fixed amount.

The Chazon Yechezkel then cites the Rashba who explains that when it comes to avak ribit, that is only violated by the lender and not the borrower. His proof comes from the Gemara (68b) that discussed a contract where Rav Ilish was the borrower and whether it constituted avak ribit. The Gemara there reasoned that "certainly Rav Ilish would not have caused another to violate a prohibition." The implication there is that it is the lender and not the borrower that would be violating avak ribit.

The Chazon Yechezkel however continues that that Gemara is not necessarily a proof. One could even say that both the borrower and lender violate the prohibitions. The Gemara however had a greater concern. He explains that had there been an issue of avak ribit, then Rav Ilish would have violated the biblical prohibition of lifnei iver. In other words, we find that enabling another to violate a rabbinic prohibition, would constitute a biblical prohibition of lifnei iver. He said that that is because lifnei iver also encompasses giving another person bad advice. In other words, the issue here is not because he is assisting the lender to perform a prohibition, but rather because of his ill guidance. It would seem at this stage that lifnei iver would also apply even if the borrower greeted the lender.

The Chazon Yechezkel however continues by questioning the Rashba's assertion that avak ribit is only violated by the lender. We just learnt that even the borrower greeting the lender could constitute avak ribit. In that case however, the lender had no chance to prevent the avak ribit from occurring. How then could the lender violate the prohibition? He continues that the Navat Yaakot cites the Beit HaLevi that answers this question. He explains that the reason why avak ribit only applies to the lender is because the entire rabbinic prohibition of avak ribit is to distance one from violating biblical ribit. Consequently, it is sufficient to apply avak ribit to lender to achieve that end. The Beit HaLevi however explains that if one could not apply avak ribit to the lender, as in our case, then it would apply to the borrower.

Returning then to our original question, one could conclude that if the borrower greeted the lender, the borrower alone has violated the prohibition of avak ribit. Since the lender however would not have violated the prohibition, the prohibition of lifnei iver would not also apply.

Download