LEV410 … Jewish law specifically provides for a transfer of care to others when the child cannot tolerate the parent's mental state. The first exception thus depends on the parent's mental state and/or the child's reaction to it; the second exception is based instead on the relationship between the parent and child. While parents and children ideally get along well with each other, that is not always the case. As we have seen, Jewish sources specifically demand that a parent not make overly burdensome or provocative demands on a child so that the child is tempted to dishonor and disrespect the parent or perhaps even assault him or her, because in making a demand that evokes that response, the parent would thereby transgress the biblical command of not putting a stumbling block before the blind [this verse. See B. Mo'ed Katan 17a; B. Kiddushin 32a; M.T. Laws of Rebels (Mamrim) 6:8,9; and S.A. Yoreh De'ah 240:19,20.] Thus if the relationship between the parent and child is not good, Jewish law would find it better for the child to transfer the care of the parent to someone else, as long as the parent ensures that the care fulfills the parent's physical and psychological needs at a reasonably good level. Thus, while Sefer Hasidim required generally that children live in the vicinity of their parents to minister to their needs, it said this: "It is best that a father and son separate if they quarrel with each other, for much pain is caused; and I do not mean only the pain of the father or the teacher, but even the pain of the son." [Attributed to Rabbi Judah ben Samuel He-Hasid, Sefer Hasidim (ed. Margoliot, 1957), 371, #564,; see also 257, #343).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV416 One other important principle in regard to honor and respect of parents emerges from the sources--namely, that the parents should not make unreasonable demands of their children or punish their children in a way that will lead the child to rebel against them and dishonor them. The Rabbis deduced this from the Torah's command, "Do not put a stumbling block before the blind," which they interpret to include not only the physically blind but also those blinded by their lack of information or by the temptation to do something improper. (The verse is Leviticus 19:14. In addition to its literal reference to the physically blind, the Rabbis interpreted it to demand also that we not mislead those who lack information or who are morally blind by tempting them to do what is a violation of the law. See Sifra Kedoshim on Leviticus 19:14; B. Pesachim 22b; B. Mo'ed Katan 17a; B. Kiddushin 32a; and B. Bava Metz'ia 75b.) This is an instance of the latter case, by which unreasonable demands of children or striking an adult child will tempt the child to say or do things that are in violation of the Commandments demanding honor and respect for parents.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV422 See [[LEV999]] Leviticus 25:17 fear DORFFWITO 89-91

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV424 The Jewish tradition demands quite a lot of someone who has harmed another person by requiring the wrongdoer to complete the process of return (teshuvah) described in Jewish sources. That process includes acknowledgment of one's wrongdoing, remorse expressed in words to the harmed party, compensation to the victim to the extent that that is possible, and, ultimately, better behavior when the same kind of situation arises again. In some ways, this is even harder than serving time in prison, for some convicts never acknowledge that they have done anything wrong, let alone try to make amends to the person they have hurt. Once a person has completed the process of teshuvah, however, [Mishnah, Bava Metzia 4:10 [58b] demands that people in society not even mentioned the person’s former troubles with the law, for that would be to engage in oppressive speech. Why? Because one would label the person by his or her former offense, undermine and distrust the process of return, and deny the person the possibility of writing his or her former wrong and taking on a new, better identity--writing a new personal script, as it were. This Mishnah thus starkly contrast with the practice in many American states, where former convicts have to list their convictions on any job application, are ineligible to apply for any government job, and, in a few states, lose the right to vote. As we saw earlier with regard to negative but true speech, however, there is an exception to this rule. If the person applies for a job that entailed the dealing with situations similar to the one in which he or she committed the offense and this would tempt him or her to do the same thing again, people who know of the person's past may describe the offense, and potential employers may refuse to take the chance of exposing the person to the same temptations again. In fact, such people have a duty to take these steps to protect other people and even the applicant, for the Rabbis interpret “do not place a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14) to include not only those who are physically blind but those who are morally blind as well. (B. Pesachim 22b; B. Mo’ed Katan 17a; B. Bava Metzia 75b). So, for example, people may tell potential employers at a school, camp, or youth group that they should not hire a given person because he or she has abused children in the past.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV412 "Do not place a stumbling block before an undiscerning person" (Lit, "a blind person.") We have been admonished herein not to instruct the Children of Yisrael [in ways that are] not in conformity with [Torah] law and halachah. Our Sages, z"l, said (Avos 1:1), "Be deliberate in judgment." Those who make haste in the grasping and rendering of halachic decisions cannot avoid placing an obstacle before an undiscerning person, and their sin carries grave implications, as the pasuk says (Tehillim 82:5), "They neither know nor understand; they will go about in darkness, all the foundations of the Earth will be shaken." (Rashi: "The judges who corrupt the judgment will not know or understand that due to this sin they will go about in darkness and the foundations of the world will be shaken.") They further said (Avos 4:13), "Be painstaking in study for carelessness in study is tantamount to willfulness" (I.e., If you make a mistake in halachah because of carelessness in your learning, Hashem sure will consider it as if you did so willfully (R. Ovadyah of Bartenura). They also said (Sotah 22a), "'For she has felled many dead' (Mishlei 7:26) -- this refers to a disciple who is not yet qualified to render halachic decisions, yet does so. 'Enormous is [the amount of] all she has slain' (ibid.) -- this refers to a disciple who is qualified to render halachic decisions, but does not do so." We have further been admonished from this pasuk to give proper advice to one who takes counsel with us, and not mislead him with foolish advice. Furthermore, one should not advise another with his own benefit in mind (Sanhedrin 76).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV411 "Before the blind do not put a stumbling block" This verse prohibits us from placing a spiritual stumbling-block in the path of others. If someone causes another to sin, he violates this prohibition (Rambam, Sefer Hamitzvos, Prohibition 298; Smag [Sefer Mitzvos Hagodol - AJL], Prohibition 168). By speaking or listening to loshon hora, you not only sin yourself, but also cause others to transgress.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV415 It may also be stated that enticing one into the use of psychedelics [drugs] entails also the issur of ve-lifne iver lo titen mikhshol -- placing a stumbling block before the inexperienced and naïve [this verse; See Semag, Lavin 168 based on Sifra, ad loc., Pesahim 22b and Zohar Kedoshim 85a. Compare Deuteronomy 27:18 Rashi ad loc]. Violation of such an ethical precept involves a large variety of moral principles bordering on wrong counsel and ill advice, which are an expression of human callousness and disrespect for our fellow man. Maimonides in his Regimen Sanitatis reiterates "the deep concern of the Torah for the mental welfare of the Israelites, whether they be sinful or righteous." In many of his medical works, he stresses "the importance of mental health, the improvement of behavior which is the cure of the mind and its faculties," stating repeatedly "how dangerous it is to indulge in medicine, tranquilizers, sedatives or stimulants and becoming habituated to them." (Maimonides, Pirkei Moshe, 8; see also Eight Chapters, 1.) ... New biomedical evidence points to the genetic damage caused by LSD to the chromosomes, which according to Dr. Maimon Cohen of the State University School of Medicine, could lead to mental retardation and physical abnormalities in the offsprings of LSD users as shown in a number of maternity cases. Traditionally viewed, then taking psychedelic drugs and exposing oneself to a "bad trip" with all the possible psychotic repercussions would be considered a transgression of the positive commandment for man's welfare in the Torah, ve-nishmartem me'od le-nafshoteikhem (taking protective measures to guard one's health) [Deuteronomy 4:15-AJL], committing an act of havallah be-azmo (self-damage) and hampering his homeostasis and mental balance from performing the Divine way of life properly.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV423 Surprisingly, there is one source which appears to rule that destruction of the fetus by Noachides [i.e., non-Jews, who are not bound by Halakhah but by the seven universal laws of morality conveyed to all of humanity through Noah - AJL], at least under some circumstances, does not constitute a moral offense. Maharit (Teshuvot Maharit, I, no. 99) writes: "I remember having seen in a responsum of the Rashba that he bears witness that Ramban rendered medical aid to a gentile woman in return for compensation in order that she might conceive and aided her in aborting the fruit of her womb." (Lengthy footnote questioning the authenticity of this account is omitted - AJL). It is of course inconceivable that an individual of Nachmanides' piety and erudition would have violated the injunction "Thou shall not place a stumbling block before a blind person" [this verse] or that he would have actively assisted transgressors. Applying the line of reasoning adduced above, Rabbi Unterman draws the conclusion that there is a fundamental distinction between Jewish law and Noachide law with regard to the assessment of potential life. According to many authorities, Noachides are under no obligation to preserve the lives of their fellows, to "be fruitful and multiply" or to refrain from wasting the male seed. They are forbidden to commit homicide and to take the life of "a man within a man" [See Genesis 9:6 - AJL] but bear no responsibility for the safeguarding and preservation of seminal life. It would appear, then, that Halakhah holds them accountable only for actual, in contradistinction to potential, life. [Footnote omitted; as of excerpt transcription in February 2020, the footnote is accessible at books.google.com by copying and pasting the sentence preceding it into an internet search engine - AJL].] Accordingly, there is no objection to Noachides aborting or to giving advice and rendering indirect assistance to Noachides in aborting, a fetus within the first forty days of gestation. Since Halakhah considers that during this initial period the embryo has not as yet developed distinctly recognizable organs or an independent circulatory system it cannot be considered "a man with a man" and hence its destruction does not constitute murder under the Noachide dispensation. Nahmanides, Rabbi Unterman avers, sanctioned the performance of abortions by Noachides only within this forty-day period [lengthy footnote omitted].

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV413 Furthermore, the heter (i.e., rabbinic allowance--AJL] to repeat lashon hara spoken before three listeners relates only to the speaker, not to the listener. However, if the speaker knows that the listener’s nature is such that he will immediately accept the negative information he hears about Shimon as the truth--and it is also possible that he will add other derogatory comments about Shimon-- then to such a person it is forbidden under any circumstances to utter even the slightest hint of negative information about another person. One who does tell such a person something negative about another person transgresses the negative commandment of וְלִפְנֵ֣י עִוֵּ֔ר לֹ֥א תִתֵּ֖ן מִכְשֹׁ֑ל, “Before a blind person do not place a stumbling block” (Vayikra 19:14) … All that we have written in this section applies even if the speaker does not mention the name of the original speaker who related negative information before three listeners, but rather simply says that such-and-such was said about this person; this is still forbidden. And now, my brother, after all that we have explained, take note of how greatly one should distance himself from this leniency [of repeating negative information said in the presence of three people], for there is virtually no scenario in which it can apply.... according too many poskim there is absolutely no source for this leniency in the Gemara. Therefore, one who is concerned with his spiritual welfare should stay far away from this leniency.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV417 One should also be aware of an important principle regarding issues of lashon hara. If one is interested in entering a relationship with someone else--such as by hiring him as a worker, becoming his business partner, making a shidduch with him, or the like--and even if he has not yet heard anything negative about the other person, he is still permitted to research and investigate by asking others about the person's character and dealings. Although it is possible that the people he asks will tell him derogatory information about the other person, it is nevertheless permitted to make these inquiries, since his sole intent is for his own benefit, in order to spare himself damage and avoid any quarrels, disputes or chillul Hashem, Heaven forbid. It seems to me, however, that the one inquiring is required to inform the person he is asking that he is interested in entering a shidduch or starting some other relationship with the subject of his inquiries. By doing so, he will avoid even the slightest transgression with his inquiries, since his intent is only for his own benefit and not in order to disparage the person, as we explained. (Nevertheless, he should take care not to decisively believe anything negative that the person tells him about the subject, because that would be a violation of the prohibition of believing lashon hara. Rather, he should consider the possibility that the information is true, in order to protect himself.) By informing the person of the reason for his inquiries, he also avoids transgressing the prohibition of וְלִפְנֵ֣י עִוֵּ֔ר לֹ֥א תִתֵּ֖ן מִכְשֹׁ֑ל, “Before a blind person do not place a stumbling block” (Vayikra 19:14), for even if the person exposes the negative aspects of the subject's character, he is not violating any prohibition, since he is aware of the constructive nature of the discussion. His intent in sharing the information is not to disparage the subject; rather, he is speaking the truth in order to help the one who was consulting with him on this matter--which is halachically permitted, as we explained elsewhere. However, the person who was asked for information should be very careful not to exaggerate and say more than he actually knows. There are other conditions that must be fulfilled in such a case; refer to section 9 of Hilchos Rechilus, where we discuss these halachos.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT