[Index of all Weekly Divrei Torah pages]
In our parsha (Kedoshim) is found the famous injunction, “Before a blind person, do not place an obstacle.” The full verse (Lev. 19:14) reads, “Do not curse the deaf, and before a blind person do not put an obstacle; and fear the Lord your G-d, I am G-d.” Taking the verse at “face value,” we would have to say that it applies to one who is literally blind, who cannot see. The Torah enjoins us to refrain from placing any physical obstacles in his path, in order not to cause him any damage. This is what we might have expected to see in Rashi’s commentary, since his stated purpose is to explain the simple (pshat) level of the verse. However, Rashi says something else: “To one who is blind regarding a specific topic, do not give advice that is inappropriate for him. Do not tell him, ‘sell your field and buy a donkey,’ while you proceed to go around him and buy the field.”
There are several questions here;
1) Why does Rashi explain “blind” as “ignorant of a certain topic,” as opposed to physically blind?
2) Why does Rashi explain “obstacle” as “inappropriate advice,” rather than a physical obstacle?
3) Why does Rashi find it necessary to bring an example of “inappropriate advice?” Not only is it self-explanatory, but if Rashi wanted to bring an example, there are certainly less complicated examples of “inappropriate advice” than the one Rashi mentions.
4) In the source for Rashi’s explanation (Torat Cohanim on the verse), there are three examples: a) Do not advise one to arise early and set out on a journey, lest he be set upon by robbers, b) Do not advise someone to set out in the afternoon, when he may be inflicted by heat and the sun, c) Do not advise one to sell his field and buy a donkey, and then go around him…(as above). Why does Rashi ignore the first two examples and mention only the third?
In order to gain insight and answer these questions, it is necessary to recall a general Torah principle; that is, the Torah does not repeat itself needlessly. If an injunction or commandment seems to repeat itself, it is in order to introduce a new detail that was not present in the previous commandment, or that we would not have deciphered from the previous commandment. In the commandments that the Torah repeats, but that Rashi was unable to find a new detail or the rabbinic commentaries did not elucidate, it is assumed that the Torah wanted to emphasize the strictness of the commandment by repeating it and making the act culpable not only once, but twice or more. However, we don’t look for such situations. We always try to find the new detail, the new perspective that allows us to understand why the Torah seemed to repeat something, rather than judge it a repetition for the sake of strictness.
In our case, the Torah already commanded us not to place physical obstacles in front of those who are unaware. In the section dealing with “torts” (Ex. 21:33-34), the Torah enjoins us, “When one opens a pit or when one digs a pit and fails to cover it, and someone else falls into it…the owner of the pit must pay.” From this case, we see that one must refrain from doing something that establishes an obstacle with potential to damage or hurt someone else. And even though the verse details the payments without specifying that digging the pit is forbidden, it is certainly implied; if the punishment for digging is payment, then certainly uncovering or digging a pit and leaving it uncovered is itself forbidden. Furthermore, the digger is culpable even if the pit is on public land, since the Torah considers that pit to be the property of the one who dug it, for the sake of personal damages. From this we may conclude that it is certainly forbidden to place unknown obstacles before one who is unaware. And this is what leads Rashi to explain that our parsha and verse is talking about a new injunction; here in parshat Kedoshim, the Torah is introducing a “new” detail that was not included in the previous commandment of “When one opens a pitŔ There is another way of causing damage that is not physical, and yet is forbidden.
Based on this explanation, we can already fathom why Rashi skipped the first two examples in Torah Cohanim and mentioned only the third. The first two examples (“don’t tell one to set out on a journey in the morning, nor in the afternoonŔ) exemplify the initial injunction of digging a pit, described above. One who gives such bad advice may cause another person damage, just as one who digs a pit may cause another to fall into it. Therefore, Rashi is forced to choose the third example, which is of a different nature, as we shall see. For similar reasons, Rashi could not explain that the reason for our verse is to make it forbidden to entice someone into doing a transgression. We saw already that when the snake persuaded Chava (Eve, wife of Adam) to eat from the tree of knowledge, the snake was punished. From this, we must infer that to give advice persuading one to sin is itself a sin. Rashi could not have applied our verse to this sin, since that was already learned from the section of Adam and Eve in the Torah.
The key to Rashi’s new angle is in his final words; “and you go around him and buy the land.” Here, Rashi emphasizes that the transgression in our verse is not that we cause someone to exchange a donkey for a house. In such a situation, the unaware person might not even lose anything, since perhaps in his situation the donkey would be more profitable. The transgression here, as Rashi explains it, is that you “went around him.”
Here, the Torah tells us something new. We are not talking about creating a potential pitfall in front of a blind person, since that is ground that the Torah has covered already (as mentioned above). Here, the injunction is against giving advice that is not tailored to the person receiving it. When we give advice, we must ensure that we have only the good of the person in mind, and that the advice is good “for him,” without taking ourselves into consideration whatsoever. If our motivation is to profit from or capitalize on the advice, even if it is good advice for the beneficiary as well, it is forbidden. This is what Rashi wishes to bring out with the words, “and you go around him” – even if there is no damage to the one who receives the advice, if it is inappropriate for him, meaning that there is no benefit for him – it is forbidden from the Torah. When you give advice to another, you must think about his situation and his needs, rather than using it as an opportunity to satisfy your own needs.
We might think, this unaware person will not be negatively affected at all from my advice, so why should I hold back? On this, Rashi explains, “Before the blind do not place an obstacle” – do not give advice that is inappropriate for him. “Obstacle” here includes a situation in which there is no loss to the receiver of the advice, but that the manner of giving the advice was inappropriate. The beneficiary assumed that the advice was tailored to his needs and that the advisor had his best intentions in mind, but in truth the advisor was “going around” him, deceiving him by giving advice that the advisor could profit from – this is the transgression described in our verse. According to Rashi, the transgression is not dependent upon the results of the advice – they could be positive or negative. The transgression is dependent upon the intention of the advice-giver; if he had his own profit motives in mind, rather than solely the situation of the beneficiary, then he has transgressed.
From Rashi’s explanation, we may also derive an important lesson in love of a fellow Jew. When you have influence over another Jew, and you have the ability to give advice and guide him on the path of Torah and mitzvoth, it is necessary to take into account not only the concrete results. It is necessary to have the right intentions, and the correct approach to the ultimate goal. When you want to do a “favor” for another, you have to take into account his situation so that you do not think of yourself at all. In that way, one will be able to properly fulfill the commandment of “you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” When you take into account that the other is truly “like yourself,” and not “someone else,” then you can accept him in true unity and give him proper guidance.
From Likutei Sichot of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, ztz’l, vol. 27, pp. 141-148 Rabbi David Sterne, Jerusalem Connection in the old city of Jerusalem