Dear Rabbi Kornfeld:
With reference to the Gemara rejecting the idea that one man may remove the bread from the oven for his 'friend'; because of the principle 've'Chi Omrim Lo le'Adam Chatei (even an Isur de'Rabbanan) Kedei she'Yizkeh Chaveiro' (to be spared from transgressing even an Isur Sekilah)? You added that according to Tosfos (d.h. ve'Chi') this principle only applies if the 1-st person was a meizid. My question is on an aspect of that Tosefos.
In it, we have a case of a chaver telling an am ha'aretz to help himself to figs (the chaver's), still on the tree. Tosefos says that the chaver may violate an isur d'rabanan and take t'ruma from elsewhere, so that the am ha'aretz doesn't eat tevel. It seems that Tosefos says that the chaver would be partially responsible if the am ha'aretz eats this tevel; and while I understand that idea conceptually , I don't understand how Tosefos is comparing this to the case of 1 fellow removing the pas that his friend left "stuck" onto an oven on Shabbos. The chaver wouldn't be chayav any onesh (punishment) in this case, would he? And therefore, how can these cases be similar? The person removing the pas from the oven is oveir an isur d'rabanan? The cases don't seem to compare. What am I missing?
warm regards,
Jeff Ram
We cited the second answer of Tosfos (that this principle applies only when the first person was a Meizid). Your question involves the first answer. The two answers of Tosfos are entirely different approaches to answering our Sugya.
Tosfos wants to know why, in the case of the figs, the Chaver may do an Isur d'Rabanan to prevent the Am ha'Aretz from doing an Isur d'Oraisa, while here the Gemara takes for granted that the friend may not do an Isur d'Rabanan to prevent his friend from doing an Isur d'Oraisa. Tosfos answers that in the case of the figs, it is as if the Chaver caused the Am ha'Aretz to do the Aveirah, and therefore it is his responsibility to prevent the Aveirah from occurring. The cases, then, are indeed different.