hello.. we are currently studying this maseches with some friends, and we have a quesion we think its important, and we searched and didnt find an answer.
When the amoras are trying to decifer what the question means, they first think Rab Bibi was talking about the case where the person put the bread b'shogeg. the gemara rejects this option because there is no one to permit anything (le man hitiru?) it also rejects when it says that maybe he was shogeg and then remembered, but in this case he would not be chayab chatas (mi mechayeb?) because in order to be chayab it must be the beggining and the end bshogeg. be mezid also cannot be because it should say "isur skila" not "chayab".. Then, Rab Shilo says that the case is b'shogeg.. and leman hitiru? to other people!!
Rab Sheshes doesnt like this and immediatly complains saying: "Since when we say go and sin in the merit of your friend?" and the discussion stops there, accepting somehow that rab sheshes is right and we never say that it is allowed to sin in order to save someone else.
however, we see that Tosfos says that in maseches eruvin there is a case where an am haaretz sins and some say that it is permitted to sin to save him, others say it is forbidden, but at least we see from there that it is not that obvious as Rab Sheshes implies.
So the question is this, "Can we make a lesser avera to stop a friend from doing a greater avera? ¿what would be consider a "lesser" avera?. ¿are always isurim mi d'rabanan less important than isurim d'oraisa? ¿what if the 2 isurim are mi d'oraisa?
we think its important to know this.. just a a few days ago, i invited some friends who are not shomer shabat to my house to dine and hear tora. They live far and asked me if there was any problem if they came driving by car, and i said there is no problem.
if i have said that it is a problem that they came driving, they would probably have gone instead to a disco to dance, drink, and possibly end up with doing God knows what with some non jewish girls, or worse, jewish. ;) Did i do a lesser avera? or did i broke the halachah?
the only answer we found was that if one is responsable in some way for the other person's avera, you can transgress and do something forbidden in order to save him. but this didn't satisfied us, we are hoping you could enlighten us.
Best regards from Chile,
iosef chame, vi'a del mar, Chile
The point you raise in your question involved two separate issues. The first is the discussion in Shabbos 4a regarding the fascinating issue of to what extent one may or must indulge in a lesser sin to save one's friend from a greater one. The second is a Kiruv situation, and it is not really connected to the first issue. It is not a question of doing an Isur to save someone else from a transgression but rather whether the other person can be permitted to sin in order that he might come to do Mitzvos. Let me deal briefly with each of these issues.
(a) As to the first issue, you have rightly referred to Shabbos 4a and the Tosfos there and to the Machlokes in Eruvin 32b between Rebbi and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel. Tosfos sets out a number of rules:
1. There is a distinction between a) where the sin in question is caused or created by the person who must then do the lesser Aveirah to prevent the larger one (in Eruvin) and b) where he had nothing to do with the sin in the first place (as in Shabbos). You allude to this distinction in your last paragraph.
2. The Riva in Tosfos distinguishes between a) where, (as in Shabbos) the Aveirah has already been done and it is only the consequences that we are trying to prevent and b) where the action of this sin can be prevented from the outset (as in Eruvin). A similar answer is given by Ramban there in his alternative answer.
3. One can do a minor Aveirah for the purpose of a Mitzvah Rabah such as Peru u'Revu. See Mishnah Berurah 306:56 for a very important application of this ruling. The Ritva in Eruvin 32b suggests that Tikun Kohanim to enable them to do the Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash is a further permissible situation.
4. Everything depends on whether there was Peshi'ah (negligence) on the part of the sinner (as in Shabbos). If there was not, then the ruling is that one should do a lighter sin to protect one's friend from a greater one. See Magen Avraham 254:21 who makes this factor the most significant criterion (see also Mishnah Berurah there SK 40. See also OC end of Ch. 306 and the Acharonim there).
5. Tosfos in Gitin 41b DH Kofin adds another distinction, namely, that Mitzvah d'Rabim Sha'ani.
What is considered to be a "lesser Aveirah" is obviously a relative matter. Most of the cases deal with doing an Isur d'Rabanan to prevent and Isur d'Oraisa. However, see OC end of Ch. 306 and Mishnah Berurah there SK 57 for cases where d'Oraisas can and must be sacrificed to save a Jewish girl from Shmad.
(b) As to the second question of what to do about someone who is not yet observant but may become so if attracted in the way you suggest: My wife faced a similar quandary many years ago. She had a one-to-one non-observant Seed partner who said that she was prepared to take upon herself one additional new Mitzvah each year. She felt she could not cope with more than that. My wife came home to me and asked me what she should answer her. We all know that anyone who refuses to keep even one letter from the Torah is a complete Apikores. How could she possibly tell her that what she proposed would be in order, while the truth is that to a religious person it was not in order at all?
It seemed to me that to tell her the truth would "lose her" completely. It is surely better to say without condoning it - that for her this will be fine. That way she would gradually be brought back (which in fact happened!).
A Kiruv Rav confirmed to me at the time that this was the correct procedure. He suggested a beautiful proof from the episode of Hillel and the Ger who wanted to become Jewish on condition that he could become a Kohen Gadol (Shabbos 31a). It may be possible to distinguish between that case (where we are talking about a non-Jew who wanted to become Jewish) and our case, since our case involved a non-observant Jew who is obligated to keep the Torah. How can we imply to her that it is proper for her not to do so? Yet surely the principle is the same. How could Hillel mislead this prospective Ger into thinking that he could become a Kohen Gadol when that was plainly impossible?
The answer is that it was necessary to attract the Ger psychologically as Hillel was able to do so brilliantly as a result of the warmth and humility of his character. The same is true in a Kiruv situation. Let them drive to you to experience a warm uplifting Shabbos family meal. If you do not tell them to drive, you do no Aveirah, whatever the implications or inferences. Let them come and enjoy your Torah atmosphere. Turn a blind eye to their shortcomings and Aveiros in order to pass on to them the desire to return to the fold. At the moment, they drive the car to get to you on Shabbos; there will come a time when they will walk to you instead. (Obviously we are only talking of cases where the people know no better and you have a chance to bring them back to the ways of the Torah.)
Hatzlachah Rabah v'Kol Tuv,
Joseph Pearlman