Dear Rebbi, shlita
Please answer these questions when you get up to daf 10b.
On 10b, there's a disagreement between Ravina and Rav Sama concerning Raish Lakish's parameters of the rule "There can be no shliach for a sinful act." For sake of simplicity, let's assume that both Ravina and Rav Sama agree with Raish Lakish. I have 2 questions on the Mai Beinaihu part of this sugya:
1. Why doesn't Ravina hold of the mitzva of Lifnei Iver being an issue? For example, why doesn't Ravina hold the shliach responsible when a Jewish man asks a Jewish woman to cut his payos--isn't the shliach obligated not to cause others to sin? You have to admit that the foundation of Ravina's explanation "bar chiyuva" is that when the Master and a person (the student) give conflicting instructions, you should listen to the Master. Therefore, when the Master instructs not to cause others to sin, shouldn't the Jewish woman be obligated to obey the Master and thus be held responsible for cutting the payos?
2. Why does the gemara assume that Raish Lakish held only one understanding of the above rule? Why couldn't Raish Lakish agree with BOTH Ravina and Rav Sama?
Thanks.
Yaakov
1. The Rishonim and Acharonim discuss this question at length. The most simple answer for your question is the second answer of the Ritva. The Ritva explains that the case is when the person commanding to do the sin for him could do it himself. Being that one only transgresses Lifnei Iver if he enables the sinner to sin, there is no Lifnei Iver in this case. See also Tosfos (DH "Amar"), Ritva, and Kehilas Yaakov who asks what is essentially your question on Rebbi Akiva Eiger's explanation of Tosfos.
2. Ravina and Rav Sima are answering the Gemara's question. As far as I understand, the Gemara does not indicate that Reish Lakish held of only one of their opinions. Whether he holds of both or not is not the subject of the Gemara.
All the best,
Yaakov Montrose