Q&A: Halakhic Monism
Halakhic Monism
Question
Hello and blessings.
I wanted to ask, after seeing in the third book of the trilogy that you discussed from a monistic perspective the possibility of "do not place a stumbling block"—what is the law, from that perspective, regarding benefiting from something that in my view is a transgression, but according to my friend is not? For example, benefiting from a liquid food that was heated on the Sabbath, or an item that was carried within an eruv, when I hold that cities today are a public domain and not a karmelit?
Answer
I didn’t understand the question. Benefiting from something that is forbidden according to my view but not according to the view of the person who did it is, seemingly, exactly the same thing: for a monist it is forbidden, and for a pluralist it is permitted (the opposite case would lead to stringency for pluralism).
However, one could discuss the parameters of the prohibition on benefiting from something forbidden, since it is possible that they prohibited only something considered an act of transgression according to the view of the one who performed it. But that is a question that pertains to the parameters of the prohibition on benefit, not to my discussion here.