lifnei iveir -- bein adam l'chaveiro or bein adam laMakon? issur klali or issur prati?

R' Yaakov Kaminetzky in Emes l'Yaakov on the parsha sets down a fundamental yesod in understanding lifnei iveir.  We think of lifnei iveir as a bein adam l'chaveiro din, like many of the other dinin in the parsha.  Don't cause someone to trip and come to physical harm, don't give bad advice, don't cause someone spiritual harm by causing them to violate an issur.  R' Yaakov is mechadesh (and others say this as well, e.g. see Koveitz Shiurim from R' Elchanan in Pesachim #95 very muck b'kitzur) that lifnei iveir contains a bein adam laMakom component as well.  When the Torah prohibits eiver min ha'chai, for example, the issur is not just for you to not eat eiver min ha'chai. The issur is for you to cause eiver min ha'chai to be eaten by yourself *or* by others.  To put in another way, not only is there a din klali of lifnei iveir that says not to cause harm, but lifnei iveir is also a prat in every individual lav which extends it to actions done by others.   

(Seems to me that lifnei iveir is like the opposite side of the coin as arvus.  Arvus means (according to some Rishonim) that if someone else needs help to do a mitzvah, even if you've done the mitzvah already yourself, it’s like your chiyuv is incomplete.  Here too, even if you haven’t eaten the eiver min ha'chai, if you enable someone else to do so, your observance of the lav of maachalos assuros is faulty.)

 The difference between these two components comes into play when we speak of lifnei iveir by an aku"m.  The gemara tells us that lifnei iveir applies even to an aku"m, e.g. you cannot offer a piece of eiver min ha'chai to an aku"m to eat.  That din reflects the second element, the bein adam laMakom, of lifnei iveir.  It cannot possibly apply to the bein adam l'chaveiro aspect.  We learn in San 85b  כּוּתִי אַתָּה מְצֻוֶּוה עַל הַכָּאָתוֹ וְאִי אַתָּה מְצֻוֶּוה עַל קִלְלָתוֹ.   How then can you be chayav for indirectly causing the aku"m to stumble and fall? 

 

Achronim use this yesod to answer a kasha on the Emunas Shmuel.  The Tur writes that the issur of eiver min ha'chai applies only to kosher animals.  Taz (Y"D 62) asks: בטור כתוב ואינו נוהג אלא בטהורים וקשה למאי נ״מ כ״כ דהא טמאה בלאו הכי אסור .  You can't eat a tamei animal anyway, so l'mai nafka mina whether there is additionally an issur eiver min ha'chai or not?  Emunas Shmuel answers that there is a nafka mina for lifnei iveir.  He writes that lifnei iveir applies only to something which is assur to you.  You can't offer a nazir a glass of wine because were you a nazir, you would not be allowed to drink wine.  You can't give an aku"m eiver min ha'chai because eiver min ha'chai is assur for you to eat.  However, since there is no issur of eiver min ha'chai on a tamei animal, it is not assur for you to eat, and therefore there is no lifnei iveir.  In this case, you can give it to an aku"m.  Asks the Beis haLevi and R' Chaim Ozer (Achiezer III:81): the gemara (BM 10b) speaks about a case of   ֹּ כֹּהֵן דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל צֵא וְקַדֵּשׁ לִי אִשָּׁה גְּרוּשָׁה. and Tos says there is lifnei iveir for the yisrael.  A yisrael is allowed to marry a gerusha.  According to the Emunas Shmuel why then is there a problem of lifnei iveir?  How is this case different than offering eiver min ha'chai of a tamei animal to an aku"m?

 

With R Yaakov's yesod we can say the following chiluk.  When it comes to giving eiver min ha'chai to an aku"m, all I have to worry about is the bein adam laMakom din of eiver min ha'chai.  I have no bein adam l'chaveiro obligation viz a viz an aku"m.  Therefore, since on a tamei animal there is no issur eiver min ha'chai, there can't be any lifnei issur of enabling others to eat it.  However, when it comes to a yisrael being mekadesh a gerusha on behalf of a kohen, here the bein adam l'chaveiro also comes into play.  The yisrael may not have an issue to marry a gerusha, so there is no bein adam laMklom issue, but there is a din klali that says he cannot harm his fellow member of Klal Yisrael.  If I can't cause the kohen harm by giving him bad advice, I certainly can't cause him harm by doing kiddushin on he behalf to a woman he is not allowed to marry!

 

There are a few other nafka minos from this yesod:

 

1) R' Akiva Eiger on the first Mishna in Shabbos writes that if you enable someone else to be mechalel shabbos, you violate the lav of lifnei iveir, but that does not make you a mumar.  Only chilul shabbos makes you a mumar.  According to R' Yaakov, the bein adam laMakom of lifnei iveir is a prat in hil Shabbos.  When the Torah commands you not to violate Shabbos, included in that issur is not enabling others to do so.  Therefore, perhaps you would be a mumar.

 

2) The Shach writes (YD 151:6) that the issur derabbanan of afrushei m'isura (similar to lifnei iveir) does not apply to a mumar.  Dagul meiRevava asks why not?  A mumar is still a Jew!  R' Yaakov answers that there is no bein adam l'chaveiro responsibility to a mumar (moridin v'lo maalin), and so the lifnei iveir/afrushei m'isura does not apply.

 

3) R' Akiva Eiger has a safeik whether one can give eiver min ha'chai to an aku"m in need of it for pikuach nefesh.  Does the din of "v'chai ba'hem," the heter of pikuach nefesh, apply to an aku"m, or is that pasuk speaking only to us? R' Yaakov points out that based on the logic of the Emunas Shmuel, lifnei iveir is an extension of that which is assur to me.  If under the circumstance of pikuach nefesh eating eiver min ha'chai is mutar for me, the issur cannot extend to an aku"m.  The whole safeik does not get off the ground.

 

4) The Rama writes that lifnei iveir of avodah zarah is not a yei'hareg v'al yaavor.  What would be the hava amina otherwise?  R' Yaakov explains that if lifnei iveir is not an issur klali but is an extension of the issur avodah zarah, one could argue that it should take on all the parameters of the parent issur including being yei'hareg v'al yaavor.  (I am a bit confused by this point.  If you accept the argument of the Emunas Shmuel l'kula like in the above case, why indeed does it not apply l'chumra here?  The hava amina would seem to be correct!)

 

There are a few other nafka minos as well, ayen sham for more.