The Chinuch [Mitzva 232] writes that there is no malkus for the לאו of לפני עור because it does not involve a מעשה. The Minchas Chinuch [אות ה] doesn't comprehend the opinion of the Chinuch. Doesn't לפני עור include the prohibition of actually putting a stumbling block in front of a blind person [besides the sins of misleading a person and causing them to sin]? That is a מעשה if I have ever seen one!! [The Chinuch is consistent with his opinion in Mitzva 345 that if it is possible to transgress a לאו without a מעשה, then there is no מלקות even if one transgresses with a מעשה.] The Rambam also says [סה"מ שורש התשיעי] that there is no מלקות for this לאו because it is a לאו שבכללות - i.e. it includes various prohibitions. Simply speaking he is referring to what he wrote in the Sefer Hamitzvos [Mitzva 299]:
"הזהיר מהכשיל קצתנו את קצתנו וכו' ובא האזהרה מלרמותו וכו', ולאו זה כולל ג"כ מי שיעזור על עבירה או שיסבב אותו וכו'".
In other words, there are 2 distinct ways to transgress the עבירה. A] To give faulty advice. 2] To cause another to stumble in sin.
However, this requires an explanation. Why is this considered a לאו שבכללות? The איסור is really ONE לאו - to cause another person to stumble. This sin just has various manifestations but at the root it is one. So how do we understand the Rambam??
The Chinuch [ibid] writes:
"לא להכשיל בני ישראל לתת להם עצה רעה".
The M.C. wonders why the Chinuch limits the איסור to בני ישראל? Indeed the Rambam [Rotzeach 12-14] writes "כל המכשיל עור" and doesn't limit the scope of the עבירה to a Jew alone, implying that one may also not be מכשיל a בן נח.
Therefore it would appear that the explanation is as follows: The איסור of לפני עור is comprised of two fundamentally different איסורים. This principal is well known from the teaching of the Ponivitcher Rov ztz"l: The primary עבירה of לפני עור is when one gives faulty advice. However, included in this לאו is an additional לאו and that is when one causes his friend to "stumble" in sin, for just as one is warned himself not to do this עבירה, he is also commanded not to cause his friend to do this עבירה and that is a detail of the more general prohibition of לפני עור - [not to do this עבירה oneself and] not to cause his friend to do the עבירה. If one helps his friend do the עבירה, it is as if he did it himself. That is what the Rambam meant when he wrote
ולאו זה כולל ג"כ מי שיעזור על עבירה
this לאו also includes helping one's friend to sin.
Now we can say that this din of giving faulty advice doesn't apply to a בן נח [our elevated standards of בין אדם לחבירו don't always apply to בני נח] but the second halacha of לפני עור, not to cause someone to do an עבירה if he himself is enjoined from doing this עבירה because it is considered as if he did it himself, DOES [thank G-d for "caps"] apply to בני נח because bottom line - another person did an עבירה that he himself is not allowed to do because of him.
Now we understand the Chinuch who limits the scope of the עבירה to Jews alone: When we learn in our sugya that לפני עור applies to בני נח it is referring to the second type of לפני עור, namely the prohibition of causing one to stumble in sin. The Chinuch who writes that the איסור applies to בני ישראל alone is talking about giving faulty advice, as he writes explicitly
"לא להכשיל בני ישראל לתת להם עצה רעה"
We can also now understand the Rambam who says that לפני עור is a לאו שבכללות. This is because it encompasses to distinct עבירות: A] Giving faulty advice. B] Causing another person to stumble in an עבירה.
Now we can also comprehend the svara of the אמונת שמואל who writes that the entire איסור of לפני עור is only when the person himself is not allowed to do this עבירה and it is therefore permitted for a Jew to give a בן נח an אבר מן החי from a בהמה טמאה. Based on the foregoing it is beautiful: The fundamental basis for the איסור of לפני עור is that when one causes his friend to do an עבירה, it is as if he did the עבירה himself. Now this is all when he is not allowed to do this עבירה. But when there is no prohibition for him, such as with respect to אבר מן החי of a בהמה טמאה, there is also no איסור of לפני עור. The only issue that must still be resolved is giving faulty advice [getting one to do an עבירה is really bad advice!]. But that aspect of the איסור applies to Jews alone but regarding a בן נח we saw from the Chinuch that this doesn't apply. So the Jew is completely פטור!!
The אמונת שמואל is dancing from his place in the world of souls...
[עפ"י תורת מורנו הגאון רבי ב"ד פוברסקי שליט"א]
