Li-zchus - 

R' Moshe Yehuda Hanus

R' Shmuel Stein 

R' Chaim Schreck 

R' Eytan Feldman

R' Avromi Sommers

😊😊😊!!!For much success in all they do together with their families

Says the Gemara [Pesachim 21b-22b]:

ופליגא דרבי אבהו דאמר רבי אבהו כל מקום שנאמר לא יאכל לא תאכל לא תאכלו אחד איסור אכילה ואחד איסור הנאה (משמע) עד שיפרט לך הכתוב כדרך שפרט לך בנבילה

And this conclusion disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu said that wherever it is stated: “It shall not be eaten,” “You, singular, shall not eat,” or “You, plural, shall not eat,” both a prohibition of eating and a prohibition of deriving benefit are implied, unless the verse specifies that one may benefit, in the manner that it specified with regard to an unslaughtered animal carcass......

והרי אבר מן החי דכתיב לא תאכל הנפש עם הבשר ותניא רבי נתן אומר מנין שלא יושיט אדם כוס יין לנזיר ואבר מן החי לבני נח תלמוד לומר ולפני עור לא תתן מכשל הא לכלבים שרי

[The Gemara further challenges Rabbi Abbahu’s opinion]: And yet there is the prohibition against eating a limb cut from a living animal, as it is written:“Only be steadfast in not eating the blood; for the blood is the life; and you shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23). And it was taughtin a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that a personmay not offer a cup of wine to a nazirite, who is prohibited from drinking wine, and that he may not offer a limb cut from a living animal to a descendant of Noah, who is prohibited by Noahide law from eating a limb from a living animal? The verse states: “You shall not put a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14). Causing another person to sin is like placing a stumbling block before a blind person; one who does so violates this prohibition. The prohibition of giving a limb from a living animal to a gentile is apparently due only to the prohibition of placing a stumbling block. However, it is permitted for one to throw it to dogs. Therefore, despite the fact that the verse says: “You shall not eat it,” apparently there is no prohibition against benefiting from this prohibited item [giving it to the dogs is considered benefit - see Tosofos]. This challenges Rabbi Abbahu’s principle. 

Asked Rebbe Akiva Eiger: In the Gemara in Chullin [101b] there is a machlokes between R' Yehuda and the Chachomim if אבר מן החי applies also to impure animals and according to the Chachomim it applies only to pure animals. And that is only with regard to Jews [because the בהמה טמאה is already אסור without the אבר מן החי - as derived from a pasuk], but a בן נח is not allowed to eat אבר מן החי of ALL animals regardless of whether they are pure or impure, because they don't have the איסור of eating בהמות טמאות so for them there is no distinction. 

If so, what is the proof of Rav Nosson that אבר מן החי is מותר בהנאה, maybe the braisa is talking about אבר מן החי of a בהמה טמאה which is permitted to feed to dogs since there is no איסור אבר מן החי for בהמות טמאות?! But there WOULD be an איסור of לפני עור because that applies to בני נח as well?? !

Answered Rebbe Akiva Eiger: The Sefer Emunas Shmuel [14] writes that there is no איסור of לפני עור when one hands an אבר מן החי טמא to a בן נח since a Jew doesn't have this איסור on himself [see there]. Meaning that what is permitted to him has no איסור of לפני עור even though it is אסור for the one taking it. According to this, we CAN'T SAY that the braisa is talking about a בהמה טמאה for if that were the case, there would be no לפני עור when handing it to a בן נח and the braisa says that there is!! So it MUST be talking about a בהמה טהורה and we see that one may benefit from it, against the principal of Rebbe Abahu?!

The same answer emerges from a careful reading of the Bach and Hagahos Prisha [Yo"d 62]. However the Pri Chodosh and Shach wondered what the basis of the idea of the Emunas Shmuel is. What is the svara to distinguish between whether the Jew is himself commanded or not? The bottom line is that he caused someone to sin and that should suffice to transgress לפני עור?!! 

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]