I am going to try, bs'd, and answer this question by starting from the end; that is the Halachic conclusion; and then probably try and see what the source of this is. This is not really the proper way to learn but possibly it will have some advantages in this case.

1) Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah # 157 discusses which transgressions one has to sacrifice one's life in order to avoid. The Rema there; in Se'if Aleph in the 3rd Hagah; writes that one does not have to give up one's life not to transgress the prohibition of Lifnei Iver, even if one is causing someone else to do an Aveirah for which he should sacrifice his life to avoid. Shach #11 explains that an example is where the Yisrael is being forced, under the threat of his life, to lend something which an idol worshipper needs in order to do his worship. Taz #5 writes that this is because the Jew is not actually doing anything; just giving something to the idol worshipper to use.

2) It seems from this that Lifnei Iver is it's own sin. This assumption is strengtened if we look at the Din cited immediately prior to this in the Rema; that one has to give up one's life not to commit one of the 3 cardinal sins, even if the actual prohibition involved is not one that carries the capital penalty. Shach #10 cites the Gemara Sanhedrin 75a where a man had a craving for a woman and the doctors said that the only way to save his life is for them to have relations. The Gemara states that she is not allowed to stand naked in front of him, even if this sufficient to save his life. Shach writes that this would not be full scale Giluy Arayot, but it is a Lav and one must give up one's life for this.

3) We learn from this that if the sin is a "little bit" of the underlying sin then one must sacrifice one's life, but for Lifnei Iver on an Aveira of Yehareg v'Al Yaavor, one is not required to give one's life. This show us that Lifnei Iver is its own sin. Therefore the person who caused others to do Avoda Zara transgressed Lifnei Iver alone and did not transgress Avoda Zarah.

KOL TUV

Dovid Bloom

Reply to question 2):-

This time I am going to try, bs'd, to answer the question from the beginning.

1) Rashi Vayikra 19:14 on the verse "Lifnei Iver" cites the Torat Cohanim "in front of a blind person on this matter do not give bad advice". We see that Rashi immediately steers away from the literal explanation. Even though the Gemara Shabbos 63a states that "Ain Mikra Yotzei Midai Peshuto"; one cannot take a verse away from it's literal meaning; nevertheless for this verse Rashi does seem to leave the literal sense.

2) Rabeinu Eliyahu Mizrachi (the main commentator on Rashi on Chumash) writes that the reason that the Torat Cohanim made this drasha is because one cannot say that "blind" here literally means blind, because the blind person must be the same as the "cheresh"; the deaf person mentioned immediately before in the same verse. This says "you shall not curse a cheresh" but it cannot literally mean only a deaf person, since Rashi writes at the beginning of this verse that the prohibition of cursing applies against every living person. Since the "deaf" person does not mean literally deaf, so too the blind mentioned straight afterwards does not mean literally blind.

3) Rashi Chulin 3a DH veAfilu Kuti writes that whilst the Kutim eat only kosher meat, they do not care if they give non-Kosher meat to Yisrael to eat since they do not learn the drasha of Lifnei Iver, but learn it literally that one may not put a stone in front of a blind person to make him fall.

Rashi does not say that the literal explanation is incorrect, but he does hint at the fact that if one does not make the drasha one is denying the Oral Law, as the Kutim did.

4) I want to make a suggestion; which is in fact not my idea at all and I hope to come back to this later at more length; that a reason why one does not learn the verse literally is because there is another verse in the Torah (Dvarim 27:18) "Cursed be anyone who misleads a blind person on the road". We learn from here that it is forbidden to put a block in front of the blind.

Behatzlachah Rabah

Dovid Bloom

Further answer to question 2):-

1) I have found, bs'd, a source in Chazal that says that every stumbling block is forbidden because of Lifnei Iver. This is in Masechet Kalah Rabati chapter 10 DH Braita Lo Yishlach which states:-

"A person should not send a barrel of water to his friend, and tell him it contains oil. What is the reason for this? It is because any takalah is forbidden because of Lifnei Iver".

What is important for us is that we learn from here that a physical stumbling block; not just a spiritual stumbling block; is also forbidden from the verse "Lifnei Iver".

2) However I also found what I think is a very important explanation given by the Bach. This is in the Tur Yoreh Deah Bach 334:29. The Tur 334:43 cites the Rambam (Hilchot Talmud Torah 6:14) who lists 24 things for which one puts a person in Niduy. The 17th thing listed by the Rambam is "Hamachshil HaIver"; for causing the blind to stumble. The Bach on the Tur cites the Hasagot HaRa'avad, on the Rambam, who writes "for instance if a person hits his adult son" (this is in fact stated in Gemara Moed Katan 17a; that if the father strikes his adult son, this will cause him to rebel, so Niduy is placed on the father).

Bach writes that the Raavad made this comment on the Rambam because he wanted to make it clear that when the Rambam wrote "causing the blind to stumble" this was not meant to be taken simply. Rather an example has to be given of this idea and since we find in Moed Katan 17a that niduy was given for striking an adult son, this is an ideal example since we are discussing niduy.

3) Bach continues:-

"Alma DeAin Hamikra Kipeshuto"; we see that the verse is not to be taken at its simple meaning that one places a block in front of him so that he should fall.

The Bach writes that it is a "Mashal"; a parable (or alternatively I would translate this as an "example"). It is expressing the idea of someone who causes somebody else to transgress. Bach writes that it does not only mean striking the adult son, but there could be other examples as well.

4) I think that the Bach is not saying that the simple meaning of causing the blind to fall is not included in this verse but rather the Bach is stressing that there are many many other examples apart from this one. If one would take the verse at its simple value this would be a great misunderstanding because the chief purpose of the verse is to teach that causing any stumbling, either physical (and not only for blind but also for fully sighted people) or spiritual; is forbidden by the Torah.

I was not expecting that this would be such a large topic, but I have still not finished!

Good Shabbos

Dovid Bloom

Additional reply about the literal meaning of the verse:

1) So far we have seen that the Torat Cohanim and Rashi in Chumash say that the verse refers to giving bad advice; the Mizrachi explains why it does not mean literally blind, and Rashi Chulin 3a writes that the Kutim understand it literally (which does imply that Chazal did not agree that this was the chief purpose of the verse). Then we saw Kalah Rabati who writes that it does refer to a physical stumbling block but does not mention the example of the blind person, and this was followed by the Bach who says that the verse is not to be considered literally but is a Mashal. I am now going, bs'd, to cite Mefarshim who say it can be taken literally.

2) The Minchas Chinuch Mitzvah 232:(4)[5] DH Shuv writes that he does not understand how it is possible to remove the verse completely from it's literal meaning and that it is possible that if someone placed an object in front of a blind person, he has thereby transgressed the commandment and also receives "Cursed be anyone who misleads a blind person on the road" (Dvarim 27:18), receives malkus and subsequently becomes disqualified for testimony.

3) The Meshech Chochmah on the verse (Vayikra 19:14) writes that the literal explanation of the Kutim cited in Rashi Chulin 3a DH veAfilu is in fact true. (Of course the big mistake of the Kutim was that they did not learn the correct drasha of the verse and therefore were not concerned about giving forbidden food to Yisrael). Meshech Chochmah writes that someone who digs a pit in Reshut Harabim transgresses Lifnei Iver, since it may cause passers-by to fall in.

4) There seems to be support for Meshech Chochmah from one of the Rishonim; the Yad Ramah Bava Basra 26a #107; who writes that one derives from the verse Lifnei Iver that it is forbidden to cause damage to others. In other words, the Ramah learns that Grama b'Nesikin is forbideen by the Torah and this is learnt from Lifnei Iver; that one may not cause others to stumble.

5) I still argue that this does not contradict the Bach that I cited in my previous reply, that the verse is not to be taken at its simple meaning and it is a Mashal. This is because the chief thing we learn from the verse is not that one may not put a block before the blind. The latter is only a small example of all the vastly various Halachot that we learn from this verse. The common denominator of all these Halachot is that one may not cause spiritual or physical damage to others, and the blind man scenario is a vivid but very minor representative of the countless ramifications.

I have now finished writing about the meaning of the verse but there is still more to write, bs'd, about whether Lifnei Iver is "it's own sin".

Dovid Bloom