[Avodah] V'Lifnei Iveir - Is it intentended literally as well?

[Jacob Farkas]

R' Mordechai Torczyner wrote:
> 
> : Presumably, though, if it were truly a dangerous situation there would
> : still be a lifnei iver obligation.

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> I don't think so. Bor bereshus harabbim. But lifnei iveir is not once
> mentioned in the gemara as an issur against physically harming people.

Rashi in Qedoshim (Vayiqra 19:14) quotes the Sifra that the blind person
mentioned in the pasuq is only metaphorically blind, Suma beDavar. The
Sifsei Hakhamim mentions that the next piece of Rashi, V'yareisa
meilokekha, states that we need reinforcement for those Mitzvos that are
not apparent to other people, and only the person and God are aware of
what is being done. The Sifsei Hakhamim uses this as evidence that Rashi
intended to exclude the literal scenario from being part of the
Issur of V'Lifnei Iveir, as it it noticeable by other people.

Minhas Hinukh (Mitzvah 232) deduces that the Hinukh was of the same
opinion, that the literal scenario is not part of the commandment. He
also notes that this is Rambam's opinion as well. He does ask (and
leaves the question as tzarikh iyun) why shouldn't the literal scenario
be part of the Mitzvah, being that we know Ein Hamiqra Yotzei Midei Peshuto?

Meshekh Hakhmah (Vayiqra 19:14) is of the opinion that the literal
scenario is included in the commandment. Furthermore, he writes that Bor
Berushus Harabbim is an Issur Torah of V'Lifnei Iveir. He quotes Rashi
in Hulin 3a (d"h VaAfilu Kusi) that the Kusim translated it to be
literal exclusively. Meshekh Hakhmah adds "vekhein haEmes," meaning that
the literal is not excluded, unlike the Kusim who viewed the literal
scenario exclusively as being the intention of the Pasuq.

--Jacob Farkas