The gemara quotes the mishna in nedarim 33a that if reuven made a neder not to receive any benefit from shimon, shimon may pay his shekel, pay his debt and also return his lost object. Regarding the heter of paying his debt the gemara explains that it is either based on chanan or it is not a regular type of debt rather a debt that does not have to be payed back. Regarding the heter to pay his shekel which presumably buyes reuven a portion in the korbanos tzibur, Rashi maintains that even without giving the money reuven would have a portion in the korbanos, therefore shimon is not benefiting him at all. This implies that if reuven's portion in the korbanos would be pending on his shekel, then shimon would not be able to give the shekel for him.
Regarding shimon returning reuven's lost object, the gemara says in nedarim 33b "he is giving back to him his own object", meaning that reuven is the owner of the object anyway so he is not receiving anything from shimon. The Ran 33b seems to be bothered that shimon is still helping out reuven and returning the object that would otherwise be lost, why is that not a benefit being given to reuven? He answers that it qualifies as mavriach ari - meaning chasing away potential damage to his object. However, this doesn't seem to be sufficient. Perhaps shimon picking up the object to protect it from damage may be "mavriach ari", but the searching for reuven and tircha invested into the actual return of the object should still be considered a benefit that he is providing for reuven?
3 comments:
see the shita in Nedarim there who says that this is only not considered hana'ah if he doesn't walk around looking for the object, but just happens to find it. It seems to me based on this that when our gemara says "he is doing a mitzvah" it means to say that it would be assur for the finder to be mis'aleim ayin from it so he is only doing exactly what is required of him. Had he done any more than that, it would be problematic. This, in addition to the fact that the actual return of the item isn't hana'ah because it belongs to the guy.
i hear.
in truth, the mishna itself implies that the tircha is only considered a hana'ah if it is something that is usually paid for, but if not then we don't consider it a hana'ah.
I also found an entirely different interpretation of the sugya in the shita here. Rashi understands that if there is any direct benefit such as buying him a share in the korban it would be assur. When the gemara uses the term mitzvah by shokel shiklo, rashi explains that he is only doing his own mitzvah by donating to hekdesh but in no way benefiting the guy who should have been giving.
The shita in the name of the ritva understands that it is similar to the concept of "mitzvos la'av leihanos nitnu". Meaning, since his primary function is a mitzvah, any secondary benefit that is achieved is not of significance, so that even though he does actually buy him a share in the korban it is allowed. similarly when it comes to aveida he explains that since the primary goal of the machzir is to do a mitzvah, the benefit that comes to the mudar hana'ah is not significant.
Looking back at the shita, all interpretations seem to agree with rashi by shokel shiklo that the heter is because there is no benefit since he anyway has a share in korbanos tzibur. the ritvah simply explains that the fact that by paying his shekel for him which is enabling him to do a mitzvah, does not qualify as giving him benefit since mitzvos lav leihanos nitnu. However, the mehalech that i mentioned above that the mitzvah is actually the heter for returning the aveida since the focus is on the mitzvah and the hana'ah is just an outcome, is found in the shita in the name of rabbeinu yona and ri mitrani (who is the tosafos rid, as is also clear from the tosafos rid on the side of the page).
Post a Comment