The gemara trying to figure out the case of the mishna says that in a case where the property of the sick person is off limits to the visitor, it should be assur for the visitor to come because the "drisas haregel", meaning being in the home of the madir is receiving benefit from him. Although R' Elazar is the opinion who holds that drisas haregel is assur, but the chachamim argue; the Ran wrote on 33a in the name of the Ramban that the dispute between R' Elazar and chachamim is only about walking through the yard, but to stay in his chatzer (and certainly home) would be assur according to everyone.
The Ran then asks, why don't we say that since the visitor is doing a mitzvah, the benefit should be memeila and it should be permitted to visit even though the visitor will receive a benefit? The Ran answers "ומשום מצוה לית ליה לאתהנויי מאיסורא". Meaning, the sevara of doing a mitzvah and the hana'ah being memeila (like we say by teaching torah, supporting his kids...) does not take away the aspect of hana'ah, rather since the madir is focusing on his mitzvah it is not considered as if "HE" is providing the benefit to the mudar. But, in this case the mudar himself is doing the mitzvah and receiving the benefit of being in the madir's house, so the mitzvah is not matir. The only possible sevara for the mitzvah to be matir in this case is to say mitzvos lav leihanos nitnu would even be matir the physical benefit of being in his house. However, the Ran goes lishtaso in rejecting the Rashba 15b that mitzvos lav leihanos nitnu is not matir hana'as haguf.
No comments:
Post a Comment