The Ran explains that a doctor is allowed to provide refuah to a choleh, even though there is a neder forbidding him to provide benefit to the choleh, since: 1. it is a mizvah. 2. he is using the medicine of the choleh himself, and therefore is not literally giving him anything. This is even permitted when there is someone else available to heal the choleh, because it could be that this doctor will be the one who will be zocheh to be successful so we consider it as if there is no other doctor available. But, a veterinarian cannot heal the animal of the mudar since he is benefiting him. However, the Ran says that if there is no other vet to heal the animal, the madir can do it because it is a mitzvah of hashavas aveida. This implies that if there are other veterinarians around, there is not a mitzvah of hashavas aveida. The rationale is that if there are other people to do it, since this individual is forbidden with a neder to provide benefit, the mitzvah is incumbent upon the others who are not forbidden with this neder, and once others are able and available to do it, it is no longer an "aveida" so there is no mitzvah on him. But if there is no one else available to do it, then there is a mitzvah of hashavas aveida and even the individual who is assur b'neder can do return the object or heal the animal.
The Ya'avetz understands that there isn't any machlokes between the Ran and Rosh, since the Rosh is talking when there is another vet available to do it and therefore not a mitzvah of hashavas aveida (although the language of the Rosh sounds more that there is no mitzvah to heal someones animal). R' Akiva Eiger asks, that by returning an aveida the sevara of mitzvah is not the primary heter (although the nimukei yosef uses the sevara of mitzvah to explain why the tircha is allowed), rather the main heter is that it is saving the object from a loss and mavriach ari is not hana'ah. This is only applicable to a lost object, but healing his animal is tantamount to feeding it which is considered a hana'ah and not just saving him from a loss, so it should be assur even if there is no one else to do it? Perhaps the Ran considered the healing of an animal to also be saving him from a loss, since the disease is threatening the animal.
The Ya'avetz understands that there isn't any machlokes between the Ran and Rosh, since the Rosh is talking when there is another vet available to do it and therefore not a mitzvah of hashavas aveida (although the language of the Rosh sounds more that there is no mitzvah to heal someones animal). R' Akiva Eiger asks, that by returning an aveida the sevara of mitzvah is not the primary heter (although the nimukei yosef uses the sevara of mitzvah to explain why the tircha is allowed), rather the main heter is that it is saving the object from a loss and mavriach ari is not hana'ah. This is only applicable to a lost object, but healing his animal is tantamount to feeding it which is considered a hana'ah and not just saving him from a loss, so it should be assur even if there is no one else to do it? Perhaps the Ran considered the healing of an animal to also be saving him from a loss, since the disease is threatening the animal.
No comments:
Post a Comment