Rebbi Akiva Eger asked. (INSIGHTS INTO THE DAILY DAF)
Why does the Ran (38b, DH she'Im Yirtzeh) prohibit feeding his friend's animal in order to sustain it, while here he permits healing the animal?
Can the Ran's reasoning be the following?
Healing a sick animal is permitted, because prior to this animal getting sick, the owner owns a healthy animal. The animal becoming so sick that it needs a doctor is an unusual occurrence. This is comparable to the animal becoming lost to him. Now when the doctor heals the animal; the doctor has in effect returned the animal to the owner in its original healthy state, and this is permitted.
However feeding a hungry animal is the normal course of owning an animal. A hungry animal is not considered lost to its owner; since this is actually how he cares for it day by day. This cannot be compared to losing and finding an object and therefore it is not permitted.
Thus, in the case of feeding a hungry animal which is not permitted. This is because the animal was first hungry and now it is full.
However in the case of healing an animal which IS permitted. This is because the animal was first healthy and now it is again only healthy. (he might still be hungry though!)
Please comment.
alex lebovits, toronto, canada
(a) I understood that the question of the Gilyon HaShas by Rebbi Akiva Eiger on 41b was essentially not what is the difference between healing and feeding, but rather how can the Ran compare healing a sick animal to returning a lost object?
Rebbi Akiva Eiger explained his question that returning an Aveidah does not mean improving the quality of the Aveidah but rather preventing it being taking by anyone else. In contrast healing an animal means actually improving the physical state of its body - transforming it from a weak animal into a strong one. Consequently Rebbi Akiva Eiger asks how can the Ran compare Aveidah to healing - even though the Mishnah states that he may return the Aveidah this should not prove that if there is no other doctor he can heal the animal, because healing is a more valuable benefit?
Rebbi Akiva Eiger also mentions at the end of his question that healing an animal is preferable than fattening up an animal. I understood this to mean simply that the veterinarian's fees are probably higher than the cost of the animal's food, so this suggests that healing is a greater Hana'ah than feeding.
(b) I was not so sure about what you wrote about it being unusual that an animal is so sick that it has to see the vet, and also you implied that returning a lost item is unusual. See Tosfos Pesachim end 46b who writes that a dangerously ill person is not frequent at all. This implies that a sick person without his life in danger is not unusual. See Bava Kama 2b that a person possesse Mazal but an animal does not, and Rashi there writes that an animal is more prone to death through attacks on him. In the light of these two sources it seems probable that a sick animal requiring a doctor is not unusual and the fact that veterinarians manage to make a Parnasah also confirms this.
So I think we still have not yet answered how it is that healing is permiited even though it is a much more significant benefit than merely feeding. [See Birkas Avraham for an answer to Rebbi Akiva Eiger's question]
KOL TUV (good to hear from you again,Alex, after a while!)
Dovid Bloom