Page 128 - 20818_park-B_efi

20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 4 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:01 | SR:-- | Cyan
20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 4 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:01 | SR:-- | Black
#20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 4 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:01 | SR:-- | Yellow
20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 4 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:01 | SR:-- | Magenta
to practice medicine even though there is a greater physician than he
in the city.
We can question the above, however, based on the words of the
4 away money that was not his, and it is nearly certain that the rabbi
Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat #10:2): A dayan who compares a
case bought before him to another case that he has ruled on - and
there is a wiser judge in the city whose advice he does not seek - is
#
counted among the evil people who render halachic rulings and deci-
sions presumptuously.
The Shulchan Aruch seems to imply that even if the dayan has all
the qualities necessary - both in Torah knowledge and in other per-
sonal traits cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat #7-8) - he
is still obligated to defer to someone who is greater than he in Torah
knowledge, in contrast to what the Rama seems to be saying.
Perhaps the Shulchan Aruch refers to a case where the judge wants
to implement a new halachah and compares it to a ruling that he heard
from his teacher, even though it is not really the same. In such a case,
the judge is obligated to defer to the judge that is greater than he in
the city. If he does not do so, he is evil and presumptuous in rendering
halachic decisions. If the halachah is not new, and the judge is abso-
lutely certain of his view, he is allowed to rely on himself. This is what
Rashi seems to say (in maseches Yevamos, 109b, s.v. ugemar halachah),
which is the source of the law in Choshen Mishpat. The Sema (Ibid.,
5) also says that only in a case where there is no real comparison to
the case at hand is it prohibited for the judge to issue a ruling unless
he consults with a judge greater than he.
We learn from here that if the methods of treatment are not new
and the situation is clear to the physician, he is allowed to rely on his
judgment alone. On the other hand, in a case where the physician
wants to introduce his own novel idea for treatment which may pose
certain dangers, he is obligated to consult with greater physicians
than he who live in that city.

122 1 Medical-HalacHic Responsa of Rav ZilbeRstein
#20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 4 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:01 | SR:-- | Yellow 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 4 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:01 | SR:-- | Magenta 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 4 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:01 | SR:-- | Cyan 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 4 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:01 | SR:-- | Black
hopes of doubling it for the benefit of himself and the rabbi. He gam-
bled with this money and lost it all. The rabbi consulted an attorney
who told him he could prove to the court that the messenger gambled
would get his money back, but the messenger would be fined by the
court and sent to jail.
Can he sue for his money or not?
1 AnsweR
I asked my father-in-law, Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, zt”l, if it is per-
missible to go to secular courts if the messenger refuses to appear
before a beis din. My father-in-law prohibited it, because the foolish
messenger does not halachically deserve to be put in jail.
The sender could claim: Why should I lose my money and why is
it my problem if the secular courts punish him? I am allowed to claim
what is mine (see above).
But one can differentiate, for in this case, the rabbi can only get
back his money if the court indicts the messenger and jails him; the
two must go hand in hand. This is not so in the case of the plastic
surgeon, where the patient wishes to get the money that is due him
irrespective of the doctor’s ruined reputation.
At the end of the book Shem Olam, the Chafetz Chaim relates that
the Gaon of Vilna sought to go into voluntary exile and rented a wag-
on from a Jewish coachman. In the middle of the road, the horse sud-
denly veered to the side and crushed the vegetable garden of a gentile,
which was on the side of the road. The gentile saw all this from afar
and ran to the wagon to beat the Vilna Gaon, who was sitting inside.
The Gaon had in mind to answer him: I am not a sinner here; it is the
coachman who is responsible for not watching his animal properly.
But he controlled himself and did not say a word.
Afterwards, the Gaon of Vilna said that had he answered the
gentile in this way he would be considered an informer and a mos-
er (because, in truth, the coachman is also exempt in halachah, as is
known. Even if he were guilty, he would be obligated to pay money for
Removed the Wrong Kidney 2 91
#