Page 198 - 20818_park-B_efi

divorced her he was not certain that she could not bear they treat them as they would all patients with other contagious dis-
children, and he divorced her because of the doubt. This
is not the case for an infertile woman who has some signs
of infertility and it is as if it is clear to him that this is the
case. Therefore, if he tells her that he divorced her for this
reason, the divorce can be retroactively invalidated when
she gives birth.
In light of the above, we can clarify the din in our case. When the
physician said, “When hair will grow on the palms of my hands, this
woman will give birth to children,” he most probably pointed out
obvious signs of infertility. This is similar to the case in the Gemara
of a man who divorces his wife because of signs of masculinity and
infertility, and if she then had children, the divorce is null and void.
However, as the Shiltei Gibborim and the Rambam cited above
explain, physicians often exaggerate. Therefore, even when the phy-
scian speaks very forcefully, we are not to accept his words blindly.
If despite this the husband wants to divorce her, we can say that the
divorce was based on a doubt; that he did not care enough for her but
wanted to divorce her.

I discussed this with my father-in-law, Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv
zt”l. I thought that according to the view of the Divrei Malkiel, if
the physician just spoke off the cuff without adequate thought, the
divorce is valid because his wife is not so beloved to him. However
if he spoke in response to a request by the woman, especially if she
bribed him (the physician), this is not considered an authoritative
view of a physician. It’s as if a monkey told the husband that his wife
is suffering from syphilis. Since the husband thought he was hearing
the authoritative view of a physician, there was a definite mistake and
the divorce is null and void.
But my father-in-law answered me that it makes no difference
whether the physician said what he said off the cuff or because of a
bribe; the main point here is that if we assume that the physician’s
words caused the husband to divorce his wife, then if it becomes clear
192 1 Medical-HalacHic Responsa of Rav ZilbeRstein
eases. The staff of the hospital is angry, demanding that whenever an
AIDS patient is hospitalized, anyone who may come in contact with
the patient should be informed that he has AIDS. Are we obligated
to reveal that the sick patient has AIDS, even to the workers who
generally have no access to medical charts?
1 AnsweR
If the hospital takes precautions to prevent contagion from the illness,
and the danger is remote, the staff is obligated to care for them. It says
in the Yerushalmi that every person is obligated to put himself into a
small possibility of danger to save his fellow who is in great definite
danger (cited by the Sema #426:2.) However, this is not the halachah
(as explained in Mishnah Berurah #329:19), but the Mishnah Berurah
concludes: If there is a possibility of danger, one should weigh it well
and not be overly cautious. It has been said that if one is unnecessarily
cautious or too exacting regarding a danger, one will be exposed to it.
In view of the above, the medical staff is prohibited from refusing
to treat patients with AIDS because of the remote chance that they
may become infected.
Regarding your question, I believe that one should not reveal to
the medical staff that a patient has AIDS, because of the great dam-
age it will cause the patient. People will shun him and will be afraid to
come into contact with him. This fear is unjustified, since the chance
of contagion it is very remote.
On the other hand, the public should acknowledge the dedication
of the medical staff in placing themselves in this minute amount of
danger. The public is obligated to provide an adequate salary for the
physicians, nurses and other staff caring for AIDS patients. They
are our emissaries in doing that which is incumbent upon the entire
public. They should be adequately compensated.
Dictating negative opinions to secretary 2 213 # 20818