Page 200 - 20818_park-B_efi

20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 7 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:02 | SR:-- | Cyan
20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 7 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:02 | SR:-- | Black
#20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 7 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:02 | SR:-- | Yellow
20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 7 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:02 | SR:-- | Magenta
take the time to investigate, it shows his wife is not beloved
to him.” This view applies only if he divorced her based on
a doubtful premise.
However, [it is different] if at the time of the divorce,
there was no doubt in his mind, but he was absolutely
certain that he had to divorce her for a specific reason,
#
such as in our case, where they showed him a forged letter
from a great and renowned rabbi, which caused him to
believe that divorce would cure him of his woes and give
him the loving marriage he desired. A person is willing to
do anything in order to achieve salvation. This is an even
stronger case than that of someone who presumes to be
on his deathbed and divorces his wife so she should not
be in a situation requiring yibbum (levirate marriage). In
that case, he does so for her benefit. In our case, however,
the husband believed with certainty that divorce would be
for his own benefit. He relied completely on the advice of
the renowed rabbi and did not imagine that the letter was
a forgery.
In view of the above, my father-in-law explained that if the husband
understood from the doctors that he must divorce his wife and could
not continue to live with her, the divorce is null and void, even if the
physician did not receive a bribe but he simply made a mistake. How-
ever if the physician’s words were not absolutely definitive, the divorce
is valid.
Regarding the couple who divorced as a result of the physician’s
assertion that “When hair will grow on the palms of my hands, this
woman will give birth to children,” my father-in-law thought that
according to basic halachah the divorce could be valid. After all,
many men do not divorce their wives even if they have no perceivable
chance of having children; they either adopt a child, or fill their lives
with Torah and chessed. Therefore it was not a given that he had to
divorce her, and if he did so, it must be because she is not beloved to
him. Therefore, the divorce could be halachically valid.
194 1 Medical-HalacHic Responsa of Rav ZilbeRstein
#20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 7 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:02 | SR:-- | Yellow 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 7 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:02 | SR:-- | Magenta 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 7 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:02 | SR:-- | Cyan 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 7 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:02 | SR:-- | Black
secretary. This is part of the mitzvah of doing justice. Publicizing the
complaints of the claimant makes people afraid to steal, lest they
be shamed and disgraced. Rabbeinu Yonah wrote something similar
(Shaarei Teshuvah, Shaar 3 #221). See also the Chafetz Chaim (Hilchos
Lashon Hara #10, Be’er Mayim Chayim #16).
It is forbidden for a single witness to testify before a beis din. Since
the beis din will not base its ruling on what he says, his words are con- 7
sidered lashon haora. As it says in maseches Pesachim (113b), “There are
three people whom Hashem hates…and a person who sees something
licentious in his fellow and testifies against him alone.” For example,
the Gemara continues, Toviah sinned and Ziggud came and testified
against him before Rav Pappa. Ziggud was punished. Why was Zig-
gud punished if Toviah sinned? Rav Pappa was asked. It says that “A
single witness shall not testify against a man,” responded Rav Pappa.
“And by testifying as a single witness you are giving him a bad name.”
The Rashbam explains: Since your testimony will not be accepted,
you have no mitzvah to testify. You are violating the prohibition of
“Do not slander your friend” (Vayikra 19:16).
Likewise in every office, enterprise, factory, school or yeshiva, it is
forbidden to reveal any person’s shame when there is no need to do
so. It is forbidden for a director to reveal details about a student to
a secretary. If a letter must be dictated to the secretary, the principal
should fill in the student’s name on his own afterwards. If he cannot
do so, then he should take time off from work in order to write the
letter himself and not violate the prohibition of slander.
Sometimes people come into a beis din and listen in on a case in or-
der to learn. How can the judges allow this, when it seemingly causes
the litigants to speak lashon hara and the audience to hear it? Perhaps
if the listener doesn’t accept the litigant’s words as fact, but gives the
defendant the benefit of the doubt, then there is no prohibition in-
volved. On the other hand, the Chafetz Chaim (Hilchos Lashon Hara
6:2) states that even just listening to slander without accepting it is a
Torah prohibition. Nonetheless, since their presence in the beis din is
beneficial for them (letoeles), for they want to learn, it is permissible.
Dictating negative opinions to secretary 2 211
#