Page 204 - 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
#
#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
someone makes a mistake and is embarrassed as a result does he real-
ly attain the truth of Torah. Thus we can rule here as well, especially
since these cases involve pikuach nefesh, that it is impossible to do the
right thing unless mistakes are pointed out, even though this will
cause embarrassment.
In addition to the above, it says in maseches Sotah (32b) that when
it comes to the chatas of an idolater we are not concerned about sham-
ing the sinner, because the shame will be his atonement. Likewise, in
our case, we can say that if the midwife made a mistake in a matter
of pikuach nefesh, the shame that she suffers in front of her colleagues
will atone for her.
We also find in maseches Middos (1:2) that a guard would check
up on the shifts of the Leviyim. He would call out to the Levi, “Man
of the Temple Mount, peace unto you!” If there was no response, it
was clear that the Levi had fallen asleep on duty. The guard would hit
him with his cane, and he had permission to even burn his clothes.
People would ask, “What is the noise coming from the Temple court-
yard?” And they would respond, “It is the sound of a Levi being hit
and his garments being burnt because he was sleeping during his
shift.” Clearly, it was permissible to embarrass the Levi who had not
guarded properly. The same would apply to the midwives in our case,
especially because there is pikuach nefesh involved.
On the other hand, a Levi who fell asleep during his shift is con-
sidered a criminal, while the midwives here might have been careless,
but did not sin intentionally.
(We also find that the Torah scholars of our generation do not
permit dissection of the body after death in order to improve the per-
formance of the medical staff. However this is not pertinent to our
case because there the reasoning is in order to put up an additional
safeguard to prevent transgression.)
It seems the halachah would rule that the meeting can be held
without mentioning the name of the midwife involved, even if her
identity later becomes known. If the administration insists that the
name of the midwife be mentioned, the supervising nurse is allowed
to obey since the discussion is useful. She is not required to quit her
198 1 Medical-HalacHic Responsa of Rav ZilbeRstein
#
served. The Mishnah Berurah writes, in the name of the Magen 7
Avraham, that even if he made a condition with his servant at
the time he hired him that he be exempt from this, the condi-
tion is not valid. Our Sages question the Magen Avraham based
on the Gemara in maseches Bava Metzia 83a. There, it says that a
person is permitted to make a condition with his worker that he
th
not eat while working. The Shoel Umeishiv answers (4 edition,
Part 3 #28), that according to basic halachah, forgiveness helps
but it is possible that he did not forgive him wholeheartedly.
Therefore, when the worker himself brings up the subject and
says that he forgives his employer for not letting him eat while
working, his forgiveness is valid. But if the employer is the first
to mention the condition to him, we suspect that he did not
forgive him wholeheartedly.
3. It is related in maseches Bava Basra (22b) that bloodletters came
and practiced their trade under Rav Yosef ’s palm trees for three
years. As a result, crows gathered there to eat the blood, thus
damaging the dates and the trees. Rav Yosef told the bloodlet-
ters to leave, as they were damaging his crops. Do they not have
a chazakah, having been working in this place for three years?
Rav Yosef was asked. No, responded Rav Yosef. When it comes
to damages, there is no chazakah. The damaged party can always
say: I thought I could tolerate this damage, but now I see that I
am not inclined to waive my rights.
Likewise, in our case, the young physician can say: I
thought I could waive my right, but I made a mistake.
There is another reason to say that waiving does not make it per-
missible to share negative information with the secretary. It says in
maseches Bava Metzia (104b): A man received some land from his
friend and said: If I do not cultivate your field, I will give you a thou-
sand zuz. He did not cultivate the field. Rava says that the reason
he offered one thousand zuz was because he was sure he would be
able to cultivate the field. Had he known that circumstances would
Dictating negative opinions to secretary 2 207