Page 228 - 20818_park-B_efi
P. 228
3. His intention in giving over the information should be for a use- vine assistance is liable to achieve great levels of wisdom. If he
ful purpose rather than out of hatred to the would-be groom. becomes a “great expert,” then in some circumctances, he is not
4. If he knows for certain that she would marry him despite the obligated to pay for inadvertent damages.
knowledge, it is forbidden to tell her.
5. If the defect is a lack of Torah knowledge, it is forbidden to
reveal that to her. It was her responsibility to ask Torah scholars
to test him. Can one inform a patient that a dentist removed a
The Chafetz Chaim did not define a “serious defect.” This can be de- tooth unnecessarily?
fined as a defect that would cause her to ask for a divorce if she would 1
learn of it after her marriage. If it is the type of defect that would Question
initially deter her from getting married, but that she would accept A patient suffered from a toothache. He went to a dentist, who
once married, then it is not viewed as a “serious defect.” took a status x-ray (a diagnostic x-ray of the entire tooth system),
It says in maseches Yevamos (45a): A man whose father was a gen- extracted the painful tooth and determined that another tooth also
tile and whose mother was Jewish sought the advice of Rav Yehuda. needed to be extracted. The patient then went to another dentist to
What was he to do about the fact that Jewish girls refuse to marry consult on that second tooth. The second dentist examined the x-ray
him because of his background? Rav Yehudah advised him to travel and thought that the tooth could be saved. He treated it and besiyatta
to a place where his background was unknown, or to seek out a Jew- diShmaya it healed.
ish woman with a background similar to his. The patient asked whether or not the first tooth could have been
The question arises: How could Rav Yehudah advise him to de- treated and healed. The truth is that, based on the x-rays, the first
ceive the prospective bride by not revealing his background? Is that tooth could have been treated and saved as well. It was extracted too
not a violation of the prohibition of deception? hastily. The second dentist now had two choices:
This question was discussed by the Kehilos Yaakov (Yevamos #44). To tell the truth and have the patient sue the first dentist in court.
He answered that even though initially a Jewish girl would not agree To remain silent so as not to violate the prohibition of lashon hara.
to marry the son of a gentile, after the fact, when they are already What should he do?
married and attached to each other with love, one can assume that
she will not ask for a divorce. Divorce is not simple. Who knows if 1 AnsweR
she would find someone better? Therefore, the defect is not defined
halachically as “serious” and he is not obligated to reveal it, just as it is First we have to clarify whether or not the physician who erred and
not considered letoeles to point it out to someone. removed a tooth that could have been treated is liable to pay for dam-
In light of the above, we would need to weigh how serious a defect ages according to Torah law. According to what we have written above
are the physician’s biting remarks and teasing. Is it of such magnitude (in response to question 1), there is a Rabbinic decree to exempt an
that anyone would fire him even after he had already been hired? If expert, licensed physician from payment, for the good of the world,
so, then it is just like the man who is about to hire a thief as his work- so that physicians will not be afraid of making an error and refrain
er, where it is a mitzvah to reveal to him that the man is a thief. But if from healing. According to Misgeres Hashulchan, the exemption only
222 1 Medical-HalacHic Responsa of Rav ZilbeRstein Informing a patient about a mistake 2 247 # 20818
8
