Page 270 - 20818_park-B_efi

20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 9 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:02 | SR:-- | Cyan
20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 9 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:02 | SR:-- | Black
#20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 9 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:02 | SR:-- | Yellow
20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 9 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:02 | SR:-- | Magenta
#
#20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 9 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:02 | SR:-- | Yellow 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 9 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:02 | SR:-- | Magenta 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 9 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:02 | SR:-- | Cyan 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 9 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:02 | SR:-- | Black
than what he sold. Is the son allowed to continue to work for him and
thereby be an accomplice to his theft, or is he obligated to notify the
customers?
I presented the case to my revered father-in-law, Rav Y. S. Elyashiv
zt”l, who told me that in both cases it is forbidden for the child to
remain silent. The daughter [in the first case] must say to her father:
“You taught me that it is forbidden to steal and I am obligated to
inform the hospital guards.” She should not desist because of a loss
of her income [if she is fired], since we are not dealing here with a
financial loss but rather with forgoing future income. Also, she is
prohibited from working as a nurse with stolen supplies.
See the commentary of Rabbeinu Nissim (the Ran) on the Talmud
(Kiddushin 13, in the pages of the Rif), in which he says: It is difficult
to understand the story of Dama ben Nesina, who was willing to for-
go an enormous business deal for the sake of his father’s honor [who
had the key to the chest under his pillow but was fast asleep]. Why
did he not wake him, if to honor one’s father one may take from one’s
father in order to benefit him? He answers that, 1) “The costs of hon-
oring one’s father are borne by the father” refers to his honor. When
it comes to causing him distress, however, one must be prepared to
lose all of one’s money in order not to distress the father. And 2) “The
costs in honoring one’s father are borne by the father” refers to the
case where the son loses money, but in Dama ben Nesina’s case, the
son did not lose money but, rather, future income.
So, too, in our case, the daughter must forgo her own income and
must warn her father not to steal, even if she loses her job and her
livelihood. Both the aforementioned reasons apply here: She is both
preventing her father from shame, and only forgoing her future in-
come [rather than taking a loss]. It may require further study, whether
forgoing future income is halachically considered loss of money, but in
any event the daughter must do everything to prevent her father from
stealing and also avoid disgracing him and putting him to shame.
Similarly, in the case of the grocery store, the son must tell his fa-
ther: “You are the one who taught me not to steal!” And if his words
have no effect, the son should stop working there.
264 1 Medical-HalacHic Responsa of Rav ZilbeRstein
#
silently acquiescing, he would be aiding falsehood and deception. On
the other hand, if he would stop his friend from cheating, it would
cause hatred between them. What should he have done?
1 AnsweR
If the good grade that was dishonestly earned does not affect or harm
anybody in the world, but saves the student from shame, then his
friend can turn a blind eye. Chazal teach that it is permitted to de-
ceive and alter the truth in order to save one’s friend from shame. In
maseches Sanhedrin (11a) Rabban Gamliel asked for seven men to add
a month onto the year. In the morning he found eight men. “He who
came without permission should leave,” Rabban Gamliel announced.
Shmuel Hakatan rose and said: “It is I who came without permission.
I did not come to add a month to the year but to obtain practical
halachic guidance.” “Sit, my son,” responded Rabban Gamliel. “You are
worthy of adding a month to all the years, but our Sages said that
only men who were invited to do so can add a month to the year.” In
truth, it was not Shmuel Hakatan but another person who had en-
tered without permission. As Rashi explains, Shmuel Hakatan placed
the blame on himself so as not to shame his fellow.
According to this Gemara, there is good reason to rule that the
student should look away and allow his friend to copy from him.
As we see in the Gemara, it is even permissible to tell an outright
lie to prevent another person’s shame. (These words do not apply to
the teacher, who is obligated to ensure that the test is administered
honestly.)
This only applies if the cheating does not cause any harm to others.
However, if as a result of his success in these exams he will receive a
degree from which he will profit, then the cheater has violated the To-
rah law of “Distance yourself from a false matter.” It is every person’s
obligation to prevent this. He who helps him is viewed as one who
shares the profits of a thief.

Publicizing an inaccurate medical bulletin 2 269