Page 292 - 20818_park-B_efi

Since this plan would require a medical report confirming that Hashem.” The commentaries explain that the juxtaposition of these
the woman is infected with AIDS, the question arose: Would it be
permissible for the physician to write a false medical report in order
to save a Jewish woman from the chains of aginus?
(In the meantime, the woman remained an agunah. One day the
Av Beis Din met the couple in the street, though he did not recognize
them at first. The husband had repented fully and peace had been
restored to their home. All were grateful to the One Above that the
divorce had not come to be. Our question, however, remains.)
1 AnsweR
It seems that it would be permissible to lie in order to rescue a Jewish
woman from the chains of being an agunah if her husband is not act-
ing in accordance with Jewish law.
As related in maseches Yevamos (106a), a woman once fell to the lot
of an unworthy yavam (levir), who was told: Submit to her chalitzah,
and she will give you 200 zuz. When the case came before Rabbi Chi-
ya, he ruled that the chalitzah was valid, in spite of the fact that he had
been deceived and she did not pay him. Likewise, Rav Pappa’s sister-
in-law fell to the lot of a yavam who was unworthy of her. Abayei told
him to submit to her chalitzah and that he would thereby marry her.
We see from this that it is permissible to deceive someone in order to
rescue a woman from being an agunah, when the husband is chaining
her to him contrary to Jewish law.
But, one must rule in our case if the false document would help
her at all. The divorce may be invalid because it was given under an
erroneous assumption (unlike in the case of an erroneous chalitzah,
which is considered valid).
Nonetheless, we can consider the divorce valid in light of what is
explained in Pischei Teshuvah (Even Haezer, Seder Haget #154:36, in
the name of the Maharam Alsheich #78). A case is brought there of
Reuven, who went from the Land of Israel to a country abroad and
left his wife an agunah. In so doing, he violated his oath made in his
kesubah that he would not leave the land without first granting his
wife a bill of divorce. Two years later, he sent his father a letter in
286 1 Medical-HalacHic Responsa of Rav ZilbeRstein
10
two mitzvos comes to teach us that although it is prohibited to slander
and to reveal one’s fellowman’s secrets, one should not stand idly by if
a life is in danger. Practically speaking, the halachah rules in Shulchan
Aruch (Choshen Mishpat #426) that if someone hears gentiles or mos-
rim plotting evil or setting a trap for someone and does not notify his
friend, he violates “Do not stand idly by the blood of your fellowman.”
In light of this, it is clear that if a driver does not see well and is
likely to endanger the public by his driving, it is a mitzvah to notify
the government authorities so they can revoke his driver’s license.
However, the authorities exercise extreme caution when instituting
the requirements to obtain a driver’s license. Often their requirements
go beyond what is strictly necessary. Therefore if a physician knows
that the driver’s vision is adequate and does not truly constitute a
public danger, even though it does not meet government regulations,
his opinion is of value.
In this case, there is room to say that taking away a person’s liveli-
hood is like spilling his blood. As it says, “And Hashem said: It is for
Shaul and for his bloody house because he put to death the Givonim.”
(Shmuel II 21:1) The Gemara asks (maseches Yevamos 68b): Where do
we find that Shaul killed the Givonim? The Gemara answers: Because
he killed all the kohanim in the city of Nov, to whom the Givonim
provided water, the Torah views it as if he killed them. We see from
here that taking away a person’s livelihood is akin to killing them.
Therefore, if the person with deficient vision does not truly pose a
danger, perhaps we should refrain from taking away his livelihood.
To demonstrate this, the government may have determined that a
person who has less than 6/12 vision in his good eye (meaning that
which a healthy person can see at a distance of 12 meters he can only
see at a distance of less than six meters) cannot receive a driver’s li-
cense. The expert physicians’ opinion is that if vision is a bit below
6/12 the possibility of danger is distant. If the visual ability is 6/21
there is only a possibility of danger. The only situation to be classified
as real danger is if the driver’s vision is 6/30, in which case the driver
is likely to confront the following problems:
Faulty vision poses a public danger 2 311 # 20818