Page 313 - 20818_park-B_efi

20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 10 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:02 | SR:-- | Cyan
20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 10 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:02 | SR:-- | Black
#20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 10 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:02 | SR:-- | Yellow
20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 10 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:02 | SR:-- | Magenta
tion in order to finish up with the birth and to arrive on time at his sticks, Rava would not have obligated him to pay more. If halachah,
place of work in the hospital. according to Rav Yossi, dictates that he pay the cost of a stone fence,
This physician violated the woman’s trust in him. He also violated why didn’t Rava automatically force him to do so? Why did he first
the prohibitions of injuring and deceiving and stealing money when suggest compromise?
he put his personal considerations before those of the woman in The Nesivos answers: In a case where someone is holding on to
childbirth who had paid him good money. This is not how Hashem’s money that does not belong to him, and the claimant mistakenly asks
#
agents - those who are entrusted with the sacred mitzvos of “And your only for a portion of what is coming to him, the beis din is obligated
brother shall live with you,” and “You shall return [his health] to him,” to inform the claimant of this so that he can get back all that is right-
and “Heal, he shall heal” - behave. ly coming to him. In Runya’s case, he did not have any of Ravina’s
This case is also worse than the unnecessary amputation of part money and did not take anything from Ravina. It was simply that
of a limb. In the latter case, one can at least notify the government according to the halachah our Sages decreed that one neighbor can 10
and the insurance company that the amputation was done at the build a fence and force his neighbor to buy half of it. As long as the
patient’s request, without medical justification. In this way, at least he second neighbor hasn’t paid for his share, the fence belongs to the one
can undo the sin of stealing. In the case of an unnecessary c-section, who erected it, and the second neighbor is not guilty of theft. In a case
however, the doctor restricts the number of subsequent births this like this, the beis din is not instructed to enlighten the claimant as to
woman will have. It is very difficult to fix such a sin, a sin against both his rights so that he force his neighbor to pay for the fence. Therefore,
G-d and man. Rava did not obligate Runya immediately to pay for part of the stone
Additional and unnecessary amputation is prohibited for two wall, but told him to compromise with Ravina. Otherwise Ravina
reasons: could rightfully demand that Runya buy half his fence, and the beis
din would back him up.
1) The prohibition of stealing. If the government or the insurance The Nesivos continues to say that according to his explanation, the
companies knew that more than necessary was cut in order to words of the Rama are exact. As he writes: “A litigant who sues his
receive a greater stipend, they would never give him the money. fellow for a small thing, and the judge sees that he will owe him much
Thus the patient is guilty of stealing, and the physician who did more than he claims…” The Rama did not write that the defendant is
the procedure assisted him in this. currently obligated to pay more, but that he will owe him in the future.

2) The prohibition of wounding. A person is forbidden to wound In other words, only if the prosecutor decides to sue in beis din would
himself, as explained in maseches Bava Kamma (90b). Likewise he be obligated to pay more. In this case, the judge should not inform
the Rambam (Hilchos Shevuos 5:17 and Hilchos Chovel Umazik the claimant that he can demand more.
5:1) rules that a person is not the owner of his body, but his In light of the above, there is room to claim that the physician
body belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is written should not tell the patient that he is entitled to more than he is asking
(Yechezkel 18:4): “The souls here belong to Me.” The Radvaz for. This is because according to halachah we do not have to power to
(Hilchos Sanhedrin 8:6) writes that this is why we do not kill obligate the car owner to pay compensation, for a number of reasons:
a person nor flog him based on his own testimony, if there are 1. It is not certain that he directly damaged him. It could certainly
no witnesses. We do not say that the “admission of a litigant is have happened indirectly or by accident or because the injured par-
equivalent to 100 witnesses” as we do in regard to a monetary ty was not careful enough. 2. Nowadays we do not have certified

290 1 Medical-HalacHic Responsa of Rav ZilbeRstein Informing someone that he is entitled to compensation 2 307

#20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 10 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:02 | SR:-- | Yellow 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 10 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:02 | SR:-- | Magenta 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 10 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:02 | SR:-- | Cyan 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 10 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:02 | SR:-- | Black #