Page 317 - 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 two mitzvos comes to teach us that although it is prohibited to slander
permissible for the physician to write a false medical report in order and to reveal one’s fellowman’s secrets, one should not stand idly by if
to save a Jewish woman from the chains of aginus? a life is in danger. Practically speaking, the halachah rules in Shulchan
(In the meantime, the woman remained an agunah. One day the Aruch (Choshen Mishpat #426) that if someone hears gentiles or mos-
Av Beis Din met the couple in the street, though he did not recognize rim plotting evil or setting a trap for someone and does not notify his
them at first. The husband had repented fully and peace had been friend, he violates “Do not stand idly by the blood of your fellowman.”
restored to their home. All were grateful to the One Above that the In light of this, it is clear that if a driver does not see well and is
divorce had not come to be. Our question, however, remains.) 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.
1 AnsweR However, the authorities exercise extreme caution when instituting

It seems that it would be permissible to lie in order to rescue a Jewish the requirements to obtain a driver’s license. Often their requirements
woman from the chains of being an agunah if her husband is not act- go beyond what is strictly necessary. Therefore if a physician knows
ing in accordance with Jewish law. that the driver’s vision is adequate and does not truly constitute a
As related in maseches Yevamos (106a), a woman once fell to the lot public danger, even though it does not meet government regulations,
of an unworthy yavam (levir), who was told: Submit to her chalitzah, his opinion is of value.
and she will give you 200 zuz. When the case came before Rabbi Chi- In this case, there is room to say that taking away a person’s liveli-
ya, he ruled that the chalitzah was valid, in spite of the fact that he had hood is like spilling his blood. As it says, “And Hashem said: It is for
been deceived and she did not pay him. Likewise, Rav Pappa’s sister- Shaul and for his bloody house because he put to death the Givonim.”
in-law fell to the lot of a yavam who was unworthy of her. Abayei told (Shmuel II 21:1) The Gemara asks (maseches Yevamos 68b): Where do
him to submit to her chalitzah and that he would thereby marry her. we find that Shaul killed the Givonim? The Gemara answers: Because
We see from this that it is permissible to deceive someone in order to he killed all the kohanim in the city of Nov, to whom the Givonim
rescue a woman from being an agunah, when the husband is chaining provided water, the Torah views it as if he killed them. We see from
her to him contrary to Jewish law. here that taking away a person’s livelihood is akin to killing them.
But, one must rule in our case if the false document would help Therefore, if the person with deficient vision does not truly pose a
her at all. The divorce may be invalid because it was given under an danger, perhaps we should refrain from taking away his livelihood.
erroneous assumption (unlike in the case of an erroneous chalitzah, To demonstrate this, the government may have determined that a
which is considered valid). person who has less than 6/12 vision in his good eye (meaning that
Nonetheless, we can consider the divorce valid in light of what is which a healthy person can see at a distance of 12 meters he can only
explained in Pischei Teshuvah (Even Haezer, Seder Haget #154:36, in see at a distance of less than six meters) cannot receive a driver’s li-
the name of the Maharam Alsheich #78). A case is brought there of cense. The expert physicians’ opinion is that if vision is a bit below
Reuven, who went from the Land of Israel to a country abroad and 6/12 the possibility of danger is distant. If the visual ability is 6/21
left his wife an agunah. In so doing, he violated his oath made in his there is only a possibility of danger. The only situation to be classified
kesubah that he would not leave the land without first granting his as real danger is if the driver’s vision is 6/30, in which case the driver
wife a bill of divorce. Two years later, he sent his father a letter in is likely to confront the following problems:

286 1 Medical-HalacHic Responsa of Rav ZilbeRstein Faulty vision poses a public danger 2 311 # 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 10 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:02 | SR:-- | Magenta 20818_efi-

10

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