Page 320 - 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
obligated to observe “Do not stand idly by the blood your fellowman”
and not to be concerned about the danger to himself or his money.
In the latter case, the danger is remote and probably “Your life takes
precedence” and the physician is allowed to look away.
Let us bring proof for our words:
In Responsa Avkas Rocheil (#195) there is a case of a witness who
#
was summoned by a beis din to testify, and the litigants threatened to
harm him financially if he would testify against them. Is the witness
obligated to testify? The Avkas Rocheil ruled that even if there is only
financial danger, he is allowed to withold his testimony. We do not
demand that he lose out monetarily so that another should benefit. 10
The obligation to testify is considered an act of lovingkindness, for
which one is not obligated to lose money. He should be concerned
with his own assets more than with the other man’s assets.
(This opinion of Avkas Rocheil is contrary to the view of the Riaz
(cited in Shiltei Gibborim on the Rif, Bava Kamma 24a), who rules
that if one can testify for his friend and withholds the testimony, he is
obligated to pay for the damage he causes.)
We can raise the following question regarding the opinion of the
Avkas Rocheil: While in general one is not obligated to lose out fi-
nancially in order to do an act of lovingkindness, it would seem that
the mitzvah of testifying, which involves both a positive and negative
commandment, might be different. How do we know that in such a
case a person is exempt from doing the mitzvah at the cost of his own
money?
The source for this law is revealed to us by the Avkas Rocheil him-
self. He writes as follows:
It is not lovingkindness for a person to lose money for him,
because he is obligated more to guard his own assets than
his friend’s assets, as we find regarding the return of a lost
object. In the return of a lost object, it is ruled in halachah
(Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat #264:1) that “if some-
one lost something and found his lost object and the lost
object of his friend, if he can return both he is obligated
to do so, but if not, he should return his own lost object,
314 1 Medical-HalacHic Responsa of Rav ZilbeRstein
#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
This applies all the more so in our case, where the physician is merely
refraining from acting and would not be committing any sin in order
to avoid chilul Hashem.
Even without concern for Chillul Hashem, if there is a possibility
that the physician will be fired from his job for a false report, he is
probably exempt from reporting incorrectly in order to merit the
mitzvah of burial on the same day. It is a fundamental principle of
the mitzvah of lovingkindness, and of all mitzvos beween man and his
fellow, that if one would take a loss by performing the mitzvah, he is
not required to do so. Therefore, the physician is not obligated to lose
his job in order to perform an act of lovingkindness to the deceased.
1 AnsweR to Question 3
One should not give a false medical report in order to avoid vaccina-
tion for chicken-pox. This does not compare to the previous question,
because there the government has no right to enact a law that con-
tradicts the Torah’s command to bury the deceased on the day they
die. If someone wants to travel to a strange land, the halachah rules
that “the law of the land is the law” (maseches Gittin 10b, and Choshen
Mishpat #369). Because of this, the physician has no right to write
incorrect information in order to enable a person to enter a foreign
land against the will of its citizens.
1 SuMMaRy and Conclusions
1. If the accused is a seasoned criminal it is permissible to give him
over to the gentile government. Therefore, one should report
the truth about him.
2. If the country demanding extradition will execute him, or oth-
ers will kill him, it is prohibited to issue a true report.
3. If the beis din determines that the thief has paid or will pay
[what he stole] and will not repeat the offense, one should not
issue a true report.
Changing details of a medical report 2 283
#