Page 328 - 20818_park-B_efi

20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 11 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:04 | SR:-- | Cyan
20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 11 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:04 | SR:-- | Black
#20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 11 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:04 | SR:-- | Yellow
20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 11 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:04 | SR:-- | Magenta
Therefore, my father-in-law ruled that the physician’s oath to the
woman was valid since it did not prevent the physician from fulfilling
a mitzvah. Had he not sworn to her, he would have had nothing to
reveal. Being that he is now under oath and cannot reveal her illness,
he should merely hint to anyone who asks that he should not marry
this woman.
#
The same applies in our case. The physician’s oath is valid and
it is forbidden for him to reveal the driver’s visual deficiency to the
authorities. If there is absolute danger to life, such as if the vision
of the driver is 6/30 and perhaps even if it is 6/21, the oath would
be suspended, as any other mitzvah, for pikuach nefesh. If the vision
is 6/15, since there is only a distant concern of danger, there is no
allowance for the physician to violate his oath.
We need to judge, however, in a case where the physician is forced
to reveal the illness for pikuach nefesh, can this need release him from
his oath? If yes, then before he reports the deficiency, he must go to a
Torah scholar and ask that he release him from his oath. If not, then
he needs to violate the oath because of pikuach nefesh, as explained
below.
It says in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah #228:20): “If one swears
or vows to one’s fellowman because of a favor he did for him such
as Moshe who swore to Yisro, his father-in-law, [that he would not
return to Egypt] because Yisro was good to him and gave him his
daughter, one cannot release him from his oath without his fellow-
man’s agreement.” (See there, in Rama.)
In light of this halachah, the Malbim’s explanation of the oath
made by Yehoshua’s spies to Rachav makes perfect sense. After hiding
them, Rachav asked, “And now, please swear to me in the name of
G-d, for I did for you an act of benevolence, and you shall also do an
act of benevolence with the house of my father, and you shall give me
a true sign and save the life of my father and my mother…” (Yehosh-
ua 2:12-13). The Malbim writes that Rachav’s intent when she said
“Please swear to me because I did for you an act of benevolence,” was
to obligate them as one who makes an oath because of a favor done to
322 1 Medical-HalacHic Responsa of Rav ZilbeRstein
#20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 11 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:04 | SR:-- | Yellow 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 11 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:04 | SR:-- | Magenta 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 11 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:04 | SR:-- | Cyan 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 11 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:04 | SR:-- | Black
a) “You shall not steal (Vayikra 19:11), by acquiring money deceitfully,
and b) “Nor shall you deal falsely nor lie one to another” (ibid.), by
posing as someone ill. Lying is not only performed verbally but also in
writing, as explained by the Tosfos (Bava Basra 94b, s.v. hachi).
The physician is obligated to rebuke the imposter for two reasons:
1. In order to save him from the prohibitions cited above.
2. In order to return the money to those who were cheated.
Therefore, if the physician feels that his words will bear fruit and the
imposter will fix his crooked ways, he can fulfill his obligation by re-
buking him, as explained by the Chafetz Chaim (Hilchos Lashon Hara
#4:4, cited below).
11
However, if the physician is concerned that the imposter will
continue to make money deceitfully, he is obligated to inform all
those who are affected. He should tell them that it is possible that
the person is feigning illness, and that he needs to be re-examined.
He should be careful to portray this as a possibility and not as an
absolute certainty, even if he himself is certain that he is dealing with
a deceiver. Our Sages warned us “Do not act as a singular judge” be-
cause only One judges alone [i.e. G-d]. “And do not say, Accept my
view; for they are permitted but not you.” (Avos 4:8). Especially in the
medical field, where one can easily make a mistake, a doctor should
never decide on his own.
The physician might be uncomfortable about betraying a person
who came to him for medical treatment. He should know that he is
in fact saving the imposter from the judgment of Gehenna. He should
not be concerned about his image. As we find in maseches Shabbos
(54b) that whoever is able to intervene and stop a sin, but does not
do so, it is considered as if he did that very sin himself. Likewise if
one is aware of something but refuses to come to a beis din to testify
because the judges are inferior to him in wisdom, and he feels that
his testimony would be a lack of respect to them, then he is guilty of
an active sin and not just a passive one. It is considered as though he
himself did the sin for which he withholds his testimony, as explained
in Tosfos (Shvuos 30b, s.v. aval) and in Turei Even (Megillah 3b, s.v.
Patient malingering 2 339
#