Page 329 - 20818_park-B_efi

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:-- | 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:-- | Cyan
11
him, in which case he cannot be released from the oath without his #
fellowman’s consent.
The Malbim also explains that Rachav’s words “And now” implied
that at this point in time, the obligation to “let no person live” did not
yet apply, as the nation had not yet crossed the Yarden. At this point,
IS A PHYSICIAN OBLIGATED they were still allowed to accept proselytes from the seven nations.
TO PUBLICIZE THAT A Thus, this would be a valid oath since it would not violate a current
63 PATIENT IS MALINGERING? commandment of the Torah. (See Tosfos Sotah 35b s.v. lerabos.)
According to the view of my father-in-law, Rav Y. S. Elyashiv, one
can perhaps add another intent to the word “now.” Since Rachav could
have given them over to die at the hands of the King of Yericho, and
then they would not have been able to perform the mitzvah of “Do not
1 Question leave anyone alive” anyway, the oath actually saved them and enabled

If a physician discovers that a patient is receiving payment or favors them to fulfill the mitzvah of “do not leave anyone alive” with the rest
from public or private institutions by feigning illness or exaggerating of the seven nations [who occupied the land of Israel]. So certainly,
his limitations, what is he to do? the oath should be valid and binding.
The Taz (Yoreh Deah, there, 30, in the name of the Beis Yosef) wrties 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:-- | Yellow 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 11 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:04 | SR:-- | Black 20818_ef

1 AnsweR that if a worker was assigned a job by an employer, and because of this
he swore to him, it is considered an oath made because of a favor, and
It is a basic rule in medical practice that no information that concerns one cannot release oneself from it. If so, when the physician receives
the patient is revealed. This decree was enacted for the benefit of the payment for treatment, it is viewed as if he swore to the patient be-
patient; it enables him to speak freely without fear that his secrets cause of a favor. But if he receives no fee or if he receives a salary from
will be publicized. As a result, the physician can prescribe the proper the hospital rather than the patient, he can release himself from his
remedy for the illness. oath if the beis din decides it is the correct thing to do.
This law also allows for the imposter to speak freely with the phy- It seems to me that in a case of pikuach nefesh, one can release the
sician, knowing that the latter will not reveal anything (except in cases physician from his oath even if he gets paid. Then he would not have
of murder). to violate his oath for pikuach nefesh. Although normally there is no
This is not the way of the Torah, nor that of a Jewish physician way to release a person from a vow made in exchange for a favor (ac-
whose values are based on Torah principles. The Zohar (Part 3, p. cording to the Taz), in the case of pikuach nefesh, it can be nullified.
299a) refers to the greatest and wisest of physicians, Kartana, who Since in either case, the physician is permitted to violate his oath
writes that a physician is obligated to try to heal the patient and to because of pikuach nefesh, there is no benefit to the patient from the
find a remedy for his spiritual as well as physical illnesses, because oath.
they are interrelated. Furthermore, we learned in the Rama (ibid.) that some poskim say
This is the Torah way. The doctor is obligated to make the patient that for a mitzvah one is allowed, lechatchilah, to release person from
aware, in the case of our question, that he is violating two prohibitions: a vow he made. Therefore, in a case of pikuach nefesh, the physician

338 1 Medical-HalacHic Responsa of Rav ZilbeRstein Is a doctor obligated to report deficient vision? 2 323