Page 338 - 20818_park-B_efi
P. 338
#
on Yom Kippur, and when he came to you, you told him not to eat 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 11 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:04 | SR:-- | Magenta 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 11 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:04 | SR:-- | Cyan 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi
because the fast would not harm him and he is currently not in a state
of pikuach nefesh. You should know that even if a patient is presently
not in a situation of pikuach nefesh, if the fast may hasten his death
when he becomes ill in another five years, he is forbidden to fast now.”
The physician answered: “The pain and anguish that you will cause IS ONE OBLIGATED TO TELL
the patient by making him eat on Yom Kippur and the knowledge THE AUTHORITIES THAT A
that he is considered endangered can also cause him to die before his 62 DRIVER HAS EPILEPSY?
time.” Whereupon the Rav answered: “If it is as you say, one needs to
weigh the matter, and I do not know how to rule on this question.”
This is what I heard from Rav Berman zt”l.
I found a source, with Divine assistance, for this novel idea that if
the fast is liable to cause a future danger, it is considered a danger. In 1 Question
the Sefer Yad David by the gaon Rav Dovid Zintzheim (Yoma 82), the A physician became aware that a patient of his who drives as a means
author cites the opinion of the Rambam (Hilchos Shevisas Assor 2:11) of livelihood suffers from epileptic seizures from time to time. It is
that children should not fast because of the danger. The Chikrei Lev possible that his seizures will cause an accident on the road, endan-
(Orach Chayim #109) counters that he saw twelve–year-old children gering himself and others. 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 11 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:04 | SR:-- | Magenta #20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 11 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:04 | SR:-- | Yellow
who fasted for two consecutive days and were not harmed. The an- Is the physician obligated to notify the authorities so that they
swer Rav Zintzheim gives is: Who says that this is not dangerous to revoke his license, or can he remain silent so as not to cause the driver
them after some time has passed? Does a halachic allowance because to lose his livelihood?
of danger only apply when the danger is immediate? We can allow
something even on the basis of a danger that will possibly occur after
several years. Likewise it says (Yoma 84b): “It is not necessarily a pos- 1 AnsweR
sible danger for this Shabbos, but could even be a possible danger for A similar question was asked by the Chelkas Yaakov (Part 3 #136): Is a
another Shabbos.” Clearly, this applies even to the possibility of danger physician obligated to inform a bride who is about to be married to a
several years henceforth. Thus the fact that the minors showed no im- man with cancer about his illness, if it is obvious that he will not live
mediate signs of harm does not prove that the fast was not dangerous for more than a year? He answered that the physician is obligated to
to them. reveal this to her. As explained in the Rambam (Hilchos Rotzeach, Ch.
The Rashash (Yoma 84b, s.v. gemira) also writes clearly that even 1:14), if one hears that gentiles are plotting evil against his fellowman
if there is a possibility that he will die in a year or two, we desecrate or are setting up a trap for him, and he refrains from revealing it, then
Shabbos for him now. he has violated the Torah law “Do not stand idly by the blood of your
Similarly, Responsa Rashba (Part 6 #343) cites the Mishnah Berurah fellowman.” The Chafetz Chayim concurs (Rule 9, in the examples, 6).
(#330:13), who writes that “If a woman who gave birth within three Applying this to our case, one would be obligated to tell the authori-
days claims she does not need anyone to cook for her on Shabbos, we ties that the driver suffers from epilepsy in order to prevent harm to
would nevertheless view her as someone in danger because her organs the public.
332 1 Medical-HalacHic Responsa of Rav ZilbeRstein Driver has epilepsy 2 329
