Page 346 - 20818_park-B_efi

20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 11 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:04 | SR:-- | Cyan
20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 11 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:04 | SR:-- | Black
#20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 11 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:04 | SR:-- | Yellow
20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 11 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:04 | SR:-- | Magenta
batar). Likewise, if the physician in our case doesn’t report the im-
poster, then he himself is guilty of stealing and lying. If the imposter
only exaggerates his illness a little bit, then the physician is allowed to
ignore the matter.
If there is legitimate room for concern that if the physician re-
ports the imposter, the imposter will take revenge on him, then the
#
physician is exempt from involving himself in this matter. The Rama
writes (Yoreh Deah #334:48) that even though it is an obligation to
stop people from sinning, and if someone is able to do so but does
not he is charged with that sin, a person is nonetheless not obligated
to spend money on this mitzvah. Therefore, there is a leniency in this
obligation because of the concern that the sinners will take revenge
on those who rebuke them. The Biyur Halachah concurs (#608, s.v.
aval). Likewise one is exempt from the mitzvah of returning a lost ob-
ject for the same reason. As we learn in maseches Bava Metzia (62a):
“And that your brother live with you” - your life takes precedence over
that of your fellow. Also, in Responsa Avkas Rocheil (#195) there is
a question about whether or not a person is obligated to testify if
he clearly knows that the second side will take revenge on him for
his testimony. He answers that if he is sure he will be harmed, he is
exempt [from testifying] because “Your life takes precedence over that
of your fellow.”
This applies in regard to the physician reporting the imposters
to the authorities; if doing so will certainly cause him harm, he is
exempt. However, he is never permitted to actively falsify a medical
document due to pressure and fear of the patient’s revenge. Were he
to do so, he would be partner to an act of theft. In fact, the Binyan
Tziyon (#167-174) cites that there are poskim who rule that stealing is
one of the sins for which one is commanded to give up one’s life. Even
according to those who disagree and rule that one should violate the
law and not get killed, it is certainly wrong to steal in order to avoid
revenge.
If a physician is asked to confirm a patient’s level of disability for
an insurance company, he should not magnify the level of damage
when in doubt, but rather state the minimum amount of disability,
340 1 Medical-HalacHic Responsa of Rav ZilbeRstein
#20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 11 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:04 | SR:-- | Yellow 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-ab | 11 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:04 | SR:-- | Black
ill with the disorder “tzafdina” (scurvy) and a Roman matron knew
the remedy. Rav Yochanan asked her to reveal the remedy to him. The
matron said that she would reveal it to him on condition that he not
reveal it to others. Rav Yochanan swore to her and said: “To the G-d
of Israel, I will not reveal it.” The matron then revealed the remedy
to him. Lo ans behold, that Shabbos, during his public sermon, Rav
Yochanan revealed the secret of the remedy to his congregation. The
Gemara asks: How could have Rav Yochanan violated his oath? The
Gemara answers that Rav Yochanan deceived her. In truth, his inten-
tion was that to the G-d of Israel he would not reveal the remedy, but
to the people of Israel he would reveal it.
Rav Elyashiv why did Rav Yochanan require this deception alto-
gether? After all, this was an oath that effectively violated the mitzvah
of restoring a lost object, which includes one’s lost health and healing
the ill (as explained in maseches Sanhedrin 73). Therefore the oath was
not a valid one to begin with.
He answered that the precept that one cannot swear to violate
mitzvos applies to a mitzvah that one is already obligated to do at the
time of his oath. For example, one cannot swear not to sit in a sukkah
or eat matzah since the Torah obligates him do so. Likewise, if one
already knows of a certain remedy and swears not to reveal it, the
oath disables him from fulfilling the mitzvah of healing to which he is
obligated, and is therefore invalid.
By contrast, Rav Yochanan’s oath to the Roman matron did not
limit him in performing his obligation, since at the time of the oath he
did not know the remedy and thus had no obligation to heal the sick.
Had he not sworn, he would not have known the secret remedy and
he would not have had a mitzvah to reveal it. Since the oath did not
prevent him from fulfilling the mitzvah, it is a valid oath.
Even though after the matron revealed the remedy the oath pre-
vented him from fulfilling his obligation since at the time the oath
did not nullify a mitzvah, it is valid. Once the oath is valid it is like all
Torah prohibitions that one should not transgress in order to fulfill a
mitzvah. Moreover, in this case the oath enabled Rav Yochanan to do
the mitzvah of healing himself and others.
Is a doctor obligated to report deficient vision? 2 321
#