Page 374 - 20818_park-B_efi

20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 12 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:04 | SR:-- | Cyan
20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 12 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:04 | SR:-- | Black
#20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 12 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:04 | SR:-- | Yellow
20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 12 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:04 | SR:-- | Magenta
#
#
#20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 12 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:04 | SR:-- | Yellow 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 12 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:04 | SR:-- | Magenta 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 12 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:04 | SR:-- | Cyan 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 12 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:04 | SR:-- | Black
My father-in-law, Rav Elyashiv, led me to understand, however,
that we cannot forcibly prevent the woman from marrying a man
with AIDS, because it is not certain that she will become infected.
The chances of her becoming infected are not higher than 9-20%, as
written in Dr. Just’s letter, above. If they observe the laws of family
purity, the chances of her becoming infected are even lower than that,
as explained by Dr. Burk.
Even if she becomes infected, it may be a number of years before
the disease produces symptoms, and during those years perhaps a
cure will be discovered. This is not like leprosy that is already symp-
tomatic and causes putrefaction of skin and flesh. In contrast, the
AIDS patient still looks like all other people, but one needs to take
into account the bad fate that he faces. For this sort of thing, a beis
din does not force him to divorce his wife, especially if the woman is
strongly attached to him and separation in itself would be a sort of
danger. It is also possible that she herself has some sort of illness and
therefore his AIDS does not bother her, and it is preferable for her to
be married to him than to remain alone. Under these circumstances,
we are not obligated to forcibly prevent her from marrying him.
However, if she comes to ask for our advice, we would advise her
not to marry him so that she not endanger herself. If she does not
know of the danger, we are obligated to inform her. If her husband
hid the facts from her, it is possible that the kiddushin were given in
error. However, if in spite of everything she wants to marry him, she
is not viewed as one who is committing suicide and it is permissible
for the rav to perform the marriage ceremony. The physician is also
not obligated to tell the rav, especially since the observance of the
laws of family purity lessens considerably her chances of becoming
infected.
An AIDS patient who is about to see a dentist is obligated to tell
him of his disease so that the dentist knows to take special precautions
and use appropriate hygiene measures. The dentist cannot refuse to
treat the AIDS patient since he can do the treatment without contact
with the patient. He may also violate a prohibition if he withholds
urgently needed treatment from the patient.
368 1 Medical-HalacHic Responsa of Rav ZilbeRstein
the more so in our case: if there is no other physician as expert as he
is, he should not be fired since the public needs his services and it is a
matter of pikuach nefesh. However, the community should be warned
not to leave money in the medical clinics without supervision.
In maseches Makkos (11b) it says that if one murders unintentionally
he has to exile himself to one of the Cities of Refuge. He cannot leave
the city even if all of Israel needs him, like Yoav ben Tzeruyah [King
David’s army general]. As it says, (Bamidbar 35:25): “And he shall live
there [where he fled from the avenger of blood], that is where he shall
live, that is where he will die, there he will be buried.” This implies
that if not for this verse, we would have freed him for great public
need. Therefore, in our case, the physician must remain at his job.
My father-in-law, Rav Y. S. Elyashiv zt”l, agreed with my analysis
but added that all this applies only if the physcian’s lust for money
does not impact his work. If it does (such as if he performs extra
unnecessary surgeries for the money) he should be fired. A compa-
rable situation is brought in maseches Sanhedrin (27a) where Rava’s
view is that a wicked person who eats neveilos intentionally, to anger
Hashem, can still testify in court, while one who eats out of lust,
although he is considered less wicked, is nevertheless disqualified as
a witness in a beis din. Rashi (s.v. mumar) writes “Since he does it for
money, he is viewed as a destructive evil person and is disqualified
from testifying in a beis din.”
Likewise, in our case, if the physician lusts for money, we cannot
rely on his work.

1 SuMMaRy and Conclusions
1. A mohel who has a presumption of decency cannot be disquali-
fied based on circumstantial evidence.
2. One should report to the Rabbanim of the city, who can then
prevent him from performing circumcisions by announcing
A mohel has syphilis 2 357