Page 378 - 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
not be a violation of “Do not stand idly by the blood of your fellow-
man.” However, if the concern that she may become infected with the
disease is significant, for, as the physician wrote, the man is constantly
abroad in places where the disease exists, then the physician must
urge the man to tell his wife about the danger. If the man refuses
to tell his wife, one has to consider whether or not the physician is
#
obligated to save her from the danger if the matter will endanger the
physician’s livelihood etc. This is especially so since it is obvious that
the man is not completely irresponsible: he came to the physician to
be tested, and perhaps his intention was to tell his wife himself if he
were indeed infected.

The above applies if both spouses are Jewish. But if he is a gentile,
the woman who lives with a gentile violates a very stringent Torah
prohibition. As it says, (Devarim 7:3): “You shall not make marriages
with them.” The Sefer Hachinuch writes (#427) that it is prohibited for
us to marry someone from the Seven Nations or other gentiles, and a
woman who lives regularly with a gentile has thrown off the yoke of
this prohibition, and she is an apostate. The Iggros Moshe writes (Even
Haezer, Part 1 #140) that a woman married to a gentile is viewed as
an apostate (mumeres), and it is a mitzvah to grant her a divorce like
any other apostate.
We learn in Megillas Rus (1:5) that Machlon and Kilyon died
because they married gentile women. The Targum explains the verse
“And they both died, Machlon and Kilyon,” that they married women
from other nations. Because they violated the decree not to marry
non-Jewish women, their lives were cut short. In addition, we do not
bury a Jewish woman who lived with a gentile in a Jewish cemetery.
(See also Biyur Halachah (end of #329 and #608, s.v. aval).
It is also says in Iggros Moshe (Orach Chayim, Part 2 #73) that it
is forbidden to call up to the Torah reading a bar mitzvah boy whose
father is a gentile, even if his mother is Jewish. Although he is clear-
ly considered Jewish halachically and one is obligated to teach him
Torah and mitzvos, as long as his mother does not live according to
Torah and remains with the gentile and he is raised in their home, one
372 1 Medical-HalacHic Responsa of Rav ZilbeRstein
#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
extract from Gehenna a man who sinned with a gentile woman, for he
is viewed as being uncircumcised.
This applies if it is clear that the man sinned. If we are unsure if
he really sinned, he should be given over to a beis din, so that they can
investigate and hear his explanation of how he contracted the illness
directly. It is very serious to disqualify a person and to remove him
from his presumption of being kosher, as mentioned above regarding
the woman whose husband went abroad. Therefore, as long as there
is the possibility that he was infected without sinning, one should
assume that that is what happened. Perhaps he became infected in
a mikveh or in a swimming pool, or perhaps he slept in a motel on
an unclean sheet. Moreover, oftentimes, the diagnosis of syphilis is
incorrect. As explained in Responsa Chasam Sofer (Yoreh Deah #158),
the determinations made by medical knowledge are viewed by the
Torah as possibilities rather than certainties. The reason we desecrate
Shabbos based on the word of a physician is because even a possibil-
ity of pikuach nefesh is sufficient to require desecration of Shabbos.
Indeed, one of the pious men of Jerusalem said that he himself was
infected with syphilis in the mikveh. Even though this would be ex-
tremely rare, one can assume that this is the case with a mohel who
has a presumption of kashrus.
Furthermore, the Chafetz Chaim (Hilchos Lashon Hara, Rule 6:2,
and in Be’er Mayim Chayim 31) rules according to the Maharik (cited
above), that even if there is circumstantial evidence (devarim nikarim)
that indicates that the slander is true, one cannot rely on it to flog the
alleged sinner or cause him to lose money. In view of the above, we
would be forbidden to flog the mohel or make him return money he
was paid for performing a circumcision since we now view the fee as a
result of a mistaken transaction. We are also not allowed to dishonor
him or view him as a sinner as long as we have no witnesses to testify
that he sinned.
However, when it comes to warning people so they not catch his
disease or use a dishonest mohel, devarim nikarim are sufficient. The
Be’er Mayim Chayim (there, 28), writes as follows:
A mohel has syphilis 2 353
#