Page 390 - 20818_park-B_efi

1. A patient told his psychiatrist about robberies he had committed. permitted to tell a gentile mailman outside of Eretz Yisarel on Shabbos
The physician has begun therapy and hopes to see positive results. Is
he obligated to notify the police about this man’s activities?
2. A patient abroad revealed to his physician that he had killed his
Jewish friend. He made a condition with the physician that he not
reveal this secret to anyone in the world. Is the physician obligated to
reveal this to the authorities?
1 AnsweR to Question 3
We will first rule on the last question: Is the physician obligated to
tell the authorities that the patient killed his friend, a Jew? In ma-
seches Niddah (61a), it says that there was a rumor spread that some
people of the Galilee had killed a person. These people asked Rabbi
Tarfon to hide them, and he responded that since perhaps they had
murdered, he was not permitted to save them (Rashi). Therefore, he
said, go and hide.
The Rosh questions Rashi’s interpretation of the Gemara (ibid.,
9:5). Based on a rumor that a person sinned, is it prohibited to save
him? The Rosh explains, as does Tosfos, (s.v. atmarinchu, in the name
of Sheiltos) that Rabbi Tarfon was concerned that if they had actually
murdered, and he would hide them, the king would kill him. That is
why he refused to hide them. The Maharsha further explains that even
at a time when capital crimes are no longer judged, it is still prohib-
ited to rescue murderers. We are to allow them to perish along with
all the wicked people in the world. The reason Rabbi Tarfon would
have seemingly saved them if not for fear of his own life is because of
the principle that possible danger to life is ruled on leniently, and also
that all people are presumed to be innocent, so we assume they did
not kill. But if it is clear that someone is a murderer, one should not
save him. (See Chafetz Chaim, Hilchos Lashon Hara 6:28).
It says in the Sefer Meshaneh Halachos (Part 7 #285):
Although Rashi and Tosfos and Rosh disagree about wheth-
er or not to save him, they certainly do not say that one
384 1 Medical-HalacHic Responsa of Rav ZilbeRstein
that one cannot open a letter delivered on Shabbos. If the mailman
understands the hint, he will open the letter for him on Shabbos.
This requires clarification, because it involves a violation of a possi-
ble Biblical prohibition. The Pri Megadim answers that it’s possible
that the letter contains a matter of pikuach nefesh, and therefore it is
permissible to hint to the mailman to open it. Likewise in our case,
perhaps we can say that Shimon destroyed letters that possibly con-
tained matters of pikuach nefesh, and therefore it is permissible to fire
him on the basis of only one witness. Maybe it is also permitted to
cause the postmaster to sin once, instead of allowing Shimon to sin
many times.
If there is a condition in the contract that says that a mailman
can be fired even on the grounds of a suspicion without substantive
proof, then one should tell on him without any hesitation. He is even
obligated to tell on him in order to prevent harm to the public and to
prevent Shimon from the opportunity to continue stealing from the
public.

Now we can answer the second question we posed at the beginning.
Should one expose the allegations against the school-director at the
expense of harming his patient’s family?
The Nodah Biyehudah ruled on a similar case (first edition #35).
There was a man who sinned for many years with a married woman
and then wanted to repent. He asked if he was obligated to tell the
woman’s husband, who would then have to divorce her if he accepted
the confession as fact, causing great shame to the family? Perhaps, he
asked, this is like the case of someone who sees his fellowman un-
knowingly wearing sha’atnez (a forbidden mixture of wool and linen)
in public. The din is that he does not notify him, so that he will not
have to undress in the marketplace, because of the importance of kev-
od habriyos (respectability). Similarly, perhaps it would be preferable
not to tell the man anything at all.
The Noda Biyehudah answered that one is obligated to tell the hus-
band. This is different from sha’atnez, which is only a temporary sin.
Patient reveals sins 2 397 # 20818