Page 68 - 20818_park-B_efi
P. 68
was treated, he claimed that he was sure that one of the Hatzalah chically correct to do so. (So, too, seems to be the opinion of Terumas
volunteers had stolen his gold watch, which had been lying on the Hadeshen.)
table. He wanted to obligate them to swear (shevuas heset), as in a The view of the Chida is that if one’s intent is to do damage and
case where one denies an accusation and can be forced to swear to his it turned out to be a benefit, he does not deserve payment since his
innocence. Are the Hatzalah volunteers obligated to swear?
intent was not to benefit.
1 AnsweR On the basis of the above, we can say that the woman is exempt
from paying for the surgery in which the surgeon, incorrectly, re-
We learned in maseches Gittin 48b: If one finds a lost object, he should moved the left kidney, for he acted negligently. Heaven helped and
not swear, “because of the good of the world.” Rashi explains: If one his negligence turned out to her benefit, as in the case of Geviha ben
finds a lost object and returns it to its owner and the owner says that Pesisa. (So, too, in the case of the driver who hit a mute woman and
he did not return all of it, he need not swear. If we would obligate the cured her (#2 above), the woman does not have to pay the driver who
finder to swear, then people would not return lost objects out of fear broke several of her ribs.)
that they will be forced to swear that they did not keep some part of
them. But one can differentiate between the cases: The heretic is not
Therefore, the volunteers of Hatzalah who volunteer their time entitled to receive any payment for straightening the back of Geviha
and expertise and receive nothing in return need not swear either, ben Pesisa, because his intent was to do harm. But since this surgeon
because of “the good of the world.” probably meant well, perhaps since despite his negligence, he benefit-
There is a difference between the two cases, however. Someone ed the woman, the woman is obligated to pay him?
who is returning money is to be believed about money, and is therefore I consulted with my father-in-law, Rav Y. S. Elyashiv zt”l, and he
exempt from swearing. On the other hand, the fact that the Hatzalah answered that since the woman benefited from the surgery that saved
volunteer is returning the patient’s lost health does not prove that he her life, she is obligated to pay the physician who performed the sur-
did not steal a valuable item. Nonetheless, despite the difference, logic gery, but not according to the price they agreed on in the beginning,
says that the Hatzalah volunteer be exempt from swearing. Even if the price of surgery for transplantation, which requires special exper-
he does receive a salary for saving lives, he too, is in need of chizuk to tise. Rather, she should pay him the price paid to a regular surgeon for
continue in his worthy but difficult profession, and he is thus exempt removing a diseased kidney. If the woman claims that had she known
“for the good of the world.” that this was surgery to remove a diseased kidney, she would not have
hired a private surgeon, we should doubt her claim because we see
that she hired a private surgeon for a similar operation.
Does a drunk person pay for transportation to
the hospital?
According to the Gemara in Sanhedrin and the words of Chida cited
1 Question above, one can discuss the following questions:
On Purim Reuven fell asleep on the sidewalk on a city street, com-
62 1 Medical-HalacHic Responsa of Rav ZilbeRstein Removed the Wrong Kidney 2 87 # 20818
3
