Page 81 - 20818_park-B_efi

The Pischei Choshen adds, as follows: 3 last moment, before they started the search for illegal liquor, Reuven # 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 3 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:01 | SR:-- | Magenta 20818_efi-a
broke the barrels, Reuven is exempt because rather than a damaging
We can prove that Reuven is obligated to pay, on the act, his was an act of rescue. Although Reuven did not know this
basis of what is explained in the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen when he broke the barrels, it is in accordance with the Mekor Chayim
Mishpat #380:4): If a person lightened the load on a boat and Orchos Hamishpatim, and resembles the case of the man who
about to be overwhelmed by a huge wave by throwing spreads a net on Shabbos to catch fish and tows in a child.
cargo overboard, he is exempt from paying for the cargo, Therefore in our case the physician is exempt from returning the
because the cargo is viewed as a “pursuer,” who is endan- payment he received from the woman for the Caesarean section, since
gering all on board. Only if the boat was on the verge of this surgery saved her life. Even though the physician’s intentions
sinking when he threw the cargo into the sea, is he exempt. were wrong, in actuality the surgery was an act of rescue.
But if he threw the cargo overboard before the huge wave The question remains, however, whether or not the physician is
threatened to sink the boat, he is obligated to pay for the
cargo even if later it became clear that his actions saved held accountable for his act by a Heavenly Court.
the ship. Regarding the verse (Bereishis 50:20): “And Yoseph said to them,
do not be afraid; you meant evil against me but G-d meant it for
And in my humble opinion, Reuven is obligated to pay. It is a good,” the Or Hachayim comments that if someone intended to give
basic principle in the Torah that a meritorious deed which results his friend a cup of poison to drink and by accident gave him a cup of
in a negative outcome is still considered a meritorious act. Likewise wine, he is completely exempt in Heaven. The physician in our case 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 3 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:01 | SR:--
a negative act that results in a positive outcome is still considered a meant to give the woman a cup of poison by performing unnecessary 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 3 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:01 | SR:--
negative act, as explained in the Ran (Gittin 19b, from the pages of the surgery on her, but in action, he gave her a cup of wine by removing a
Rif, s.v. umistabra). malignant tumor she had. Thus the physician is exempt by the Heav-
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim #222:4) states as follows: One enly Court as he is by a human one.
recites the blessing of Hatov Vehameitiv for something good, even The Keli Chemdah poses a question: What is the difference be-
if he is concerned that bad may come of it. For example, if he finds tween the above case and someone who intended to eat pork but ate
a lost object and he is worried that someone will take it from him, lamb, who requires kapparah? (Nazir 23a). And he answers: Although
he still says the blessing. Likewise one recites baruch dayan ha’emes Rava and Rabbah argue whether we follow a person’s thought or his
when a bad event occurs, even if some good can come to him from actions (Menachos 64a), their argument only applies to sins between
it, such as if it rained on his field and when the deluge passes it may man and G-d, where it is appropriate to be judged by one’s thoughts,
do him good. The Mishnah Berurah (ibid., 5) explains this halachah and even according to the one who rules that we go by the action, the
as follows: We should not look at the future because what we expect person still requires atonement from Hashem for his thoughts. This
may not happen. Thus in our case as well, we could say that one who would not apply, however, to sins between man and man, where the
damages his friend is obligated to pay for the damages because he did basis of the prohibition is that he brings evil upon his friend, but all
a bad thing to him, in spite of the fact that later it turned out to be poskim agree that if the act is good or if it causes good results for his
for his benefit. friend, we go by the act and not the intentions.
However, if at the time that Reuven broke the barrels, Shimon’s The Beis Yitzchak (Yoreh Deah, Part 1 #8:8) points out that in the
store was already surrounded by police and tax collectors, and at the case of intending to eat pork and eating lamb instead, the person in-

74 1 Medical-HalacHic Responsa of Rav ZilbeRstein Unnecessary Caesarean section 2 75