Page 82 - 20818_park-B_efi
P. 82
20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 3 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:01 | SR:-- | Black
20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 3 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:01 | SR:-- | Magenta
20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 3 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:01 | SR:-- | Cyan
#
#20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 3 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:01 | SR:-- | Yellow
tended to sin and did a permissible act instead. Therefore he requires ately following the damage, the police came in to confiscate the #
atonement for his intentions. On the other hand, if, despite his evil barrels anyway, the barrels are considered to have been already
intentions, he ended up doing a mitzvah, he is exempt from being broken.
punished for his intentions. This would certainly apply to our case, However, it is explained in Tosfos (Bava Kamma 17b, s.v.
since the physician did a mitzvah in saving the woman’s life. zarak), that there is a clear differentiation between throwing a
stone [upon a utensil in order to break it] and throwing the
1 SuMMaRy and Conclusions utensil itself [in order to break it]. In other words, if he threw
a utensil from the roof, the utensil is viewed as a broken object
1. A physician who wants to repent for performing unnecessary from the moment it was thrown, but if he aimed a stone at it, it
Caesarean sections should return the money to all the women is not yet considered to be broken. In view of this, we can argue
who paid him for the surgery. In addition, he should pay for that at the time Reuven did the damage, the tax collectors had
damages that came about as a result of the surgery. It is com- not yet put their hands on the liquor - and thus Reuven should
mendable for him to refrain from performing any more Caesar- be made to pay for the damages.
ean sections without the confirmation of another physician. Nevertheless, we exempt Reuven, because, practically
speaking, his deed benefitted Shimon. This resembles what
2. If the unnecessary Caesarean section resulted in the physician
saving the woman’s life, he is not obligated to return the fee he is explained in maseches Menachos 64a: If one spread a net on
was paid and he is also exempt in the laws of Heaven. Shabbos to catch fish and caught a child and saved him, he is 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 3 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:01 | SR:-- | Magenta #20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 3 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:01 | SR:-- | Yellow 20
exempt from the prohibition of trapping on Shabbos, because we 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 3 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:01 | SR:-- | Cyan
deal with his acts and not with his intentions or thoughts. So
too, in our case, we consider only Reven’s act, which was of ben-
efit to Shimon, rather than his evil thoughts, and he is exempt.
2. The Gaon, Rabbi D. Horowitz (cited in Pischei Choshen, Nezikin,
Ch. 1, Note 20) is astonished at the words of the Mekor Chayim
and rules that Reuven is guilty and is obligated to pay for the
damages he caused. As soon as he broke the barrels he became
obligated to pay for them, and the benefit Shimon incurred later
from this damage does not exempt Reuven from the obligation
he incurred at the time. The Gemara explains in maseches Bava
Basra 55a that if tax collectors appointed by the king skipped
one house and collected the tax that the owner should have paid
from others, he is exempt from repaying the others because it
was Divine Providence that caused them to skip his house.
Likewise, Divine Providence dictated that Shimon not suffer
from the inspection. This does not negate Reuven’s obligation
to pay for the damage he caused.
76 1 Medical-HalacHic Responsa of Rav ZilbeRstein Unnecessary Caesarean section 2 73
