Page 171 - 20818_park-c_efi

20818_efi-ab - 20818_park-C_efi-ab | 6 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:46:24 | SR:-- | Cyan
20818_efi-ab - 20818_park-C_efi-ab | 6 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:46:24 | SR:-- | Black
#20818_efi-ab - 20818_park-C_efi-ab | 6 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:46:24 | SR:-- | Yellow
20818_efi-ab - 20818_park-C_efi-ab | 6 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:46:24 | SR:-- | Magenta
#
idea could not be carried out because Rav Huna was a kohen, and he
The Husband’s Obligation to Heal his Wife if would not be allowed to remarry his wife. The Gemara asks: How
she Disregarded her own Health could Abayah consider this possibility? Did he not himself say: Who
is a wicked person? He who suggests one should sell one’s assets, like
1 Question Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel explained. (Rabban Shimon said: If
someone bequeaths his possessions on his death bed to one person,
What is the halacha when physicians warned a sick patient not to eat and after him they should go to another person, and the first person
harmful foods and she did not follow their instructions, and became sells the possessions, then the second one receives only what was left
sick? Is the husband obligated to pay for her medical expenses? over by the first. He who advised the first man to sell these assets is

viewed as a wicked man.) Here, too, how could Abayah even consider
1 AnsweR advising Rav Huna to do something that would cause his father to
lose money?
It says in Tractate Baba Kamma (85a) that if the damaged party vio- The Gemara answers: A son is different, and a Talmudic scholar is
lates his physician’s instructions, and his wound worsens as a result, different (i.e. for his son’s need, who is also a Talmudic scholar, it is
the person who damaged him does not have to pay the medical ex- permissible to deceive). Rabbenu Gershom explains that a son is dif-
penses wrought by the deterioration of the wound. As the Torah says, ferent because ultimately he will inherit his father anyway. Therefore,
“He shall only pay for his loss of time and cause him to be thoroughly this advice would ultimately be good for the father as well, because
healed” (Shemos 21:19). either way his son will inherit him.
The Tosfos asks on the words of the Braisa: How could we ever
consider the possibility that the damager has to pay? The damaged We can apply this to our case and claim that advising the patient
party was negligent! Tosfos answers that we are referring to violating to go to the emergency room is not stealing but only a deception, and
the advice of the physician in a way that is not so severe. In other ultimately the healthcare clinic’s money is designated for its members.
words, this is a situation where eating some sweets will not endanger In this way, the healthcare clinic is like the “father” of its members.
his life but just worsen his situation a little, and his doing so is not Therefore, perhaps it is not forbidden to offer such advice.
defined as negligence or sinning. We do need to consider, however, that every worker hired by an
In view of the above, if the woman violated her physician’s in- employer must be loyal and honest. Clearly, Moshe ben Atzri’s em-
structions in a way that did not endanger her life, it seems that her ployee’s first priority must be for the benefit of Moshe, his employer,
husband is obligated to pay to heal her. The word “only” in the verse and not for the benefit of Rav Huna. As the Rambam (Hilchos Sechiros
quoted above limits the obligations of someone who caused damage 13:7) writes, “A hired worker is obligated to work for his employer with
to another. There is no similar caveat regarding the obligations of a all his strength, as Yaakov Avinu said: “Because with all my strength I
husband to his wife, and therefore he is obligated to pay her medical worked for your father.” It is likely that ensuring that his employer not
expenses. get hurt is also part of the worker’s obligation. As it says in the Pischei
The Rambam writes (Hilchos Ishus 21:9) as follows: A woman who Teshuvah (Choshen Mishpat #55:1, in the name of Responsa Chasam
broke utensils while she was working in her house is exempt [from Sofer, Choshen Mishpat #140), the laws exempting the perpetrator in
payment]. This is not based on Jewish law but is a decree, because if the case of an indirect causation and very indirect causation apply to

168 1 Medical-HalacHic Responsa of Rav ZilbeRstein Deceiving a Healthcare Clinic 2 157