Page 262 - 20818_park-c_efi

age, perhaps she would become ill and her life would be endangered. be ill. In this case, the Sages determined that she does not need hot
Could she be permitted, on this basis, to marry someone else without
waiting for chalitzah?
The Chasam Sofer answered: One can only believe the physicians if
this is a person who is predisposed to illness. But if a person who has a
presumption of being healthy claims to have certain pains, and based
on his claims, the physician makes his diagnosis, then we do not per-
mit him to violate a Torah prohibition based on his own words and
conjectures. Even if we do give credence to the physicians’ assertion,
every time this woman’s new husband will live with her as his wife,
he will be violating a prohibition. How are we to measure how many
times are necessary in order to save her life? If once a month is enough
for her and he has relations with her twice a month, then both of
them are violating a Torah prohibition! And if she recovers, who will
force him to divorce her? They will then continue to live together in
transgression!
We learn from this that it is not possible to permit a Torah prohi-
bition for the purpose of saving a life, as long as we cannot measure
exactly how many times he has to sin in order to save someone from
danger. Moreover, if we are unable to ensure that when the danger
ceases, he will stop sinning, then we cannot permit the sin even in the
presence of danger.
However, these words require clarification. Being that the woman is
currently in a state of danger, we would think that one could suspend
the concern of future sins in the face of pikuach nefesh. Nonetheless,
we learn from here that one should not play around with Torah pro-
hibitions when there is no limit to how many times the transgression
will occur. That is why Rav Betzalel Zolti, zt”l said that it is difficult
to permit smoking on Shabbos.
Similarly, it says in the Bi’ur Halacha (#618, s.v. ve’im) that one must
consider well how much food to give a patient on Yom Kippur, and to
be careful not to give him more than is required.
I personally heard from my father-in-law, Rav Y. S. Elyashiv, that
one cannot permit a physician to smoke on Shabbos because of pikuach
nefesh. Although smoking is essential to a regular, addicted smoker,
248 1 Medical-HalacHic Responsa of Rav ZilbeRstein
water as a result of childbirth, and she will not be endangered by the
lack of it. The Mishnah Berurah (#330:15) quotes this in his name as
well.
The Ramban adds: Were it not for my fear of contradicting my
teachers’ view, I would have explained that only in a case where she
says “I need to wash,” we do not desecrate the Shabbos for her, but if
she says, “Desecrate Shabbos for me,” then one is required to do so.
We understand from the Ramban’s words that even though we
believe her weakness is a result of childbirth, nonetheless, if she asks
that we desecrate Shabbos on her behalf, we pay attention to her
words and consider her to be in possible danger. Likewise regarding
our first question, we could claim that although the physician knows
the patient and attributes the severe pains to his patient’s benign
illness, nonetheless, if the patient calls on Shabbos and says, “I am in
danger,” he is like the woman thirty days after childbirth who says “I
am exceptionally weak and I am in danger,” and we have to desecrate
Shabbos for him.
Despite this argument, I believe the case of the woman after birth
differs from the one in question. Our Sages determined that after
seven days, a woman after childbirth is no longer in danger. If she says
“I am an exception,” no one can contradict her; we accept what she
says. But in our case, the physician knows the patient well and is con-
fident that the pains are due to his illness, and that there is no danger.
Therefore, the physician need not be concerned that his patient may
be in danger.
Proof to this is that the Ramban feared contradicting the opinion
of his teachers. Their view was probably that even if there is no physi-
cian present who can determine with certainty that the pains are a re-
sult of the childbirth, we do not concern ourselves with the possibility
that her weakness is stemming from a dangerous disease. We view the
extra weakness as a result of childbirth. If so, then certainly, and all
the more so, if the physician knows the patient and his condition, and
asserts that the patient’s benign illness is likely to cause severe pains,
we are allowed to assume that there is no new danger.
Physician discounts possible danger of back-pain 2 269