Page 297 - 20818_park-c_efi

10

Physicians nowadays do not know that danger to the eye is also 2. If several weeks have passed and the baby looks healthy in ev- #
danger to the heart. According to their understanding, danger to the ery way (sometimes changes in the eyes are due to an internal
eye is only danger to an organ, as cited in the question, so they as- illness), and yet his eyes are still tearing, then one can rely on
sume it is prohibited to desecrate Shabbos with Torah prohibitions in the physicians. If they claim that this is simply the nature of his
order to heal an eye. Nonetheless it seems that we do not accept their eyes, or that the tears and secretions are not due to any illness
opinion if it is contrary to the Sages, as stated in the Pri Megadim (meaning the tears are due to his sensitivity to light) then one
(#328 in Mishbetzos Zahav 2) He writes that “it seems that regarding can circumcise the baby.
everything mentioned in this paragraph from the Gemara, even if 3. If the baby is suffering from any type of pain in any organ
the physician or patient say that one need not desecrate Shabbos to whatsoever, it is forbidden to circumcise him until he recovers.
cure it, we do not listen to them.” As the Bach writes (Orach Chaim This applies all the more so if he has a cough, which indicates
#328, p. 491, s.v. umeahu), in regard to the illness tsafdina “…they speak weakness of his internal organs.
falsely, since the Gemara says that there is no danger and they don’t
claim that times have changed.” In view of the above, it seems that we 4. If there are secretions in his eyes even after he recovered, one
desecrate Shabbos, even with Torah prohibitions, for danger to an eye, nevertheless has to wait seven days, as ruled in Shulchan Aruch
since we have to reckon with the possibility of danger to the heart, (Yoreh De’ah #262:2). 20818_efi-ab - 20818_park-C_efi-ab | 10 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:46:25 | SR:-- | Magenta
even if the physicians say otherwise. According to this, if one must wait seven days after the baby’s re- #20818_efi-ab - 20818_park-C_efi-ab | 10 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:46:25 | SR:-- | Yellow 20818_efi-ab - 20818_park-C_efi-ab | 10 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:46:25 | SR:-- | Black 20818_efi-ab - 20818_park-C_efi-ab | 10 - A | 18-08-20
Similarly, the Teshuras Shai (#393) discusses the case of a child who covery from an inflammation of the eyelids, then certainly, and all the
was brought to be circumcised and they saw that his eyes looked al- more so, one has to wait seven days if there is inflammation of the
tered. When they asked the physician, he said it was an inflammation, conjunctivae.
but advised them to go ahead with the circumcision, as it would do Dr. Nemet writes that it appears to him from a medical viewpoint
no harm. He discusses whether or not one can rely on the physician that one can perform the circumcision as soon as the baby recovers
in this situation. On the one hand, the Nimukei Yosef (Yevamos 24a, from his eye infection, and one need not wait seven days. Doctors
from the pages of the Rif, s.v. ha’arel) clearly states that inflammation have said the same about fever. From a medical viewpoint, it seems
of the eye is related to the heart, and the kidcha mentioned in Tractate that it would be safe to do the circumcision immediately after the
Avodah Zarah (28b) is referring to inflammation of the eye. There- fever has gone down. The Sefer Kores Habris (#262 in Nachal Bris
fore, one has to wait for seven days after the baby is cured from an 40b) says that one cannot rely on the medical viewpoint when it is
eye-infection before performing the circumcision. On the other hand, contrary to what is explicitly stated in the Gemara. It says the same
nowadays nobody has ever heard of a baby with an eye infection dying in Responsa Teshuras Shai (#393). There is a case presented of a baby
from circumcision, so perhaps we can say that natures have changed. who was brought in to be circumcised, and they noticed that his eyes
The Teshuras Shai concludes that we cannot claim that things have looked different from the norm. The physician said it was, in fact,
changed, since the Bach writes that one should not rely on physician’s an inflammation, but guaranteed that circumcision would not harm
words when they are contrary to our Sages’ words. Therefore, it is the baby. In the response to this question, they cite the words of the
prohibited to circumcise the a with an eye infection until seven days Bach (Orach Chaim #328, s.v. umihu) and the Pri Megadim (ibid, in
after he is cured from his eye infection. So too in our case, it is per- Eshel Avraham, s.k. 2), who write that if the Sages say something is
mitted to desecrate Shabbos with Torah prohibitions for danger to dangerous, then even if the physician and the patient say that it is

298 1 Medical-HalacHic Responsa of Rav ZilbeRstein Circumcision with an Eye Infection 2 283