Page 327 - 20818_park-c_efi

20818_efi-ab - 20818_park-C_efi-ab | 11 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:46:25 | SR:-- | Cyan
20818_efi-ab - 20818_park-C_efi-ab | 11 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:46:25 | SR:-- | Black
#20818_efi-ab - 20818_park-C_efi-ab | 11 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:46:25 | SR:-- | Yellow
20818_efi-ab - 20818_park-C_efi-ab | 11 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:46:25 | SR:-- | Magenta
net and raises him out… and he need not obtain permission from of seclusion permitted? We have to say that Channah was in danger,
beis din.” The word “permission” is strange. Beis din asserts whether an as we can learn from the statement of Rachel to Yaakov: “but if not
act is permitted or forbidden. They reveal the halacha. What does it [without children] I will die,” (Bereishis 30:1) and for pikuach nefesh,
mean to obtain the “permission” of Beis Din? According to the Ran, yichud is permissible. Only actual idolatry and forbidden sexual re-
we can explain that permission to enjoy the fish that came up in the lations require one to “be killed but do not transgress,” but not an
net is not a given. It is based on the words of our Sages, who saw fit to appurtenance of these two cardinal sins. Therefore, it was permissible
#
uproot an injunction of the Torah so that nothing will stop a person for her to seclude herself with a stranger in order to be saved from the
from saving a life, and therefore there is place to assume that one must danger. Thus we see that there are opposing opinions on whether or
obtain permission from beis din each time anew. Therefore, the braisa not the prohibition of seclusion is permitted for pikuach nefesh?
informs us that one always acts immediately for pikuach nefesh, and he In the Sefer Shem Aryeh (Even Ha’ezer #33) there is a similar ques-
need not obtain permission from beis din. tion to ours. There was a woman who was having a difficult labor on
Being that the Sages permitted a peripheral action in order to Shabbos, and sent for a Jewish midwife, whose wagon driver was a
encourage the rescuer and to hurry him, we can certainly rule, all gentile. They did not know whether it was correct to send a Jewish
the more so, that one is permitted to bring the husband on Shabbos. guard to ride with the midwife, in order to prevent the prohibition of
Without the husband’s presence, the surgeon is liable to hesitate yichud, at the cost of an added desecration of Shabbos. They conclud-
about performing the surgery out of fear of possible repercussions. ed that a child should ride with her, which would then involve only a
We can explain the Ran in a different way as well. If the rescuer Rabbinic prohibition. The Shem Aryeh was later asked whether they
would be forbidden to cast his net with the intention of catching had ruled according to halacha.
anything other than the child, he would be liable to tarry while ex- He answered that it is probably preferable that a Jew travel with
amining his own intentions. His fear of sin would hold him back her, because Shabbos is suspended for pikuach nefesh, which is not so
from saving the child immediately. Therefore, the Sages permitted a for yichud which is an appurtenance of forbidden sexual relations
person to save a child even when his intent in casting a net is also to for which one must be killed, rather than violating the prohibition.
catch fish. This is similar to the explanation of the Mishnah Berurah The Nimukei Yosef (Sanhedrin 17b, in the pages of the Rif) proves this
(#328:33) on why it is permissible for a Jew to save a life even if a from the Gemara (ibid, 75a) which relates that a man once set eyes
gentile is available. Were this not so, explains the Mishnah, we could on a woman forbidden to him, and fell dangerously ill as a result. The
easily come to a situation where a Jew tarries while looking for a gen- physicians said the only way to cure him was to allow him to have
tile, thus endangering the patient. relations with her. The Sages said: Better he dies but not have forbid-
According to this explanation, there is no proof that the Sages’ den relations with her. Let him talk to her from behind a partition,
intention was to provide an incentive for the rescuer. However, there the physcians responded. Let him die rather than converse with her,
is some proof that the Sages tried to remove every possible deterrent ruled the Sages. We see from here that even for an appurtenance of
from the rescuer. Therefore, it is plausible that lack of consent from forbidden relations, we rule “be killed but do not violate the prohibi-
the husband is an impediment to saving his wife’s life, because the tion.” So, too, rules the Rama (Yoreh De’ah #157:1).
surgeon will be unable to focus on the surgery. This requires further However, the Mishneh Lamelech (Hilchos Issurei Bi’ah 17:7) cites the
study. fact that some poskim disagree with the Nimukei Yosef and rule that
What happens if a person sees that someone fainted outside, and for prohibitions related to forbidden relations that are only a negative

332 1 Medical-HalacHic Responsa of Rav ZilbeRstein Traveling on Shabbos to Prevent Seclusion 2 313