Page 329 - 20818_park-c_efi

11

the Yad Ramah (in Sanhedrin, ibid, s.v. tanya). Certainly, the phyician does not apply. Therefore, it is preferable to violate a Rabbinic prohi- #
is not obligated to prevent the desecration of Shabbos at the cost of bition rather than a Torah prohibition.
tremendous expenses he will have to bear. He is allowed to bring the According to this, in our case if we assume that more people in the
husband to the hospital to express his opinion about the surgery, even car and more weight is a violation of a Torah prohibition, then one
if it involves desecration of Shabbos. should not send someone to accompany her. If it is a Rabbinic pro-
However, one can differentiate between the two cases. The per- hibition, it is preferable for someone to join her in order to prevent
son who extinguishes the burning coal rather than standing guard yichud. If there is no one to accompany her, then she can violate the
over it the whole Shabbos, is doing an act which is essentially saving prohibition of yichud in order to fulfill the mitzvah of returning a lost
lives. Even though with extreme effort he could have prevented this object.
desecration of Shabbos, once he is doing the act, it is not a peripheral We can, however, challenge this, based on the Gemara in Baba
desecration of Shabbos but an act that is actually saving lives. On the Metzia (30a), which asks: Why do we need to point out that it is
other hand, the physician who is not prepared to perform surgery prohibited by a Kohen to become ritually impure in a cemetery in
without the husband’s consent, causes a peripheral desecration of order to return a lost object? A positive commandment about money
Shabbos, one that has nothing to do with the saving of life itself. It is cannot set aside the negative precept of becoming ritually impure!
the surgery that will save the woman’s life; not the act of obtaining her Based on this, one can ask: How can the positive precept of returning 20818_efi-ab - 20818_park-C_efi-ab | 11 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:46:25 | SR:-- | Magenta
husband’s his consent. Only if, for example, the woman’s husband was a lost object, which refers to money, set aside the negative precept of #20818_efi-ab - 20818_park-C_efi-ab | 11 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:46:25 | SR:-- | Yellow 20818_efi-ab - 20818_park-C_efi-ab | 11 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:46:25 | SR:-- | Black 20818_efi-ab - 208
a surgeon himself, and the physician would say: I do not want to do yichud, which is a prohibition? My father-in-law, Rav Y. S. Elyashiv,
this surgery. I prefer transferring this woman to her husband’s care, at answered according to Tosfos (in Shevuos 30b, s.v. aval). There it states
the cost of a desecration of Shabbos, would this resemble the case of that the fact that negative prohibitions are more stringent than mitz-
the burning metal. In this case, transporting the patient would be an vos involving money is because issues involving money can be forgiv-
actual act of saving her life, and not something peripheral. However, en. According to this, it is clear that only for money matters that can
we have not heard of any posek who would allow the husband to be be forgiven does a positive precept not set aside a negative precept.
brought in order to obtain his consent. This would not apply then, to the return of one’s health, which cannot
However, from the words of the Ran in Tractate Shabbos (38a, in be forgiven. As explained in Tractate Baba Kamma (91b), a person has
the page of the Rif, s.v. mahani) it is possible to learn that even pe- no right to wound himself and to cause pain to himself.
ripheral matters, which are not part of the actual saving of a life, were I also realized, that according to the opinion of the Shem Aryeh it
permitted by our Sages in order to prevent any delay to the act of sav- emerges that the prohibition of yichud is permitted to save an organ
ing a life. He brings the words of the Jerusalem Talmud (Shabbos 13:6): or limb, or in the case of a serious illness of the body, for the mitzvos
If one sees a child drowning in the river and his intent is to pull him of guarding one’s health and returning a lost object apply to both of
out in a net of fish, this is permitted. The Ran writes, as follows: The these situations as well. Even according to the view of the Pri Mega-
reason is that this act is a mitzvah and it is his obligation. Therefore, dim (Orach Chaim #328 in Mishbetzos Zahav #7) whose opinion is
even though his intent was for another action, which is prohibited that according to the Shach (Yoreh De’ah #157:3) it is permissible to
on Shabbos, the Sages permit it so that he should never forgo a case transgress a prohibition where there is danger to an organ or limb, it
of pikuach nefesh, which is his obligation. Indeed, the Sages permit is permissible to violate the prohibition of yichud for the same reason.
someone to throw a net into the water with the intention of catching See Tosfos (Baba Kamma 85a, s.v. ayvar) which states that if one eats

330 1 Medical-HalacHic Responsa of Rav ZilbeRstein Traveling on Shabbos to Prevent Seclusion 2 315