Page 354 - 20818_park-c_efi

20818_efi-ab - 20818_park-C_efi-ab | 12 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:46:25 | SR:-- | Cyan
20818_efi-ab - 20818_park-C_efi-ab | 12 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:46:25 | SR:-- | Black
#20818_efi-ab - 20818_park-C_efi-ab | 12 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:46:25 | SR:-- | Yellow
20818_efi-ab - 20818_park-C_efi-ab | 12 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:46:25 | SR:-- | Magenta
plish the same with a less stringent prohibition, Shimon is obligated
to do so in place of Reuven. Likewise, a physician whose luck was that
he is not required to travel on Shabbos is not obligated to forego this
in order to reduce Shimon’s travel, which is permissible.
In short, the rule of “the most lenient goes first” applies when one
person has a choice between a more stringent prohibition and a lesser
#
one. However, one cannot force another person to do the mild prohi-
bition in order to make things easier on his friend.
My father-in-law brought proof that the rule of “the most lenient
first” is Rabbinic. Both Rashba and Tosfos (Gittin 8b, s.v. af al gav)
are of the opinion that increasing measures is only Rabbinically
prohibited. The Ran (Beitzah 9b, in the pages of the Rif s.v. umee-
hu) questioned this, because the Gemara (Menachos 64a) raises the
question regarding a sick person who needed two figs to eat. There
are either two figs on two separate branches, or three figs on a single
branch. Should he cut off the two that the patient needs or should he
cut off the three on one branch in order to minimize the number of
cuts? The Ran asks: Is it not obvious that he should cut off the three
from one branch, because increasing measures is only Rabbinically
prohibited, and increasing the amount of cuts is biblically prohibited?
My father-in-law, Rav Y. S. Elyashiv, zt”l, answered that it is pos-
sible that Rashba and the Tosfos are of the view that the rule of “the
most lenient first” is only Rabbinic. Therefore, there is place to claim
that it is preferrable to cut two figs off two sparate branches, so as not
to cut off an extra fig. If he cuts off the three figs, although the actual
prohibition is lighter, he will be left with an extra fig in hand. Since
there is no Torah rule that “the most lenient comes first,” one does
not have to try to do the lightest violation. Therefore, there is place to
claim that perhaps it is better to transgress the more serious violation
so that one not be left with an extra fig which was cut from its branch
unnecessarily on Shabbos. We learn from here that the rule of “the
most lenient first” is only Rabbinic.
Therefore, when the hospital is arranging work and shift sched-
ules, they should arrange for the one who lives closer by to travel to
the hospital on Shabbos. If this physician claims it is unfair for him to
340 1 Medical-HalacHic Responsa of Rav ZilbeRstein
WHAT LEVEL OF DANGER
113 IS A PERSON ALLOWED
TO UNDERTAKE IN
ORDER TO SAVE
ANOTHER PERSON’S
LIFE?
1 Questions UndeRtaking dangeR in oRdeR to save a life
1. Medical advancements are largely dependant on medical studies
done on people. Every new medication, before being approved
for general use, is tested on animals, after which it is tested on
healthy humans who either volunteer of their own will or do so
in order to receive payment. To what point is a person permit-
ted to participate in such an experiment, when there is a slight
but significant danger involved?
Prof. Shimon Click, head of internal medicine department,
central southern Hospital of Beer Sheva
2. A policeman sent to disable a bomb can be killed while disabling
it. Things like this have unfortunately happened. (May Hash-
em avenge their blood.) To what extent is a person allowed to
endanger himself to disable a bomb, in order to save people or
property?
3. Statistics from some forty years ago (in the year 5690) showed
that out of one-hundred women who underwent three Cae-
sarean sections and became pregnant a fourth time, thirty had
spontaneous rupture of the uterus during the fourth birth,
and were in mortal danger. (Many physicians disagreed with
Undertaking danger in order to save a life 2 369