Page 365 - 20818_park-c_efi

20818_efi-ab - 20818_park-C_efi-ab | 12 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:46:25 | SR:-- | Cyan
20818_efi-ab - 20818_park-C_efi-ab | 12 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:46:25 | SR:-- | Black
#20818_efi-ab - 20818_park-C_efi-ab | 12 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:46:25 | SR:-- | Yellow
20818_efi-ab - 20818_park-C_efi-ab | 12 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:46:25 | SR:-- | Magenta
#
be a Jew there, but a person knows with certainty that it is a gentile, he 12 do not seem to imply that this is so, and it sounds as though he per-
is prohibited to desecrate Shabbos in order to dig him out. mits even those medical treatments that may not work on the same
It seems that Rav Chaim Berlin’s view is in line with a situation day, it seems that we can be lenient in treating the patient, because
where one physician disagrees with another. However, if a physician this is a great need (as in accordance with the second opinion). The al-
is certain that the patient is not in danger and his opinion is contrary lowance is not based on the fact that medical treatment can be likened
to that of one hundred other physicians, why do we accept the word to preparing the utensils necessary for essential eating. Therefore, it
of one against two or one hundred? As the Nesivos (above) explains, is permissible to violate Rabbinic prohibitions, even if the treatment
one witness is not believed because he might have erred! We have will not be effective until the next day. Likewise, it is permissible to
to say that this principle applies only in regard to others, but not in treat a resident of Eretz Yisrael.
regard to the physician himself. While others should not take into
account at all the solitary dissenting opinion, the physican himself 1 AnsweR to Question 2
should not desecrate Shabbos, since he is certain there is no danger.
However, the words of the Pardes Yosef do not seem to insinuate The basis of this question is according to the ruling of the Rama in
this. It says in the Torah, “A person should revere his father and moth- Hilchos Shabbos (Orach Chaim #328:12). He rules that if a dangerous-
er, and observe My Shabbosos” (Vayikra 19:3). The Sages explained (as ly ill patient can be treated by a gentile physician, we let the gentile
cited in Rashi, there): One might think if one’s father tells him to des- physician treat him. The same would apply here to a physician who is
ecrate Shabbos he should listen to him. Therefore, it says: And observe a resident of Eretz Yisrael. Even according to the Taz, who rules that
My Shabbosos. Everybody is obligated to honor Me. The Chizkuni one should not use a gentile but only a Jew, since the Jew will invest
asks: If a father commands his son to desecrate Shabbos, he is a wick- himself more than the gentile, in this case, it would still be better to
ed person and there is no mitzvah to honor him. Why should we even allow the Jewish physician who is a resident of Eretz Yisrael to treat
consider that his son would be obligated to listen to him? He answers the patient.
in the Sefer Pardes Yosef (Parshas Vayakhel) that this case refers to a It seems right to compare this question to a case cited in Sha’arei
sick father whom one physician believes to be endangered, while the Teshuvah (Orach Chaim #331:7): Is it permissible for a mohel, who lives
son, who is also a physician, believes there is no real danger and thus in the Diaspora who happens to be in Eretz Yisrael to circumcise a
no allowance for desecrating the Shabbos. What happens if this father baby on the second day of Yom Tov, if there is another mohel available
instructs his son to desecrate Shabbos for him? This instruction does in the city who is a resident of Eretz Yisrael? He states that some
not render the father a wicked person because, in such a case, one poskim prohibit it but one posek allowed it. We can compare our case
desecrates Shabbos. Therefore, the Torah informs us that nonetheless to this disagreement.
it is forbidden for the son to desecrate Shabbos if he believes it is not But one can perhaps differentiate and say that even those poskim
necessary. We see from these words of the Pardes Yosef that in his who prohibit the circumcision would allow the Diaspora physician to
view, a physician who believes there is no danger should not desecrate treat the patient here, because of pikuach nefesh. As explained in the
Shabbos for that patient. So it seems that the Pardes Yosef differs from Bi’ur HaGra (Yoreh De’ah #266:25) circumcision which suspends all
the view of Rav Chaim Berlin. Shabbos rules and regulations is considered a suspension, and it seems
We can explain that in truth there is no argument between them. It logical that the same should apply to that which sets aside Yom Tov,
is possible that the words of the Pardes Yosef refer to cases where the and it, too should be defined as a suspension. This cannot apply to

358 1 Medical-HalacHic Responsa of Rav ZilbeRstein Physician from abroad in Eretz Yisrael 2 351