Page 370 - 20818_park-c_efi
P. 370

to what their teacher had said. One of them swore that Rav said one                                                                                              #
               thing, and the other swore that Rav said the opposite. At the end, it
               became clear that Rav had said what one of them understood. The
               disciple who had erred asked: Am I obligated to bring a swearing sac-
               rifice, like someone who swears falsely unintentionally? Rav answered                               SHABBOS DESECRATION
               him: Your heart misled you. You thought you were swearing to the                                    FOR A PATIENT
               truth, except that you were mistaken. Therefore, you are exempt from            112                 THOUGHT TO BE
               the sacrifice.                                                                                      IN DANGER, BY A
                  So we learn from here that a person can be absolutely sure, without                              PHYSICIAN WHO SAYS
                                                                                                                   THERE IS NO DANGER
               any doubt whatsoever, that this is what he heard from his teacher, and
               he will even swear to it, but he is mistaken. If so, perhaps, since this
               is a matter of pikuach nefesh, the second physician should consider
               that he may be in error. This is not similar to the words of the Chavas
               Da’as and Rashba, who believe that a person need not pay heed to
               the ruling of the beis din if it is clear to him that they are mistaken.            1                                                                            20818_efi-ab - 20818_park-C_efi-ab | 12 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:46:25 | SR:-- | Magenta
               Their words did not apply to a case of pikuach nefesh, but in regard                     Question Shabbos DesecRation by a Physician Who Says theRe is No DangeR  #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
               to what is prohibited and what is permitted. In these cases, a person           A patient was brought to the hospital on Shabbos because of chest
               does not have to suspect that he is in error, for there is a general rule       pains. The physician who first examined the patient thought there
               in the Torah that the judges “have nothing other than what their eyes           was a possibility of a developing heart attack, since the heartbeats
               can behold” (Tractate Sanhedrin 6b). This differs from pikuach nefesh,          were irregular and slow (forty beats per minute), and recommended
               where we do not follow the rule of the majority, and one must take              the insertion of a cardiac pacemaker. The physician who came after
               even a remote possibility into account. Therefore, the physician has to         him to insert the pacemaker also examined the patient and thought
               consider that he may have erred.                                                there was no suspicion of a heart attack and therefore no need for the
                  The Nesivos Hamishpat (#31:1) writes that when the Torah rules               cardiac pacemaker. In his opinion, the first physician had erred. (The
               that “a matter shall be determined according to the testimony of two            chest pains were coming from the stomach.) The irregular heartbeat
               witnesses,” (Devarim 17:6) this is not because one witness is suspected         was not an indication of developing danger, since this was not a new
               of lying, but rather because there is a concern that he may have erred.         symptom for the patient. Therefore, he was sure that there was no
               [According to the words of the Nesivos, we can now understand the               need to violate the Shabbos and to insert a pacemaker.
               following Gemara (Yoma 83a): If there are two competent physicians                 Clearly,  if  a third  physician  able to  insert the  pacemaker  was
               who say the patient can fast on Yom Kippur and another physician                available in the hospital, but was unsure which of the two physcians
               who says he needs to eat, we do not consider his view, and the patient          were correct, he would be allowed and even obligated to insert the
               is obligated to fast. But if two physicians feel he cannot fast, then one       pacemaker. In a situation where there is a possibility of pikuach nefesh,
               must reckon with their opinion, even if one hundred other physicians            we rule leniently. However, in our case, only this physician, who was
               would contradict them. The reason for this, according to the Nesivos,           sure there is no need for a pacemaker, was available in the hospital.
               is that we can assume that one physician with a solitary opinion is             The question arose: Was it permissible for the physician to desecrate




        356              1  Medical-HalacHic Responsa of Rav ZilbeRstein                       Shabbos Desecration by a Physician Who Says there is No Danger  2   353
   365   366   367   368   369   370   371   372   373   374   375