Page 372 - 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
is prohibited to desecrate Shabbos in order to dig him out.
It seems that Rav Chaim Berlin’s view is in line with a situation
where one physician disagrees with another. However, if a physician
is certain that the patient is not in danger and his opinion is contrary
to that of one hundred other physicians, why do we accept the word
of one against two or one hundred? As the Nesivos (above) explains,
one witness is not believed because he might have erred! We have
to say that this principle applies only in regard to others, but not in
regard to the physician himself. While others should not take into
account at all the solitary dissenting opinion, the physican himself
should not desecrate Shabbos, since he is certain there is no danger.
However, the words of the Pardes Yosef do not seem to insinuate
this. It says in the Torah, “A person should revere his father and moth-
er, and observe My Shabbosos” (Vayikra 19:3). The Sages explained (as
cited in Rashi, there): One might think if one’s father tells him to des-
ecrate Shabbos he should listen to him. Therefore, it says: And observe
My Shabbosos. Everybody is obligated to honor Me. The Chizkuni
asks: If a father commands his son to desecrate Shabbos, he is a wick-
ed person and there is no mitzvah to honor him. Why should we even
consider that his son would be obligated to listen to him? He answers
in the Sefer Pardes Yosef (Parshas Vayakhel) that this case refers to a
sick father whom one physician believes to be endangered, while the
son, who is also a physician, believes there is no real danger and thus
no allowance for desecrating the Shabbos. What happens if this father
instructs his son to desecrate Shabbos for him? This instruction does
not render the father a wicked person because, in such a case, one
desecrates Shabbos. Therefore, the Torah informs us that nonetheless
it is forbidden for the son to desecrate Shabbos if he believes it is not
necessary. We see from these words of the Pardes Yosef that in his
view, a physician who believes there is no danger should not desecrate
Shabbos for that patient. So it seems that the Pardes Yosef differs from
the view of Rav Chaim Berlin.
We can explain that in truth there is no argument between them. It
is possible that the words of the Pardes Yosef refer to cases where the
358 1 Medical-HalacHic Responsa of Rav ZilbeRstein
12 do not seem to imply that this is so, and it sounds as though he per-
mits even those medical treatments that may not work on the same
day, it seems that we can be lenient in treating the patient, because
this is a great need (as in accordance with the second opinion). The al-
lowance is not based on the fact that medical treatment can be likened
to preparing the utensils necessary for essential eating. Therefore, it
is permissible to violate Rabbinic prohibitions, even if the treatment
will not be effective until the next day. Likewise, it is permissible to
treat a resident of Eretz Yisrael.
1 AnsweR to Question 2
The basis of this question is according to the ruling of the Rama in
Hilchos Shabbos (Orach Chaim #328:12). He rules that if a dangerous-
ly ill patient can be treated by a gentile physician, we let the gentile
physician treat him. The same would apply here to a physician who is
a resident of Eretz Yisrael. Even according to the Taz, who rules that
one should not use a gentile but only a Jew, since the Jew will invest
himself more than the gentile, in this case, it would still be better to
allow the Jewish physician who is a resident of Eretz Yisrael to treat
the patient.
It seems right to compare this question to a case cited in Sha’arei
Teshuvah (Orach Chaim #331:7): Is it permissible for a mohel, who lives
in the Diaspora who happens to be in Eretz Yisrael to circumcise a
baby on the second day of Yom Tov, if there is another mohel available
in the city who is a resident of Eretz Yisrael? He states that some
poskim prohibit it but one posek allowed it. We can compare our case
to this disagreement.
But one can perhaps differentiate and say that even those poskim
who prohibit the circumcision would allow the Diaspora physician to
treat the patient here, because of pikuach nefesh. As explained in the
Bi’ur HaGra (Yoreh De’ah #266:25) circumcision which suspends all
Shabbos rules and regulations is considered a suspension, and it seems
logical that the same should apply to that which sets aside Yom Tov,
and it, too should be defined as a suspension. This cannot apply to
Physician from abroad in Eretz Yisrael 2 351