Page 387 - 20818_park-c_efi

of circumcision, it is prohibited to circumcise the third, so too, it is than hunting wild animals or sailing on the sea [in earlier days when
prohibited to circumcise a baby whose brothers’ lives were endan- the danger was significant], it is permissible.
gered by circumcision? On the other hand, perhaps we can assume A similar explanation is given by Responsa Iggros Moshe (Choshen
that since the first two brothers recovered, the third one will also not Mishpat, Vol. 1 #104) who discusses whether or not it is permissible
die. The Avnei Nezer answers that it is permissible to circumcise the to make a living from sports. He rules leniently based on the Gemara
third child. His reasoning is that since the Gemara (inYevamos, 64b) in Tractate Baba Metzia (112a) “And for it (his sustenance), he end-
says that one does not circumcise a baby whose two brothers “died” of gangers his life.” Why did this man climb the ladder and hang from
circumcision, this does not imply the novel thought that if his brother a tree and risk death? Was it not in order to receive his wages? The
were endangered and survived we don’t circumcise him either. Ac- Iggros Moshe explains that sports present only a remote possibility of
cording to this, we can conclude in our case, also, if the percentage of danger, so it is permitted in order to make a living. He adds that in
women who die is much less than the thirty percent of women whose this sort of situation, it is permissible not only to endanger oneself,
lives become endangered, it is permissible for a woman to put herself but also to endanger others. Killing oneself, like killing others, is pro-
in this limited amount of danger in order to bear a fourth child. hibited because of “Thou shalt not kill.” It follows that if he is allowed
However, the conclusion of the Avnei Nezer is probably dependant to endanger himself in this way to make a living, he is allowed to
upon an argument among the Rishonim. endanger others to the same degree, on condition they know about
The Rosh writes as follows (Yoma, Ch. 8 #13): Tosfos writes: If the danger and they agree to it. We learn from his words that if there
a patient says ‘I need’ [to eat on Yom Kippur, one feeds him]. This is a close possibility of pikuach nefesh, it is forbidden to engage in the
means that if he says he is afraid that if he doesn’t eat, his illness will activity even in order to earn a livelihood. If there is only a remote
worsen and he will be in danger of dying… specifically because of possibility of danger, he is permitted to endanger himself and others,
the possibility of death, we feed him. This seems to me to be a great on condition that others are aware of the danger involved.
stringency regarding a mere possibility of death, because no physician Up to now, we have referred to the question of whether or not a
will say that if a person does not eat he may die. A physician would person can endanger himself for his own benefit, as in participating in
rather tend to say that if he does not eat his illness may worsen and he a medical study. However, in regard to the second question about dis-
will be in danger. Even according to the version of some Torah texts abling a bomb, it seems to me that he is even allowed to place himself
which reads, “If one does not eat, one will die,” one cannot deduce in definite danger, as explained below:
that we only feed the patient on Yom Kippur due to the possibility of The Rambam (Hilchos Shabbos 2:23) writes that if gentiles besiege
death. The word death is not necessarily definite; patients tend to say and attack Jewish cities, “it is a mitzvah on every Jew who is able to
it out of fear. come and assist his brothers, to rescue them from the hands of the
According to the above Tosfos the possibility of danger is not gentiles.” (Here in an obligatory war, the rule of one sixth does not
enough of a reason to feed a patient on Yom Kippur. Only if there is apply, as explained in Tractate Shevuos 35b). And we have to conclude
a possibility of death do we feed him. In light of this opinion, we can that during a war which is a mitzvah, the law is different. Perhaps the
clearly understand the words of the Avnei Nezer. The Rosh, however, reason for this is that in order to save a whole public, everyone is obli-
disagrees, and posits that the possibility that the illness will worsen gated to offer his life, as written by Zair Zahav (in his commentary on
and the patient will become endangered is reason enough to feed him the prohibited and on the permitted. Hilchos Pikuach Nefesh #59:21).
on Yom Kippur, even if there is no concern that he will actually die. The Kovetz Shi’urim questions this (Vol. 1, Kesubos #9). He brings

376 1 Medical-HalacHic Responsa of Rav ZilbeRstein Undertaking danger in order to save a life 2 373

# 20818_efi-ab - 20818_park-C_efi-ab | 13 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:46:25 | SR:-- | Magenta #20818_efi-ab - 20818_park-C_efi-ab | 13 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:46:25 | SR:-- | Yellow 20818_efi-ab - 20818_park-C_efi-ab | 13 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:46:25 |