Page 206 - EFI-RAV ZILBERSTIN_VOL 8.EFI-RAV ZILBERSTIN_VOL 8.1A

Pg: 206 - 7-Back 21-10-31

procreate that is prohibited therefore, since this ability is not being
eliminated but [ultimately] improved there is no objection. Our case
is different – here it is not the outcome that is prohibited but actual
act of scorning one’s parents. Nowhere do we find that transgressing
a sin is permitted in order to fulfill a mitzvah.2

This emerges clearly from the following comments of the Igros
Moshe (Yoreh De’ah, 2,103): “Regarding the question of whether a
teacher can tell his students, ‘Whoever knows who did this inappro-
priate thing should inform me,’ the answer is that it is improper to do
so because it will lead students to treat [the prohibition of speaking]
lashon hara lightly. The gemara says (Sanhedrin 43b) that Yehoshua
asked Hashem who had violated the ban and Hashem responded,
‘Am I a talebearer?!’ Even though there is benefit in this lashon hara,
because if the students reveal to the teacher who behaved badly he
can more effectively influence them to refrain from bad behavior he
should still not instruct them to tell him who the culprit is because,
‘who can choose one prohibition over another prohibition?” (Cited in
the sefer, Sechar Veha’anashah B’chinuch p .108)

Although we can surmise that it is for the father’s ultimate benefit
that his child should clear his heart of resentment and improve his
conduct towards his father, this is apparently not the way to go about
it. For at the moment, it [i.e. this type of therapy] is a sin and who can
guarantee that we will ultimately succeed in ridding the child of his
resentment?

We encounter a similar situation when Peninah troubled Chan-
nah her barren co-wife, greatly, asking her daily, “How are you going
to dress your child today?” Her intentions were noble, as it says, “in

2. See earlier, siman 251 on the topic of emitting semen for the purpose of checking
fertility – concerning the first reason given there for allowing it, that only emis-
sion in a wasteful manner is forbidden but not when it is for some constructive
purpose. We explain there that those who disagree draw a similar distinction
between dismantling a stone from the altar in order to make a repair, which
is permitted because it is not the act of dismantling that is forbidden but the
destruction it causes, and emitting semen for naught, where the emission itself
is forbidden, see there.

190 1 Medical-Halachic Responsa of Rav Zilberstein