Page 220 - EFI-RAV ZILBERSTIN_VOL 8.EFI-RAV ZILBERSTIN_VOL 8.1A
P. 220

Pg: 220 - 7-Front 21-10-31

         to improve their marriage even when the intervention is against the
         couple’s will, in a situation where their pain, distress and heartbreak
         is liable to sicken them.

            However, this proof can be pushed off because the case can be
         made that coercing a patient to be cured of a physical ailment differs
         from intervening between a married couple, for several reasons.

                 1.	 It is possible that Rav’s illness was dangerous and the rea-
                     son Samuel sent Karna to investigate him was in order to
                     decide whether to treat him personally or to instruct others
                     to heal him – this why he wanted to know whether or not
                     he was a Torah scholar. Thus we still don’t know wheth-
                     er if it is permitted to heal a non-dangerously ill patient
                     against his will, so neither can we infer whether or not it is
                     permitted to intervene in a couple’s marriage against their
                     will. Tosfos’s wording however (ibid. s.v. Rach): “And Sam-
                     uel knew the great man would drink from the river and it
                     would give him an intestinal ailment,” implies that he was
                     not in danger.

                 2.	 We learn in the Tosefta (Shekalim, 1,2), “This is compara-
                     ble to a person who sustained a[n infected] wound to his
                     leg and the doctor ties him down and cuts into his flesh
                     in order to cure him.” This implies that it is permitted to
                     coerce a patient and to cut into his raw flesh in order to
                     save his life. This is also clear from the sefer,Mor Uketziya
                     (328) and it is logical that the same applies to a disease
                     that doesn’t actually endanger life because healing disease
                     is a mitzvah, “You shall guard your lives very carefully,”
                     (Devarim, 4,15) and we coerce people to fulfill their mitz-
                     vah obligations. Although it is evident from the Ketzos
                     Hachoshen (3,1) that only beis din – but not a regular
                     person – is allowed to coerce a person to fulfill mitzvos,
                     since healing illness falls within the purview of restoring
                     lost property, it is possible that no authorization from beis
                     din is necessary. This is particularly so according to the

204  1  Medical-Halachic Responsa of Rav Zilberstein
   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225