Page 221 - EFI-RAV ZILBERSTIN_VOL 8.EFI-RAV ZILBERSTIN_VOL 8.1A

Pg: 221 - 7-Front 21-10-31

view of the Nesivos Hamishpat (ibid.) that every Jew is
allowed to coerce his colleague to fulfill a mitzvah that is
incumbent on him. Therefore, in regard to physical illness,
where a person does not own his body – as is evident
from the Shulchan Aruch Harav (Hilchos Nizkei Guf, 4):
“It is forbidden to strike one’s colleague, even if he has
given permission to do so, because a person has no rights
whatsoever over his body, that he should be hit, shamed
or pained in any way” – it is even permitted to coerce him
and heal him against his will and Shmuel therefore healed
Rav and distressed him against his will, as is clear from the
continuation of the gemara there.2

This is not the case with restoring peace between man
and wife, where there is no question of loss of life or limb
but of preventing them emotional anguish, which we have
no authorization to do at the cost of the distress of embar-
rassment which is akin to spilling blood and which is liable
to be worse than the distress of the quarrel. This is par-
ticularly true in light of the fact that their embarrassment
is a certainty whereas success in remedying the situation
and restoring peace is not guaranteed and “a doubt cannot
supersede a certainty,” so it highly questionable whether
this is allowed.

I presented this question to my father-in-law Rav Y.S. Elyashiv zt”l,
and he responded as follows:

Although when the dispute is not acute and does not greatly extend
beyond the norm of married life it is incorrect to intervene, a serious
quarrel can lead to danger. We can’t foresee what might develop and
in the past such disputes have led to severe depression which is treat-
ed as piku’ach nefesh and to aggravation that can compromise health
and shorten life, thus involving, “Do not stand idly by the [spilled]

2. The topic of coercing patients to receive treatment is discussed at length earlier,
simanim 178-9.

Honoring parents and slander in psychotherapy 2 205