Page 446 - EFI-RAV ZILBERSTIN_VOL 8.EFI-RAV ZILBERSTIN_VOL 8.1A

Pg: 446 - 14-Back 21-10-31

summoned her,] she nevertheless became forbidden to her husband,
Mordechai…. thus, even though her action was commendable, for she
did it to save herself and the entire community, and she is considered
as having acted under compulsion in this regard, and will [therefore]
not be punished for it since her transgression was lishmah [purely
motivated], like Yael and Esther, nevertheless, since she had relations
willingly she becomes forbidden to her husband.”

In our case, it is possible that the girl’s action was commendable, in
saving her parents from separation and divorce, which in and of itself
carries a certain risk to life when there is reason to be concerned about
depression and suicide, and she will only become forbidden to a Ko-
hen since she was unmarried, for the Rema and the Taz (mentioned
above) say that a single woman is only forbidden [to have relations]
by rabbinic decree of the beis din of Shem.

[By the same token i.e. if the threat of a Kohen’s wife becoming
defiled is regarded as piku’ach nefesh] it may possibly be permitted to
desecrate Shabbos to alert help in order to prevent the defilement of a
Kohen’s wife, for the terrible dejection resulting from a couple’s break
up is considered life threatening.3 And even if we do not judge this to
be a sufficient level of danger to justify desecrating Shabbos, it might
still be permitted for a young woman to offer herself for defilement
instead of her mother, though the matter requires further reflection.

Although it is written in Migdal Oz that it is forbidden for a man
to offer himself for defilement in place of his father, in our case, since
the girl’s mother will become forbidden to her father, then when they
both have weak constitutions -- even if there is no piku’ach nefesh – it
may be permitted for in the daughter’s case it only involves trans-
gressing a decree of the beis din of Shem. Even though the Minchas
Chinuch (quoted above), is uncertain whether it is permitted to vi-
olate a less severe prohibition in order to avoid transgressing a more
serious one, his doubt may only be relevant when both transgressions
are Torah prohibitions.

3. See a similar argument made in Igros Moshe, Even Ha’ezer, Vol. 1 #16.

430 1 Medical-Halachic Responsa of Rav Zilberstein