Page 454 - EFI-RAV ZILBERSTIN_VOL 8.EFI-RAV ZILBERSTIN_VOL 8.1A
P. 454

Pg: 454 - 15-Back 21-10-31

         bad news are grounds for permitting Shabbos desecration, not only
         of rabbinically forbidden travel with a non-Jewish driver but even of
         melachos forbidden by Torah law?

                                       Rabbi Eyal Krim, Military Rabbinate

          ɳ	 Response

         The great majority of people who faint upon hearing bad news wake
         up and do not die [exceptions include heart patients who are liable to
         become endangered and die, Heaven forbid]. Therefore, when we are
         unsure whether parents who hear bad news suddenly might faint and
         not wake up, there are multiple factors posing only a distant risk, for
         which Shabbos is not desecrated. To explain:

                 1.	Hashem yisbarach created his world and has decreed that
                     man should return to the earth. When Hakadosh baruch
                     Hu sends misfortune, He also bestows the resources to
                     withstand it. Therefore, although fainting from illness or
                     mania poses danger to life, this type of fainting is different,
                     [see further, for an account of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auer-
                     bach’s conduct in such a situation and the proofs he cited,]
                     in that a vast majority of people wake up after fainting
                     from shock.

                 2.	 In Hilchos Milah (Yoreh De’ah 325), the Avnei Nezer writes
                     that a baby boy whose two older brothers were endangered
                     by circumcision but recovered, should also be circumcised,
                     for in Chazal it is only written that if two older brothers
                     “died” from circumcision a third one should not be cir-
                     cumcised but not if they were merely “endangered.” Thus,
                     just as there is a presumption that they will be endangered
                     there is a presumption that they will recover.

                 3.	 The Aruch Hashulchan (316:22) writes,“It is unclear when
                     it is uncertain whether or not a dog is rabid, whether this is
                     considered possible piku’ach nefesh which sets aside Shab-
                     bos, or whether it is not comparable [to piku’ach nefesh],

438  1  Medical-Halachic Responsa of Rav Zilberstein
   449   450   451   452   453   454   455   456   457   458   459