Page 468 - EFI-RAV ZILBERSTIN_VOL 8.EFI-RAV ZILBERSTIN_VOL 8.1A
P. 468

Pg: 468 - 15-Front 21-10-31

                     the mitzvah to allow the worker to eat], despite the fact
                     that any warning he received was indefinite, because the
                     worker may have forgone his right to eat. Now, the correct
                     course would apparently have been for the worker to for-
                     go his right so that the owner doesn’t transgress “Do not
                     muzzle…” [yet the gemara doesn’t assume that this is what
                     happened]. From here we learn that the worker is under
                     no obligation to forgo his entitlement in order to help his
                     employer avoid sinning.

                 3.	In maseches Kesuvos (3b) the gemara states that despite
                     Chazal’s enactment that previously unmarried young
                     women should marry on Wednesdays, when it was decreed
                     that [prior to her wedding] every virgin must have rela-
                     tions with the local ruler, Chazal sought to abolish their
                     enactment [because it led to danger, for the ruler knew
                     when the girls were to be married and the girls were ready
                     to sacrifice their lives rather than be defiled]. The gemara
                     asks:“Why not point out [to the brides] that onnes [sinning
                     under compulsion] is permitted [and they need not give up
                     their lives]?” Even though doing this would lead the ruler
                     to transgress forbidden relations, and it would therefore
                     obviously seem preferable to abolish Chazal’s enactment
                     in order to avoid the ruler’s involvement in forbidden re-
                     lations, we see nonetheless [that this was not done] and
                     that there is therefore no obligation to lose a mitzvah and
                     [abolish] an enactment of Chazal’s in order to avoid an-
                     other person transgressing. [The reasoning underlying the
                     Maharil Diskin’s conclusion may be similar to that written
                     in the Mishpatei Shmuel (134), namely that by actively
                     extending some forbidden item to a colleague, it appears
                     as though a person is showing disdain for the mitzvah [by
                     enabling another person to transgress it]. However, this
                     only holds true if he is doing so of his own volition but
                     if some other factor is compelling him to do so [e.g. the
                     threat of financial loss], there is no longer any appearance

452  1  Medical-Halachic Responsa of Rav Zilberstein
   463   464   465   466   467   468   469   470   471   472   473