Save "Charging for Life Saving Medicine"
Charging for Life Saving Medicine
(יט) אִם־יָק֞וּם וְהִתְהַלֵּ֥ךְ בַּח֛וּץ עַל־מִשְׁעַנְתּ֖וֹ וְנִקָּ֣ה הַמַּכֶּ֑ה רַ֥ק שִׁבְתּ֛וֹ יִתֵּ֖ן וְרַפֹּ֥א יְרַפֵּֽא׃ (ס)
(19) if he then gets up and walks outdoors upon his staff, the assailant shall go unpunished, except that he must pay for his idleness and his cure.
דְּאָמַר רַב אַחָא: הַנִּכְנָס לְהַקִּיז דָּם, אוֹמֵר: ״יְהִי רָצוֹן מִלְּפָנֶיךָ ה׳ אֱלֹקַי שֶׁיְּהֵא עֵסֶק זֶה לִי לִרְפוּאָה, וּתְרַפְּאֵנִי. כִּי אֵל רוֹפֵא נֶאֱמָן אָתָּה וּרְפוּאָתְךָ אֱמֶת, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכָּן שֶׁל בְּנֵי אָדָם לְרַפּאוֹת אֶלָּא שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ״. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא לֵימָא אִינָשׁ הָכִי, דְּתָנֵי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְרַפֹּא יְרַפֵּא״ — מִכָּאן שֶׁנִּיתְּנָה רְשׁוּת לָרוֹפֵא לְרַפּאוֹת. כִּי קָאֵי מַאי אוֹמֵר? — אָמַר רַב אַחָא: ״בָּרוּךְ … רוֹפֵא חִנָּם״.
As Rav Aḥa said: One who enters to let blood says:
May it be Your will, O Lord my God,
that this enterprise be for healing and that You should heal me.
As You are a faithful God of healing and Your healing is truth.
Because it is not the way of people to heal, but they have become accustomed.
Rav Aḥa is saying that people should not practice medicine as they lack the ability to heal; rather, healing should be left to God.
Abaye responded and said: One should not say this, as it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael that from the verse, “And shall cause him to be thoroughly healed” (Exodus 21:19), from here we derive that permission is granted to a doctor to heal. The practice of medicine is in accordance with the will of God. As for bloodletting, the Gemara asks: When one stands after having let blood, what does he say? Rav Aḥa said: He recites in gratitude: Blessed…Who heals without payment.
ומרפאהו רפואת הנפש כו': היכי קתני אילימא דרפואת נפש בחנם רפואת ממון בשכר ליתני הכי מרפאהו בחנם אבל לא בשכר אלא רפואת נפש גופו רפואת ממון בהמתו א"ר זוטרא בר טוביה אמר רב אבל אומר לו סם פלוני יפה לה סם פלוני רע לה:
§ We learned in the mishna that if one is prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from another, that other person heals him with a cure of the nefesh but not a cure of property [mamon]. The Gemara asks: How is the mishna taught? If we say that cure of the nefesh means that he cures him for free and cure of mamon means that he cures him for a fee, then let the mishna teach this: He cures him for free but not for a fee. Rather, cure of the nefesh means that he cures his body, and cure of mamon means that he cures his animal. Rabbi Zutra bar Toviya said that Rav said: It is prohibited to cure the animal. However, he says to him: Such and such medicine is beneficial for the animal, and such and such medicine is harmful for the animal. Advice, as opposed to treatment, is not considered benefit.
התועה בין הכרמים מפסיג ויורד מפסיג ועולה: ת"ר הרואה חבירו תועה בין הכרמים מפסיג ועולה מפסיג ויורד עד שמעלהו לעיר או לדרך וכן הוא שתועה בין הכרמים מפסיג ועולה מפסיג ויורד עד שיעלה לעיר או לדרך מאי וכן מהו דתימא חבירו הוא דידע להיכא מסלק דניפסוג אבל הוא דלא ידע להיכא קא סליק לא ניפסוג נהדריה נהדר בי מיצרי קמ"ל הא דאורייתא הוא דתניא השבת גופו מניין ת"ל (דברים כב, ב) והשבותו
The baraita further teaches: And one who becomes lost among the vineyards shall have the right to cut down [mefaseig] branches and enter an area of the vineyard, or cut down branches and exit an area of the vineyard, until he finds his way back to the road. The Sages taught in a baraita that this stipulation extends further: With regard to one who sees another person lost among the vineyards, he may cut down branches and enter an area of the vineyard, or cut down branches and exit an area of the vineyard until he reaches him and brings him back up to the city or to the road. And similarly, if he himself is the one who is lost among the vineyards, he may cut down branches and enter an area of the vineyard, or cut down branches and exit an area of the vineyard until he comes back up to the city or to the road. The Gemara asks a question with regard to this baraita: What is the point of the clause that begins with: And similarly? It is obvious that a lost individual himself has the same right to cut down branches as one who assists him to find his way out. The Gemara answers: That is taught lest you say that it is only another person who is permitted to cut down branches, as, having seen the lost party, he knows exactly where he is going to rescue the other and help him leave the vineyard, and that is why he may cut down branches; but with regard to the lost person himself, who does not know where he is going, one might have said that he may not cut down branches but must go all the way back to the boundary of the vineyard. The baraita therefore teaches us that one who is lost may cut down branches in his quest to find his own way to the nearby town or road. The Gemara asks a further question: Why was it necessary for Joshua to stipulate that one may find his way out in this manner? After all, this halakha applies by Torah law. When one is lost, whoever can assist in helping him find his way must do so by Torah law, as it is taught in a baraita: There is a mitzva to return lost items to their owner. From where is it derived that the requirement applies even to returning his body, i.e., helping a lost person find his way? The verse states: “And you shall restore it to him” (Deuteronomy 22:2), which can also be translated as: And you shall restore himself to him. If this is required by Torah law, why did Joshua stipulate a condition to this effect?

מי לא תניא הרי שהיה בורח מבית האסורין והיתה מעברא לפניו ואמר ליה טול דינר והעבירני אין לו אלא שכרו אלמא אמר ליה משטה אני בך

Isn’t it taught in a baraita: One who was running away from captivity and came upon a ferry. He said to the ferry man: Take a dinar, i.e., he offered to pay an amount much larger than the standard fee, and take me across the river. Despite the escapee’s commitment, it is ruled in the baraita that the ferryman receives nothing other than his usual rate, as the escapee is legally exempt from paying the higher amount he had agreed to pay. Apparently, one could have said in such a case: I was deceiving you and never really intended to live up to my side of the agreement, and therefore it is not an actual debt.

הא דאין לו אלא שכרו היינו בדבר שאין רגילות ליתן עליו הרבה אבל בדבר שדרך ליתן הרבה כגון השבעת שדים או רפואה חייב ליתן לו כל מה שהתנה עמו (תוס' והרא"ש פרק מצות חליצה).

... This law that he only pays the typical fee is only in matters that usually people for not pay a lot for it. However, in matters that it is usual to pay a lot for it, such as a sooth sayer or a for healing, he must pay what he agreed to pay.

(א) דיני הרופא. ובו ג' סעיפים:
נתנה התורה רשות לרופא לרפאות ומצוה היא ובכלל פיקוח נפש הוא ואם מונע עצמו הרי זה שופך דמים ואפי' יש לו מי שירפאנו שלא מן הכל אדם זוכה להתרפאות ומיהו לא יתעסק ברפואה אא"כ הוא בקי ולא יהא שם גדול ממנו שאם לא כן הרי זה שופך דמים ואם ריפא שלא ברשות בית דין חייב בתשלומין אפי' אם הוא בקי ואם ריפא ברשות ב"ד וטעה והזיק פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים ואם המית ונודע לו ששגג גולה על ידו:

(1) The Torah has granted the physician permission to heal, and it is a religious duty. If he withholds [treatment] he is regarded as one who sheds blood; and even if there is someone else who can heal him; for not from every one does one merit to be healed. Nevertheless, on should not occupy himself with medical treatment unless he is an expert and there is none other greater than he; for if not so, he is regarded as one who sheds blood. If one administered medical treatment without the permission of the Jewish Court, he is subject to payment of indemnities, even if he is an expert; and if he administered medical treatment, having the permission of the Jewish Court, and erred, causing [thereby] injury [to the patient], he is exempt by the laws of man and is held responsible by the laws of Heaven. If he caused death and it became known to him that he acted inadvertently, he is exiled.

(ג) מי שיש לו סמנים וחבירו חולה וצריך להם אסור לו להעלות בדמיהם יותר מן הראוי ולא עוד אלא אפילו פסקו לו בדמיהם הרבה מפני צורך השעה שלא מצאו סמנין אלא בידו אין לו אלא דמיהם אבל אם התנה בשכר הרופא הרבה חייב ליתן לו שחכמתו מכר לו ואין לו דמים: הגה ואע"פ שיש מצוה עליו לרפאותו שכל מצות עשה דרמיא אכולי עלמא אם נזדמנה לא' ולא רצה לקיימה אלא בממון אין מוציאין הממון מידו ולא מפקיעין מידו חיוב שלהן (טור):

(3) One who has medical ingredients and his neighbor is sick and requires them, is forbidden to raise the price above the standard value. Furthermore, even if they agreed to pay him an excessive amount, due to the need of the hour, — for they found that only he possessed the medical ingredients, — he is entitled only to the [standard] price. However, if one stipulated an excessive sum as payment to the physician, he is obligated to give it to him, for he sold him his learning which cannot be valued in [terms of] money. Gloss: Although he is required on account of the religious duty to heal him, — for every positive command which rests upon every person [to fulfil], — [yet] if it chances to come to one's hand and he agrees to execute it only for money, — [the law is that] we do not claim the money from him,17If the physician had already received the money — BaḤ. The same applies to the medical ingredients if already paid for — R. A. Eger. Although the physician is forbidden to receive payment, it is different, however, if the patient had obligated himself to pay. For the physician may put forth a valid claim that it was not only his own duty to study medicine, since everyone has the opportunity to master this field. Nevertheless, in the case of the man who escaped from prison and offered the ferryman an exorbitant fee to take him across the river, the law is that he was obliged to pay only the normal rates, despite the fact, that in this case too, the ferryman may claim that every person has the opportunity to learn his type of work, for in the latter case there exists an established rate, whereas in the former case the knowledge of the physician cannot be measured in terms of money. Consequently the stipulation must be fulfilled — TaZ.

ת"ש רבי יוחנן חש בצפדינא אזל לגבה דההיא מטרוניתא עבדה חמשא ומעלי שבתא א"ל למחר מאי אמרה ליה לא צריכת אי צריכנא מאי אמרה אשתבע לי דלא מגלית אישתבע לה לאלהא ישראל לא מגלינא גלייה ליה למחר נפק דרשה בפירקא והא אישתבע לה לאלהא דישראל לא מגלינא אבל לעמיה ישראל מגלינא והאיכא חילול השם דגלי לה מעיקרא אלמא כמכה של חלל דמיא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק שאני צפדינא הואיל ומתחיל בפה וגומר בבני מעיים

Come and hear the following incident: Rabbi Yoḥanan suffered from the illness tzafdina, which affects the teeth and gums. He went to a certain matron who was a well-known healer. She prepared a medicine for him on Thursday and Friday. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to her: What shall I do tomorrow, on Shabbat, when I cannot come to collect the medicine from you? She said to him: You will not need it. Rabbi Yoḥanan asked her: If I do need it, what shall I do? She said to him: Take an oath to me that you will not reveal the remedy, and I will tell you, so that you can prepare it yourself should you need it. Rabbi Yoḥanan took an oath to her: To the God of the Jews, I will not reveal it. She revealed the remedy to him. On the following day Rabbi Yoḥanan went out and taught it publicly, revealing the secret of the remedy. The Gemara challenges: But Rabbi Yoḥanan took an oath to her that he would not reveal her secret. The Gemara explains that his vow meant: I will not reveal it to the God of the Jews, which indicates: But I will reveal it to His people, the Jews. The Gemara challenges: But even so, isn’t there a desecration of God’s name, as the matron now thinks that a great man of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s stature violated his vow? The Gemara answers that he revealed it to her at the outset. As soon as she disclosed the remedy to him, he informed her that his vow would not prevent him from publicizing it. With regard to the issue at hand, the Gemara infers: Apparently, an affliction that affects the gums is similar to an internal injury, as it was permitted for Rabbi Yoḥanan to prepare the remedy on Shabbat. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Tzafdina is different, since it begins in the mouth, and ends in the intestines, i.e., the disease spreads until it infects one’s intestines, and therefore it is considered an internal affliction even while it is only in the mouth.