ומאי שנא דאי שואל הוי דאתי שאלה בבעלים מפקעא שכירות שלא בבעלים אי שוכר נמי הוי תיתי שכירות בבעלים תיפוק שכירות שלא בבעלים
abrogates hiring effected when the owner was not in his service? Or, perhaps, he ranks as a hirer, and the status of a hirer remains unchanged? But wherefore this differentiation? [If it is maintained that] should he rank as borrower, the borrowing effected when the owner is in his service cancels the hiring effected without the owner being engaged in his service, why not apply the same principle even if he is considered a hirer, and say that the [new] hiring effected with the owner in his service abrogates the [old] hiring effected without the owner's being in his service? — But when does Rami b. Hama's problem arise? E.g., if she hired a cow from a stranger<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from the world.'
');"><sup>5</sup></span>
Care of the Critically Ill
Doctors should not offer drugs or treatment unless they are convinced that these may help the patient. Sometimes, however, even if there is no real medical advantage to be gained, there may very well be a psychological advantage in that the patient does not feel neglected as long as some treatment is instituted. This placebo effect is often of great value to the patient. In deciding that there is no treatment of value to the patient, it is important that as many physicians as possible should be consulted, even those whose prestige is less than that of the physician in charge of the patient. Occasionally, a young physician may come up with an idea that an older physician has not considered. Even in Torah study, we have the warning: "Error can sometimes be caused by sharpness of mind." With reference to physicians this is even more true, because it is often very difficult to determine which of them is more brilliant, more expert.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
