|
 Shabbat Parashat Vayetzei| 5764Moreshet ShaulFrom the works of Hagaon Harav Shaul Yisraeli zt”l - Marriage Between People From Families with Occurrences of a Serious Disease - Part III
[We will now conclude our discussion about a prospective couple, each of whom comes from a family with two occurrences of a certain, serious disease. We saw a possible distinction to answer an apparent contradiction in the Shulchan Aruch. Two occurrences are enough to indicate a representative trend (chazaka) in the case of a mother or two sisters who gave birth to flawed babies. For more distant relatives, three times are needed.]
[After our analysis from previous weeks],if one examines the gemara (Yevamot 64b), he sees that there are two differing opinions on how to deal with the beraita that after three sisters lost babies due to brit milah, the son of the fourth sister should not have one done. Rava says that the halacha with sisters is representative of that with other members of the family. Since there are certainly members of the extended family who did not suffer such a tragedy, it is hard to say that one can establish a clear assumption that all members of the family will lose children during brit milah. Therefore, three occurrences are needed to create an undeniable reality that there is danger within the family, thus precluding any further britot because of the possibility of danger. The other opinion distinguishes between the sisters and more distant relatives. According to that opinion, safe britot in the rest of the family does not take away from the indication of danger to the child of a woman who has even two sisters who lost babies.The Rif apparently accepted the opinion of Rava, and he requires three occurrences. On the other hand, the Shulchan Aruch takes the stringencies (requiring caution to avoid danger) of both opinions. Thus, he suffices with two occurrences regarding sisters and also requires caution where there are three occurrences in the more extended family. However, when there are only two occurrences and they are in the extended family, then it comes out that according to all opinions there is no need to consider it a chazaka of danger.
Thus, in the case we are dealing with, where the two occurrences on each side are more distant than that of siblings, it would seem permissible to sanction the marriage. However, upon further investigation, it appears not that way. Once this couple marries and we contemplate the risk from the perspective of the child they will bear, that child will belong to a family with four occurrences of this severe, [ed. note- rare] disease. We have seen that three occurrences is not only a sign that there is a problem but creates facts. Since each side has two occurrences, we know that there is some element of tendency toward the disease in each family, although there could be other factors needed to turn the tendency into reality. But once these families get together and create a family with four occurrences, we need to be concerned that this creates a situation where the the tendency is amplified to the point that we need to fear that this tendency on its own is sufficient to cause the disease.
[Ed. note- While the child who may be born to this prospective couple has more relatives with the disease than his parents, he is also another generation removed from them. Certainly, even according to Rava, there comes a point that the extended family becomes so distant that it is statistically and halachically irrelevant. Neither the gemara nor Rav Yisraeli gives a guideline on how close the affected family members have to be to signify a possible danger to their relatives.]
Therefore, in the case described, it is not advisable for the prospective bride and groom from families afflicted by the same serious disease to marry.
 Top of page Print this page Send to friend |
|
