web analytics
July 26, 2014 / 28 Tammuz, 5774
Israel at War: Operation Protective Edge
 
 
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Rambam’

Let’s Connect…Diversely

Thursday, July 19th, 2012

Living in 2012 means being ‘connected.’ We are ‘connected’ to our cell-phones, our emails, our Facebook ‘Friends’ , and various email lists of interest.

In a world of so many ‘connections’, it’s hard to believe that connecting to our own family- our fellow Jews, would be such an elevated challenge. Indeed, on one such email list, the following story was posted on a few days ago:

” ….my grandchildren, who look quite obviously Haredi, came to visit me in my town, which is overwhelmingly of a National Religious character. My 13 year-old son took them to the park and immediately, the resident children at play, began to shout epithets at my grandchildren, ‘Stinky dirty Haredim,’ they cried. ‘Go play in your own parks.’…grandchildren who immediately left the park and returned to my home to spend the rest of their visit indoors and safe from the hatred extended toward them during what should have been a pleasant visit to Grandma.”

While kids will be kids (and yes, kids can be cruel even if their parents are far from it), and while the same has happened in (so-called) Haredi communities to those not complying with their local fashion of dress, and while these may just be isolated incidents in a park that usually portrays unity and friendliness, I am still profoundly appalled and disturbed to read of such an event.

“Why bad things happen to good people” is the cardinal question to which even Moshe Rabbeinu didn’t get a clear answer (according to one opinion in Tractate Berachot 7a). Thus, I am not about to say that the above incident is a ‘heavenly sign’ of sorts. However, when bad things occur, all will agree (ibid, 5a) that it’s a good time for a wake-up call – to ask if our actions, deeds, educational system, and general behavior is where is should be.

While I feel remain deeply privileged to be part of such a special community, “perfection” is a word that only exists in the dictionary. As we head deeper into these Three Weeks of mourning, a time still upon us due to the “Sinat Chinam” – senseless hatred – that dominated the eve of the 2nd Temple destruction (Tractate Yoma 9b), allow me to bring up three issues that I humbly believe should be reiterated, and refurbished in our actions, when such an event can transpire during such a sensitive time of the year:

Tolerance to some - Jews have usually been tolerant to groups that stand far from their own vantage point and lifestyle. Thus, I can naturally see the very same kids in the park acting cordially to secular Jews, and even to non-Jews as well. Ironically, the “challenge” of tolerance begins when we meet a group of people who share 85% of our own lifestyle; they daven thrice daily, they keep kosher homes, they devote time to learning Torah, they adhere to a standard of modesty and of course, they are Shomer Shabbat. It’s here that, for some reason, we don’t have the same “tolerance” that we bestow upon those that seem far our own lifestyle! Is it a sense of danger, lack of self-confidence or something else, that naturally allows us to be “tolerant” towards groups far from where we stand, and yet so judgmental and intolerant towards ones that are so similar? If we are to be tolerant, then it should be directed to all sides of the spectrum, especially those that are within the realm of Shemirat Torah Umitzvot. Yes, the 15% of dressing differently, our relationship towards the State of Israel, secular endeavors, joining the army and more, will still be “dividers” between our respective communities, and strong debates will yet go on. But will our level of tolerance towards groups who have passed the 15% mark be extended to those closer to it?  If we believe in Tolerance, it can and should run the entire gamut.

Diversity is not a dirty word - Beyond the need for tolerance towards those closer to us, I believe a deeper challenge lies before our communities, one that is not being spoken about enough in the “heat of the debate” in Israel of late; diversity is not a “b’diavad” - it’s not an Ex Post Facto of “three Jews, five opinions,” or the hardships of our long exile! Rather, it’s my view that, after accepting and fulfilling the “Yoke of Heaven,” - the dictates of Jewish Law -that God never intended for all of us to be the same:

Them and Us

Sunday, July 8th, 2012

“Monopoly was created for a summer Shabbat and Fast Days…”!

So I heard, time and again, in my early years.

Distractions are perfect for these two days, and thus, some suggest, the less you think about what you’re missing [i.e.- be it the T.V/Computer on Shabbat, or food/water on a Fast-Day,] the better off you will be.

Years later, I know rather too well that while “Monopoly”  has a place in the Jewish home, I am not sure about it’s appropriateness to either Shabbat or a Fast-Day. Leaving the former for another time, let’s talk about the latter.

Seems to me that being “distracted” on the fast day… is exactly the opposite of what the intention of our sages was. In the words of the Rambam [Laws of Fast-Days, Chapter 5/1;]

“There are days that all of Israel fast on, because of the tragedies that occurred on them, in order to awaken the hearts, and open the paths towards Teshuva/Repentance, and they shall be a reminder to our wrong/evil ways, and those of our forbears, that were like our own today, which has/had resulted to them and to us in these tragedies, and by remembering them, we will return to proper ways… .and they are… the 17th of Tamuz…

In a word, the Rambam is saying that a typical Fast day is a means to an end-it’s a tool for us to repent for actions and behaviors that caused both tragic events of the past and those of the present.

Following suit, seems that we should be distracted on this day, and the natural feeling of hunger and thirst should lead us to deep introspection as to the way we act, speak and more.

So, as I sit in front of my screen on this commemoration of the 17th of Tamuz, allow me to pick on but 1 behavior pattern that seems to be a throw-back to then, and to my dismay, is continuing now.

It’s no secret that we are fasting today to recall, amongst others, the breaching of the walls surrounding Jerusalem, probably [only] during the period of the 2nd Temple [Tractate Ta'a'nit 28b, which suggests that during the 1st Temple, this happened on the 9th day of Tamuz.] It is also well known that the 2nd Temple, according to the prevalent view of our sages, was destroyed due to “Sin’at Chi’nam”/Senseless hatred [Tractate Yo'ma 9b.]

Putting two and two together, seems like today is a day that we are still fasting, and not [yet] feasting [as, hopefully, we will-see Tractate Rosh-Hashana 18b] due to such senseless hatred still continuing in the year 2012.

“But I don’t hate anyone?”

True, we probably seldom used the term “I hate…” for another Jew. But there is something that is still be done today, and is a by-product of the above- the use of the word “them” about fellow Jews.

You all know the scene – you are watching the news, and see some sort of an occurrence. As Jews seldom stays quite and refrain from voicing their opinion, I am sure one of the following statements were uttered recently about the latest events in Israel;

  • They should make a deal and go to the army”
  • Violence won’t get them anywhere.”
  • They are really two-faced, just demonstrating in the summer and not in the winter…”

The list goes on, but I’m sure you get the point.

There’s only one problem with it; “They” are really… us!

We are not speaking about some group in the hinterlands of the USA doing this or that, or what the locals are constructing in the Far-East! We are speaking about… our fellow Jews!

  • You may not formally have a membership card into the [so-called] “Charedei” world, but when seeing the recent controversy concerning the “Tal Law”, how many of us said, “I feel bad… for us” versus “them?”
  • You may not live in Tel Aviv, and thus are not part, or are not personally effected, by the “Social demonstrations” of recent. But how many of us looked at the news reports on it, and commented that this is not a good thing… for us, rather for “them?”

Sin’at Chi’nam”/Senseless hatred is not just hating someone. In my opinion, it would include creating a feeling of two nations within the same people/it would include looking at current events in Israel, being produced by fellow Jews, and referring to it as “what’s happening to them.”

Yehareg V’al Ya’avor

Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012

In both of this week’s parshiyos the Torah discusses the many different types of arayos (forbidden relationships). The following is one unique halacha that is associated with arayos: Concerning most aveiros, if one is put in a predicament where he must choose between saving his life and fulfilling a mitzvah (positive or negative commandment) he must choose to live and transgress the mitzvah. This is derived from the pasuk of  “…v’chai bahem.”  The Gemara in Sanhedrin 74a says that arayos are one of the three mitzvos that are yehareg v’al ya’avor (one must allow himself to be killed so as not to transgress the mitzvah), along with murder and avodah zarah.

One threatened with being killed if he would not transgress a mitzvah (not one of the three wrongdoings for which he must surrender his life) is not punished for transgressing the mitzvah, since he was an oness (forced into it). The Rambam (Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 5:4) says that if a man is threatened with being killed if he does not violate one of the mitzvos for which he must surrender his life and he allows himself to be killed by not transgressing the mitzvah, he has created a kiddush Hashem. But if he saves his life by violating the mitzvah, it is a chillul Hashem. Nevertheless, since he was forced into it, the individual is not punished for breaching the mitzvah, even though he was supposed to forfeit his life under these conditions. The Rambam writes in a letter that such a person is not called a poshea or a rasha.

Later in that perek the Rambam writes (halacha 6) that the halacha regarding a situation whereby someone forces another to do an aveirah applies when one has a life-threatening sickness that requires him to transgress a mitzvah. If doctors determine that a person will die if he does not transgress a certain mitzvah, he must violate the mitzvah and save his life. However, if his treatment requires him to be in violation of one of the three aforementioned mitzvos for which he must give up his life, he may not disobey the mitzvah even though it is necessary to save his life. The Rambam adds that if one treats his life-threatening sickness by committing one of the three aveiros that are yehareg v’al ya’avor, the beis din will render an appropriate punishment.

The Achronim raise this point and ask a follow-up question: When a person forces another to transgress one of the mitzvos that are in the category of yehareg v’al ya’avor, and if one does not give up his life and instead disobeys the mitzvah, the Rambam said that he is not punished since he was forced. Why then is one punished when he has a life-threatening sickness that is forcing him to violate one of the mitzvos of yehareg v’al ya’avor, and he indeed commits this transgression? What is the difference if the oness resulted from the action of an outside person or from a sickness? In both scenarios the individual did not transgress willingly.

Some Achronim suggest that the Rambam never intended to say that one who commits one of the three aveiros of yehareg v’al ya’avor in order to save his life from his sickness is punished with the sentence associated with that aveirah; rather, the Rambam intended to say that since he should not have taken the medicine the beis din should punish him in their own way. This is similar to makos mardus, whereby the beis din metes out their own punishment. Therefore, a person does not deserve to be punished in both the case when a person forces someone to do an aveirah and the case when a sickness forces one to commit a transgression. This is because in both cases he is considered an oness. But it is still unresolved as to why the Rambam wrote that the beis din should render its own punishment by the halacha of a sickness, but did not hold the same view earlier regarding the halacha of a person who forces someone else to transgress.

Reb Meir Simcha of Davinsk, in his sefer, Ohr Sameach on the Rambam, explains that the two cases cannot be compared. When someone forces a person to do something, he is only doing it to fulfill the will of the person who forced him to take this action. He is not fulfilling his own will. As a result he is considered an oness, and thus does not deserve a punishment. But when one is sick and in order to save his life he must commit a certain aveirah, it is his will to do the aveirah. The sickness is not an outside force; rather it is within him. So when he commits the aveirah, it is considered as if he did it willingly. Hence he deserves the punishment associated with the aveirah he committed.

Geneivah And Gezeilah

Thursday, March 22nd, 2012

At the conclusion of this week’s parshah, the Torah discusses the halachos of one who stole from another. The pasuk says, “veheishiv es hagezeilah asher gazal – and he shall return the stolen object that he stole.” We derive from this that there is a mitzvas assei to return a stolen object.

Many Achronim explain that when one steals an item he would actually acquire the item, if not for the fact that the Torah commanded him to return it. It is for this reason that once the item is not returnable (e.g. it is damaged), it then belongs to the one who stole it – who then must reimburse the original owner. Since there is no obligation to return the object, it now belongs to the one who stole it.

The Torah sorts stealing into two categories, each one a separate lo sa’aseh: geneivah and gezeilah. The latter is when one uses force to steal, or steals in the open (without hiding). When one steals covertly, it is referred to as geneivah. There are several differences between the two. One example of how they differ is that only a ganav pays keifel (double), or four or five times the principle amount if he shechts or sells the stolen item. A gazlan does not incur these penalties. However, regarding repaying the principle amount that was stolen, they are similar. Further, the halacha of veheishiv es hagezeilah asher gazal applies to both geneivah and gezeilah.

Therefore a ganav does not acquire the stolen item, just like a gazlan, because they are both obligated to return the item that was stolen.

The Rambam begins discussing hilchos gezeilah with the following halacha: one who steals from another transgressed a lo sa’aseh – as it says, “lo sigzol.” However, lashes are not administered to one who transgresses this lo sa’aseh, for the Torah has commanded an assei to rectify it by returning the object that he stole. This is because it says veheishiv es hagezeilah asher gazal, which is a mitzvas assei. (This concept is known as a lav hanitak l’assei, a positive commandment that rectifies the negative commandment whereby lashes are not administered.) And even if he will destroy the stolen object (making it impossible to fulfill the positive commandment), he nevertheless does not receive lashes; instead he is obligated to pay for the object, the ruling being that any lo sa’aseh that requires one to pay precludes him from receiving lashes.

The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos geneivah that lashes are not administered to one who transgresses the lo sa’aseh of geneivah, similar to that of gezeilah. But he writes that this is for a different reason, namely that one who commits geneivah transgresses a lo sa’aseh – as it says, “lo signovo.” However, he does not receive lashes for transgressing this lo sa’aseh because the Torah commanded him to pay (and as mentioned above, any lav that requires one to pay precludes the person from receiving lashes). The Rambam does not say that one who transgresses geneivah does not receive lashes, because it is a lav hanitak l’assei.

Many Achronim ask why the Rambam did not write that the reason that a ganav is exempt from lashes is because it is a lav hanitak l’assei, as he did by gezeilah – as since we apply the halacha of veheishiv es hagezeilah asher gazal to a ganav, it should be a lav hanitak l’assei. And if we would suggest that the Rambam does not apply the halacha of veheishiv es hagezeilah asher gazal to geneivah, how would we then explain why a ganav does not acquire the item when he steals it.

Reb Moshe Shmuel Shapiro, zt”l, suggests that indeed the halacha of veheishiv es hagezeilah asher gazal applies to geneivah. However, we do not apply the actual mitzvah but only the monetary aspect, i.e. that he must return the stolen object. Therefore one cannot be exempt from lashes as a result of the rule of lav hanitak l’assei, since it is not a mitzvas assei (but only a monetary obligation) to return the item. At the same time, though, the ganav cannot acquire the item when he steals it since he does in fact have a monetary obligation to return the item.

The Imrei Baruch (Choshen Mishpat 34) says that although we indeed apply the halacha of veheishiv es hagezeilah asher gazal to a ganav, even to the extent that there is a mitzvah by a ganav to return the stolen item, it is only due to the Torah’s actual writing that it is a mitzvas assei that we can apply the rule of lav hanitak l’assei, exempting one from lashes. Thus, even though the mitzvah also applies to a ganav, the rule of lav hanitak l’assei is not the reason that he is exempt from lashes. And a ganav does not acquire the stolen item when he steals it since he actually does have a mitzvas assei to return the item.

Daf Yomi: ‘Unsaying’ Words

Wednesday, February 15th, 2012

‘He Uttered Hashem’s Name In Vain’

(Temurah 3b)

Since time immemorial, humanity has sought to discover how to retract words that were spoken erroneously, in anger, in jest, or in contempt. Sefarim on lashon hara and many books on etiquette and social norms would have developed quite differently had we the ability to unsay words.

 Saying ‘Baruch Shem After Mentioning Hashem’s Name in Vain

After saying a berachah levatalah, a person should immediately follow it with “baruch shem kevod malechuso le’olam va’ed.” This practice derives from the Yerushami (Berachos 6:1), Rishonim (Tosafos, Berachos 39a, s.v. “Bezar”) and Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 25:5 and 206:6. These sources all state that one should say these words if Hashem’s name was said in vain in the context of a berachah.

What if, however, a person says Hashem’s name by itself outside the context of a berachah? The Rambam (Hilchos Shevuos 12:11) writes that if a person does so, he should immediately praise Hashem so he will not have mentioned His name in vain (see Kesef Mishneh, who mentions the Yerushalmi). The Tur and Shulchan Aruch, however, ignore this case. Does that mean they disagree with the Rambam and maintain that someone who mentions Hashem’s name in vain outside the context of a berachah is not obligated to immediately say “baruch shem”?

Rabbi Yitzchak Arieli, zt”l, examines this question (Einayim Lamishpat, Berachos 39a) based on a principle disagreement between Rishonim regarding the source of the prohibition to pronounce a berachah levatalah and why one says “baruch shem after such a berachah. Let us explore his explanation step by step.

 What Is The Source?

There is a great disagreement among Rishonim whether the prohibition to say a berachah levatalah is as severe as mentioning Hashem’s name in vain outside the context of a berachah. There is also a disagreement whether the prohibition is biblical, as the Rambam maintains, or, perhaps rabbinic since technically a person hasn’t said anything in vain by uttering a blessing; indeed, he has praised Hashem. (Regardless of whether a person eats or drinks, for example, the words “Baruch atah… shehakol nihyah bidvaro” are a form of praise to Hashem.) The rabbinic prohibition is due to the person pronouncing the berachah contrary to the instructions of Chazal. Tosafos maintains this position (see the Rambam’s Responsa 105 and the Magiah, Magen Avraham 215, s.k. 6, and in Machatzis Hashekel, Eliyah Rabah, Mishnah Berurah, s.k. 20, Tosafos, Rosh Hashanah 33a, and Sdei Chemed, kelalim, ma’areches beis, klal 115).

 The Reason For Saying Baruch Shem

Rishonim offer two different reasons for saying “baruch shem after a berachah levatalah. The Rambam states (Hilchos Berachos 4:10) that one should do so “so as not to mention Hashem’s name in vain” while the Tur (O.C. 206) writes that he must do so “because he mentioned Hashem’s name in vain.” It seems that the Rambam believes that saying “baruch shem ensures that Hashem’s name was not mentioned in vain while the Tur believes that he has already said Hashem’s name in vain and “baruch shem merely serves to atone for his sin, as he writes, “[B]ecause he mentioned Hashem’s name in vain, he should therefore accept the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven” (see Aruch Hashulchan, O.C. 206:16).

 Insufficient Atonement

According to the Tur, then, it stands to reason that “baruch shem” only serves as an atonement after a berachah levatalah which, in his opinion, is only rabbinically forbidden. It does not suffice, however, to atone for saying Hashem’s name in vain outside the context of a berachah, which is biblically forbidden. The Rambam, on the other hand, maintains that saying “baruch shem avoids the prohibition altogether, and therefore, a person should say it even after saying Hashem’s name in vain outside the context of a berachah (which, in his opinion, is biblically forbidden).

 How Long Can One Wait?

Rav Arieli argues that this basic disagreement also has ramifications for the following question: How long after saying Hashem’s name in vain can one say “baruch shem”? According to the Rambam it seems that a person should say it right away so as to praise Hashem’s name which he just uttered. Only if he rushes and praises Hashem does the praise “join” Hashem’s name and render it “not said in vain.” This is the opinion of Shibolei Haleket and the Tanya – that one must say “baruch shem within a very short period of time, “toch k’dei dibur,” after mentioning Hashem’s name. However, it is logical to assume that according to the Tur, for whom “baruch shem is an atonement, one need not rush to say it. As long as he doesn’t wait too long (so that “baruch shem” is entirely divorced from his utterance), he is okay.

Halachos Regarding Damaged Property – Replacement Or Reimbursement?

Wednesday, February 15th, 2012

This week’s parshah, Parshas Mishpatim, discusses various halachos regarding monetary issues. One of the topics revolves around when one damages another person’s property. One is responsible to pay for the damage that either he or his possessions caused.

The Machaneh Ephraim (Hilchos Nizkei Mammon) discusses the following scenario – one breaks an item that is worth $10 at the time that it was broken. On the day that the individual is to pay, the item has devalued and is only worth $8. How much does he have to pay, $10 or $8? Similarly, can he replace the item with an exact replica of the broken item that is now worth less or does he have to reimburse the owner with the cash value of the item at the time it was broken?

The Gemara discusses the halacha of this case regarding when one steals an item. If the item is still intact, it can be returned even if the price has decreased. If the item is physically damaged, one cannot return it and cannot buy a new one at the lesser price; rather, he must pay the owner what it was worth at the time it was stolen. Here’s the question: Does the halacha of repaying for damages follow the halacha of stealing, or does it differ – allowing one to replace the damaged item at a lower price?

The Machaneh Ephraim says that this is in fact a machlokes Rishonim. The Rambam, Rashi, and Tosafos are all of the opinion that the halacha of paying for damages does not follow the halacha of repaying for stealing an item, and thus one may replace the item at a lower price or pay the current lower price. The Raavad and the Rush opine that the halacha of reimbursing one for damages that were incurred on one’s property follows the halacha of paying for a broken stolen item; thus one is obligated to pay the value that the item was worth at the time that it was broken.

We can simply explain that the machlokes Rishonim depends on the following question: When one damages an item is he obligated to replace the item, either with an actual item or with money to purchase an item at today’s price, or is he obligated to pay for the loss that the owner incurred at the time of the damage?

Based on this, the Machaneh Ephraim explains the following machlokes between the Rambam and the Raavad (Hilchos To’en V’niten 5:2) – the halacha is that mi’de’oraysa one can only swear regarding movable objects; one cannot swear on a matter concerning land. If one claims that his fellow dug two holes on his land and thereby cheapened the value of the land and his fellow only admits to digging one hole, he does not have to swear mi’de’oraysa. Generally, when one admits to part of a claim he is obligated to swear mi’de’oraysa. However, says the Rambam, since this oath would concern land he is exempt from swearing. The Raavad argues that this case is not considered swearing regarding land, but rather they are disputing how much money is owed – in which case he is obligated to swear mi’de’oraysa.

The Machaneh Ephraim explains that this machlokes is dependent on the question that we discussed above. The Rambam, as mentioned earlier, holds that when one damages an item he is obligated to replace it. Therefore, when one damages land he is obligated to replace the land. This being the reason that the Rambam considered the dispute to be concerning land, he was unable to swear mi’de’oraysa. The Raavad was of the opinion that one is not obligated to replace the item that he damaged, but rather that one is indebted to pay the owner the value that was lost at the time of the damage. It is for this reason that the Raavad said that the dispute here concerns money and not land – thereby allowing for an oath mi’de’oraysa.

Reb Chaim Soloveitchik raised the following question regarding this scenario -  there only exists two of a certain type of stamp and they both belong to one individual. Since two of these stamps exist, they are each worth $50. If there would only be one of them in the world, it would be worth $100. If someone were to destroy one of the stamps, would he be obligated to pay the owner or would we say that since there was technically no loss of money – as the remaining stamp increased in value – he is not obligated to pay?

Initially, Reb Chaim said that it is dependent on the question that we mentioned earlier. If the obligation to pay, when one damages, is to reimburse the owner for his loss, then in this case where there was no loss one need not pay anything. However, if one is obligated to replace an item that he damaged, and if he is unable to replace it he must then pay for it, then in this case that finds him unable to replace the item he should be obligated to pay for it.

Rambam Hospital Doctors Save Gaza Girl with Congenital Heart Defect

Sunday, February 5th, 2012

Haifa – When Aya Almasal, 12, left her Gaza home approximately one month ago and headed for Rambam, she didn’t know that this trip would save her life. For several years Aya had suffered from sudden bouts of unconsciousness, and her doctors couldn’t find the cause. About a month ago, Aya set out for Rambam to treat this problem, which had accompanied her since birth. Upon leaving Gaza, she felt ill and the situation steadily deteriorated. As the girl neared Rambam, in Haifa, her heart stopped working and she was, in effect, dead. After repeated attempts at resuscitation, the girl’s heart began to pump and she arrived at Rambam, artificially respirated and in serious danger. At the hospital, Aya was diagnosed as suffering from Long QT Syndrome, a disorder of the heart’s electrical system that causes irregularand rapid heart rate, and had prevented blood from reaching her brain. This had caused Aya to lose consciousness suddenly, and could have killed her.

Shortly after the diagnosis, Aya was hospitalized in Rambam’s Department of Pediatric Intensive Care, where she remained for a week. Doctors there stabilized her condition, and Dr Munder Bolus, director of the Unit of Electrophysiology implanted her with a defibrillator pacemaker. Accompanying drug treatment, the pacemaker supplies an electrical shock which ‘jumpstarts’ the heart during irregularities. After almost a month of hospitalization, Aya felt better, was discharged last Thursday (February 2) and returned to her home in Gaza, standing on her own two feet.

According to Aya’s treating physician, Professor Avraham Lorber, who is head of Rambam’s Department of Pediatric Cardiology and Adult Congenital Heart Defects, Long QT Sydrome is a widespread heart defect that can be controlled with appropriate treatment. “Aya will need a pacemaker all her life,” said Prof Lorber. “She will be monitored to be sure the pacemaker and battery are working correctly.”

Fortunately, Aya had arrived at Rambam in time to receive life-saving treatment. But the girl did not have to die in order to live. Aya’s congenital defect should have been detected earlier. “Every year we treat a number of children with these types of problems,” says Prof. Lorber. “Some patients are diagnosed when they seek treatment for their irregular heart rates, and others in regular check-ups. This early detection of life-threatening problems illustrates the far-ranging implications of preventive medicine.”

Rambam’s Department of Pediatric Cardiology and Congenital Heart Defects treats a wide range of disorders, like Aya’s. A large number of patients,
some 650 children and youth, arrive from neighboring countries and are treated on a humanitarian basis. A number of Palestinian patients are
currently at the department, among them a three-week old infant scheduled for heart surgery, and a 40-day old baby who needs a stent procedure. “Other Palestinian patients are now receiving treatment here or will soon be transferred to Rambam,” states Prof Lorber. Our experience in general
medicine, and in cardiology, specifically, allows us to help most of these patients.”

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/analysis/rambam-hospital-doctors-save-12-year-old-gaza-girl-with-congenital-heart-defect/2012/02/05/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: