124 Selected Reform Responsa

Shevuot 5.57; Hil. Hovel Umaziq 5.1). However, later responsa agree that even if there is considerable risk in the surgical procedure, it may be taken if there is a small chance that a cure will be effected(Jacob Reisher, Shevut Yaakog, 11 75; Hayim Grodzinski Ahiezer, Y oreh Deah 16). The recent Chief Rabbi of Israel, Untermann, sanctioned such an operation solely on the grounds that the chance of success was greater than possible failure(Address to the Congress of Oral Law , Jerusalem , August, 1968; several articles in Noam have also discussed this matter(Vol. 12, 13, etc).

The patient may, therefore, undergo the operation even if the risk involved is considerable as long as some medical benefit is likely.

The second question deals with the relationship of mother and child. What role should this play in our decision? We shall view this first from the point of view of the child’s continued responsibilities to his parent. There is considerable discussion in the traditional literature on this matter. It deals with two aspects of a child’s responsibility toward parents. One is the fiscal responsibility. This rests upon children generally, but of course, not in this case. The other aspect deals with the emotional dependence of the parents upon the child. Conflict in this area often became acute when an adult child moved away from his parents for marriage or another reason. Our tradition stressed the child’s independence through comments in biblical tales that dealt with this theme, as for example Genesis 2.24,“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother...,” and on God ’s command to Abraham ,“Get yourself out of your country and from your family and from your father’s house...”(Gen. 12.1). The rabbinic interpretation of these citations provided for independence of the child from his parents, although the rabbis felt the need to defend Abraham (M Ber., 6.4; Genesis Rabbah, 11 p. 369). The medieval Sefer Hassidim stated that any son who had made financial provisions for his parents was free to move (#564, p. 371). When dealing with a sick parent, or one who was mentally incapacitated, there was a difference of opinion between Maimonides and Rabad. Both agreed that the son may need to leave the parents, but Rabad felt that the obligation of emotional support remained with the son(Derishah to Tur Yoreh Deah 240). The Shulhan Arukh followed Maimonides in this matter(Yoreh Deah