[By Rabbi Yair Hoffman for the Five Towns Jewish Times]
The second volume of V’dibarta Bam with the psakim of Moreinu haRav Dovid Feinstein Shlita has just been released. It is authored by Rav Boruch Moskowitz Shlita, who learns with the Rosh HaYeshiva every morning. There is no question that this Sefer is a “Must Have” and the first printing will certainly be sold out in a matter of a few weeks of its arrival in the Seforim stores.
For the first time, Rav Dovid Feinstein Shlita’s halachic views on hundreds of halachic topics are heard in an in-depth treatment.
The Sefer has 221 topics in close to 600 tightly packed pages. Each siman deals with a topic with great depth and then provides Rav Dovid Feinstein’s view on the subject matter. Much of the material deals with understanding Rav Moshe Feinstein’s opinion in his Igros Moshe.
DAYAN ROTH’S REMARRIAGE
There was an article a short while back about Dayan Yechezkel Roth who was attached to a heart-lung machine and for a while, he was not technically “living.” Subsequently, it was reported that he had remarried his wife, just in case his temporary death severed the legality of his marriage. Reb Dovid Shlita (Siman 306) opines that when one does undergo such a temporary death – there is no need to remarry. He also states that one is not technically obligated to perform heroic life-saving measures to one who is technically dead. Rav Dovid’s opinion in this particular Siman seems to be a rather controversial one.
MAISIS AND LIFNEI IVER
In Siman 155, the Igros Moshe (OC Vol. I #99) regarding “Maisis” on other Mitzvos is discussed.
According to many other authorities, there is another prohibition aside from Lifnei Iver, that is violated when one specifically requests another individual to perform a sin. This prohibition is called Maisis. The verse in Dvarim (13:7) states: “if your brother shall entice you… saying let us go serve other gods…” The Torah then continues to explain the punishment of such an individual. The traditional understanding of this prohibition is that it is limited to one who entices another to worship idols.
Rav Moshe writes that this prohibition of enticing another person applies to all sins, not only to idol worship. He maintains that the capital punishment is strictly reserved for the idol-worship form of enticement, but the prohibition of enticement applies to all sins.
Rabbi Feinstein thus censures a synagogue for encouraging people to attend their programming or their religious services on the Shabbos if they would arrive by car. He writes that the Rabbi who invited them would be in violation of both Lifnei Iver as well as Maisis. [It seems from Rabbi Feinstein’s language and tone that the violation of Maisis is actually more serious than that of Lifnei Iver.]
Rabbi Moskowitz explains why the issue of Kiruv Rechokim is not relevant in Rav Feinstein’s analysis and why one cannot allow for violating halacha for this purpose. In the end of the SIman Rabbi Moskowitz cites Rav Dovid Feinstein’s view that, in fact, there is no leniency to invite someone on Shabbos. As a parenthetic note, Rav Feinstein zt”l was not the first to mention the prohibition of Maisis. It is also found in both the Chavas Yair §166 and the Shvus Yaakov Vol III §178.
DO YOU MAKE A SHEHECHEYANU WHEN PURCHASING A NEW SEFER?
Generally speaking Mitzvos are not given lehanos – so we do not recite blessings on a new sefer. But when it genuinely brings us joy, perhaps one should. In Siman 44, he cites Rav Dovid Feinstein that if the purchase of the Sefer brings much joy – a shehecheyanu may be said.
SHEHECHEYANU ON FRUITS
A few years ago, a ruling from Rav Elyashiv zatzal spread around that no shehecheyanu is recited on new fruits since, nowadays, on account of imports from various other countries, most fruits are available 12 months out of the year. Reb Dovid, lbc”l is cited in Siman 45 as agreeing with this ruling – however, he states that if there is a 30 day break – where the fruit is not available, the blessing can be recited if one is excited about it.
PSIK REISHA THROUGH A GENTILE
In Siman 90, the author points to somewhat of a contradiction within the Mishna Brurah (276:30 versus 253:99) regarding a Psik Raisha of a biblical prohibition, a secondary result of a primary action, when done through a gentile – Amirah l’Akum. He cites Rav Dovid Feinstein as ruling that it is permitted when done through a gentile and that the fact that the Mishna Brurah was stringent in 276 is because of a separate issue of having Muktzah moved. An issue not raised by the author is that 253:99 is actually an amalgamation of two different acharonim in the words of the Ramah (the Vilna Gaon and the Mogain Avrohom) – neither of whom would have come to the same conclusion that the Mishna Brurah came to regarding biblical prohibitions on account of their own readings. It would have been interesting to hear Rav Dovid’s view on this.
OPERATIONS TO EXTEND LIFE TEMPORARILY
Rav Moshe zt”l deals with the issue of whether a severely ill person must undergo an operation that will only extend his life somewhat (IM CM II #74). He writes that if the sick person does not have the energy or strength to do so, he has the right to not undergo the operation. Rav Dovid Shlita added (Siman 304) that if it is impossible to ascertain the ill person’s thinking on the subject the relatives must try to figure out what the ill person would want.
All in all the sefer is a remarkable contribution to our understanding of halacha and specifically to Reb Dovid Shlita’s halachic views. There are so many wonderful nuggets of Psak halacha in this sefer. It is a must purchase for those who wish to hear the view of one of Klal Yisroel’s greatest Gedolim. The sefer is available at Biegeleisen in Boro Park and at other fine seforim stores.
The reviewer can be reached at [email protected]
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
One Response
DAYAN ROTH’S REMARRIAGE
We don’t know what Hatzadik Dayan Roth holds or why he did what he did. But the article says “Reb Dovid Shlita (Siman 306) opines that when one does undergo such a temporary death “. I would strongly argue with that statement. In no way would you call it dead. Reb Dovid didn’t call him “temporary dead”!
Would anyone call a person that goes underwater and holds his breath (can’t breathe even if he wants to), dead. Of course NOT!
What about a person who drowned and is unconscious when pulled out of the water (not breathing, and heart stops) is he dead? Should a Cohen work on him and save him? He better!!!!
Reb Moshe zt”l (& there is a video of Reb Dovid shlita repeating it) held that when one stops breathing on his own, that’s considered dead.
I don’t think Reb Moshe would tell a Cohen to go out of the room if someone has a heart attack, he would say ‘go and save him’!!!
But if that person is considered “temporary dead” how could the Cohen try and save him he would be Oveir Issur Deoreisa of Lo Titamu? and if you want to argue that sofek Pekuach nefesh is docheh kol hatorah. Does that apply for dead people? You may say “Perhaps yes”, as Eliyahu was a Cohen and he was Mechaya Meisim).
BUT In :בבא מציעא דף קיד Tosafot comments on “אמר ליה לאו כהן”. He says:
אמר ליה לאו כהן (אתה) – תימה לר”י היאך החיה בנה של האלמנה כיון שכהן היה דכתיב (מלכים א יז) ויתמודד על הילד וגו’ ויש לומר שהיה ברור לו שיחייהו לכך היה מותר משום פיקוח נפש
Tosfos raises the question of how Eliyahu could bring the child of the widow back to life if he was a Cohen? The implication being that since the child is dead, the child would be טמא, and prohibited for a Cohen to come into contact with. Tosfos answers this question by suggesting that it was clear to Eliyahu that he could bring him back to life, so it would be permitted because of פיקוח נפש (saving a life). So you see from Tosfos that by a dead person we say that it has to be certain that he will become back alive in order for the Cohen to work on him. However had it be a Sofek it would be Asur. And if you call a person with Cardiac Arrest dead, than a Cohen would be Asur to work on him B’Sofek. (Hard to find anyone who holds that a Cohen should refrain from trying to save a person going through a heart attack!!!)
Do the keilim in the house become Tomei?
Are you saying that Hatzolah members are Mechaya Meisim?
I think its fair to say that Reb Moshe Ztl holds that if you still have the ability to save a person he is not considered dead (Halachically) and one is Mechuyiv to save him. Someone going under open heart surgery is no less alive than someone unconscious under water but still alive. (Perhaps a person going through open heart surgery these days is more alive than the unconscious person under water.) The fact that the person in surgery who’s heart is not working & is not breathing on his own is because it was designed that way. It is as if someone holds his breath under water and can’t breathe, (and imagine if he had the ability to stop his heart temporary). We don’t call that dead, because it can be reversed and it SHOULD be reversed. Therefore a Cohen can work on a person having an heart attack as long as B’teva there is a chance (sofek) that he can be saved.
Reb Moshe Ztl spoke in a case where you can’t save the person, in that case; what are the signs of a dead person? Says reb Moshe ztl “If he can’t breathe on his Own”!!!