[Avodah] Pinui kevarim

[Micha Berger]

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 04:40:58PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: Dov Kaiser wrote:
:> Unfortunately, we do not know the details of the case at hand.

: Exactly. We know nothing of the circumstances, and therefore we can
: learn nothing from the case...

I thought RDK was talking about the details of the "case at hand", ie the
Barzliai story stipped of political rhetoric, apologetics and polemics.

If we're really talking about the situation before us, we would need to
take into account the fact that the medical staff who would use the ER
feel there is a piquach nefesh risk to using a less convenient and more
distant location.

And if piquach nefesh is a real issue, then any discussion of other
details is pointless.

And then there's the AP story
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052002509.html>
complete with a picture of the pagan altar found in the cemetary in
question.

: "Tzorech harabbim" is not the issue.  The issue is "hezek harabbim",
: and in the case of an existing shul the hezek is there, while in the
: case of a *non*-existing ER it is not.   If this were merely a
: proposed shul, or even a proposed expansion of an existing shul, you
: have no basis for assuming it would be permitted.

To me it seem that this is the keystone to RZS's position. R' Rosen says
that RAE and the Nesivos apparently identify the two. But hitting the
Bar Ilan Shu"t system was in sufficient for me to identify any such
meqoros. (Searched for "qever" and "haqever" in the Nesivos, RAE on the
SA, and shu"t RAE.)

So, just thinking about the topic...
It would seem to me that avoiding hezeq is a tzorekh, so it is quite
plausible to think that hamaziq es rabim includes smaller hezeq, so that
any unmet tzorekh is sufficient damage. But plausible isn't the same as
actually being true.

SA YD 364:5 says that "samukh laderekh" is an example of "qever hamaziq
es harabbim". It's not like forcing kohanim off the road for a few amos
is that big of a deal. The assumption that our case would also be
included as sufficient lost opportunity to qualify as maziq es harabim
appears to me to be very comparable.

The question of which comes first only impacts the permissability of
getting hanaah from the place afterward. I'm not sure what the point
of "mutar lifnoso umeqomo tahor" if the Mechaber continues "ve'asur
behana'ah". If you can't use the land anyway, how is the path any better
off without the grave occupying it?

See R Yitzchok Breitowitz's article "The Desecration of Graves in Eretz
Yisrael: The Struggle to Honor the Dead and Preserve Our Historical
Legacy" at <http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/heritage.html>, in particular
"Halachic Problems", sec "A. The Prohibition of Excavating a Grave".
Note that there are other reasons to matir disenternment, which may
help give some scale as to the exact extent of the need.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The worst thing that can happen to a
micha at aishdas.org        person is to remain asleep and untamed."
http://www.aishdas.org          - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
Fax: (270) 514-1507