[Avodah] Pinui kevarim

[Zev Sero]

> 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.)

I posted the URL a few days ago. Maybe it was in one of the posts that
you rejected.  http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=24714&pgnum=65

RAE answers a shayla from the Nesivos, agreeing with him that in the case
under discussion the graves could be moved, since it was an extreme hezek
harabim ("ein lecha hezek gadol mizeh").  He then addresses a possible
complication: the case involved not a few lone graves, but a public
cemetery that had been established mida'as rabim; this is about as strong
as it gets.  Still, he says, the psak remains the same, since the tzorech
harabim overrides the daas rabim on which it was established.  This is
all dealt with in one sentence, because the case was clearly so obviously
a hezek harabim that there was no need to discuss it.  The bulk of the
teshuvah deals with the issue of a possible issur hana'ah.


But all we have is RAE's answer; we don't have the Nesivos's question, so
we have no idea what the situation was, and *why* it was such a hezek.
Therefore we can't learn anything from it, and R Rosen has no basis for
doing so.  It appears to me that what R Rosen did here was to pick on
one word in the teshuvah: "tzorech".  He wants to conclude (I think),
based on RAE having stuck in this word, that the criterion has shifted
from "hezek" to mere "tzorech".  But of course that's spurious.  RAE
has already established that the case was one of extreme hezek.  It's
obvious that mitigating such an extreme hezek is a tzorech harabim, so
it's no surprise that RAE should use that word.  But it's insupportable
to swoop on that word and conclude that he is making a revolutionary
statement, on which one can build an entire structure.  He's just using
a word in its ordinary sense.  Just because the public needs to mitigate
damage, it does not follow that it's damaged by not getting its needs!
Hezek creates a tzorech, but a tzorech doesn't create hezek.   And of
course the Nesivos didn't even use that word (as far as we know), in
fact we have no idea *what* the Nesivos wrote.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
zev at sero.name                 eventually run out of other people’s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher