[Avodah] Dead-Letter Halakhoth

[Elazar M. Teitz]

RJay Schachter writes:
  
> Inasmuch as Beijing is an ancient city,
>should not Purim in the Forbidden City be celebrated today (Friday,
>Adar 15) rather than yesterday?

>The question relates to a larger phenomenon, halakhoth that everyone
>knows . . . and yet which are, de facto, dead letters. 

     He then proceeds to give several examples of what he considers "dead letter halachos."   However, every single case he gives is mistaken.

     Taking his examples in the order presented:  why does Beijing not celebrate Purim on 15 Adar?  For the simple reason that the requirement for such observance is that the city have been walled at the time of Yehoshua's conquest of Eretz Yisraeil.  At the very latest, this happened in c. 1270 BCE.  According to Wikipedia, the first walled city where Beijing stands was built between the 11th and 7th centuries BCE.  Obviously, then, Purim is observed there on 14 Adar.  Indeed, can RJS give even one example of a city known to have been walled 3300 years ago, in which Purim is celebrated on the 14th?

     He then discusses at length the halacha that it is prohibited to live in a city without a mikve.  While it is certainly improper to do so, where is this issur recorded?  The closest to it is the g'mara in Sanhedrin 17b, discussing what a city must contain in order for a talmid chacham to live therein, and included in the list is a beis hamerchatz.  Even if we understand this to refer to mikve, the prohibition is only stated for talmidei chachamin.  (The list also includes a doctor, a blood-letter and  a sofeir.)  Moreover, while the Rambam cites this g'mara in Hilchos Deios 4:23, there is no mention of it in Shulchan Aruch.

     Next is the din about not being allowed to mourn for a suicide.  First, it is not defined as a prohibition, but as a non-obligation.  Second, all aspects of mourning which are in honor of the living, such as the shura, are required.  Third, there are are rishonim who pasken that it is only for others, but that the relatives do tear k'ria (Ramban and Tur).  Finally,the din only applies to a person in obvious possession of his mental faculties, who announces how he intends to commit suicide, and immediately proceeds to do it in that manner.  Nor is this ex post facto "defining out of existence," to quote RJS' description.  The basic halacha appears in Masseches S'machos 2:1.  The definition of what constitutes suicide is 2:2.  

     Finally, he cites eulogizing on Chol Hamoeid.  This is not a blanket prohibition; it is permitted for a chacham b'fanav.  But more than that, it is not "eulogy" which is prohibited, but "hespeid."  This refers to the arousing of sadness and tears.  Such eulogies are indeed prohibited.  Not included, however, are remarks designed not to elicit sorrow, but to call attention to the lessons that can be derived by the living from the deeds of the departed, and indeed, at every occasion in which I have attended a funeral on those days when hesped is prohibited, the first speaker usually points this out, and then proceeds to list, in that vein, the noteworthy praises of the departed.

    One should be extremely careful of one's facts before accusing the Jewish nation as a whole of ignoring halachos.

EMT 

 




 
 
 


                 

____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4f5cca879a611da56b2st06vuc