<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN style="COLOR: #444444"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">Eli Turkel wrote:<BR>>>> Nope. The term "tzorchei rabbim" doesn't appear there even once.<BR>>>> You are making up halachos out of thin air and attributing them to the<BR>>>> Shulchan Aruch.<BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR>> The Talmud allows for reinterment when the grave causes public damage<BR>> (Sanhedrin 47a),<BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR>47b, actually.<BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR>> such as when it is found next to a public road (YD 364:5).<SPAN lang=HE dir=rtl><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=HE dir=rtl style="COLOR: #444444"><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN style="COLOR: #444444"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">R. Zev Sero replied:<BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR>And yet you claimed that this se'if permitted moving a grave for<SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN> </SPAN><SPAN dir=ltr></SPAN><SPAN dir=ltr></SPAN><SPAN dir=ltr></SPAN><SPAN dir=ltr></SPAN>"tzorchei rabim". Now you quote it saying something quite different.<SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN> </SPAN>Surely you are not expecting anyone to accept that "mazik et harabim" and<SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN> </SPAN><SPAN dir=ltr></SPAN><SPAN dir=ltr></SPAN><SPAN dir=ltr></SPAN><SPAN dir=ltr></SPAN>"tzorchei rabim" are in some way synonymous, or even remotely similar!<SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN> </SPAN>There is no honest way to get from one to the other. If a road is built,<SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN> </SPAN>and then a grave is found on or near it, so that it is now damaging the<SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN> </SPAN>public it may be moved; how does that apply to a grave that is sitting<SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN> </SPAN>quietly by itself, minding its own business, until the public proposes<SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN> </SPAN>to put a road over it? How can you possibly imagine that this law allows<SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN> </SPAN>the public to move the grave and build the road?<BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR>On the contrary, I can prove that it is not so: if such a thing were<SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN> </SPAN>permitted, then why doesn't the gemara (and ultimately the SA) say so,<SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN> </SPAN>and we would know kal vachomer that if the road was already built the<SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN> </SPAN>grave may be moved? Why does it choose to speak of a grave that was found<SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN> </SPAN>after the road was long-established, instead of straightforwardly stating<SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN> </SPAN><SPAN dir=ltr></SPAN><SPAN dir=ltr></SPAN><SPAN dir=ltr></SPAN><SPAN dir=ltr></SPAN>"mefanin et hakever<SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN> </SPAN>la'asot derech larabim"? And why even bring up the<SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN> </SPAN>concept of "nezek"?<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<DIV style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0cm; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 0cm; PADDING-BOTTOM: 1pt; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 0cm; BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 1pt solid; mso-element: para-border-div; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .75pt">
<P class=MsoNormal style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0cm; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 0cm; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0cm; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 0cm; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .75pt; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm"><SPAN style="COLOR: #444444"><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<SPAN style="COLOR: #444444"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT></FONT></SPAN> <BR>
<SPAN style="COLOR: #444444"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><<Surely you are not expecting anyone to accept that "mazik et harabim" and<SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN> </SPAN><SPAN dir=ltr></SPAN><SPAN dir=ltr></SPAN><SPAN dir=ltr></SPAN><SPAN dir=ltr></SPAN>"tzorchei rabim" are in some way synonymous, or even remotely similar!>><o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></SPAN><BR>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt"><SPAN style="COLOR: #444444"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">Well, R. Akiva Eiger and the Nesivos thought so.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>In a teshuva to the Nesivos (Psakim, 45), R. Akiva Eiger he wrote: <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; tab-stops: 60.0pt"><SPAN style="COLOR: #444444"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN style="COLOR: #444444"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">*with respect to disinterring graves, it is obvious (hadavar pashut), as his honour [the Nesivos] wrote, that there is no greater mazik rabim than this. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Even if it were already a public cemetery and with public consent (midaas rabbim), nevertheless it is permitted to disinter [the graves] for the needs of the public (l’tzorech horabim), as HaGaon R. Dovid Oppenheim zt'l wrote in his teshuva, which is printed in Responsa Chavos Yair*. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN style="COLOR: #444444"><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN style="COLOR: #444444"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Unfortunately, we do not know the details of the case at hand. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>But as R. Rosen points out in the article I have already cited on Areivim (see </FONT><A href="http://www.zomet.org.il/?CategoryID=263&ArticleID=597"><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#800080 size=3>http://www.zomet.org.il/?CategoryID=263&ArticleID=597</FONT></A><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">), it is clear from this teshuva that both R. Akiva Eiger and the Nesivos held that *hezek rabbim* in YD 364:5 encompasses *tzorchei rabbim*, and therefore one may disinter graves, even of a public cemetery, in order to enlarge a road or some other public need (not just if the road was there already and the graves were discovered later).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN style="COLOR: #444444"><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN style="COLOR: #444444"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">You are certainly entitled to read the Gemara and SA differently from R. Dovid Oppenheim, the Nesivos and R. Akiva Eiger, but others might choose to favour their reading over yours.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>As we have discussed many times, when it comes to psak halacha (as opposed to lomdus), there is something slightly unorthodox (even unOrthodox) about jumping from the Gemara to the SA to psak halacha, while ignoring the voluminous halachic literature written since then, especially when it emanates from such greats as R. Akiva Eiger. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>And even if you think it is a legitimate approach to disregard Acharonim in formulating halacha, you certainly can’t accuse those who follow the mainstream approach of making things up. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Language such as *How can you possibly imagine that this law allows<SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN><SPAN dir=rtl></SPAN> </SPAN>the public to move the grave and build the road?* appears just a bit over the top when great Acharonim imagined just such a thing.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Also, as I have pointed out before in this forum, I think this sort of language on A/A creates more heat than light, to use a cliche, and lowers the tone of discussion.<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN style="COLOR: #444444"><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Getting back to the substantive argument, I concede that the original teshuva of R. Dovid Oppenheim is arguably distinguishable from our case. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>In that case, a shul had collapsed, and bones of nochri corpses were found in the ground during rebuilding works. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>You could argue that the rebuilding of a shul is a bigger tzorech horabbim than the building of an emergency room in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on">Ashkelon</st1:place>. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>On the other hand, you could also argue the other way.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>R. Rosen quotes a teshuva of R. Shaul Yisraeli, who refers to Bava Metzia 24b, which permits lopping a tree next to a city, even if the tree was there first. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Rashi there explains *sheyesh noi l’ihr k’sheyesh merchav panui lefaneha.*<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>R. Yisraeli uses this to show that even something which aimpinges on the aesthetic quality of a city is a hezek d’rabbim.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>How much more so something which prevents the construction of an emergency room!</FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3> </FONT></o:p></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">I feel obliged to restate on Avodah something which I already posted on Areivim.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The issue of pinui kevarim has become one of those *red rag to a bull* issues which, like heter mechira, has left the realm of civilized halachic discourse (at least for some – and I am not referring to R.ZS here) and become a catalyst for machlokes of a different kind.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3> </FONT></o:p></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Kol tuv</FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Dov Kaiser</FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><st1:place w:st="on"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><st1:City w:st="on">Rehovot</st1:City>, <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region></FONT></FONT></st1:place><SPAN style="COLOR: #444444"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P> <br /><hr />Get a free e-mail account with Hotmail. <a href='http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/197222280/direct/01/' target='_new'>Sign-up now.</a></body>
</html>