<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
<SPAN style="COLOR: #444444"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN style="COLOR: #444444"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">The dispute between R.ZS and myself [see below] boils down to how to read the teshuva of R. Akiva Eiger (siman 45). To quote my translation of this teshuva again: <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal 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. 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<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Chavos Yair*<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN 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 face="Times New Roman" size=3>R.ZS, if I understand him correctly, is arguing that since we don’t know the nature of the case RAE and the Nesivos were discussing, we can’t conclude from it that it is permitted to disinter graves l’tzorech horabbim, as opposed to graves that are mazik the rabbim, which is stated explicity in the SA. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>R.ZS thinks I am misattributing opinions to authorities by reading the teshuva otherwise. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>He thinks that R. Yisrael Rosen and R. Shaul Yisraeli zt"l have similarly misinterpreted the words of RAE to create a heter which doesn’t exist.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Since then, I have seen that R. Chaim Anselm also favours my reading of the teshuva (see </FONT><A href="http://www.kisse-r.co.il/articlet.asp?type=mamar&i=63"><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#800080 size=3>http://www.kisse-r.co.il/articlet.asp?type=mamar&i=63</FONT></A><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">). <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Of course, no-one is obliged to follow their, or my, reading of the teshuva.<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN 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">Upon rereading the teshuva, I still think my reading is preferable. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>It does not seem that the gravity of the case RAE was discussing is the relevant point. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>If it were, why would RAE need to state in his second sentence that *it is permitted l’tzorech horabbim*? <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>RAE is stating the general rule, of which his specific case was a particular example; there is no hint that it was the extraordinary nature of the case he was dealing with that justified his decision.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Why even mention l’tzorech horabbim, when that expression is much weaker in force than hezek horabbim, which is the expression used in the Gemara and SA?<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>It seems to me that RAE understands that a genuine tzorech horabbim is equivalent to, or a subset of, hezek rabbim.</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN style="COLOR: #444444"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN style="COLOR: #444444"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">R. Yisraeli's proof from Bava Metzia is persuasive in my eyes, but is certainly equivocal, so I will not bother arguing about it.</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN 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">I apologize to R.ZS for accusing him of ignoring Acharonim or being anyway unorthodox, as he clearly honestly thinks that his reading of RAE’s teshuva is preferable to mine, and R. Shaul Yisraeli’s, and R. Rosen’s, and R. Anselm’s.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> The tone and language of my post was prompted by his attack on R. Eli Turkel and his question </SPAN>*How can you possibly imagine that this law allows the public to move the grave and build the road?*, as if anyone claiming such a thing must be either stupid or disingenuous.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Stupid I may be, but I do think my reading of the teshuva is preferable, and I think that even my detractors would have to agree that it is tenable, in which case accusations of *false claims* about what Acharonim held are out of place. We are both trying to understand the truth, so there is no room for accusations. </FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN style="COLOR: #444444"></SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: #444444"></SPAN><SPAN 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">Putting aside what RAE did or did not mean, the more general point here is that made by R. Anselm. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>We are dealing with an issur derabbanan here (see the slew of authorities he quotes in his article to substantiate this). <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>We have the opinion of the Noda BiYehudah that the issur does not apply to bones without flesh. We have the pagan artefacts which archaeologists have extracted from the site (unless they were placed there to test our faith…). <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>And we have the fact that mumchim claim that this cheder miun will save lives and interference with the project will have the opposite effect.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>In those circumstances, I maintain that the violent opponents of the pinui who had to be dragged away from the site have an agenda which is not simply dictated by the requirements of shas and poskim.<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN 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">Kol tuv<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN style="COLOR: #444444"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">Dov Kaiser</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN style="COLOR: #444444"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"> </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 1.5pt solid; mso-element: para-border-div">
<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 1.5pt; 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>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN style="COLOR: #444444"><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P><o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN style="COLOR: #444444"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN style="COLOR: #444444"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Dov Kaiser wrote:<BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR>>> Surely you are not expecting anyone to accept that "mazik et harabim" <BR>>> and "tzorchei rabim" are in some way synonymous, or even remotely similar!<BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR>> Well, R. Akiva Eiger and the Nesivos thought so. In a teshuva to the <BR>> Nesivos (Psakim, 45), R. Akiva Eiger he wrote:<BR>><BR>> *with respect to disinterring graves, it is obvious (hadavar pashut), as <BR>> his honour [the Nesivos] wrote, that there is no greater mazik rabim <BR>> than this. Even if it were already a public cemetery and with public <BR>> consent (midaas rabbim), nevertheless it is permitted to disinter [the <BR>> graves] for the needs of the public (l?tzorech horabim), as HaGaon R. <BR>> Dovid Oppenheim zt'l wrote in his teshuva, which is printed in Responsa <BR>> Chavos Yair*. <BR>> <BR>> Unfortunately, we do not know the details of the case at hand.<BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR>Exactly. We know nothing of the circumstances, and therefore we can<BR>learn nothing from the case. The only thing we do know about the case<BR>they were discussing is that it was an extreme one: "ein lecha hezek<BR>harabim gadol mizeh". One can speculate all kinds of emergencies that<BR>would justify such language, but the desire to expand a road (or a shul<BR>or a hospital) is not one of them. On the contrary, the fact that RAE<BR>says it's an extreme case, which is justified by kal vachomer from what<BR>we already know, means that we can't expand it beyond what we already<BR>know. Dayo leva min hadin lihyot kenidon. RAE's case was one in which<BR>the heter was *more* obvious than in the Chavot Yair's case, not less<BR>obvious.<BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR>> But as <BR>> R. Rosen points out in the article I have already cited on Areivim (see <BR>> </FONT><A href="http://www.zomet.org.il/?CategoryID=263&ArticleID=597" target=_blank><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 <BR>> from this teshuva that both R. Akiva Eiger and the Nesivos held that <BR>> *hezek rabbim* in YD 364:5 encompasses *tzorchei rabbim*, and therefore <BR>> one may disinter graves, even of a public cemetery, in order to enlarge <BR>> a road or some other public need (not just if the road was there already <BR>> and the graves were discovered later).<BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR>R Rosen does not "point this out", he merely asserts it without any<BR>argument to support him. It is not clear at all that 'hezek rabbim'<BR>"encompasses" 'tzorchei rabbim', whatever that means. It is *certainly*<BR>not clear, in fact it's not at all implied, that one may do any thing.<BR>This is what lawyers call "conclusory". I do not believe that you can<BR>demonstrate the logic to get from A to B. Without knowing what RAE was<BR>talking about, how can you possibly get to the conclusion that he was<BR>talking about expanding a road, or that his psak would apply to such a<BR>purpose?<BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR>> You are certainly entitled to read the Gemara and SA differently from<BR>> R. Dovid Oppenheim, the Nesivos and R. Akiva Eiger<BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR>No, I am not. But you are not entitled to put your own ideas into their<BR>mouths and adopt their authority for whatever you like to say. We know<BR>what the Chavot Yair's case was, and we know that RAE's case was even<BR>more obvious than that. Neither case was in any way comparable with<BR>expanding a road, or any other generic "tzorchei rabbim".<BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR>> especially when it emanates from such greats as R. Akiva Eiger.<BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR>It doesn't. The claim that it does is insupportable.<BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR>> And even if you think it is a legitimate <BR>> approach to disregard Acharonim in formulating halacha<BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR>I am *not* the one disregarding Acharonim here. To the best of my<BR>knowledge *no* Acharon says anything like what you are claiming.<BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR>> you certainly can?t accuse those who follow the mainstream approach<BR>> of making things up.<BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR>What mainstream approach? Who is this "mainstream" that takes this<BR>approach?<BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR>> Language such as *How can you possibly imagine that this law allows <BR>> the public to move the grave and build the road?* appears just a bit <BR>> over the top when great Acharonim imagined just such a thing.<BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR>Then perhaps you can name a few, *and* show why you think they did so.<BR>I categorically deny that either the CY or RAE wrote any such thing,<BR>and it's not exactly kavod to them to falsely claim that they did.<BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR>> Also, as <BR>> I have pointed out before in this forum, I think this sort of language <BR>> on A/A creates more heat than light, to use a cliche, and lowers the <BR>> tone of discussion.<BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR>I think misattributing opinions to authorities who never held them<BR>lowers the discussion a whole lot more.<BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR>> Getting back to the substantive argument, I concede that the original <BR>> teshuva of R. Dovid Oppenheim is arguably distinguishable from our case. <BR>> In that case, a shul had collapsed, and bones of nochri corpses were <BR>> found in the ground during rebuilding works. You could argue that the <BR>> rebuilding of a shul is a bigger tzorech horabbim than the building of <BR>> an emergency room in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on">Ashkelon</st1:place>.<BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR>"Tzorech harabbim" is not the issue. The issue is "hezek harabbim",<BR>and in the case of an existing shul the hezek is there, while in the<BR>case of a *non*-existing ER it is not. If this were merely a<BR>proposed shul, or even a proposed expansion of an existing shul, you<BR>have no basis for assuming it would be permitted.<BR><BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR>> On the other hand, you could also argue <BR>> the other way. R. Rosen quotes a teshuva of R. Shaul Yisraeli, who <BR>> refers to Bava Metzia 24b, which permits lopping a tree next to a city, <BR>> even if the tree was there first.<BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR>However the city is there now, and it is assur to have a tree within<BR>its migrash. Therefore the tree must go. And of course there's no<BR>issur in doing so, since it doesn't belong there.<BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR>> Rashi there explains *sheyesh noi <BR>> l?ihr k?sheyesh merchav panui lefaneha.* R. Yisraeli uses this to show <BR>> that even something which aimpinges on the aesthetic quality of a city <BR>> is a hezek d?rabbim.<BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR>And his conclusion is so radical that even R Rosen isn't ready to<BR>accept it. Well, now we're no longer discussing Acharonim. Nobody<BR>today is required to accept RSY's logic or psakim.<BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR>> I feel obliged to restate on Avodah something which I already posted on <BR>> Areivim. The issue of pinui kevarim has become one of those *red rag to <BR>> a bull* issues which, like heter mechira, has left the realm of <BR>> civilized halachic discourse (at least for some ? and I am not referring <BR>> to R.ZS here) and become a catalyst for machlokes of a different kind.<BR><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><BR>Perhaps it's the other way around, and some people's dedication to the<BR>zionist project makes them refuse to listen to any argument in favour of<BR>leaving kevarim alone. Perhaps this is what leads them to misrepresent<BR>authorities in their support. As for me, my only agenda is a close and<BR>careful reading of the sources, and not reading into them more than they<BR>say. I have no skin whatsoever in the specific issue. Perhaps moving<BR>the graves is indeed permitted, and if so I would have no objection; all<BR>I've ever maintained is that such permission can't confidently be derived<BR>from the sources cited. If it is permitted, then that permission must<BR>be derived from other sources.</FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN 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"><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3> </FONT></o:p></P> <br /><hr />Get a new e-mail account with Hotmail – Free. <a href='http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/197222280/direct/01/' target='_new'>Sign-up now.</a></body>
</html>