SJSinNYC: I was in the same situation twice a few months ago...either I had a relative babysit the newborn (I left a bottle) and the other time, I stayed at an apt across the street from the hall and we had the waiter push the carriage across the street.
YWN Coffee Room » Shabbos!
[closed]
Eruv in Brooklyn
(328 posts)-
Posted 5 years ago #
-
Smile, aren't there lots of problems having a non-Jew do that for you? Also, right now I'm nursing exclusively (my son is just one month) so he doesn't take a bottle.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Did you try pumping?
also..I thought so too, but i'm not a rav. We asked our LOR and thats what we were told.Posted 5 years ago # -
SJS:
I have had to stay in brooklyn for shabbos (oy!:) and those with small children by the simcha either were babysat for or were next door to where the simcha was and an eruv was placed between the two homes.
Posted 5 years ago # -
I'm going to climb out of my hole for a sec...
EDITED
And no, I personally would not use the eruv in brooklyn, and am sorry to say that I am not learned enough to make a qualified opinion.
OK, back into the hole, and pulling the manhole cover back on top.
Posted 5 years ago # -
HIE – “I didn't appoint Rav Belsky Gadol Hador. The Tzibbur did and 99.99%”
Prove it.“I don't posul any eruv besides the ones in Brooklyn which is a MAJOR CITY and HAS MAJOR AVenues. OCEAN PARKWAY IS A RESHUS HARABIM.”
Show me one posek who argues that Ocean Parkway is the issue. This proves that you never learnt Rav Moshe zt”l’s teshuvos regarding eruvin. Rav Moshe never mentioned a word about Ocean Parkway in any teshuvah.“YES i know eiruvin, and i have no problem with a private eruv, but an eruv for a city?”
Right, and that’s why there is a siman in the Shulchan Aruch regarding making an eruv for a city. Never mind that the Chasam Sofer states that it is a mitzvah to establish an eruv for a city just like a mavo.“let's not go off topic. why do FRUM YIDDEN have to do questionable things that may be ASSUR M"DAIRAISA??”
Because it is less questionable than many other issues then you realize.“and even if you don't hold of the eruv, do YOU know the halachos, did you look into hilchos eruv, well I DID, and since Boro Park is well connected to OCEAN PARKWAY, YOU are playing with ISSUREI D"AIRAISA. This is not a matter of who is better rav. this is a matter of being mechallel the day of rest. Why does everyone have to look for loopholes to be able to carry everywhere, WHY? one of the 39 melachos is that your not allowed to carry, so WHY DO YOU CARRY? WHy don't we make an eruv around the world???????”
As I mentioned, no one holds that the issue is Ocean Parkway. It is obvious that you did not learn hilchos eruvin. There are no loopholes to allow carrying only halachos. Actually the Gemara asks why didn’t we consider the world enclosed.“well your wrong look in sefer shomrei mitzvos”
There is no such halachah.Posted 5 years ago # -
Feif Un – “Regarding the Brooklyn eruv, there are people who say R' Moshe was wrong, and they disagree with his psak. With regard to R' Shachter's psak, he didn't say that. He felt that the circumstances had changed, and that R' Moshe's psak didn't apply anymore. He said that were the circumstances the same, he would definitely agree with R' Moshe. That is permissible. I later heard from a friend of mine who is a close talmud of R' Shachter that before R' Shachter gave the psak, he spent 2 sleepless nights reviewing it, and he was literally shaking at the thought of issuing a psak that differed from what R" Moshe had said - and this even when he agreed with the psak, but felt the circumstances had changed!”
No one says Rav Moshe was wrong only that he had chiddushim in eruvin. As a matter of fact Rav Moshe admits that his chiddushim in eruvin were not accepted by the poskim. Rav Shachter allows eruvin in large cities because he follows the Chazon Ish. It is obvious that your story hut nist kein hent un feis.“The problem isn't just the width of the road. It is the number of people who are outside. R' Moshe and a few other Rabbonim did some research, and determined that approximately 1/5th of the population of a city can be expected to be outdoors. That would mean that Brooklyn needs a population of 3 million to count as a reshus harabim. Now, it doesn't have to at any given time - it has to occur only once a year. R' Moshe said that even if the population is slightly below 3 million, it's still a reshus harabim, because during the summer, thousands of people go to Coney Island beach, and they're all outdoors.”
Rav Moshe did not do research he simply derived this chiddush from the diglei hamidbar. Actualy Rav Moshe admits that we follow the Shulchan Aruch and the requirement of shishim ribo is daily. Rav Moshe does not say if it is less it is still a reshus harabbim only that people would think that it is a reshus harabbim. Anyway, Coney Island is separated from Brooklyn by mechitzos.“it's not only Brooklyn people who go to Coney Island, people travel in from other areas as well.
With 2.5 million people in Brooklyn, according to R' Moshe, you have 500,000 people outside on any given day. On a Sunday in the summer, that number can go up by another 100,000 very easily. During the NYC marathon, there are thousands of runners outside on the streets, with thousands more standing around watching them.”
There are much more people who leave Brooklyn than come into Brooklyn. With a population of 2.5 million Rav Moshe does not maintain that the area is a reshus harabbim. According to Rav Moshe, it does not work the way you claim. You either have three million or not. At most events in any city the majority of people involved are local residents. Please don’t count them twice.“R' Moshe held that there's a big difference between Brooklyn and Queens. Halachically, he said Brooklyn is considered as one city, while Queens is considered as multiple small ones. The reason was that if you mail a letter to someone in Brooklyn, you write "Brooklyn, NY". You don't write Flatbush or Boro Park, you write Brooklyn.
If you mail a letter to Queens, you don't write "Queens, NY". You write Kew Garden Hills, or Flushing, etc.
That also explains why each community in Queens has its own eruv, and some people hold you shouldn't carry from one to the other on Shabbos.”
Rav Moshe never said this. This excuse was made up after the fact. It's an embarrassment to even claim this in Rav Moshe’s name. This excuse does not follow Rav Moshe chiddushim in eruvin at all. Your claim regarding why people do not carry from one eruv in Queens to the other is also an excuse after the fact.Posted 5 years ago # -
Joseph - “Brooklyn has a population, according to the U.S. Census, of over 2.5 Million. It is widely acknowledged the census severely undercounts the population in high illegal immigrant areas such as Brooklyn. Feif also stated "Now, it doesn't have to at any given time - it has to occur only once a year. R' Moshe said that even if the population is slightly below 3 million, it's still a reshus harabim"
Actually, the census does include illegals in their count. Feif is incorrect, Rav Moshe requires a daily shishim ribo as mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch. Rav Moshe maintains that with a population of less than shishim ribo the area is not classified as a reshus harabbim.“I provided the enumerated census count, that the U.S. Census is constitutionally obligated to do. The estimated number is a separate count.”
You are incorrect. Both counts are included in the tally. Moreover, why don’t you have this issue with Queens? The population of Queens should also include illegals and maybe Rav Moshe would have opposed an eruv there as well. This issue of illegals was never part of Rav Moshe’s chiddush.Posted 5 years ago # -
sammygol - “Let's not forget that Brooklyn and Queens boundary is an artificial one, both being well interconnected. What's more, the BQE fully integrated these boroughs, and the Queens-Brooklyn have grown out toward the LI, with combined population WELL over 3 million. If in Reb Moshe's time this was an issue, it is much more so today.”
You are missing the point. According to Rav Moshe we only tally a twelve mil by twelve mil area. You are including a much greater region. As a matter of fact Brooklyn itself is larger than twelve mil by twelve mil, and as such its total population should not be included in the tally.Posted 5 years ago # -
WolfishMusings - If we can’t erect an eruv because some may misuse it then why didn’t Rav Moshe also oppose the eruv in Queens, Detroit and Sea Gate. Moreover, even an eruv between neighbors can be abused. Therefore, according to HIE all eruvin are problematic.
Posted 5 years ago # -
At the end of the day, as far as following the Psak Din is concerned what difference is it to a layman WHY Reb Moshe paskened the way he did (unless the metzius on the ground changed since the Psak Din was issued.) The fact is, Reb Moshe paskened it is assur.
Posted 5 years ago # -
EDITED
Anyway the metzius is different: 1) Brooklyn does not contain a population of 3 million. 2) Brooklyn is encompassed by mechitzos. Consequentially, even Rav Moshe would allow an eruv in Brooklyn.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Oh, by the way Rav Moshe never issues a bsak din opposing an eruv.
Posted 5 years ago # -
david - Since your most recent comment was in reply to my preceding one, can you cite particularly what "uneducated statements in the name of Rav Moshe zt”l" was made? Or were you simply making a more general comment?
1) Brooklyn does not contain a population of 3 million.
How is this different than when Reb Moshe issued his Psak Din? The population wasn't over 3 million then either. Please see the historical census data previously posted on this thread.
2) Brooklyn is encompassed by mechitzos.
How is this different than when Reb Moshe issued his Psak Din?
Posted 5 years ago # -
I am not accusing you in particular of making uneducated comments. My point was that this thread and many others like it contain comments that have nothing to do with the facts.
Actually, Rav Moshe zt”l was under the impression that Brooklyn contained a population close to 3 million and that there are over a million people who come into Brooklyn to work daily. These facts are incorrect. Brooklyn’s population is not even close to 3 million and there is nowhere near a million people who commute into Brooklyn. As a matter of fact there are many more people who commute out of Brooklyn.
Rav Moshe was under the impression that Brooklyn is not encompassed by mechitzos.
Posted 5 years ago # -
david - Are you trying to claim Reb Moshe ZT'L was not opposed to an Eruv in Flatbush?
Posted 5 years ago # -
Joseph - No, of course he was personally opposed. However, he did not issue a p’sak din barrur in opposition (see Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:87) because the Achronim would not agree to his chiddush. In any case, there is no doubt that Rav Moshe was not apprised of the correct facts on the ground. Thus even according to his own chiddushim an eruv would be allowed.
Posted 5 years ago # -
"Actually, Rav Moshe zt”l was under the impression that Brooklyn contained a population close to 3 million and that there are over a million people who come into Brooklyn to work daily."
That statement about Rav Moshe ZT'L is not accurate.
Additionally, R’ Moshe lived for 90 years and published 5 volumes of responsa without giving any (written) number for what today would constitute ששים רבוא . It wasn’t until his very last volume of responsa that he suggested a general, but not absolute, number. The reason for this was simple. The determination of a mobile רבוא ששים is the product of an educated estimate, subjected to fluctuating contingencies. What needs to be determined is: how many people must reside in a city for the human traffic to be 600,000? There is no fixed number. It depends on demographics, climate, the health of the inhabitants, and other factors. Even before giving a general numerical range, R’ Moshe says this explicitly: “It would seem as probable that not all cities are equal in this matter” (Igeros Moshe, Orach Chaim 4:87). However, in that very responsum, he does formulate the ratio of inhabitants to traffic as 4:1 or 5:1. This translates precisely to 2,4000,000-3,000,000. Brooklyn then (2.6 million in 1970) and now (2.55 million in 2008) would qualify for ששים רבוא . Queens then (1.9 million in 1970) and now (2.2 million in 2000) would not. R’ Moshe never, never said 3 million. He said (Igeros Moshe, Orach Chaim 4:88) close to 3 million. This means anywhere from 2.4-3.0 million as he had clearly stated in his 1978 responsum (4:87). Keep in mind that at that time, the known census for the borough of Brooklyn was 2.6 million making his statement in full concordance with Talmudic locution – see Mesechtes Kiddushin 12a. As for the issue of population movement into and out of the borough, the entire point is meaningless. If it could and sometimes did accommodate traffic of ששים רבוא , that would be sufficient.
"Rav Moshe was under the impression that Brooklyn is not encompassed by mechitzos."
R’ Moshe definitively states: “… regardless of all the improvements that certain rabbis have or will implement.” The language could not be clearer.
And to say that the mechitzos encircling Brooklyn are sufficient even
if they had a pirtzos esser? It is true that such an opinion is maintained by many poskim. But it is far from unanimous. R’ Ahron devotes much space in his קונטרס to proving the veracity of the contrary position. Therefore, a primary concern of those who opposed the eruv was that Brooklyn remained a רה״ר since the pirtzos in its mechitzos were larger than 10 (or 16) amos.Posted 5 years ago # -
ATT MODS: this thread is really not bringing any good to this coffee. The comments here are not so nice to put it mildly.
This thread will anyway not be the deciding factor for pple to start or stop using the eruv. All its accomplishing is a lot of friction here....
How about ummm....closing it?Posted 5 years ago # -
Smart cookie is correct. Please refrain from insulting comments about other posters and stick to the issues or this thread will be closed
Posted 5 years ago # -
Smart cookie and Mod80: Do you really see insulting comments?
EDITED
Not anymore
Posted 5 years ago # -
Mod 80,
Why was that post removed?
The Wolf
Please email me at moderator80@theyeshivaworld.com if you would like an answer
Posted 5 years ago # -
Joseph - Actually, you are parroting Rav Hirsch’s arguments and he is simply incorrect.
“Additionally, R’ Moshe lived for 90 years and published 5 volumes of responsa without giving any (written) number for what today would constitute ששים רבוא . It wasn’t until his very last volume of responsa that he suggested a general, but not absolute, number. The reason for this was simple. The determination of a mobile רבוא ששים is the product of an educated estimate, subjected to fluctuating contingencies. What needs to be determined is: how many people must reside in a city for the human traffic to be 600,000? There is no fixed number. It depends on demographics, climate, the health of the inhabitants, and other factors. Even before giving a general numerical range, R’ Moshe says this explicitly: “It would seem as probable that not all cities are equal in this matter” (Igeros Moshe, Orach Chaim 4:87). However, in that very responsum, he does formulate the ratio of inhabitants to traffic as 4:1 or 5:1. This translates precisely to 2,4000,000-3,000,000.”
If one were to study all of Rav Moshe zt”l’s teshuvos where he discusses his chiddush in shishim ribo he will see that it evolved incrementally (as a matter of fact he originally understood that the criterion of shishim ribo applies to a street and not to a city). If you admit that Rav Moshe in the end does formulate a general ratio for shishim ribo, why didn’t you mention the last two teshuvos (Igros Moshe, O.C. 5:28:5, 5:29) where Rav Moshe clearly codified his chiddush in shishim ribo that the requirement is 3,000,000 people? The answer is that you are just repeating an argument that is not yours and don’t realize that Rav Hirsch does not recognize the last volume (8) of Igros Moshe as legitimate. While I do not want to be drawn into this particular discussion I would just add that the teshuvah opposing the Boro Park eruv in included in this posthumously published last volume as well. Additionally, Rav Dovid Feinstein shlita would not agree with you either regarding his fathers shita in shishim ribo. Rav Dovid maintained that his father’s shita in shishim ribo was that it necessitated a population of 3,000,000 (West Rogers Park Eruv, 1993 p. 23) and therefore Rav Dovid allowed an eruv in Chicago.Posted 5 years ago # -
Joseph - “Brooklyn then (2.6 million in 1970) and now (2.55 million in 2008) would qualify for ששים רבוא . Queens then (1.9 million in 1970) and now (2.2 million in 2000) would not. R’ Moshe never, never said 3 million. He said (Igeros Moshe, Orach Chaim 4:88) close to 3 million. This means anywhere from 2.4-3.0 million as he had clearly stated in his 1978 responsum (4:87). Keep in mind that at that time, the known census for the borough of Brooklyn was 2.6 million making his statement in full concordance with Talmudic locution – see Mesechtes Kiddushin 12a. As for the issue of population movement into and out of the borough, the entire point is meaningless. If it could and sometimes did accommodate traffic of ששים רבוא , that would be sufficient.”
I reiterate, Rav Moshe did finalize his shita that the requirement is 3 million. Additionally, Queens today has over 2.2 million residents and Brooklyn in the 1990’s had approximately the same number. Why was an eruv not allowed in Brooklyn then? The answer is simple, Rav Moshe was under the impression that including those who commute daily into Brooklyn the population was greater than 3 million (see the end of Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:88). Consequentially, your claim that the population movement was irrelevant is inccorect as this was an integral part of his argument. Furthermore, according to Rav Moshe if the area only at times accommodated 3 million people it would not be classified as a reshus harabbim. Rav Moshe admitted that we follow the Shulchan Aruch that shishim ribo is a daily requirement (Igros Moshe, O.C. 1:139:5, 4:87-88, 5:28:16)Posted 5 years ago # -
Joseph - “R’ Moshe definitively states: “… regardless of all the improvements that certain rabbis have or will implement.” The language could not be clearer.”
So we are to believe a kol korei over a teshuvah? Rav Moshe clearly mentioned to the rabbanim of Flatbush that his chiddush is contrary to the Achronim and that he really did not want to mix into the matter. Now you want us to believe that all of a sudden Rav Moshe would sign a kol korei that states that there is no halalchic basis to establish an eruv? Please, we all know that Rav Moshe would not sign on a akol korei containing such language.“And to say that the mechitzos encircling Brooklyn are sufficient even
if they had a pirtzos esser? It is true that such an opinion is maintained by many poskim. But it is far from unanimous. R’ Ahron devotes much space in his קונטרס to proving the veracity of the contrary position. Therefore, a primary concern of those who opposed the eruv was that Brooklyn remained a רה״ר since the pirtzos in its mechitzos were larger than 10 (or 16) amos. “
I can furnish a list that will prove that it is as close to unanimous as it gets. We pasken that pirtzos esser is d'rabbanan Well if we would pasken like Rav Aharon that pirtzos esser is d’Oraysa and asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta and that a rabbim is less than shishim ribo we would not be able to establish eruvin in any town big or small past and present. Clearly we do not follow his shitos in eruvin. [Actually, Brooklyn has the added benefit that since our mechitzos are at the waterfront, even Rav Aharon would admit that they are sufficient since there is no rabbim traversing them.]minimally EDITED
Posted 5 years ago # -
After reading the lomdishe and thoroughly sourced document about the eiruv situation written by Rabbi Yisroel Hirsch which “Joseph” referenced, I have come to the following conclusions:
1) The issues involved are incredibly detailed and complex.
2) The average baal habos (i.e. yours truly), even with somewhat of a learning / yeshiva background is hopelessly out of his depth as far as the protim involved. A layperson’s opinion without a thorough knowledge of the issues involved would be similar to someone saying “I know how to drive, and I check my own tire pressure. Now, let me tell you how to change a timing chain and adjust the differential's gear ratio.”For those who are interested, the full document is available at:
http://shaareishalom.tripod.com/eruv.pdfI request that this URL be allowed since it involves halocha and is very applicable to the discussion at hand. If you would prefer, I am willing to cut-and-paste the entire eleven-page document piecemeal.
I don’t know Rabbi Yisroel Hirsch, nor am I familiar with the pamphlet he is responding to.
Posted 5 years ago # -
david1999-
Hi.
[Actually, Brooklyn has the added benefit that since our mechitzos are at the waterfront, even Rav Aharon would admit that they are sufficient since there is no rabbim traversing them.]Are you referring to the Belt Parkway trenches and overpasses?
Posted 5 years ago # -
I don’t know Rabbi Yisroel Hirsch
FWIW, I *do* know him. I've always found him to be intelligent, thoughtful and well-learned.
That being said, I have not read his pamphlet on the eruv, and I would probably not be qualified to comment on it even if I did; so I will not comment on the pamphlet directly.
The Wolf
Posted 5 years ago # -
I can only try - There are mechitzos encompassing Brooklyn on three sides at its waterfront. These include, gates, seawalls and the Belt Parkway.
Posted 5 years ago # -
I can only try – Please post Rav Hirsch’s comments as I would like to respectfully discuses them.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Rav Hirsch writes in his introduction (page 1-2):
“In the spring of 1962, a group of the most preeminent halachic authorities in the United States gathered to discuss the plausibility of an eruv in Manhattan. The meeting was chaired by HaGaon R’ Aharon Kotler zt”l, in the presence of HaGaon R’ Moshe Feinstein, HaGaon R’ Yaakov Kamenetsky, and HaGaon R’ Eliyahu Henkin zt”l among others. While there was (probably) no unanimity of opinion concerning the issue from an academic standpoint, an absolute consensus was reached toward an halachic prescription. They publicly declared that “it is impossible under any circumstances to erect an eruv in Manhattan and that it is forbidden to carry even after all the improvisations that have or will be implemented by any rabbi(s).”If Rav Eliyahu Henkin zt”l was at the meeting as Rav Hirsch claims why then didn’t he sign this kol korei. Therefore, his statement that, “an absolute consensus was reached toward an halachic prescription,” is untrue since Rav Henkin abstained from partaking in this prescription against the establishment of the Manhattan eruv. In fact in 1960 Rav Henkin signed on to the committee to establish an eruv in Manhattan (Divrei Menachem, O.C. vol. 2, p. 10; see also Kisvei Hagriah Henkin, p. 33 where he urges the rabbanim of the Bronx and Brooklyn to erect eruvin). Additionally, most rabbanim at that time were in favor of the eruv in Manhattan such as: Rav Tzvi Eisenstadt, Amshinover Rebbe, Kapishnitzer Rebbe, Boyaner Rebbe, Noverminsker Rebbe, Radziner Rebbe, Rav Michol Dov Weissmandel, Rav Yonasan Steif, Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank, Rav Menachem Kasher, and the Shatzer Rebbe, zt”l. In Iyyar of 1962 an eruv was established under the supervision of the Shatzer Rebbe. Only after the Manhattan eruv was established did this aforementioned meeting of the, “preeminent halachic authorities [Agudas HaRabbonim],” take place and then they issued a kol korei against the Manhattan eruv.
It’s important to note, when Rav Moshe zt"l signed on the 1962 takanah with Rav Aharon Kotler zt"l, we see that he was not at ease with the language, since after he quoted this takanah in his teshuvah, he omitted the last line which stated that, “those who rely on the eruv in Manhattan are considered a mechalel Shabbos” (Igros Moshe, Addendum to O.C. 4:89).
Posted 5 years ago # -
As you can see, the hebrew lettering unfortunaly got reversed.
I can try this again tonight on my home PC which doesn't have this problem.
For now I suppose you can leave it up (since it is mostly readable) or delete it.
Once I b'n paste the "fixed" version, this one can be deleted.Posted 5 years ago # -
Rav Hirsch continues:
“R’ Moshe, who was a member of that convocation, maintained that although that prohibition was issued only with regard to Manhattan, its relevance extended to the whole city of New York, minus the clearly defined exceptions, i.e. Queens (Kew Gardens Hill) etc.”This is incorrect since Rav Moshe zt"l never stated that the 1962 issur against establishing an eruv in Manhattan included all of New York City. This is a fabrication of the 1979 Flatbush kol korei (see The Community Eruv kuntres, Appendix 10). If Rav Hirsch is correct then when the rabbanim of Flatbush asked Rav Moshe for his p’sak about erecting an eruv (Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:87) Rav Moshe should have referred back to the 1962 kol korei and stated that the issur then included erecting an eruv in Brooklyn. Not only did Rav Moshe not declare that it was prohibited to construct an eruv, he was not mocheh and did not even recommend that they not erect an eruv (ibid.). What he did tell them was, “I do not want to join you in this matter, because there are many opinions on this topic, as we see in the Shulchan Aruch.” Only when some people misunderstood these words as somehow supporting the eruv did Rav Moshe feel there was a need to clarify his personal approach regarding the issue. Hence he wrote this teshuvah clarifying his opinion, explaining that he had a chiddush, which accordingly would prohibit the construction of an eruv. However, he declined to issue a p’sak, since, as he acknowledged, his chiddush was not mentioned in the Achronim, and moreover it was obvious that the Aruch HaShulchan would not agree with him.
Rav Menashe Klein shlita wrote (Oim Ani Chomah, siman 7) that Rav Moshe told him in 1979 ― in the presence of Rav Elimelech Bluth shlita, Rav Shalom Dresner shlita, and Rav Mordechai Tendler shlita ― that contrary to what someone in the Agudas HaRabbonim was promoting the 1962 issur from the Agudas HaRabbonim was only regarding Manhattan. More so, Rav Tuvia Goldstein zt”l, a Talmid/Chaver of Rav Moshe zt”l, said on numerous occasions that even after the 1979 kol korei against the Flatbush eruv was published, he spoke with Rav Moshe who agreed that if the rabbanim wanted to erect an eruv they could do as they saw fit. Moreover, he stated that even Rav Moshe himself would have allowed an eruv in its present construction. Therefore, we can’t extrapolate what these signatories of the 1962 kol korei would maintain regarding Brooklyn and definitely not their stance concerning the present eruv.
“The attempt to construct an eruv in Brooklyn flies in the face of rabbinic consensus.”
Again there was no consensus and where is it stated that there is a need for a rabbinic consensus when constructing an eruv? On the contrary, every rav has a responsibility to establish an eruv in his town (Teshuvos V’Hanhagos, 1:844; see also Chasam Sofer, O.C. 99).
“New York City already has its ruling. It must not be ignored!”
Even if there was a ruling, the Bach (Choshen Mishpat, siman 25) states that after the passing of a rav other rabbanim, even in his hometown, can make permissible that which he had forbidden. More so, since regarding Brooklyn Rav Moshe was misled (regarding the population size and mechitzos) the Mharsham (7:48) brings the Rivash and the Mharashdam that to begin with there is no din of chacham sh’osser.
Page 3 comment 2:
“Furthermore, there was no reason for the אר"י to question the eruv of צפת whereas great halachic authorities have publicly forbidden the construction of an(y) eruv in New York City. So there is every reason to question its construction. Also, the אר"י did not question the eruv in צפת after it had already been constructed; our present situation deals with – precisely – the halachic basis for such a construction.”In fact there was reason to question the eruv of Tsfas. The, “lamdanim and some of the talmidi chachamim,” of Tsfas questioned the eruv since in the non Jewish section of the city there was a street more then sixteen amos wide and some of the streets in the Jewish section opened on to it. On this issue the Maharit Tzhalon (siman 251) commented that for a street to be classified as a reshus harabbim, we require shishim ribo to traverse it. Additionally, these, “lamdanim and some of the talmidi chachamim,” of Tsfas were questioning the existing eruv. (Ironically, the fact is Rav Hirsch’s comments on the Kensington eruv were written after the fact as well.)
Page 3 comment 4:
“But the logic that sees a contradiction because of the “collection of disparate sources” is untenable. Different aspects of any argument may be accepted or rejected, without having to accept the entire thesis. So long as one does not both partially accept and partially reject the same aspect, or selectively accept two aspects of the same argument that are contradictory, one may find one point valid and the other not.”This is not the argument put forth by the kuntres at all. If the reason that we have to follow Rav Moshe’s zt"l p’sak is because he was the Gadol Hador then why would the anti-eruv group bring other shitos against eruvin (shitos that Rav Moshe never subscribed to) from others whom they do not consider the Gadolei Hador? It must be that the goal is to asser eruvin hence the need to collect shitos yachidos from disparate sources.
To quote The Community Eruv kuntres, “Of course, it is always possible to cite shitos yachidos to invalidate an eruv; however, ruling according to shitos yachidos is not the correct approach in halachah. [The Chasam Sofer writes (Y.D. 37) that if we were to collect all the shitos ha’ossrim we would not be able to eat bread or drink water.] Even more so, in hilchos eruvin, since all criteria have to be met for the area to be classified as a reshus harabbim, even if we were to employ a shitas yachid regarding reshus harabbim that would then disqualify the eruv based on only one criterion, the other conditions would not be met and an eruv would be permissible l’chatchilah. Consequently, to invalidate an eruv, one would have to selectively choose from disparate shitos yachidos ― which in many cases are contradictory ― and that is an unjustifiable approach to halachah. The reality is that if someone learns hilchos eruvin with an open mind, he would realize that since it is almost impossible to meet all the criteria of a reshus harabbim, creating an eruv l’chatchilah is a real possibility.”
Page 3 comment 5:
“Granted, the halacha is not like ר' יהודה; rather, לא אתו רבים ומבטלי מחיצתא. But if the pirtzah is more than 10 amos (maybe 16) that is another matter. In such a case many rishonim would say the entire mechitzah is invalid. R’ Aharon Kotler spends much time in his קונטרס showing this to be the position of the רמב"ם.”If it’s granted that the halachah is not like Rav Yehudah since most poskim pasken as such, then it’s established as well that the halachah of pirtzos esser is only a rabbinical proscription. As a matter of fact Rav Hirsch admits later (comment 32) that “many” poskim maintain pirtzos esser is d’rabbanan. However, the fact is it’s not just many poskim but the overwhelming majority of poskim who maintain as such. Actually Rav Moshe zt”l maintains that a pirtzos esser is d’rabbanan (Igros Moshe, O.C. 2:89). It is obvious that we don’t pasken like Rav Aharon zt”l (and the Mishkenos Yaakov). If we would pasken like Rav Aharon that pirtzos esser is d’Oraysa and asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta and that a rabbim is less than shishim ribo we would not be able to establish eruvin in any town big or small. [It’s important to note that since Brooklyn’s mechitzos are at the waterfront there is no rabbim traversing them and Rav Aharon would admit that a tzuras hapesach at the pirtzos would be sufficient; see Mishkenos Yaakov, O.C. 122 p. 144.] There is no Rishon who states explicitly that a pirtzos esser is a d’Oraysa – Rav Aharon and others extrapolate from some Rishonim as such. However, the fact is there are three Rishonim who state unequivocally that pirtzos esser is only d’rabbanan (Hashlama, Eruvin 5a; Tosafos HaRosh, Eruvin 17b, and HaEshkol, p. 167). Regarding a pirtzah of sixteen amos even the Mishkenos Yaakov (O.C. 122 p. 144-45) admits to the Bais Ephraim that it is not a qualifier of a pirtzah in a mechitzah.
Posted 5 years ago # -
WolfishMusings-
Thank you for the info re: Rabbi Yisroel Hirsch.
If I find something online related to learning and halocha which looks OK to me (knowledgeable, correct [frum] hashkofa) but I don't know the author myself, I feel obligated to mention that fact as an implicit "check out his bona fides for yourself" disclaimer.david1999-
"There are mechitzos encompassing Brooklyn on three sides at its waterfront. These include, gates, seawalls and the Belt Parkway."
1) I assume when you say "there is no rabbim traversing them" you mean 600,000. Is this correct? (the belt at rush hour gets pretty busy)
2) Do you mean seawalls above ground level, or also those at ground-level, such as the the one next to the belt parkway where it abuts the water?
3) By "gates" do you mean Seagate's wall or are there others as well?Posted 5 years ago # -
Rav Hirsch continues:
Page 4 comment 7:
“The true nature of this work is now clearly exhibited. A sniff l’heter? We are dealing here with a s’fek d’oraysoh which is always l’chumrah! And not just any d’oraysoh, but one of chillul Shabbos! If this alone was the objection to the eruv it would be more than sufficient grounds for opposition! Note that although it is not here reveled, R’ Moshe Feinstein objected to all these points. For instance, the point that streets are made for cars and not people, and therefore are not a legal part of a רה"ר, is complete nonsense! Chance a guess at who in fact is driving these cars, Monkeys, baboons, orangutans – of course, people! Failure to disclose to the reader R’ Moshe’s opposition is an act of dishonesty.”As stated in Eruvin in Brooklyn (p. 15) there are three primary reasons why Brooklyn is not a reshus harabbim. This sniff l’heter is only noted in a footnote and is not included in the three fundamental reasons to allow an eruv in Brooklyn. Therefore to say, “The true nature of this work is now clearly exhibited,” is extraneous to say the least. Additionally, this is the way most teshuvos are written; after the main points are expounded on the poskim will usually add that we can also include a sniff l’heter. Regarding the subject of who is driving the cars, Rav Hirsch is conflating two issues. This is what’s stated in the kuntres, “Since the streets are designated for cars, the streets and the sidewalks on either side of the street are not considered connected to form one continuous 16 amos (Tikvas Zechariah, p. 40; Divrei Yatziv, O.C. 2:172:13 see also Oim Ani Chomah, siman 63).” The kuntres is not referring to whether or not we include the occupants of the vehicles in the tally of shishim ribo only if streets and the sidewalks on either side are considered as one contiguous sixteen amos. Even regarding the subject of tallying the occupants of vehicles, what many don’t realize is that most poskim maintain that the occupants of cars would not be tallied in the shishim ribo (Bais Ephraim, O.C. 26; Maharsham, 1:162; Yeshuos Malko, siman 26-27; Harei B’samim, 5:73; Bais Av, 2:9:3; Mahari Stief, siman 68; Satmar Rav, Kuntres Meoz U’Mekedem p. 27; Divrei Yatziv, 2:172:13; V’yaan Yoseph, 1:155:1; Kuntres Tikkun Eruvin Manhattan, siman 12 p. 105; Kinyan Torah, 4:40:6, and Rabbi Eliezer Y. Waldenberg shlita, author of the Tzitz Eliezer, as cited in The Contemporary Eruv, 1998 p. 54 note 119). The reason is either because a vehicle in itself is considered a reshus hayachid and therefore its occupants are not part of the total or because we only include pedestrians (holchei regel) who traverse the street in the tally. This list is indicative of whom Rav Hirsch considers to be uttering, “complete nonsense.” The kuntres dedicates many pages to Rav Moshe’s shitos but definitely does not claim to quote all of them. Particularly when the kuntres is only using this issue as a snif it doesn’t have to quote others.
Page 4 comment 8-9:
“There is a fundamental distinction between a street that is itself covered, and a street that at random juncture is bisected above its air-space, creating a covered area. The former is not דומה לדמ"ד and would therefore be invalidated as a ר"הר דאורייתא. The latter, on the other hand, would not.”Rav Hirsch is conflating mikorah [roofed] with mefulash [open]. For any part of a street to be classified as mikorah only the area that is roofed would be considered as such. Rav Moshe adds (Igros Moshe, O.C. 1:140) that a street, which is bisected by a roofed roadway even if it’s not along its entire length, it would not be classified as mefulash. [However, according to Rav Moshe, a roofed area does not divide the tally of shishim ribo into separate parts of less than shishim ribo (ibid., 5:28:20).]
Page 4 comment 10:
“This is perhaps the most blatantly inaccurate statement in this entire booklet, the result of either outright deception or intellectual dishonesty. R’ Ahron does indeed quote the מג"א who maintains such a position, but devotes much energy and considerable time to refuting its halachic accuracy. … This point [of mefulash] was an absolutely integral component of R’ Ahron’s halachic synthesis upon which he assured (אסור) an eruv for New York City.”This is what is stated in the kuntres: The Magen Avraham, (345:6) understands mefulash me’shar le’shar as meaning mefulashim u’mechuvanim [straight] me’shar le’shar, straight in an uninterrupted line from city gate to city gate. The poskim concur (Bais Yosef, 345:8; Prei Megadim, Aishel Avraham, 364: 2; Bais Ephraim, O.C. 26; Tiferes Yisroel, in his introduction to Meseches Shabbos; U’Bacharta B’Chiam, siman 123; Shoel U’Maishiv, 2:87; Yehuda Yaleh, O.C. siman 54; Mahari Slutsk, O.C. siman 11; Minchas Eliezer, 3:4; Mishna Berura, 345:20; see also Misnhas Rav Ahron, 6:2, where Rav Ahron Kotler zt”l states, that it’s accepted that for a street to be a reshus ha’rabbim it has to be mefulashim u’mechuvanim me’shar le’shar). While Rav Aharon does not agree with the aforementioned poskim (note that he was not included in the list of those who pasken as such) he admits that it was accepted that a street has to be mefulashim u’mechuvanim me’shar le’shar in order to be classified as a reshus harabbim. That’s all that was stated in the kuntres. Additionally, Rav Hirsch is mistaken; Rav Aharon never wrote a teshuvah regarding Manhattan (see Divrei Menachem, O.C. vol. 2, p. 16).
Page 5 comment 11:
“The requirement of [600,000 people traversing] “daily” is not in accordance with R’ Moshe’s own view. He was of the opinion that since the Poskim who stipulate the requirement of ששים רבוא, i.e. Rashi, Tosafos, Rosh, etc., do not mention “daily”, it is not a necessary condition. Even ששים רבוא over a few days a year would be enough. Even if there is not ששים רבוא at one time but as a sum total of the days’ traffic. But he concedes that, possibly, one may disagree with him and uphold a contrary position that would admit leniency on this point.This is incorrect. Rav Moshe zt”l maintains that according to the Shulchan Aruch’s shita, the requirement is daily (Igros Moshe, O.C. 1:139:5, 4:87-88, 5:28:16). Rav Moshe explained that the Shulchan Aruch is referring to a sratya which requires that the shishim ribo traverse it daily in order that it be classified as a reshus harabbim. This is as opposed to a city (a twelve mil by twelve mil area) where he posits that if there is a population of 3,000,000 it would support shishim ribo in its streets and then the city would be classified as a reshus harabbim. Additionally, Rav Hirsch’s statement that, “Even ששים רבוא over a few days a year would be enough,” is misleading since we can infer from these words that the shishim ribo can be tallied collectively over a few days when in fact Rav Moshe clearly maintains that the shishim ribo must be over one day. Rav Moshe just questioned (ibid., 4:88) if the requirement is every day of the year or would a single day suffice. More so, Rav Hirsch is misinterpreting this aforementioned teshuvah. In this teshuvah Rav Moshe concludes that "אך בזה כיון דבשו"ע כתב בדעת שיטה זו דצריך שיעברו ס' ריבוא בכל יום בסימן שמ"ה סעי' ז' יש אולי להקל." Nowhere did Rav Moshe mention that, “he concedes that, possibly, one may disagree with him and uphold a contrary position that would admit leniency on this point.” It’s the Shulchan Aruch’s leniency and therefore, Rav Moshe himself would agree that it’s possible to be lenient. More so, in the aforementioned teshuvos Rav Moshe states clearly (ibid., 1:139:5, 4:87, 5:28:16) that the requirement of shishim ribo is daily.
Page 5 comment 12:
“We have already mentioned R’ Ahron’s position (comment 10) that מכוון is not a necessary condition. R’ Moshe raised objections similar to R’ Ahron’s and arrived at the same conclusion. This is all explicitly stated in Iggeros Moshe (Orach Chaim 1:140).”This is incorrect, Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l maintains that mefulash u’mechuvanim m’shaar l’shaar is a criterion of a reshus harabbim; however, he is of the opinion that it’s only a condition of a walled city (Igros Moshe, O.C. 5:28:7, 1981). He posits that in the diglei hamidbar, the encampment was circumscribed by the ananei hakavod, which served as mechitzos. This is in contrast with Rav Aharon zt”l who maintained that mefulash u’mechuvanim is dependent solely on mechitzos and is not a criterion of a reshus harabbim. Actually, the teshuvah (ibid., 1:140, 1952) that Rav Hirsch cites is Rav Moshe’s first teshuvah regarding mefulash and there he states that he is not clear about the criterion of mefulash at all. Only in the aforementioned 1981 teshuvah (ibid., 5:28:7) does he clarify that he understands the criterion of mefulash u’mechuvanim as being dependent on a walled city. Rav Hirsch cites the earlier teshuvah which doesn’t mention a word about mefulash u’mechuvanim being conditional only of a walled city and fails to note the last teshuvah from vol. 8 (ibid., 5:28:7) where Rav moshe formulated his chiddush in mefulash probably because he questions the veracity of this volume.
Page 5 comment 13:
“That there are those who disagree with R’ Moshe is beside the point. What is important is that R’ Moshe disagreed with them! This means that even after knowing the מ"ב etc., R’ Moshe when considering New York City still upheld his own p’sak. Why shouldn’t we? Especially since halacha ke’basrai.”To begin with Rav Moshe zt”l in his teshuvah to the rabbanim of Flatbush (Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:87) didn’t want to issue a p’sak since he realized that the Achronim didn’t agree with him. So how could one demand of others that they must follow Rav Moshe’s p’sak. Furthermore, many rabbanim who allow an eruv today do not agree with Rav Moshe’s shitos in eruvin (e.g. Rav Yisroel Yaakov Fisher zt”l in Even Yisroel, 8:36; Rav Shmuel Wosner shlita in Shevet HaLevi, 6:41; and all the rabbanim that signed in support of the Boro Park eruv) so if the halacha is ke’basrai we can rely on these rabbanim. [Particularly since they all know Rav Moshe’s shitos; see Pischei Teshuvah, Choshen Mishpat siman 25.] Additionally, there is an overarching flaw in Rav Hirsch critique. The kuntres Eruvin in Brooklyn was organized into many sections, the first ones dedicated to the way most poskim pasken and the latter sections dedicated to the way Rav Moshe paskens. It’s clear from the kuntres that there are those who believe that Rav Moshe would allow an eruv in Brooklyn today. In fact Rav Tuvia Goldstein zt”l maintained that nowadays Rav Moshe would allow a Brooklyn eruv.
Page 5 comment 14:
“This information is incorrect. The approximate populations of Yerushalayim and Bnei Brak is in excess of 650,000 and 200,000 respectively (although unverified).”If Rav Hirsch admits that Yerushalayim’s population is greater than shishim ribo then, according to those who claim that shishim ribo is conditional on a city and not a street, why are they allowed to establish eruvin there? Additionally, the kuntres is talking about, “Bnai Brak and all its connected neighborhoods,” the Gush Dan where the population is well over a million people.
Page 5 comment 15:
“This is untrue. R’ Moshe never said that they “could do as they saw fit”. In fact, he was dissatisfied and unhappy about the whole idea. What he did say was that, since his position was not mentioned by the early achronim and was contrary to the Aruch Ha’Shulchan, that he could not give forth a “definite opinion” on the matter. Meaning that he would not come out against them.”Nowhere in Rav Moshe zt”l’s words do we see that, “he was dissatisfied and unhappy about the whole idea.” On the contrary Rav Moshe clearly stated that he didn’t want to be involved with the issue of Brooklyn eruvin at all (Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:87). Therefore, this is pure conjecture on Rav Hirsch’s part. More so, Rav Moshe zt”l told Rav Tuvia Goldstein zt”l ― after the 1979 kol korei was published ― that, not withstanding his opinion of the matter, if the rabbanim of Flatbush wanted to erect an eruv they could do as they saw fit. It’s important to note as well that Rav Hirsch would have to admit that Rav Moshe couldn’t have signed the 1979 Flatbush kol korei since Rav Hirsch admits that what Rav Moshe meant when addressing the rabbanim of Flatbush was that, “he would not come out against them.”
Posted 5 years ago # -
Rav Hirsch continues:
Page 5 comment 16:
“R’ Moshe (Iggeros Moshe, Orach Chaim 3:94, 5:19) was not discussing the laws of eruvin and made mention of ששים רבוא only as it was tangentially pertinent. He therefore did not see a need to clarify its intricacies."Rav Moshe zt”l permitted a blind women who resided in Boro Park to use a walking stick on Shabbos because today we rely on the fact that there is almost no true reshus harabbim (Kovetz Am HaTorah, 1986 no. 11). Rav Moshe objected to an eruv in Brooklyn because he maintained that Brooklyn is a reshus harabbim but from this teshuvah we see that he maintained conclusively that Boro Park is not a reshus harabbim. Therefore, there is no reason why an eruv can’t be established.
Page 6 comment 18:
"I am unaware of the circumstances which surrounded the eruv in Paris. But the information provided herein proves, ostensibly, that the authors of this work are not better informed. No meaningful point can be extrapolated from this case until all its specifics are revealed."There are many significant points that can be garnered from this Achiezer (4:8). The Achiezer clearly states that the situation in Paris was that there was more then shishim ribo traversing it’s streets (1936, population 2,829,746; Encyclopedia Britannica, 1968 vol. 17 p. 355). However, since there was mechitzos encompassing the city an eruv could be established. On the other hand there were many pirtzos in these mechitzos and some were even ten amos. The Achiezer then goes on to declare emphatically that we pasken lo asu rabbim and that pirtzos esser is only d’rabbanan. The situation in Brookyn is no different then Paris and the Achiezer would allow an eruv in Brooklyn as well.
Page 6 comment 20:
"There are no detractors of eruvin – a rabbinic precept promulgated by the court of Shlomo Ha’Melech. There are only those – as in this case – who feel that many cities do not meet the necessary conditions within which the construction of an eruv would be plausible."Unfortunately there are detractors of eruvin. There are those who claim that an eruv negatively impacts the sanctity of the Shabbos by encouraging unbecoming behavior. These statements are in fact blanket statements against all eruvin and are proof that the anti-eruv campaign would like to uproot eruvin the world over. These arguments can be used against eruvin in both large and small cities and even eruvin in bungalow colonies, not just an eruv in Brooklyn. More so, why are there so many lies spread regarding eruvin ― such as the claim that Rav Henkin zt”l signed on the 1962 Manhattan kol korei or the fact that when they published vol. 8 of Igros Moshe they omitted the place of residence Boro Park ― if not that there are people who don’t believe in eruvin.
Page 6 comment 21:
"[What is stated in the kuntres that Rav Moshe zt”l maintained that a city requires five times shishim ribo] is inaccurate."Rav Hirsch is incorrect (see above).
Page 6 comment 22:
"[What is stated in the kuntres that Rav Moshe zt”l maintained that 12 mil by 12 mil is approximately 8.5 by 8.5 miles] is inaccurate."Actually, Rav Moshe zt”l’s shiur for a amah was anywhere from 21 ¼ to 23 inches so 12 mil could be either more or less than 8.5 miles (Igros Moshe, O.C. 1:136).
Page 6 comment 23:
"[What is stated in the kuntres that Rav Moshe zt”l was led to believe that a million people come into the borough to work] is inaccurate."Rav Hirsch is incorrect. Rav Moshe zt”l states clearly (see the end of Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:88) that Brooklyn’s population is a little less then 3,000,000 and that together with the nearly one million people who come into the city to work, Brooklyn is definitely a reshus harabbim. Actually, Rav Moshe was misled; there is nowhere near one million people who work in Brooklyn. The approximate number according to NYC statistics is 236,000 people (NYC Department of City Planning, Table CTPP P-6, P-7, 2003).
Page 6 comment 24:
“R’ Moshe lived for 90 years and published 5 volumes of responsa without giving any (written) number for what would constitute ששים רבוא. It wasn’t until his very last volume of responsa that he suggested a general, but not absolute, number. The reason for this was simple. The determination of a mobile ששים רבוא is the product of an educated estimate, subject to fluctuating contingencies. What needs to be determined is: how many people must reside in a city for the human traffic to be 600,000? There is no fixed number! It depends on demographics, climate, the health of the inhabitants, and other factors. Even before giving a general numerical range, R’ Moshe says this explicitly: “It would seem as probable that not all cities are equal in this matter” (Iggeros Moshe, Orach Chaim 4:87). However, in that very responsum, he does formulates the ratio of inhabitants to traffic as 4:1 or 5:1. This translates precisely to 2,400,000-3,000,000….”If one were to study all of Rav Moshe zt”l’s teshuvos where he discuses his chiddush in shishim ribo he will see that it evolved incrementally. Therefore, if Rav Hirsch admits that Rav Moshe in the end does formulate a general ratio for shishim ribo, why didn’t Rav Hirsch mentioned the last two teshuvos (Igros Moshe, O.C. 5:28:5, 5:29) where Rav Moshe clearly codified his chiddush in shishim ribo that the requirement is 3,000,000 people? Additionally, Rav Dovid Feinstein shlita would not agree with Rav Hirsch. Rav Dovid maintained that his father’s shita in shishim ribo was that it necessitated a population of 3,000,000 (West Rogers Park Eruv, 1993 p. 23) and therefore Rav Dovid allowed an eruv in Chicago.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Rav Hirsch continues:
Page 7 comment 25:
"No one is making a gezeira! For that, a Sanhedrin or the like is necessary. R’ Moshe had a concern, which he felt was talmudically sanctioned, that precluded the construction of an eruv in any mega-metropolis. The concern was based on the conceived perception of the unsuspecting and unlearned individual who resided outside the jurisdiction of the would-be eruv. It had nothing to do with the eruv itself! On the last point I would like to say the following: Reb Dovid Feinstein’s name is mentioned in this booklet a few times. But, all that is quoted in his name is anecdotal and must therefore be discounted. I would, however, ask this of those who see him as support for their cause: If what you are saying of Reb Dovid Feinstein is true, then surely he must be an ardent supporter of the eruv in Brooklyn? But to the best of my knowledge only the contrary is true."Rav Moshe zt"l writes (Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:88) that we find that Chazal enacted gezeiros not to establish eruvin (he wrote this in regards to his opinion about not erecting eruvin in large communities with fewer than 3,000,000 people, since some might think that there is shishim ribo therein). It’s surprising that Rav Hirsch would fail to notice that Rav Moshe himself considered this matter a gezeira.
Nowhere is it stated in Eruvin in Brooklyn that Rav Dovid shlita supports an eruv there. However as Rav Hirsch states (see comment 4) “Different aspects of any argument may be accepted or rejected, without having to accept the entire thesis … one may find one point valid and the other not.” Therefore, we can accept parts of Rav Dovid’s argument’s such as his claim that his father’s shita is that the area requires 3,000,000 and we don’t have to agree with his conclusion. Unfortunately, since there are political (as well as halachic) considerations involved, statements made regarding a different city are more credible than statements made regarding Brooklyn. Since Rav Dovid maintained -- according to his reading of his father’s teshuvos -- that an eruv can be established in Chicago, since the population is less then 3,000,000, therefore by extension an eruv can be erected in Brooklyn as well.
Page 7 comment 26:
"Because Queens is mentioned in this booklet a number of times but is never accurately portrayed, it is worthwhile to set the record straight. Queens is both larger in size and smaller in population than Brooklyn – much smaller. Its population current to the time of the responsum (1974) was 1.9 million, making the number of people living in Brooklyn in excess of those living in Queens greater than the entire population of both Boston (589,141) and Denver (554,600). Queens was the last borough of New York City to be developed, hence the many cemeteries and park, e.g. Shea Stadium, Arthur Ash, etc. It is the most spacious of the boroughs. More importantly, Queens was incorporated into the city not as a whole unit, but as a set of disparate neighborhoods that was then absorbed. As a popular travel guide (2004 ed.) put it: “ a vestige to the borough’s past as a collection of unincorporated villages.” This also explains the open spaces between different neighborhoods, a phenomenon found nowhere else in New York City. This alone was the decisive factor upon which R’ Moshe permitted the Kew Gardens (Hills) eruv, as stated in his 1974 teshuvah to R’ Peretz Steinberg. None of this has any relevance to Brooklyn."The only decisive fact that Rav Moshe zt”l states regarding Kew Gardens Hills is that it was a small neighborhood in Queens (Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:86 and Addendum to O.C. 4:89). Rav Moshe never claimed that Kew Gardens was a separate entity and it’s a wonder that Rav Hirsch would assert otherwise. This claim regarding the evolution of Queens into a borough of NYC is totally irrelevant and was concocted as an excuse after the fact. There is no trace of it in any teshuvah from Rav Moshe. Additionally, Queens today has over 2.2 million residents and Brooklyn in the 1990’s had approximately the same number. Why was an eruv not allowed in Brooklyn then? More so, why didn’t Rav Moshe object to an eruv in Queens because some, “unsuspecting and unlearned individual who resided outside the jurisdiction of the would-be eruv (see comment 25),” would think that there is shishim ribo therein? It’s important to note that, Rav Moshe wanted to enact this gezeira in Detroit proper (ibid., 5:29) with a population of approximately 1.2 million, which is much less than Queens! The only satisfactory answer is that Rav Moshe allowed an eruv in Kew Gardens Hills since the tzuras hapesachim demarcated a small part of Queens from the rest of the borough. Therefore, there is no reason, according to Rav Moshe, not to allow an eruv of tzuras hapesachim to separate a section of Brooklyn such as Flatbush from the rest of the borough.
Page 8 comment 27:
"This is bona-fide nonsense! New York City is comprised of close to 100 neighborhoods; Brooklyn, of nearly a score. Red Hook, Sunset Park, Bergen Beach, Bay Ridge, Carol Hills, Dyker Heights to mention a few Brooklyn neighborhoods. Boro Park is one small part of one borough out of five, which comprises New York City. No marginally informed semi-educated individual would entertain the notion that, between the two neighborhoods of Boro Park and Flatbush, six million out of eight million New York City inhabitants reside. Certainaly not a man as sagacious and responsible as R’ Moshe. All that R’ Moshe meant was that Flatbush/Boro Park are neighborhoods whose halachic identity extends beyond their geographic borders, encompassing the entire Brooklyn, as concerns the numerical reckoning for 600,000."As can be ascertained from the above, Rav Hirsch doesn’t have a better explanation for Rav Moshe zt”l’s statements that both Boro Park and Flatbush contain a population of greater than shishim ribo. Rav Moshe states clearly that both Boro Park and Flatbush encompass an area less than twelve mil by twelve mil and nevertheless they contain more than shishim ribo (see Does the Eruv Encompass Shishim Ribo). On the other hand, Rav Moshe states that Brooklyn includes an area of more than twelve mil by twelve mil (Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:87-88). Consequently, these teshuvos must indicate that each neighborhood independently has shishim ribo and not just the whole of Brooklyn. Therefore, Rav Hirsch’s claim that, “ All that R’ Moshe meant was that Flatbush/Boro Park are neighborhoods whose halachic identity extends beyond their geographic borders, encompassing the entire Brooklyn, as concerns the numerical reckoning for 600,000,” is totally erroneous since Rav Moshe stated that each neighborhood on its own contains shishim ribo.
Page 8 comment 28-30:
Has already been discussed in comment 24-26.Page 8 comment 31:
"If it is obvious that there is no platya in Brooklyn, then R’ Moshe’s raising of the issue was pointless. He was just outright wrong! This is the fifth or sixth time that this work, although claiming to explain R’ Moshe’s shitah, instead discounts it as erroneous. However, in truth there are many platyos all over New York City. Union Square in Manhattan and Fulton Mall in Brooklyn Heights are two examples. As to the assertion that the Shulchan Aruch and the Achronim have not accepted this shitah, that unfortunately, is untrue. This shitah is none other than the Rashba’s shitah – and none of the Rishonim disagree. Had the writers of this work been familiar with the Nishmas Adam (49:2), they would not have mistakenly penned these few lines. In general, I think they have not fully understood the concept of platya."Nowhere is it stated in Eruvin in Brooklyn that Rav Moshe zt”l is c”v wrong, only that he was misled regarding certain facts. Does Rav Hirsch offer a better explanation why Rav Moshe stated that there are over a million people who come into Brooklyn to work or that both Boro Park and Flatbush contain a population of more than 3,000,000 or that until then (1981) Brooklyn was not encompassed by mechitzos? We have yet to see better answers!!
While this critique is not the place for a full analysis of the shitas HaRashba, we will just cite a few sources that will prove that Rav Hirsch is incorrect. There are some Rishonim who undoubtedly do not agree with the Rashba: Ran, Shabbos 6a; Ramban in Milchamos 6a, and Sefer Habattim, Sha’arei Issur Hotza’a 1:15 (see Kaf HaChaim, 345:35). These are some of the Achronim who clearly state that we don’t pasken like the Rashba: Ma’asas Binyomin, siman 92; She’eilas Yaavetz, siman 7; Ginas Veradim, 3:22; Mayim Rabim, siman 38; Birkei Yosef, 345:1; Bais Ephraim, siman 26; Bais Shlomo, siman 51; Tzemach Tzedek, Shabbos 6a; Maharsham, 1:162; Yeshuos Malko, siman 21, and Kaf HaChaim, 345:35. More so, the Achronim maintain that there is no real platya today either because our cities don’t have a central marketplace (Aruch HaShulchan, 345:22) or because our stores are indoors (Bais Av, 6:2). Consequently, even the Fulton Mall would not be classified as a platya. Additionally, even if there is a platya in Brooklyn, it is only prohibited to carry in the platya itself and not in the rest of the borough since we are excluding any platya in the tzuras hapesachim encompassing our neighborhood (Meiri, Shabbos 6a and Sefer Habattim, Sha’arei Issur Hotza’a 1:15).
Page 9 comment 32:
“It is true that such an opinion is maintained by many poskim [that pirtzos esser is d’rabbanan]. But it is far from unanimous. R’ Ahron devotes much space in his קונטרס to proving the veracity of the contrary position. Therefore, a primary concern of those who oppose the eruv was that Brooklyn remained a רה"ר since the pirtzos in its mechitzos were larger than 10 (or 16) amos.”Our list proves that it is as close to unanimous as it gets. The overwhelming majority of poskim including Rav Moshe zt”l maintain that pirtzos esser is d’rabbanan. It is unjustifiable to compel others to go against the accepted halacha pesuka that pirtzos esser is d’rabbanan. Rav Aharon zt”l and the Mishkenos Yaakov are just about the only poskim who maintain that pirtzos esser is d’Oraysa. (Brooklyn has the added benefit that since our mechitzos are at the waterfront, even Rav Aharon would admit that they are sufficient since there is no rabbim traversing them.) Additionally, Rav Hirsch is mistaken. 16 amos is a shiur reshus harabbim not a shiur pirtzah and even the Mishkenos Yaakov admits as such (Mishkenos Yaakov, O.C. 122 p. 144-45).
Page 9 comment 33:
Has already been discussed in comment 15.Page 9 comment 34:
“All that is stated in this paragraph [that Rav Moshe agrees that there is almost no true reshus harabbim today] and the following one is meaningless. R’ Moshe was not matir [using a cane on Shabbos]; rather, he felt that it should be assur but conceded that today it is generally done. He agreed to leave that practice because “generally” there is no רה"ר.”Rav Moshe zt”l’s final p’sak regarding using a walking stick on Shabbos is not the issue here at all. The issue is that Rav Moshe stated in three teshuvos (Igros Moshe, O.C. 3:94, 5:19, 5:24:10) that there is no reshus harabbim today and the distinction the anti-eruv group has always asserted is that Rav Moshe wasn’t referring to Brooklyn since he has stated that Brooklyn is a reshus harabbim. However, now that we know that one of these three teshuvos is referring to Boro Park (ibid., 5:24:10) there is no other explanation but that he agreed that the minhag is not like his shita in eruvin. The fact that they omitted from Rav Moshe’s teshuvos this important detail (Boro Park) is proof that there were some shenanigans within teshuvos Igros Moshe, particularly when it concerned eruvin.
Page 9 comment 35:
“This assertion [that Rav Moshe’s statement that no posek would allow an eruv in Brooklyn because Brooklyn, unlike Manhattan, wasn’t surrounded by mechitzos doesn’t pertain to us today since we have established that Brooklyn is encircled by mechitzos] is incomprehensible! R’ Moshe definitely states: “regardless of all the improvements that certain rabbis have or will implement.” The language could not be clearer that the matter is closed for discussion.”Rav Hirsch is conflating Manhattan and Brooklyn. Nowhere did Rav Moshe zt”l state regarding a Brooklyn eruv that “regardless of all the improvements that certain rabbis have or will implement,” an eruv cannot be erected. Only in Manhattan did Rav Moshe sign on to the takanah of 1962. The inclusion of Brooklyn in the Manhattan issur is an invention of the 1979 Flatbush kol korei. [Regarding the Manhattan eruv, Rav Moshe agreed that the rabbanan can do as they please (Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:89 and HaPardes, 33rd year, vol. 9) but then signed on the 1962 takanah against an eruv. However, Rav Moshe stated (Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:86 and Addendum to O.C. 4:89) that he had signed against the Manhattan eruv because Rav Aharon Kotler zt"l and other members of the Agudas HaRabbonim had enacted a takanah against establishing an eruv in Manhattan.] In any case, Rav Hirsch would have to admit that this is either a gezeirah or a takanah and unless this is hora'as sha’ah, only a Sanhedrin has a right to implement this gezeirah forever or as Rav Moshe states that rabbanim may only enact a takanah for their particular locale and only for a short period of time (ibid., 4:49).
Page 9 comment 36:
“With this suggestion, the apex of absurdity has been achieved. R’ Moshe was alive and well when he published this addendum as a portion of his sefer in 1982. He never had a problem with it. No one had a problem with it. R’ Schwab considered it authentic, for he cites it authoritatively. I understand that the writers of this booklet have a big problem with it. But wishing it out of existence only exposes the great desperation that is driving their whole enterprise.”It is a well known fact that Igros Moshe vol. 7 and 8 have been tampered with, and since there is no addendum in any other volume of Igros Moshe, there is no reason to believe the veracity of an addendum even in vol. 6. It’s no secret that Rav Moshe zt”l was surrounded by people who were vehemently against establishing an eruv in Brooklyn and who didn’t allow anyone supportive of an eruv to approach Rav Moshe. Additionally, there are questions regarding this addendum: To whom and when was it written? Rav Moshe admits therein that regarding a Manhattan eruv one can disagree with his chiddushim pertaining to shishim ribo so why can’t one disagree with him regarding shishim ribo in Brooklyn? Why did they insert it as an addendum and not wait for the next volume of Igros Moshe to be published since this was the practice with all of Rav Moshe’s teshuvos (by 1982 there was no rush to publish this teshuvah since the issue of the eruv had already ended)? All of this strongly suggests that this addendum is not from Rav Moshe’s hand.
Additionally, Rav Hirsch is mistaken that Rav Schwab zt”l quoted this addendum. Rav Schwab was discussing the Manhattan eruv and therefore he quoted the 1979 Flatbush kol korei since it contained the text of the 1962 Manhattan kol korei (this indicates that Rav Schwab didn’t have the 1962 Manhattan kol korei). The 1979 Flatbush kol korei was published prior to this addendum (Igros Moshe vol. 6, 1982) which makes it impossible for Rav Schwab to be referring to this addendum.
Page 9 comment 37:
“R’ Schwab (Maayan Beis Ha’shoeva, Va’yakhel) lists R’ Henkin as a signatory in opposition to the eruv (Manhattan). I trust R’ Schwab.”The fact that Rav Schwab zt”l mentioned the 1979 kol korei in Maayan Bais HaSho’eivah does not attest to the validity of the claim that Rav Henkin zt"l signed on the 1962 Manhattan kol korei. He was just quoting the text of the kol korei (since, as stated above, Rav Schwab most probably didn’t have a copy of the 1962 Manhattan kol korei) and not affirming every word stated therein. In any case, the 1962 kol korei is extant and there is no signature of Rav Henkin to be found. We also know from Rav Henkin’s letters (Kisvei Hagriah Henkin, p. 33) and from family members that Rav Henkin was even in support of a Manhattan (and Brooklyn) eruv. Therefore, even if Rav Schwab did mentioned the 1979 Flatbush kol korei and he was attesting to the legitimacy of the text of the kol korei, he could only maintain that he was under the impression that Rav Henkin was against an eruv but not that Rav Henkin signed the kol korei since there is no signature to be found.
Page 10 comment 38:
“I do agree that a kol korah by itself carries little weight. It is what is behind the kol korah that is important. In this case, it is public knowledge that R’ Moshe was against any eruv for Brooklyn or Manhattan.”Rav Hirsch deserves credit for admitting that kol koreis carry little weight. However, it’s surprising that he believes “public knowledge” (which in the case of eruvin is based on kol koreis since it seems that even the rabbanim ha’ossrim are not very familiar with Rav Moshe zt"l's teshuvos regarding eruvin since they only quote these kol koreis) carries more weight then a kol korei. Even more so, there is a teshuvah that contradicts this so called “public knowledge.” Rav Moshe clearly writes (Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:87) that he doesn’t want to mix in to the matter of eruvin in Flatbush at all, so why would he sign such a strident kol korei? Additionally, Rav Moshe told Rav Tuvia Goldstein zt”l that the Flatbush rabbanim can do as they please. Therefore, this so called, “public knowledge,” should carry very little weight as well.
Page 10 comment 39:
“The obvious difference is that in seeking to establish an eruv, one takes a position which is contrary to the status quo, whereas the cases cited, e.g. shavers, uphold the status quo. However, in no circumstance should physical harassment or verbal abuse be condoned.”The status quo was not against erecting eruvin. On the contrary, there was an eruv established in 1905 in Manhattan and in Brooklyn people erected street eruvin for Succos prior to 1979. (Who upholds the status quo regarding modern shavers? Public knowledge, kol koreis?) Therefore, the kuntres made a valid point that there are other d’Oraysas, such as shaving, where no one is mocheh, and why should eruvin be any different? Rav Hirsch should be commended though for not condoning the anti-eruv campaign of verbally abusing people whom utilize the eruv.
Page 10 comment 40:
“This is a grossly inaccurate presentation of R’ Schwab’s views. He expressly states that no part of Manhattan, Brooklyn/Flatbush can affect the construction of an eruv. The oblique reference here cited is to all cities in which the implementation of an eruv would be possible!”Rav Hirsch is incorrect. Rav Schwab zt”l posited (Maayan Beis HaSho’eivah, pp. 232, 234) that hopefully the future generations would be strong in Torah and at that point, with great joy, everyone would take part in erecting eruvin in Manhattan and in all cities. If one were to read Rav Schwab’s writing’s regarding eruvin, they would see that his main objection to eruvin was because of the lack of Torah observance. To claim that at this point in time this is still an issue shows a lack of understanding of Orthodox Jewish history in America.
Posted 5 years ago # -
If anyone is actually reading these voluminous pasted posts, please let me know otherwise we'll go back to actual posts by human beings, or close the thread if no one is still interested.
Posted 5 years ago # -
I'm interested in the thread... just not in reading large posts. :)
The Wolf
Posted 5 years ago # -
This thread is proof of one of the reasons I have heard given for not constructing this eruv - there is so much controversy around the issue that building it and some recognizing it, while others not, does not increase Ahavat Yisroel, but in fact undermines it, puts a stumbling block in front of the blind concerning lashon hora, and encourages dissention among Klal Yisroel inevitably causing disrespect to some gedolim.
Posted 5 years ago # -
aryeh3 - I don’t understand? Are you arguing that those who maintain that an eruv is a mitzvah and a chiyuv should not erect one because some people feel that they have to fight its establishment? It is not the rabbanim who are at fault only those askanim who maintain that they have to take matters into their own hands. Everyone should just follow their rav and shalom al Yisroel.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Actually these long posts by David are quite interesting. David's information is precise, and he obviously is very knowledgeable in the issues. Keep them coming.OK
EDITED
Posted 5 years ago # -
YW Moderator-80-
My own cut-and-paste job can be deleted since the original is available on the .pdf whose URL you allowed. This will also save me a little time tonight so I don't have to cut, paste and format again :)
"david1999"s posts include the original point and his comments, and are therefore more useful (as "sammygol" said).
I would suggest the use of italics and bold-facing in his posts to make it easier to tell who is saying what.
I'd also suggest possibly breaking them up (if possible) into several shorter posts."aryeh3"'s point is valid that care must be exercised to not be disrespectful, but it is certainly possible to have this machlokes in a perfectly OK manner.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Okay ICOT. Do you think you can teach David how to do italics? I don't think any moderator is going to take the time to do it for him.
Posted 5 years ago # -
I read them.
ICOT: one point regarding the Belt Pkwy: I was told that R' Moshe held that people in cars don't count towards the 600,000, as a car is considered an ohel, and the person is considered indoors. On the Belt, you can't count 1 in 5 as being outdoors. R' Ovadiah Yosef disagrees with him on this, and says people in cars do count towards the 600,000.
Just to note, I am against the eruv, I'm just pointing something out.Posted 5 years ago # -
OK
<em>Anything between the opening and closing "em" tags will be italicised.</em>
Anything between the opening and closing "em" tags will be italicised.<strong>Anything between the opening and closing "strong" tags will be bolded.</strong>
Anything between the opening and closing "strong" tags will be bolded.<em><strong>Anything between the opening and closing "em" and "strong" tags will be bolded and italicised.</strong></em>
Anything between the opening and closing "em" and "strong" tags will be bolded and italicised.Posted 5 years ago # -
"Are you arguing that those who maintain that an eruv is a mitzvah and a chiyuv should not erect one because some people feel that they have to fight its establishment?
The level of controversy concerning this erev is unique. I don't it is productive to extrapolate and try to establish a precedent for ALL eruvim.
Posted 5 years ago # -
I can only try:
1) The mechitzos encompassing Brooklyn at the waterfront have very few people traversing through them at all. The Belt is included in the mechitzos and at times has their own gates. Therefore, its traffic is irrelevant. In any case, there is no shishim ribo traversing the Belt even if you do include the occupants of the vehicles. It’is not mefulash as well.
2) Where the Belt abuts the water the seawalls are clearly above ground (otherwise there would be flooding).
3) Drive around the perimeter of Brooklyn most of the waterfront is gated (we can use Seagate’s fences as well).Posted 5 years ago # -
"That Sefer" that is being referenced. Is it "Al Mitzvas Eruv"?
Posted 5 years ago # -
Feif Un – No, Rav Moshe zt”l clearly maintained that you do include the occupants of vehicles in the tally of shishim ribo (see the end of Igros Moshe, O.C. 1:139). It is important to note that the overwhelming majority of poskim do not include occupants of vehicles in the tally.
Posted 5 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
RSS