Richmond Braun,
“Well, there actually wasn’t. It’s just that the metzius was actually kosher to begin with but Rav Moshe worked with a superimposed one.”
As Rav Blumenkrantz mentioned to me, in 2000, that when he established an eruv for FR he asked RMF his rebbe, if he can do so. RMF said of course. When he announced that the eruv was a fact, he received a phone call from the rav who was the one who fed RMF all the information regarding the facts on the ground in Brooklyn. This Rav asked Rav Blumenkrantz who gave him permission to establish an eruv. RB answered that he is a rav and he issues hechsherim on many items, so why should eruvin be different. This rav then argued that eruvin is different and he needs a consensus. RB ran back to his rebbe and asked for his approval in writing. To which, RMF answered, that he cannot give a written statement, as this rav will start to scream, and he does not have the koach to argue.
It is absurd that people argue that the metzius is irrelevant, because RMF issued a psak. A teshuvah is written to demonstrate the underlying reasoning of the psak. Absent of correct metzius the teshuvah cannot be used as a argument either way.
Menu