- This topic has 436 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 4 months, 1 week ago by .
-
Posts
-
n0mesorah,
“He had a good reason to be vague. The exact number isn’t an issue according to Rav Moshe’s shitta. You didn’t answer why this wasn’t cleared up with Rav Dovid.”
He admitted in Chicago and LA that the number is 3 million. According to Rav Moshe’s last two teshuvos anything less is a gezeira. I believe that Rav Dovid was trying to answer for the incorrect facts that Rav Moshe was mislead about. However, it is irrelevant, we all have a right to learn his fathers teshuvos, and judge for ourselves. I don’t have to clarify it even with his son, he wrote it clearly. There is no oral Torah. I simply do not believe anything that contradicts his teshuvos, no matter who says it. Flatbush and its environs does not exist in Rav Moshe’s teshuvos, period.n0mesorah,
“This post of yours is what confuses me.
YOU ““Rav Moshe disagreed regarding their halachic concerns, because there were city’s that established eruvin whose population was greater than 600,000 (but he had his own reason to oppose).””
ME “And therefore? Rav Moshe’s teshuvos lay out his reasoning. I don’t know what is missing here.”
YOU I am referring to the fact that these gedolim on the Manhattan kk could not have opposed the eruv for the same reason as Rav Moshe. His opposition was almost exclusive to Manhattan (and later on Brooklyn). However, the others signors seemed to be opposing any eruv in a city containing shishim ribo. Or according to Rav Aharon all city eruvin past a present.
End of your post, Now me again.
So I am left very befuddled how you just do away Rav Moshe with a claim of misinformation. (Which nobody managed to get Reb Dovid to recant.) Rav Moshe goes through all the reasons why Manhattan as a reshus harrabim would be problematic. He offers alternatives why it could be permitted. His result is not to rely on these permissions. And that leaves us – very clearly – that Rav Moshe held the eiruv is not good enough. You can disagree with Rav Moshe. But what do you mean that it is permitted according to Rav Moshe, when he himself concluded not to use these permissions?
Are you claiming that Rav Moshe does not agree with his own interpretation of reshus harrabim according to the SA? Because the entire teshuva is a straight line. Nowhere does Rav Moshe write that we should count the exact population. Just because Rav Moshe disagreed with the machmirim, it doesn’t mean that he disagreed with Rav Moshe.””
You are truly befuddled. I never spoke about Rav Moshe allowing in Manhattan (even though there is what to talk about). When I say that he would allow in Brooklyn I am referring to if he had the correct information. [Again, I only wrote that he would allow according to his teshuvos. I can’t say that he would have actually agreed, prior to him making some additional clarifications to his chiddushim.]
Rav Moshe never offered reasons to allow, he only declared that the rabbanim do not have to follow his chiddushim in Manhattan. Stop making statements that are simply incorrect.
No the population is integral to his chiddushim in Brooklyn. In Manhattan the population was ancillary (because of the mechitzos), and hence, he never gave an exact figure that would be required according to his chiddushim. You did not even know that he mentioned 3 million. Otherwise it is a gezeira (and obviously not a matter of d’Oraysa). Rav Moshe’s chiddushim were a work in progress. I don’t need anyone’s interpretation of Rav Moshe’s teshuvos, they are very explicit.“Other than the misinformation claim, which I think is the wrong way to read Rav Moshe’s teshuvos – there doesn’t seem to be any way to claim that Rav Moshe permitted an eiruv in Brooklyn.”
As can be discerned from the entire back and forth, you simply do not know his teshuvos. So please do not pontificate if this is the correct way to read Rav Moshe’s teshuvos. I gave three examples where I prove that Rav Moshe was mislead, and you just disagree without providing any substantial arguments. Just stop this am haraatzus nariskeit.Conservative came out and said that Halacha is purely a product of what is accepted by yidden so therefore….. Some parts of Orthodoxy, especially the Left Wing of Orthodoxy has been struggling for a response ever since.
I don’t know how you lump everyone who disagrees with you on eiruvin in one group. Those that are inclined to assur all eruvin are obviously not coming from Rav Moshe. Are you implying that Rav Moshe was the only yeshivishe gadol that knew eruvin?
I don’t know how you got that disagreeing with the Magen Avraham’s interpretation of mefulash is mechudash.
על מבוכה זו דנו הרבה
My mistake. I was thinking Agudas Harrabinim.
I should have reread my own post.😉
Same question. Was Reb Tuvia a member?
Let me misquote you.
“There is no oral Torah. I simply do not believe”
Wait. So Rav Dovid Feinstien is not enough of an opinion to have to clarify his very public intentions, but you feel compelled to defend the mattirim that claim Rav Moshe agrees with them?
“Rav Moshe never offered reasons to allow”
Black on white, a large part of his teshuva. Otherwise he would have felt compelled to stop them. And he would have considered the eruv to be Chillul Shabbos.
n0mesorah,
“I don’t know how you got that disagreeing with the Magen Avraham’s interpretation of mefulash is mechudash.”
The Magen Avraham (345:6; based on the Bais Yoseph) and most poskim (Olas Shabbos, Tosfos Shabbos, Elya Rabbah, Prei Megadim, Shulchan Aruch Harav, Mishnah Berurah, and Aruch Hashulchan) assert that mefulash m’shaar l’shaar infers mefulash u’mechavanim m’shaar l’shaar, meaning runs straight from gateway to gateway. Therefore, since all Rishonim (and Achronim) maintain that mefulash is a fundament of a reshus harabbim even in a city that is not walled (e.g. Rashi, Eruvin, 59a; Ravyah, Eruvin, siman 379; Rokeach, siman 175; Rid, Piskei, Sukkah 43a, and the majority of Rishonim who mention the criterion of mefulash without the qualifier of city walls), and the Gedolie Haposkim uphold that mefulash infers mechavanim, hence, all city streets would need to be mefulash u’mechavanim m’shaar l’shaar to be classified as a reshus harabbim, irrespective if the city is walled or not.
This is contrary to Rav Moshe and Rav Aharon, who maintained that mefulash is a criterion of a reshus harabbim, but mechuvanim only applies to a walled city. Furthermore, the SA is referring to a walled marketplace. Hence from the SA we only see that a platya may need to be walled to fulfill the criterion of mefulash umechavanim. Mavo’os hamefulashim, which our streets on the whole are classified as, no doubt would need to be mefulash and mechavanim, walled or unwalled.
[The Shulchan Aruch in 345:7 uses the words rechovos and shevakim, which, according to most poskim, are just alternative labels for marketplaces (see Metzudos Tzion, Shir Hashirim 3:2; Mayim Rabim, siman 38, and Bais Ephraim, siman 26 p. 44b). The Magen Avraham indicates on the word rechovos (345:5) that sratyas are included in these halachos set forth by the Shulchan Aruch. In 345:8-9 the Shulchan Aruch deals with mavo’os hamefulashim.]Are your three examples – that Rav Moshe was misled; 3M, 12×12, and mechitzos.
n0mesorah,
“I don’t know how you lump everyone who disagrees with you on eiruvin in one group. Those that are inclined to assur all eruvin are obviously not coming from Rav Moshe. Are you implying that Rav Moshe was the only yeshivishe gadol that knew eruvin?”
Never said that. There are people who make meta halachic arguments without realizing that these arguments would do away with all eruvin (such as tznius inyanim). This is apikorses. Those Yeshivalite who make arguments that would do away with city eruvin are going against minhag and the mitzvah of shtufei mavaos. I am not lumping them together. Sure there were RY who new eruvin, but not many knew hilchos eruvin. Rav Moshe knew kol haTorah, and was very unique. However, he really was very mechudash in eruvin, but the Yeshivah velt in their ignoramity believed his shitos to be normative halacaha.I don’t understand what you gain by repeating that Rav Moshe was mechudash. You were trying to argue that the Brooklyn Eruv is valid even according to Rav Moshe’s opinion. Then it doesn’t come in to play if he or you termed his opinion mechudash.
n0mesorah,
“Let me misquote you.”
“There is no oral Torah. I simply do not believe”
“Wait. So Rav Dovid Feinstien is not enough of an opinion to have to clarify his very public intentions, but you feel compelled to defend the mattirim that claim Rav Moshe agrees with them?”
I do not have to defend the teshuvos. It is black and white what I am saying. Rav Dovid said his own sevarah. There is no other explanation, and at the least is being inconsistent.n0mesorah,
““Rav Moshe never offered reasons to allow””
“Black on white, a large part of his teshuva. Otherwise he would have felt compelled to stop them. And he would have considered the eruv to be Chillul Shabbos.”
No, Rav Moshe only admitted that the Aruch Hashulchan and the poskim would not agree with him. That is why he did not issue a psak din barrur.n0mesorah,
“Are your three examples – that Rav Moshe was misled; 3M, 12×12, and mechitzos.”
Not 12×12. BP and Flatbush contain a population greater than shishim ribo.n0mesorah,
“I don’t understand what you gain by repeating that Rav Moshe was mechudash. You were trying to argue that the Brooklyn Eruv is valid even according to Rav Moshe’s opinion. Then it doesn’t come in to play if he or you termed his opinion mechudash.”
The argument is follows: 1) Rav Moshe would allow for three reasons. 2) Rav Moshe never issued a psak din barrur. 3) It is unfair to add to Rav Moshe’s chiddushim to negate an eruv, since to begin with he is mechudash, and so only Rav Moshe can add additional reasons.The Aruch Hashulchan and other poskim is definitely not what stopped Rav Moshe from a clear psak.
So it boils down to that the mattirim feel that they are not in full dispute with Rav Moshe. And perhaps in the current day, Rav Moshe would agree to permit it.
I understand that they are not lying in their assessment. still, it’s all conjecture that Rav Moshe would permit it. Maybe the opposite. Today, Rav Moshe would absolutely forbid it. It’s basically saying that the mattirim feel ready to move on from Rav Moshe.
n0mesorah,
“The Aruch Hashulchan and other poskim is definitely not what stopped Rav Moshe from a clear psak.”
Before shooting from the hip go learn the teshuvos:
ובאו”ח ח”ד סימן פז כתב האג”מ לענין העירוב בפלעטבוש וזה לשונו: הנה כשהיו אצלי הרבנים החשובים הרה”ג מוהרש”ז שארפמאן שליט”א והרה”ג מוהר”נ שרייער שליט”א בדבר תיקון עירוב בפלעטבוש, ואמרתי שאיני רוצה להתערב בזה כי הרי כמה שיטות איכא בפירוש מה זה רשות הרבים ובפירוש דלתות נעולות וספרי השו”ע מצוים, אבל מאחר שיצא קול שאני הוא מתיר בעצם מצד לשון זה שאמרתי, מוכרח אני לבא בזה לברר בקיצור מה שאני בעצמי סובר וכו’, עכ”פ אני סובר לדינא כדכתבתי אבל לא רציתי לומר זה לפסק דין ברור מאחר שלא הוזכר זה בפירוש בדברי רבותינו האחרונים ובערוך השולחן משמע שודאי לא נחית לזה וכו’, בזה טעם שלא אמרתי למה שאני סובר לרבנים חשובים לפסק דין ברור, אבל מאחר שיצא קול שאני הוא המתיר שהוא בעצם נגד מה שכתבתי ונגד מה שאני סובר כן לדינא הוכרחתי לכתוב מכתבי זה עכ”ל.n0mesorahת
“So it boils down to that the mattirim feel that they are not in full dispute with Rav Moshe. And perhaps in the current day, Rav Moshe would agree to permit it.
I understand that they are not lying in their assessment. still, it’s all conjecture that Rav Moshe would permit it. Maybe the opposite.”
Everyone should follow their rav. Rav Moshe possibly would allow. Most poskim would allow. So there is no reason to object. And its conjecture to argue that he would forbid. So who gives anyone a right to osser in the name of Rav Moshe.“Today, Rav Moshe would absolutely forbid it. It’s basically saying that the mattirim feel ready to move on from Rav Moshe.”
No. Who said that he would absolutely forbid it. He would need to add to his chiddusin to do so. We have most poskim on the side of allowing, and we would rather not (although he is very mechudash and we are not required to follow him) go against Rav Moshe.You misread the flow:
Maybe the opposite = Today, he would Rav Moshe would ….
I was totally making it up. To show that it’s all conjecture what Rav Moshe would say.
You have quoted that same line from the Flatbush Teshuva multiple times. I read it differently.
This is really all boiling down to meta halacha.
It’s pretty clear to me what Rav Moshe’s deep reservations were.
Even if the mattirim had their opinions about Rav Moshe, there was still Rav Dovid in living flesh.
Alas, that didn’t become a factor.
It’s surprising to me that people will get all hot under the collar about the matirim not being given the prerogative to issue their own psak, yet are not bothered by the fact that Rav Dovid was unusually vocal and was ignored.
n0mesorah,
Please stop claiming you read it differently. Lay it out. Otherwise you are just repeating the am haratzus.
I am not going to repeat myself, this is the last time. Please show me in the teshuvos where Flatbush and its enviros plays a role. If you can’t, it is a tzruch iyon on Rav Dovid.n0mesorah,
You never knew about Rav Moshe being mislead, and now you read it differently. Please, stop your revisionisms.It’s funny that I overheard Reb Dovid talking about it and still don’t know about it. And it’s also funny that nobody managed get a straight answer from him.
Just to remind you where this thread was when you joined.
The OP want’s to use the eruv with the approval of the YV. We are still following Rav Moshe’s opinion as the RY of the just departed generation maintained they heard directly from him. Rav Dovid, Rav Shmuel Birnbaum, Rav Belsky, and others. What other Poskim feel comfortable with isn’t going to help change the status quo. The Brooklyn eruv has too much grief on it to become accepted by the YV.
You may have a bunch to say why it should not be that way. But the historical fact is that this is how it played out. Rav Moshe did not endorse any eruv in Brooklyn at any point. And as of today there is still no consensus to move away from that position.
So you do realize, that while you may permit him to carry in Brooklyn, your not helping the OP.
If we agree on that, then we can move on.
This learnt discussion is well above my head, but it convinced me to avoid Brooklyn on shabbos!
My question – given the subtlety of the issue and, in some cases, lack of clear psak – is it all 1/0? That is, if we have some allowing, others – not, would carrying be always considered hillul shabbos by those who do not allow, or it maybe something like “ok b’dieved” or “ok when going for a mitzva” or “ok when not observed by public”?
n0mesorah,
“It’s funny that I overheard Reb Dovid talking about it and still don’t know about it. And it’s also funny that nobody managed get a straight answer from him.”
If you read what Rav Dovid said, you will realize that he was not referring to current eruvin. He is in fact referring to his father’s position on the 1979 eruv and not his father zt”l’s theoretical position on the current eruv. That is probably the reason he would not give a straight answer.“The OP want’s to use the eruv with the approval of the YV. We are still following Rav Moshe’s opinion as the RY of the just departed generation maintained they heard directly from him. Rav Dovid, Rav Shmuel Birnbaum, Rav Belsky, and others. What other Poskim feel comfortable with isn’t going to help change the status quo. The Brooklyn eruv has too much grief on it to become accepted by the YV.”
I don’t know what Rav Birnbaum maintained. He never wrote about it. Rav Belsky’s teshuvah demonstrates that he did not follow Rav Moshe’s shitos in eruvin. The YV should stay home on Shabbos. They are not the benchmark of halachic matters.“You may have a bunch to say why it should not be that way. But the historical fact is that this is how it played out. Rav Moshe did not endorse any eruv in Brooklyn at any point. And as of today there is still no consensus to move away from that position.”
By those who actually learnt Rav Moshe’s teshuvos there is a consensus.“So you do realize, that while you may permit him to carry in Brooklyn, your not helping the OP.
If we agree on that, then we can move on.”
I don’t care what some say, only what those who learnt the inyan have to say on the matter. As usual, you did not answer any of my pointed rebuttals, which is illuminating. Learn the inyan prior to pontificating.“hat is, if we have some allowing, others – not, would carrying be always considered hillul shabbos by those who do not allow, or it maybe something like “ok b’dieved” or “ok when going for a mitzva” or “ok when not observed by public”?”
Depends on the machlokes, and it’s really a question for your rav. Even by those who hold Brooklyn is a Reshus Harabim (the mainstream yeshivish opinion), those who carry in the eruv probably don’t get the status of not being shomer shabbos since they’ve been “mislead” into believing it’s ok. That’s usually how we get around these things, but on a theoretical level, yes, they are being machalel shabbos according to the machmirim.
As far as the “ok when going for a mitzvah,” no. There is no heter to be over an isser d’oraisa on Shabbos for a mitzvah. This is exactly why we don’t blow shofar or take arba minim on Shabbos.
Always_Ask_Questions,
“This learnt discussion is well above my head, but it convinced me to avoid Brooklyn on shabbos!”
Please do not feel that way, most of the people arguing here do no not know much more than you. Why would you avoid Brooklyn on Shabbos, you do not need to carry?“My question – given the subtlety of the issue and, in some cases, lack of clear psak – is it all 1/0? That is, if we have some allowing, others – not, would carrying be always considered hillul shabbos by those who do not allow, or it maybe something like “ok b’dieved” or “ok when going for a mitzva” or “ok when not observed by public”?”
As the issue is possibly a matter of a d’Oraysa, there would be no heter. However, there are so many reasons to allow, and each reason would allow lchatchilah, hence, the argument to abstain from carrying is very weak.Neville Chaim Berlin,
“Depends on the machlokes, and it’s really a question for your rav. Even by those who hold Brooklyn is a Reshus Harabim (the mainstream yeshivish opinion), those who carry in the eruv probably don’t get the status of not being shomer shabbos since they’ve been “mislead” into believing it’s ok. That’s usually how we get around these things, but on a theoretical level, yes, they are being machalel shabbos according to the machmirim.”
Actually Rav Moshe wrote (IM, O.C., 1:186) that when follows one’s rav on any issue, even on issurei chilul Shabbos, albeit the halachah is not like their rav’s interpretation, no aveirah is transgressed. Hence, they are not classified as mechalal Shabbos.“As far as the “ok when going for a mitzvah,” no. There is no heter to be over an isser d’oraisa on Shabbos for a mitzvah. This is exactly why we don’t blow shofar or take arba minim on Shabbos.”
Actually, as most poskim maintain that there is no reshus harabbim today, they would need to grapple with this issue. In fact, many poskim maintain that the reason we are machmir today regarding shofer and arba minim on Shabbos is because of the original takanah (see Maharsham, OC, 8:25). While the reason is not nogiea anymore, we are not mevatal the gezeirah (there are other reasons as well).Dear Youdont,
I will post how I understand Rav Moshe’s opinion when you answer the question.
Is your perspective helping the OP with his dilemma? Do you think that your posts here would help respond to his detractors? [Do you even understand what I am getting at with these questions?]
PS Of all the talmidim of Rav Moshe that I met that are okay with using wipes on Shabbos, cholov hacompanies, and turning off gas burners on Yom Tov, none are okay with the Brooklyn eiruv. This includes some serious talmidei chachamim that are renowned for paskening sheilos.
Dear Always,
Eiruvin that are kosher, are almost always kosher lechatchila.
There are people that don’t carry in some/most/all eiruvin.
The Brooklyn Eiruv has many subdivisions. The consensus varies in each neighborhood.
n0mesorah,
“I will post how I understand Rav Moshe’s opinion when you answer the question.”
No you will not. You do not know the inyan.“Is your perspective helping the OP with his dilemma? Do you think that your posts here would help respond to his detractors? [Do you even understand what I am getting at with these questions?]”
Irrelevant. Most threads do not stick to the OP’s exact questions or arguments, and many times take a turn. You are putting up smoke screens. Answer exactly how you understand Rav Moshe’s shitos otherwise. Be honest you made up your mind prior to knowing the inayn, and at this point are trying to protect your ill informed opinion.“PS Of all the talmidim of Rav Moshe that I met that are okay with using wipes on Shabbos, cholov hacompanies, and turning off gas burners on Yom Tov, none are okay with the Brooklyn eiruv. This includes some serious talmidei chachamim that are renowned for paskening sheilos.”
Irrelevant. Do they know hilchos eruvin?Thanks for clarifying – seems that the question is – is the majority of the anti-eruv yidden consider the issue m’duaraisa? seems like there are 2 opinions.
If m’drabonan, then it should be allowed for bikur cholim, etc. Maye even darkei shalom?!
Eruv is given to us so that we can enjoy sholom together, instead, it seems that it is dividing us …
I disagree with the opinion that “those who carry were mislead” and thus are still considered shomrei shabbos. I don’t think you need Igros Moshe for that. Simply, Beit Hillel and Beis Shammai navigated different opinions on mamzerim without relying on the other group being mislead.
Always_Ask_Questions,
“Eruv is given to us so that we can enjoy sholom together, instead, it seems that it is dividing us …”
The question is why are people so unaccepting of those who disagree with them and allow carrying?“I disagree with the opinion that “those who carry were mislead” and thus are still considered shomrei shabbos. I don’t think you need Igros Moshe for that. Simply, Beit Hillel and Beis Shammai navigated different opinions on mamzerim without relying on the other group being mislead.”
I agree with you. However, I am using Rav Moshe against those who are arguing in his name.“Actually Rav Moshe wrote (IM, O.C., 1:186) that when follows one’s rav on any issue, even on issurei chilul Shabbos, albeit the halachah is not like their rav’s interpretation, no aveirah is transgressed. Hence, they are not classified as mechalal Shabbos.”
OK, I’ll concede. I was wrong in my wording of this statement. I though I was clear enough that they aren’t considered machallel shabbos, but if not I apologize.
“Actually, as most poskim maintain that there is no reshus harabbim today, they would need to grapple with this issue. ”
You’re using “rov,” or most way too loosely. The statement “there are no reshus harabim today” was generally made way before Brooklyn or Manhattan were a reality. If there aren’t reshusei harabim today, then there never can be.
Neville Chaim Berlin,
“OK, I’ll concede. I was wrong in my wording of this statement. I though I was clear enough that they aren’t considered machallel shabbos, but if not I apologize.”
I accept the apology.“You’re using “rov,” or most way too loosely. The statement “there are no reshus harabim today” was generally made way before Brooklyn or Manhattan were a reality. If there aren’t reshusei harabim today, then there never can be.”
It is a modern day argument that shishim ribo applies to a city, as Rav Moshe himself exclaimed. Warsaw, Lodz, Odessa and Paris, all demonstrate that I am correct. Hence, all the poskim who maintain that there is no reshus harabbim today are even referring to cities such as Brooklyn and Manhattan. Only according to Rav Moshe’s chiddushim are Brooklyn and Manhattan unique. The few poskim who argue that shishim ribo applies to a city are going against the mesorah and the minhag, as stated by the Divrei Malkeil.
There is no such argument that otherwise there can never be a reshus harabbim. In fact that is exactly what those Rishonim and Acronim are arguing, there is no more a reshus harabbim at all.“Thanks for clarifying – seems that the question is – is the majority of the anti-eruv yidden consider the issue m’duaraisa? seems like there are 2 opinions.”
By definition, you can only build an eruv where the issue of hotzaah would be d’rabbonon. If it’s a reshus harabim m’doraysa, it would be unfit according to everyone. So, the discussion comes down to what makes something a reshus harabim. There are far more than 2 opinions. On the one extreme, there is the “reshusei harabim literally don’t exist” crowd as you can see here. On the other extreme, there are those that reject the 600K definition which would make every single city eruv pasul (I assume this is the “anti-eruv” crowd people keep alluding to).
L’maaseh you just have to go by what your mesora/rav says on the issue, and you should know that there are some extremely far-out, non-mainstream opinions being shared on this forum and elsewhere on the internet.
Neville Chaim Berlin,
“By definition, you can only build an eruv where the issue of hotzaah would be d’rabbonon. If it’s a reshus harabim m’doraysa, it would be unfit according to everyone.”
Simply incorrect. Most poskim maintain that a tzuras hapesach would downgrade a reshus harrabbim a reshus hayachid me’d’Oraysa. Only me’d’rabbanim do we require delasos. Furthermore, according to the overwhelming majority of poskim, if the area is encompassed by mechitzos it is irrelevant if there is a reshus harabbim contained therein.“So, the discussion comes down to what makes something a reshus harabim. There are far more than 2 opinions.”
Correct, there is the criterion of shishim ribo, mefulash umechavanim, and if the area is encompassed by mechitzos. One would have to object to all these criteria in order to prohibit an eruv.“On the one extreme, there is the “reshusei harabim literally don’t exist” crowd as you can see here.”
So the Rishonim and Achronim who maintain that there is no reshus harabbim today are just a, “crowd?” Why don’t you admit that the argument that these Rishonim are not referring to today, is simply faulty (for multiple reasons). Those making this argument never thought through the inyan. As the Chacham Tzvi stated, if today the Chacahamim did away with reshus harabbim, so be it.“On the other extreme, there are those that reject the 600K definition which would make every single city eruv pasul (I assume this is the “anti-eruv” crowd people keep alluding to). L’maaseh you just have to go by what your mesora/rav says on the issue, ”
We follow the Rama who it was accepted allowed the criterion of shishim ribo (contrary to the Bais Meir). Furthermore, all the Rishonim of Tzarfas and Ashkenaz accepted the fundament of shishim ribo. This is our mesorah. Additionally, the Mishkenos Yaakov’s/Mishnah Berurah’s list has been superseded, the overwhelming majority of Rishonim uphold the criterion of shishim ribo. Even Rav Moshe accepted the criterion lechatchila. Furthermore, those who do not accept the criterion of shishim ribo, can rely on mefulash umechavanim, and mechitzos, to allow an eruv. They can also rely on that a tzuras hapesach would allow me’d’Oraysa, and medrabbanan we would not require delasos, as we can rely on shishim ribo.“and you should know that there are some extremely far-out, non-mainstream opinions being shared on this forum and elsewhere on the internet.”
No there is only am haaratzes. I would love to hear the extremely far-out, non-mainstream opinions being shared on this forum.” Additionally, the Mishkenos Yaakov’s/Mishnah Berurah’s list has been superseded”
With all due respect, I’m going to trust their counts over your’s. Obviously it isn’t purely quantitative.
“So the Rishonim and Achronim who maintain that there is no reshus harabbim today are just a, “crowd?””
Unless they were time travelers, they didn’t say anything about reshusei harabim “today.”
“We follow the Rama who it was accepted allowed the criterion of shishim ribo”
You can’t confidently say “we” when you have no idea what the questioner is. Hence why I told him he needs to go by his mesora/rav. You did the same thing with n0mesora regarding the OP; why can’t this discussion just be theoretical for you? Why do you insist on trying to convince people to be more meikel in actuality?
“No there is only am haaratzes.”
Call it what you must.
Neville Chaim Berlin,
“With all due respect, I’m going to trust their counts over your’s. Obviously it isn’t purely quantitative.”
Your just shooting from the hip, and have no idea what I am referring to. The Mishkenos Yaakov (and the Mishnah Beruarh, who followed him), was the one who argued that it is quantitative, because in his times there were more Rishonim published. It was the Bais Ephraim who insisted it is minhag. [However, the Bais Ephraim did argue that in fact the Mishkenos Yaakov is incorrect regarding numbers as well.] Hence, either one follows the Bais Ephraim who argues that it is the minhag, or one follows the Mishkenos Yaakov and seeks out all the Rishonim that have been published to date. In fact today we know that the Mishkenos Yaakov’s tally has been greatly superseded.“Unless they were time travelers, they didn’t say anything about reshusei harabim “today.”
This is a made up argument by people who never learnt the inyan, and don’t realize that the Rishonim and Achronim meant not just in their times, but forever. I will just quote Rav Shlomo Kluger:
זה לשון “ספר החיים” לגאון ישראל הגר”ש קלוגער ז”ל (סי’ שמ”ה סעי’ ז) שהשיב לחכם אחד שהקשהו מיבמות (קי”ג ע”ב) דר’ יצחק אתאביד לי’ מפתחי ברה”ר, הרי מוכח דאף בזה”ז יש רה”ר, והשיב: “אבל הבל יפצה, דאטו לא משכחת לה בימי הש”ס לאחר החורבן שהיה מקום שעוברין בו ס’ רבוא… והרי דעת רש”י הוא זה דאין בזה”ז רה”ר, אלא ודאי דבימי חכמי הש”ס היה שכיח מקומות שיהיה נחשב רה”ר שהיה בו ס’ רבוא, וזה פשוט”. דברי קדשו אלו נאמרו בזמן שעדיין היו עיירות גדולות כמו לונדון ופאריז שהיו בהם יותר מס”ר אוכלוסין ואעפ”כ כתב דבזה”ז אין רה”ר“You can’t confidently say “we” when you have no idea what the questioner is. Hence why I told him he needs to go by his mesora/rav. You did the same thing with n0mesora regarding the OP; why can’t this discussion just be theoretical for you? Why do you insist on trying to convince people to be more meikel in actuality?”
You are obfuscating. You clearly meant that the issue is cut and dried, and that is why one should ask his rav. I argued that there are many reasons to allow, and hence there are really no reasons to be machmir. [However, I do not disagree that one should follow his rav.] Regarding shihsim ribo, unless he is Sfardei, we follow the Rema. I am pretty sure that the OP, you and n0mesora are Ashkenazim. Even for Sefardim it is not that simple what is the opinion of the Mechaber. Many poskim maintain the Shulchan Aruch accepts shishim ribo lechatchilah.
The question is not why I try to convince people to be mekil, but only why are people trying to argue that one should be machmir. From the get go, people make statements that a reshus harabbim cannot be encompassed by a tzuras hapesach, and that the only heter for cities is shishim ribo. All these declarations demonstrate that people simply do not know the inyan, and are seeking chumros. Why?“Call it what you must.”
Sorry you are witness number one. It is comical that so many people shoot their mouth off regarding eruvin without admitting that they simply do not know the inyan.“Your just shooting from the hip, and have no idea what I am referring to.”
Yes, I’m aware of what you’re referring to because we’ve had others* come here and make the same argument before, and it’s not only me that shoots them down. Unless you live in some obscure state with no Jews, you obviously interact with other yidden enough to know that your shittos are extremely out of the ordinary. You could say that at this point I’m just bullying you for being different rather than making real arguments, and that might be a fair criticism, but given how much you changed the tone of this thread for the worse, I don’t really care.
The thing you quoted me seems to be a quote within a quote, and it seems like Rav Shlomo Kluger’s quote ends before it gets to the conclusion about places like Paris and London. What sefer is the whole thing actually from?
“You clearly meant that the issue is cut and dried, and that is why one should ask his rav.”
So, me telling him to follow his own rav is trying to convert him to my way, but you straight up telling him what to do is giving him options? Are you actually insane?
*edit
While I do not have to answer for why in the times of Chazal there was a reshus harabbim and later there wasn’t, I would suggest it had to do with the way cities were laid out.
Neville Chaim Berlin,
“Yes, I’m aware of what you’re referring to because we’ve had others* come here and make the same argument before, and it’s not only me that shoots them down.”
No you did not realize that I am not the one making the tally claim. This is again proof that you can’t be modeh al haemes. You simply do not know the inyan, but have no problem making sweeping statements.“Unless you live in some obscure state with no Jews, you obviously interact with other yidden enough to know that your shittos are extremely out of the ordinary.”
I interact enough to know that they do not know the inyan. If my shitos, which are totally not my own, are considered out of the ordinary, it is proof that you simply do not know the inyan. It is not as if I am quoting shitos yechidaos. It is you who is relying one singular opinions, but do not realize it.“You could say that at this point I’m just bullying you for being different rather than making real arguments, and that might be a fair criticism, but given how much you changed the tone of this thread for the worse, I don’t really care.”
It is not that you don’t care, but only that you do not know what to answer. It is for the worse because you have no real arguments. Why is it that when it comes to the inyan of eruvin people make up their mind prior to studying the sugya.“The thing you quoted me seems to be a quote within a quote, and it seems like Rav Shlomo Kluger’s quote ends before it gets to the conclusion about places like Paris and London. What sefer is the whole thing actually from?”
Huh? Please reread the beginning of the Hebrew. Paris and London are not part of his quotes, but my observation.“So, me telling him to follow his own rav is trying to convert him to my way, but you straight up telling him what to do is giving him options? Are you actually insane?”
First of all you did not read between the brackets. Second, all the CR threads are dispensing halachic arguments, and no one argues that you have to ask your rav, and so stop the debate. Why should eruvin be any different. This is a forum of ideas, which does not translate as final p’sak. Third, most people have been dispensing anti-eruv arguments, so it is the side that is pro that is under represented. Fourth, the overwhelming majority of poskim would be supportive, and the world should follow them. Fifth, an educated consumer is the best customer, and rabbanim need to step up to the plate, and learn hilchos eruvin, prior to just following what others say. I am insane because you disagree. This again demonstrates that when the inyan is eruvin people lose their mind.Dear Youdont,
I was offline for most of the last month and did not have the headsapce for this thread. You posted some really out there stuff recently, and I won’t bother calling you out. I don’t know meseches eruvin but that won’t be a problem here. I now see that you don’t have a clue about the original sources and what they actually say. That is why you are so convinced of your side of the argument.
1) If the OP would have posted ‘who cares if the eruv is kosher or not’ and we got on him, would you also defend him because of your opinion regarding the eruv? Don’t tell me your reasons again. Explain to me why someone who wants to use an eruv without regard for it’s merits should not be told off. Even if it has merits, he is still wrong.
2) You prattle on about Rav Moshe having wrong info. But Rav Dovid insisted on it and Rav Elyashiv agreed with him. Rav Dovid was alive for the whole controversy. Why didn’t anybody clarify the facts with him? I know the answetr. In thirty years you will be sayinfg that Rav Dovid also would agree. So just shrug off Rav Moshe the same as Rav Dovid. There is no reason to say that Rav Moshe never forbade this exact eruv, because even if he did it would not bother you.
3) Included in the talmidim of Rav Moshe that I know are two that actively build eruvin. They both would never carry in Brooklyn. Rav Moshe was clear his whole life not to build eruvin in Brooklyn. The teshuva opens up with that he doesn’t agree. Rav Belsky spoke about it many times. It is silly to claim more knowledge from his teshuvos than the many people who heard it directly from him. This was common knowledge when the eruv was put up twenty years ago.
4) What is your argument about Rav Moshe:
A – Rav Moshe would permit today’s eruv even though he didn’t permit the eruv in the 70’s.
B – Rav Moshe only forbade then because of wrong information.
C – Rav Moshe never forbade any eruv.
D – Rav Moshe is unclear on the matter.
E – Rav Moshe didn’t write exactly why this eruv is no good and that is enough to move on.5) Rav Tuvya’s story clearly shows that there were meetings about eruvin in the 50’s. This is what I was posting about the eruv vaad. Rav Aaron and Rav Moshe were trying to avoid specific pitfalls. You had enough chances to call out eruvin that aren’t properly constructed or maintained. It is all the same issue and issur. Whatever the reason that an eruv becomes passul, it’s the same problem. You want to throw around that one has to know all the halachah to be part of the conversation, but somehow can’t imagine why real life eruvin would be problematic.
6) Brooklyn is more than 12 mil. Rav Moshe never meant that Boro Park alone or Flatbush alone have 600k. Any statician would laugh at the idea of Rav Moshe’s teshuvah being a source for an exact number. Nowhere does Rav Moshe say to take a count.
At some point I’ll just give up on trying to get answers and I will post the whole thing myself.
“Fifth, an educated consumer is the best customer, and rabbanim need to step up to the plate, and learn hilchos eruvin, prior to just following what others say.”
If this is your approach then we essentially aren’t arguing within the same religion. I’ve certainly met people who have become disenchanted and convinced that the rabbis don’t know enough and that they can posken for themselves, but it doesn’t end well.
I don’t know what we can tell you at this point; you seem frustrated with how the Orthodox world works. You could theoretically know more about eruvin than anyone else on Earth, but if you can’t bring any contemporary poskim who back up what you’re saying, nobody is going to agree to it. That’s just the way things work, and it would be catastrophic otherwise.
Many poskim disagree with the mentality of the anti-eruv group. Witness Boro Park. I am frustrated by am haraatzus
n0mesorah,
“I was offline for most of the last month and did not have the headsapce for this thread. You posted some really out there stuff recently, and I won’t bother calling you out. I don’t know meseches eruvin but that won’t be a problem here. I now see that you don’t have a clue about the original sources and what they actually say. That is why you are so convinced of your side of the argument.
You do not know meseches Eruvin nor do you know hilchos eruvin. You throw around arguments as a smokescreen in order to cover your am haratzus.“2) You prattle on about Rav Moshe having wrong info. But Rav Dovid insisted on it and Rav Elyashiv agreed with him. Rav Dovid was alive for the whole controversy. Why didn’t anybody clarify the facts with him? I know the answetr. In thirty years you will be sayinfg that Rav Dovid also would agree. So just shrug off Rav Moshe the same as Rav Dovid. There is no reason to say that Rav Moshe never forbade this exact eruv, because even if he did it would not bother you.”
No you do not know the answer. You are making things up as you go along. Rav Elyashiv said no such thing. He may have agreed to maintain the fact that there was no eruv, because of the Flatbush Rabbanim harassing him, but he did not say a word regarding Boro Park. Rav Moshe clearly was mislead. You continuously throw up ancillary arguments, but can’t answer this fact. I do not care what Rav Dovid says, he can’t argue on his fathers teshuvos. Rav Dovid clearly was being circuitous. This entire argument is also a smokescreen. No one can answer why Rav Dovid would agree that his father would allow Chicago, but not Brooklyn. In fact we can all agree with Rav Dovid’s statement that his father opposed a Flatbush eruv in 1978-79. However, the argument is only if his father was mislead, and if he would allow today. In fact Rav Dovid refused to talk to anyone regarding the current eruv, so no one could clarify anything.“3) Included in the talmidim of Rav Moshe that I know are two that actively build eruvin. They both would never carry in Brooklyn. Rav Moshe was clear his whole life not to build eruvin in Brooklyn. The teshuva opens up with that he doesn’t agree. Rav Belsky spoke about it many times. It is silly to claim more knowledge from his teshuvos than the many people who heard it directly from him. This was common knowledge when the eruv was put up twenty years ago.”
You entire argument is irrelevant, and demonstrates that you do not begin to understand the issue. No one disagrees that Rav Moshe did not personally agree to an eruv in Brooklyn. However, his teshuvos demonstrate that he was mislead about the facts on the ground. Rav Belsky’s opinion is not relevant to this debate. He clearly did not agree with Rav Moshe’s shitos. He maintained that shishim ribo is conditional on a city. Rav Moshe stated emphatically that the minhag was not so. Rav Belsky argued that pirtzos esser is d’Oraysa, Rav Moshe upheld otherwise.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.