October 5, 2018 1:31 pm at 1:31 pm #1599543
Why do people never seem to argue about the LA eruv? There’s a major road that just casually runs right through the middle of it, and it’s also a pretty well-populated area (I’m not sure how it compares to Brooklyn).
Is it just because most of the posters here are more familiar with NYC? I’m not advocating against the LA eruv; I’m just wondering why it’s so much less discussed. Is it just that much more accepted than the Brooklyn eruv?October 5, 2018 2:30 pm at 2:30 pm #1599575
Neville: When was the LA eruv established? The eruv in Brooklyn was controversial from day 1 (either in 1978 or 1979) due to R’ Moshe’s psak. Yes, there were other poskim who argued with R’ Moshe (the Debrecener for one) while others agreed with him (notably Rabbi Bick). The yeshiva olam generally followed R’ Moshe and did not use the eruv while others did not follow R’ Moshe’ psak and used the eruv. In addition, I can personally attest that there was those in my shul who did not verify before shabbos that the eruv was up and came to shul shabbos morning carrying something only to see the “red flag” that the eruv was down.October 5, 2018 3:02 pm at 3:02 pm #1599582
iac: Your response has nothing to do with Neville’s question.October 5, 2018 5:13 pm at 5:13 pm #1599617
I assume that it is the density of LA that differs. As per Rav Moshe, 600k is applied by 12 Mil x 12 Mil needing 2.4 million inhabitants.
I doubt you have that calculation within the above parameters in LA.October 6, 2018 10:11 pm at 10:11 pm #1599719
Joseph: You are partially correct. He wants to know why we don’t talk about the LA eruv. So first we have to know if it was established prior to March of 1986.October 8, 2018 10:17 am at 10:17 am #1600537
Funny enough, when I asked the actual shailah a long time ago, the answer I got was pretty much “the LA eruv is better because Reb Moshe had a specific psak against the Brooklyn eruv, but not against the LA eruv.” That’s almost what iac is saying.
It makes it seem almost arbitrary.October 8, 2018 2:37 pm at 2:37 pm #1600697
Neville, it is arbitrary. I lived in Flatbush during the 70s.
The truth is, Rav Moshe was trying to avoid giving a psak , but the local Vaad, against advice, thought they could pressure him to approve it. They were wrong. Queens and LA elected not to ask Rav MosheOctober 8, 2018 9:41 pm at 9:41 pm #1601055
The difference between the LA eriv and other Eruvin is that the LA Eruv has 3 wall that are omed merubah al haparutz and closed off with tzuras hapesachesOctober 9, 2018 12:08 am at 12:08 am #1601119
The only difference is that Rav Moshe wrote about the Brooklyn eruvin but not the LA Eruv.
Just some random clarifications:
The Debrecener signed kneged the eruv, but not because of reshus harabbim issues (he actuality wrote in his teshuvos that Brooklyn is a karmelis).
While the density of LA may be less then Brooklyn, Rav Moshe would have opposed it (if he was asked) because of his gezeirah (since its a large city and some my think that it contains shishim ribo).
Rav Moshe wrote in (4:87) that he did not want to mix into the matter, but after he was told that some say that he supports the eruv, he had to write a birur regarding the issue. After Rav Moshe wrote his teshuva opposing the eruv, he stated clearly that he can’t issue a psak din barur, since the poskim would not agree with him.
Rav Moshe did write a letter in support of the Queens eruv (4:86).
Brooklyn also has mechitzos that are omed merubeh al haparutz on three sides. So there is no difference between, Brooklyn and Queens, according to Rav Moshe.October 9, 2018 7:37 am at 7:37 am #1601135
YDS, Queens has many eruvs. Which one did R’ Moshe support?October 9, 2018 8:04 am at 8:04 am #1601160
Rav Moshe wrote in (4:87) that he did not want to mix into the matter of a >>Flatbush Eruv<<, but after he was told that some say that he supports the eruv, he had to write a birur regarding the issue. After Rav Moshe wrote his teshuva opposing the eruv, he stated clearly that he can’t issue a psak din barur, since the poskim would not agree with him.
Brooklyn also has mechitzos that are omed merubeh al haparutz on three sides. So there is no difference between, Brooklyn and <<LA>>, according to Rav Moshe.October 9, 2018 9:04 am at 9:04 am #1601202
yehud: He supported the KGH eruv.
I don’t like the answer that it’s truly arbitrary. I know I said it feels that way, but it can’t really be. If Reb Moshe would have 100% assur’d the LA eruv since he assur’d the Brooklyn one, then people who don’t hold of the Brooklyn eruv shouldn’t be holding of the LA one, yet they are.
An issue unique to LA, which I don’t think is present in the Brooklyn case, is a major 4-lane road running through the middle of the eruv. I guess the local LA rabbonim determined that it isn’t traversed by 600K cars.October 9, 2018 12:20 pm at 12:20 pm #1601502
Since few rabbanim know hilchos eruvin (at least as it concerns hilchos reshuyos), its much easier to rely on a psak from a great gadol such as Rav Moshe. Rav Moshe did not issue a psak for LA, so they allow it. Some rabbanim do no recommend the eruv in LA for yeshivahliet. All the excuses, such as the LA Eruv is an omed merubeh eruv, is irrelevant, Brooklyn also has mechitzos. If it works for LA it can work for Brooklyn.
“An issue unique to LA, which I don’t think is present in the Brooklyn case, is a major 4-lane road running through the middle of the eruv. I guess the local LA rabbonim determined that it isn’t traversed by 600K cars.”
If it has a din sratya then according to Rav Moshe the shishim ribo would need to traverse the road itself. Otherwise, its tally would be included in the 12 mil by 12 mil area that it runs through. It may also have its own mechitzos, but that can create other problems.October 9, 2018 2:04 pm at 2:04 pm #1602139
“It may also have its own mechitzos”
Are you referring to the Mechtzos of the Ohr Zoruah? i.e. two Mechitzos m’d’Oraisa, (at least to exclude it from applying etc..)October 9, 2018 9:57 pm at 9:57 pm #1602312
GAON: No I am referring to the possibility that these roads are removed from the equation because they may have mechitzos that encompass them (when major arteries cut through a neighborhood they, at times, do this for safety reasons).
As an aside, today we know that the Or Zerua is not a das yachid, since his son the Maharach also paskens this way and so does the Remak (as per Rav Fischel Herskowitz).October 9, 2018 10:05 pm at 10:05 pm #1602359
Rav Moshe did pasken against the LA Eruv. It is a controversial Eruv. There are rabbanim that say that Rav Moshe wasn’t given the correct metzios. There are other rabbanim who were there when rav Moshe was asked who assur the Eruv. I even heard one of those rabbanim say that they would not use anyone who carries in that Eruv to be an Aid at a Chasunah.October 9, 2018 10:07 pm at 10:07 pm #1602370
“YDS, Queens has many eruvs. Which one did R’ Moshe support?”
The KGH EruvOctober 9, 2018 11:51 pm at 11:51 pm #1602369
Not sure if my original post went through-
The premise that no one argues about the LA Eruv is incorrect. There are Rabbonim who went to Rav Moshe about an Eruv in LA and Rav Moshe Paskened that LA can’t have an Eruv. A few Rabbanim after Rav Moshe was Niftar said that Rav Moshe was given the wrong Metzios. I personally heard directly from one of the Rabbanim who were part of the discussion with Rav Moshe say that he would not allow someone who uses the Eruv in LA to be an Aid at a Chasunah.October 10, 2018 12:14 am at 12:14 am #1602433
“Rav Moshe did pasken against the LA Eruv. It is a controversial Eruv.”
He did not, show me one teshuvah where he mentioned LA. It’s all heresy.
“There are rabbanim that say that Rav Moshe wasn’t given the correct metzios. There are other rabbanim who were there when rav Moshe was asked who assur the Eruv.”
So what, some say that Rav Moshe wasn’t given the correct metzios regarding Queens. But since Rav Moshe wrote a teshuvah allowing the eruv that is what counts. I don’t believe any of these stories, they are all made up after the fact.
“I even heard one of those rabbanim say that they would not use anyone who carries in that Eruv to be an Aid at a Chasunah.”
Shame on him. Rav Moshe wrote (1:186) that when one 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.October 10, 2018 12:40 am at 12:40 am #1602447
You Don’t Say-
The Rabbanim on both sides are Choshuva Poskim. I am just responding to the original post that states that no one argues about the LA Eruv. That is simply not true. The Rabbanim who oppose the LA Eruv did not get a written Tshuva they flew to New York and sat and discussed it with Rav Moshe. The rabbanim who are pro the Eruv agree that Rav Moshe said no. They are just saying that Rav Moshe Paskened based on wrong Metzius. You should be careful before disparaging Rabbanim whom you don’t even know. I am sure Rabbanim on both sides of the coin know a lot more than you or me. Again I am not attempting to say that I “agree” with either side as I don’t even know anything near the amount these Rabbanim know, when it comes to Halacha.October 10, 2018 12:40 am at 12:40 am #1602448
When the LA Eruv was first built aroumd 40 years ago. I personally discussed this with Harav Pinchas Gruman who is one of the most respected Rabonim in LA for more than 50 years personally discussed the issues with Rav Moshe. Rav Moshe NEVER EVER said that an Eruv can not be built in LA. There were people said in the name of Rav Moshe that he said such a thing but it was an outright lie. 20 years later Rav Bess instituted improvments to the Eruv as well. Bottom line: The Eruv in LA was always argued about. According to almost all poskim with a few exceptions as always its a completely kosher Eruv. I personally inspected the Eruv using a drone with Rav Bess who paskened on it. If one wants to be Machmir and not use it Harei ze Meshubach. Anyone who cares can simply pick up a phone today and Call Rav Gruman or Rav BessOctober 10, 2018 12:47 am at 12:47 am #1602457
Angelino Yid that is not what the Rabbanim who oppose it say. They also say they discussed it with Rav Moshe (or at least two of them that I have spoken to did) perhaps even with Rabbi Gruman, and that he was clearly against it. I would be happy to tell which Rabbanim these are if you want to discuss it with them. The problem I have with publicly giving their names is that people like You Don’t Say tend to be Mevazeh Rabbanim that don’t agree with them.October 10, 2018 1:58 am at 1:58 am #1602466
Rav Gruman has written proof from Rav Moshe that he never said such a thing that an Eruv can not be built in LA. i talked to Rav Gruman and Rav Bess about this many times. I also know there are very Choshuve Rabanim that Aser the Eruv who I also talk to many times. If you want to be Machmir and not use it Harei Ze Meshubach. If you want to say that Rav Moshe said what he did not say you can ask them to take it up with Rav Gruman who has it written from Rav Moshe himself that he never said such a thing.October 10, 2018 1:58 am at 1:58 am #1602461
“people like You Don’t Say tend to be Mevazeh Rabbanim that don’t agree with them.”
With all due respect, isn’t the following precisely what they are doing:
“I even heard one of those rabbanim say that they would not use anyone who carries in that Eruv to be an Aid at a Chasunah.”
אין לך בזיון היתר גדול מזה….October 10, 2018 1:58 am at 1:58 am #1602463
In any case, why isn’t anyone asking Rav David Feinstein?
As stated earlier, Based on Rav Moshe’s calculations it should not be a RhR of 600k.
And as for the issue mentioned by youdont.. of the gezero etc. I don’t think its relevant after the Eruv has already been constructed. Thus, how can one say it is any transgression of הוצאה, because a גזירה מחודשת. The way I understand , it is a reason enough prior to withold one from constructing an eruv, but once its a kosher eruv, one cannot declare any issur because such a gezero.
Said that, i don’t understand the opposing side..October 10, 2018 1:58 am at 1:58 am #1602459
Rav Gruman til this day has a telegram directly from Rav Moshe that he never ever said such a thing. You can ask whichever Rabanim who told you they discussed it with Rav Moshe and ask about the telegram Rav Gruman has to this day. Rav Gruman is very straightforward about this.October 10, 2018 8:14 am at 8:14 am #1602490
when the la eruv was described to rav eliayshiv his response was “mutter li’smoch aliv bi’shas ha’dchak, vi’chol ha’machmir aliv bi’shas ha’dchak tavo aliv bracha” akd
-as quoted in the RCC booklet about the eruvOctober 10, 2018 8:15 am at 8:15 am #1602492
First of all, from experience I don’t believe anything said over in the name of Rav Moshe zt”l. Furthermore, I spoke to Rav Gruman as well. It’s clearly lies. Additionally, if these rabbanim would know Rav Moshe’s shitos in eruvin they would realize that he would allow an eruv (even more so the current eruv, which which makes use of omed merubeh).
“You Don’t Say tend to be Mevazeh Rabbanim that don’t agree with them.”
This quote of yours, is a bizyain, “I even heard one of those rabbanim say that they would not use anyone who carries in that Eruv to be an Aid at a Chasunah.”October 10, 2018 8:16 am at 8:16 am #1602527
Angelino – I will try to see if I can ask the Rav one of the Rabbanim is Rabbi G. Whose shut is on Beverly closer to Fairfax. I will ask him about the telegram.
Gaon- the Rav that said about the Eidus says he was involved in us discussion with Rav Moshe and he is of the same caliber as the matirim so I don’t think that would fall into the same category as people on a chat being mevazeh.
Again to clarify I am just saying that it isn’t so poshut as was reported at the beginning of the chat. I personally don’t carry as the dissenters are the rabbanim my family in Los Angeles uses.
I apologize for coming off strongly. It just bothers me when people have opinions about Rabbanim that aren’t founded.October 10, 2018 8:19 am at 8:19 am #1602513
“And as for the issue mentioned by youdont.. of the gezero etc. I don’t think its relevant after the Eruv has already been constructed. Thus, how can one say it is any transgression of הוצאה, because a גזירה מחודשת. The way I understand , it is a reason enough prior to withold one from constructing an eruv, but once its a kosher eruv, one cannot declare any issur because such a gezero.”
No I am not referring to Rav Moshe’s gezeirah regarding Yerushlayim (in which case Rav Moshe allowed once an eruv was established he would not be machmir; HaPardes, 33rd year, vol. 9). I am referring to the issue that Rav Moshe inveighed when he was told that that Brooklyn does not meet his criteria of a reshus harabbim. Rav Moshe argued (O.C. 4:88) that since Brooklyn is a large city and some my think that it contains shishim ribo, one should not establish an eruv (in any case, he finishes his teshuvah that he was then told that Brooklyn does meet his criteria of a reshus harabbim). In O.C. 5:29 Rav Moshe discussed why he would not make use of this gezeirah in Detroit, (because the eruv only encompassed two small areas), but otherwise he would have used it. Clearly one can make an argument that LA is no different than Brooklyn, in this matter.
Few people know about this gezeirah, but it would proscribe additional eruvin, besides for Brooklyn. However, I believe that Rav Moshe would not make use of this gezeirah if the area encompassed by the tzuras hapesachim contains a population less than shishim ribo. This would explain KGH, Queens. But this begs the question. the Brooklyn eruvin also encompass a population less than shishim ribo? So why did Rav Moshe oppose? The answer is that Rav Moshe believed that these eruvin did contain populations greater than shishim ribo (O.C. 5:28:5 and Addendum to O.C. 4:89). In fact these eruvin do not contain shishim ribo. So if we do not use Rav Moshe gezeirah in LA we can’t use it in Brooklyn, as well.October 10, 2018 10:11 am at 10:11 am #1602629
Its not clear if Rav Moishe ever considered the substantive merits of the LA eruv, at least not according to the books and recollections of R’ Aron Tendler. If you go to the website of the LA Eruv, (I think its against the CR rules to post a URL link) you will see a lengthy list of chashuva Rabbonim from YI, OU, several esteemed roshei yeshiva etc. who have endorsed the kashruth of the LA eruv.October 10, 2018 11:30 am at 11:30 am #1602733
“Gaon- the Rav that said about the Eidus says he was involved in us discussion with Rav Moshe and he is of the same caliber as the matirim so I don’t think that would fall into the same category as people on a chat being mevazeh.”
Same caliber or not is not the issue – the one using the eruv has a psak from a legit posek, hence by declaring one ‘Posul le’Edus’ is a Bezoyun in the worst degree possible!!
It is a b’zoyun – toward all other poskim that it is based upon. (especially when there is nothing written by Rav Moshe pertaining LA and is all hearsay.)
!תורה תורה חגרי שק
Its a bizoyun – toward each and every city that relied on the very heterim i.e. מוציא לעז על ראשונים – אל תסיג גבול
Its a bizoyun – toward each and every person using an eruv in Yerushalayim, on top of Malbim Pnei Chavero i.e. the person that is an Eid, and his posek and, all present at the chupah that rely on the eruv.
Imagine one saying: all relying on Rav Moshe’s psakim (Chalav Stam, shavers, etc) are posul l’Edus…anyone using a shabbos timer is pasul. Or sfardim saying anyone eating non-beis Yosef shchitah etc..October 10, 2018 11:30 am at 11:30 am #1602712
“when the la eruv was described to rav eliayshiv his response was “mutter li’smoch aliv bi’shas ha’dchak, vi’chol ha’machmir aliv bi’shas ha’dchak tavo aliv bracha” akd”
Are you aware that Rav Elyashiv holds the very same regarding the eruv in Jerusalem, BB or any Eruv in Israel (due to the issue of Schiros/Chatzeros)October 10, 2018 12:26 pm at 12:26 pm #1602784
Obviously Reb Moshe doesn’t have a specific psak about the LA eruv otherwise we wouldn’t still be discussing it.
The question is, is LA comparable to KGH (matir’d by Reb Moshe) or to Brooklyn (assur’d by Reb Moshe). The majority of people and many LA rabbonim listed the the site Gaon referenced must assume it is not comparable to Brooklyn. I’m curious as to why.
For those who see no problem in the Brooklyn eruv, it’s unlikely that you’ll be able to contribute much here because in your minds the LA eruv would obviously be mutar no matter what.October 10, 2018 2:24 pm at 2:24 pm #1603100
Bottom Line: Another one of these endless line of shailos where a yid should follow a 3-step process:
1. Aseh l’cha Rav
2. Consult with that rav/posek on inyanim such as whether the eruv in your community is kosher
3. Don’t go venue shopping if you are unhappy with the answer to step 2.October 10, 2018 2:24 pm at 2:24 pm #1603153
First we have to figure out whats the difference between Brooklyn and Queens, according to Rav Mioshe, then we can try to understand LA.October 10, 2018 3:25 pm at 3:25 pm #1603277
“Rav Moshe argued (O.C. 4:88) that since Brooklyn is a large city and some my think that it contains shishim ribo, one should not establish an eruv ”
This again is only in reference to “establishing” an eruv not once it has been established. No?
“The question is, is LA comparable to KGH (matir’d by Reb Moshe) or to Brooklyn ”
Define the difference and you might have the answer.
In any case, as I have posted above, it may very well be diff, due to the factor of not having the amount within 12 Mil x 12 Mil, which is a major factor of Rav Moshe’s issur.October 10, 2018 3:39 pm at 3:39 pm #1603281
I think according to Rav Moshe, you are not suppose to wear a talis openly showing that you don’t rely on the eruv.October 10, 2018 9:41 pm at 9:41 pm #1603479
“This again is only in reference to “establishing” an eruv not once it has been established. No?”
Rav Moshe only says that he would allow an eruv once it was established regarding Yerushalyim, but not regarding this issue.October 11, 2018 8:46 am at 8:46 am #1603572
“I think according to Rav Moshe, you are not suppose to wear a talis openly showing that you don’t rely on the eruv.”
This either isn’t true, or isn’t an accepted practice at all. I see people walking in talleisin while carrying a siddur on Shabbos all the time. Walking with a tallis does not 100% correlate to not relying on the eruv; there’s another inyan in wearing a tallis to shul.October 11, 2018 9:22 am at 9:22 am #1603595
If you don’t wear a Tallis in the street on Shabbos, and you don’t have a Tallis in shul beforehand, how will you wear a Tallis for Shabbos Shachris?October 11, 2018 7:30 pm at 7:30 pm #1603933
Joseph, under the coat or take it before Shabbos.October 12, 2018 12:42 am at 12:42 am #1604012
laskern: What if it is a sizzling hot summer day and you’re davening as a guest in another shul, which isn’t your usual one? (Either because you’re unexpectedly late to your regular shul or you have a simcha at a faraway shul.)October 12, 2018 12:43 am at 12:43 am #1604009
YDS, I think you meant “hearsay” not “heresy.”October 12, 2018 9:26 am at 9:26 am #1604059
Usually all Shuls have a talis to borrow.October 12, 2018 9:36 am at 9:36 am #1604080
Not all shuls have talleisin to borrow. And, Joseph asked about a case where it’s not your community, which would create a problem with a brachah on the tallis.
Unless you have a source, I think you heard incorrectly, laskern. I’m not trying to argue, but it’s just clearly not a chashash that anyone has. People wear a tallis to shul all the time completely independently of how they hold of the eruv; it’s a kabalistic inyan or some such thing.October 12, 2018 12:45 pm at 12:45 pm #1604108
““This again is only in reference to “establishing” an eruv not once it has been established. No?”
Rav Moshe only says that he would allow an eruv once it was established regarding Yerushalyim, but not regarding this issue.””
I agree that Rav Moshe himself did not specify. However, nor do we find any statement regarding the Gezero once an Eruv has been constructed.
Hence, logic and halacha would point out that, if halachakly it is permitted to carry, it makes no sense to be able to be ‘mechadesh’ a new gezera’ to asur one from what the Torah clearly permits i.e. carrying in a reshus haYachid’.
Yes, if one would ask Rav Moshe if constructing an eruv is advisable, he would respond: although eruv has a tremendous benefits, but in this case it is better not to, due to his chashash. That is not exactly enacting a “new Gezero”. It is just leaving everything in its former status of Shav va’al Ta’seh…
Otherwise it makes no sense..October 12, 2018 12:45 pm at 12:45 pm #1604104
Years ago it was very common not to wear taleisim in a visible manner. Many people wore an over coat or in hot weather wore the talis under their jacket. I once heard a drasha from R’ Yechiel Perr, Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshiva of Far Rockaway who explained that wearing a talis in a visible way in the street might have caused an anti-Semitic response. I think he quoted R’ Yaakov that it was proper no to wear the talis openly.October 12, 2018 12:45 pm at 12:45 pm #1604105
Queens is more Like Brooklyn than LA is like Queens
KGH is very much like Marine Park, so one cannot make a comparrison of neighborhoodsOctober 12, 2018 1:07 pm at 1:07 pm #1604107
There is indeed an inyan ‘al Pi Zohar’ – quoted by the Bes Yosef and Rema (OC 25:2) to go to shul with your talis – see below link:
I figure it is not possible weekdays as the Tefilin passing Makom Tinofos etc., so it is practically done shabbos only.
There is also an halachik reason as well, as there is a machlokes about the bracha (being that you recited a bracha on the Talis Katan, if merely walking to shul is considered a ‘hefsek) .
See below a resposum from the Ben Ish Chai (Ch 5) regarding one going with a thin talis to shul.
Hence, it certainly does not indicate ones preference regarding an eruv.
Personally, I go to shul wearing a talis on YT as well.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.