Forum Replies Created
“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’se”
It does not seem so from Rav Moshe’s teshuvos. Clearly he maintained that we have to be concerned that some may think that an area does contain shishim ribo. Hence, he was concerned enough to entertain using this gezeirah against establishing an eruv in Brooklyn and Detroit. Hence, even if I agree with you, it’s difficult to argue things in Rav Moshe’s name when he didn’t say so explicitly.
In any case, if your arguing about making sense, eruvin is not one of those inyanim where sense plays a role, particularly when it comes to interpreting Rav Moshe’s shitos. Furthermore, if you are asking on Rav Moshe’s gezeirah, you can might as well ask on all of his shitos regarding eruvin, they are just as mechudash.
“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.
First we have to figure out whats the difference between Brooklyn and Queens, according to Rav Mioshe, then we can try to understand LA.
“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.
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.”
“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.
“YDS, Queens has many eruvs. Which one did R’ Moshe support?”
The KGH Eruv
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).
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.
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.
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.
goldersgreener: “Nonetheless, there is a suggestion – primarily by הגאון ר’ משה פיינשטיין about brooklyn and the מנחת יצחק about London, to say that the מחבר does not refer too a literal 600k every day, rather, basically, the מחבר means a street which is מיועד for 600 k. Exactly what each pisek held, and exactly how one is קןבע the מציאות can be debated, and it remains הררים התלוים בשערה.”
Only the Mishkenos Yaakov maintains that מיועד is sufficient. Rav Moshe maintains that the criterion of shishim ribo is dependent on 12 mil by 12 mil , were the shishim ribo actually traverse the streets. The Minchas Yitzchak (8:32:1) maintains that the shishim ribo needs to traverse the street, just not on a daily basis (this is how he understands the Bais Ephraim).
The only reason why some large roads in EY are not included in the eruvin, was because originally these roads did not have mechitzos habbatim so the Chazon Ish excluded them from the eruv (http://eruvonline.blogspot.com/2008/05/would-chazon-ish-have-utilized-his.html).
anonymous: Thanks for your opinion, but as is discernible from all your rants you know nothing about halachah, and mesorah. Furthermore, all your arguments point in one direction, you fail to grasp the difference between chumra and issues of d’Oraysa. Your only argument is, but the Gedolim, but the Gedolim, but the Gedolim. (Oh, and by the way, your citation of where Rav Chaim mentions the Maharil demonstrates exactly as to why these type of seforim should not be relied upon. Your proof is utter inanity.)
The only thing that is afar l’pumay is how you throw around the kefirah and OO label. As I said, you lose every time you resort to such vacuous statements.
This is my point, “of course Derech Emunah is a completely different caliber of a sefer.” The issue of techeiles is not to be taken lightly, and I don’t think that a sefer that is not muga by the person himself should be inveighed against an issue such as this one. There is a lot more to be said regarding these sefarim (I have them all), but I don’t want to get into it.
The minute you resort to hurling the kefira argument against someone you lost the battle. I looked at FakeMaven’s posts, and I think your arguments demonstrate that you miss the point, particularly regarding the Maharil (this is a solid argument). I simply don’t understand the Daas Noteh regarding nignaz (The Medrash is referring to Tannaim – Rav Yose – while the Gemara is referring to Amoraim, and we know that even the Geonim had techeiles, hence the time span is much greater, therefore, I don’t understand what is stated in Daas Noteh).
I don’t want to spend much time on this issue, but I will say this. 1) Much of what the rabbanim, argue is not about the murex, but the cuttelfish. 2) The claim that the Gedolim do not agree that the murex is techeiles is besides the point. This issue requires an immense amount of time to research, which they sorely lack. However, the new crop of younger Gedolim have made the time, and plenty of them believe that the murex is the real deal. Its only a matter of time.
Derech Emunah was looked over prior to publishing by Rav Chaim himself.
anonymous: As a bystander, I must comment on your inability to realize the difference between a sefer such as Daas Noteh and say Derech Emunah. You don’t understand how Daas Noteh was written (and it is totally irrelevant that his son wrote it). However, he himself wrote Derech Emunah, that is the big difference.
“There are basically two shitos on how to determine 600k, according to the Mishkenos Yaakov;
A) its either any road that leads to 600k, no matter the size of the town (as per Ritvah and his opinion in rashi) B) or, all 600k need to traverse through one road etc. (As per shitas Tur and Shulchan Aruch in Rashi) .”
I would just amend it as such: A) The road has the possibility of shishim ribo traversing it (as per Ritva and Rosh). B) The road actually has shishim ribo traversing it (as per Sefer HaTrumah, Semag, Smak, Rokeach, Or Zarua and Maharam MeRotenberg).
It’s of interest to note that the Ritva on Shabbos, which was not printed in the time of the Miskenos Yaakov, uses the term bokim bo as well. Clearly the Ritva when using the terms shyichnsu bo shishim ribo, or derch l’shishim ribo only means to denote that we include in the count, of the shishim ribo, those who do not live in the city, as well.
“Rav Moshe’s concept is not totally unique. The Mishkenos Yakov’s believed that is really Rash’s shitah according to the Ritvah (also in Chidushei haRa”n), that any “road” that serves to 600k is rendered as a RH”R of 600K.
However, he specifically states that it is not conditional or depending on any city population – any road that is “open” or leads to 600k will suffice, (that means even a small town with any road leading to any major highway is a Rh”R). ”
Rav Moshe’s shitos are definitely mechudosh. The Mishkenos Yaakov clearly does not say that the criterion of shishim ribo is dependent on a city (he argues that according to some Rishonim the possibility of shshim ribo traversing a street would classify the road as a reshus harabbim). Rav Moshe’s main chiddushim is that the tenai is 600,000 people traversing an area of twelve mil by twelve mil, and this would require a population of 3 million. No posek ever made similar arguments.
“1) R’ meir Rosner has made his feelings clear that one may not carry on most the main roads in yerushalayim, including recently the sheaf Chayim road. As such one is limited to the loacal eiruvin, I think many are makpid not to carry on Shmuel hanovi or Bar ilan etc.”
I don’t know why R’ Rosner is cited as if he is the posek achron. People should know that he is machmir in all inyanim of eruvin.
“2) Even the eida hachareidis eiruv excludes kvish one, kvish nine [except for the tunnel to ramat shlomo] etc… the other rads have police barriers in place on Shabbos, as such at least on Shabbos they are very different and possibly this effects their denim even when the barriers are not in place. The same applies to b’nei b’rak, there are barriers by the coca cola bridge on kahaneman and in other places.”
These are all excuses after the fact. Police barriers many times are not halachicly valid mechitzos.
“3) as far as I heard R’ ehrentrau shlit”a said that even with a tzuras hapesach at Spaniards inn he agrees that it is not a rambam eiruv.”
I don’t think that this is true regarding Rav Ehrentrau. In any case, we do not follow the Rambam. Almost all eruvin prior to WWII did not follow the Rambam. Today we seek all chumros regarding eruvin.
“4) R’ Yosef Babad – belzer dayan of Stamford hiil has said that it is unfair to compare townhouses with front and backyards to e”y where people live in 50 or 70 sq mr with a large number of children, many windowless machsanim, and many do not use electricity on Shabbos. as such he has said that the leniencies in place in e”y cannot be used in London.”
This is suspect, as most Belzer daynim are very pro eruv. There are no leniencies in EY, only accepted halacha.
“5) Rabbi Roberts says that r’ shimon eider told him that the a406 and a1 are undoubtedly reshuyois harabbim, and cannot be compared to Israeli roads. he has expressed himself extensively on the subject, and repeatedly said that there are questions of de’oiraysa involved.”
And I have spoken to other rabbanim in London who deny that Rav Eider said any such thing. Rav Eider maintained that there was no issue regarding d’Oraysa in London. In any cased, notwithstanding what Rav Roberts claims there is no difference between Israeli roads and London roads.
The bottom line is that there is no difference between EY and London. These are all excuses to deny the Charedim in London an eruv.
“You think it’s the right of any random CR poster to do that and use it as a basis to posken for himself differently than the posek hador?”
Are you for real? As GAON mentioned, Rav Henkin, Rav Zvi Pesach Frank, Rav Yonoson Stief, Rav Weissmandel and others, all disagreed with Rav Moshe at the time. They all relied on precedent. All current Manhattan rabbanim can rely on those rabbnim who disagreed with Rav Moshe. Moreover, no one is required to follow Rav Moshe even if he was the posek hador (as a matter of fact, many Chasiddim did not accept him as the posek hador, because he did not peruse precedent). Every rav big or small has a right and a duty to pasken as he sees fit.
Moreover, to begin with, this question is irrelevant as there are few non MO rabbanim living in Manhattan today.
“Even Gaon admitted that frum poskim haven’t come out in support of the eruv after Reb Moshe’s psak.”
This is simply untrue. Rav Moshe’s teshuvah was written and disseminated in 1952, and all those who are mentioned above signed onto the eruv in 1962.
“Also, the population of Manhattan has grown by a magnitude of 10 in the past century. How could it make sense to bring proofs from Rabbonim of the early 20th century?”
As some posters have mentioned your figures are simply incorrect. In any case, is there such a thing as a jumbo reshus harrabim? Of course not. Once an area contains a population of shishim ribo the debate begins. No one cares if the population is much larger.
“This is why I’m still posting on this thread. What issue do you guys have with just admitting that only MO people hold of the eruv? I thought I was pretty specific that when I referred to “common practice” I was excluding the Modern crowd.”
Why are you harping on Manhattan? Maybe because there are few non MO rabbanim residing there? Lets talk about the Brooklyn eruvin, Boro Park in particular, where the population is almost entirely non MO. Rav Moshe objected to this eruv as well, but many rabbanim allow carrying. So is following Rav Moshe common practice, or not? The rest of you comment is entirely out of line.
“Gaon: The point about how accepted Reb Moshe’s psak was is as simple as this: name one non-MO Rabbi TODAY who told you you can carry in Manhattan. Not presumptions on what Rabbis in 19th century Warsaw would have said on the matter. The common practice in the frum velt is to go like Reb Moshe on this halachah; that fact that common practice doesn’t go like him in other areas proves absolutely nothing.”
As GAON mentioned many non-MO rabbanim supported the eruv. Actually most rabbanim at the time (Rav Tuvia Goldstein mentioned this many times) allowed for an eruv in Manhattan. What is wrong with presumptions based on similarities? Don’t most teshuvos deduce from precedent? There is no such common practice. It is simply illogical to require that the world follow Rav Moshe when he admitted that his shitos are mechudash. In fact Brooklyn had many eruvin (in front of houses) that would have been proscribed according to (the way many misunderstand) Rav Moshe. Hence, there is no such common practice.
“Although the מחבר clearly says ששים רבוא עוברים בכל יום nonetheless many פוסקים including ר’ משה felt that his intent was undoubtedly עיר שיש בה שיים רבוא as it said in Rashi. If I understood right, R; Shimon eider, and ylach”t R’ meir rosner שליט”א feel that I the road was intended to serve 600,000, even if not necessarily at the same time or even day it constitutes a רשות הרבים דאורייתא.
It is not many poskim at all. Rav Moshe would not subscribe to R’ Meir Rosner argument. On the contrary he would disagree with R’ Rosner’s chiddushim. Rav Moshe maintains that the possibility that we should have 600,000 people traversing the streets of a 12 mil by 12 mil area, could only be if there are 3 million people living or commuting therein. On the contrary, Rav Moshe argues that we do not include those who are inside, and not traversing the streets. Hence if a city only has a population of 600,000 Rav Moshe would not classify it as a reshus harabbim, since shishim ribo needs to traverse the streets themselves.
Furthermore, Rav Moshe agreed that the Shulchan Aruch is referring to a street, and therefore, he claimed that the SA is denoting a sratya, in which case Rav Moshe agrees that the shishim ribo needs to traverse the street itself to be classified as a reshus harabbim.
I don’t believe that Rav Eider agreed with R’ Rosner.
To understand why Rashi make use of the word city in reference to the criterion of shishim ribo, we need to reference Rashi in Eruvin 59b:
דרך עיירות להיות פתחי פילושיהן לאורכם ורה”ר עוברת מפתח לפתח וחלוקה לאורכה … והני דרסי בהך רה”ר … ורה”ר זו מחברתם שכולם מעורבין בה
Rashi is informing us as to how cities were designed. Cities in the past had a main road that all residents used to enter and exit the city (because most cities were walled), and this thoroughfare was the reshus harabbim of the city. Consequentially, when Rashi and the Rishonim who follow him use the word city in reference to shishim ribo, they are not signifying that the criterion is conditional on a city but only that the main thoroughfare in a city containing shishim ribo would be classified as a reshus harabbim since it is traversed by its entire population.
In any case, where do we see that to accept the simple meaning of the Sulchan Aruch is considered novel?
“I think that they have always expressed concerning London that even if one makes various strings and צורות הפתח one is nevertheless transgressing an איסור דאורייתא and is חייב כרת.”
They made use of mechitos that are omed merubeh al haparutz. Those who still require that one should be stringent is treading on thin ice.
“Halacha doesn’t care which side of the Brooklyn-Queens border the eiruv is. Halacha doesn’t differentiate whether an eiruv is in Brooklyn or whether it is in Queens.
The difference is not based on artificial local intracity borders set by a government. Both are part of the same city. And the border is virtually meaningless.”
Rav Moshe would disagree with you. Furthermore, if you don’t follow Rav Moshe, I would challenge you to find the word city in the Shulchan Aruch regarding shishim ribo. Clearly, the criterion applies to a street.
“Queens is slightly bigger in Land area than Brooklyn, Brooklyn is slightly bigger in Population than Queens”
Queens is more than slightly larger then Brooklyn. Hence, my main point was that at the minimum Queens should have been proscribed according to Rav Moshe because of his gezeirah. All the excuses, why Queens differs from Brooklyn, are made up after the fact, by people who never learnt through Rav Moshe’s teshuvos on the inyan.
“youdontsay: Yes I understand R’ Moshe’s psak regarding 3 million people in a 12 mil by 12 mil area. That is why the question was asked in 1979 as to why should Queens and Brooklyn be treated differently. Brooklyn has approximately 69.5 mi of land area and Queens has 108.2 mi. Total population in Queens was slightly less than Brooklyn. So why was the entire Brooklyn used cover a 12 mil by 12 mil area but Queens not? I heard from Rav Hillel David the response I gave above as he conferred numerous times with R’ Moshe as he is now and was then one of the noted poskim in Flatbush during the eruv controversy in the late seventies. You don’t want to believe it, fine. I know what I heard from him.”
Brooklyn is smaller than twelve mil by twelve mil, and Rav Moshe stated this clearly in his teshuvos:
(Igros Moshe, 4:87).
ולכן בברוקלין שהוא עיר אחת מלאה אוכלוסין אבל אפשר שהיא יותר מי”ב מיל על י”ב מיל
And then Rav Moshe’s final teshuvah on the matter (ibid., 4:88):
ונמצא שכל ברוקלין הוא רק י”ב מיל על י”ב וקצת יותר
Brooklyn is over sixty-nine square miles (without its inland water, which I think should also be included in the tally and would make it even larger). Twelve mil by twelve mil is sixty-four square miles (according to Rav Moshe’s shiur amah in regards to hilchos Shabbos). However, after Rav Moshe was informed that the area that Brooklyn encompasses is greater than twelve mil by twelve mil, he argued that an eruv should not be established, because some may think that since it was a heavily populated area it was a reshus harabbim (in essence a gezeirah, — shema yitu; see ibid., 4:88, and see also 5:29 where he argues that even Detroit could be problematic because of this gezeirah).
However, the end of the story was, that Rav Moshe was led to believe that besides for a population of close to three million, over a million people come into the borough to work (ibid., the end of 4:88). Therefore, he argued that Brooklyn is osser l’dinah. (These facts were made up out of whole cloth by people who simply did not want an eruv and were willing to tell tale tales to Rav Moshe in order to achieve their goals.)
Consequentially, the issue with the Queens eruv is, why didn’t Rav Moshe object at least because of his gezeirah. Queens is also a heavily populated area (no less than Detroit).
The only answer that follows all of Rav Moshe’s teshuvos is:
While Rav Moshe maintained that if an area of twelve mil by twelve mil is classified [or thought of] as a reshus harabbim, an eruv cannot be erected in any part of that area; nevertheless, we see that he allowed eruvin for Kew Garden Hills, Queens (ibid., 4:86); Oak Park and Southfield, Detroit (ibid., 5:29); and the Jewish quarters in Europe (ibid., 5:28:5) which he would have otherwise objected to. The reason Rav Moshe allowed for a neighborhood of these large cities to be demarcated with an eruv was because they contained less than shishim ribo. However, regarding Boro Park and Flatbush Rav Moshe was led to believe that independently they contained populations greater than shishim ribo; therefore, an eruv could not demarcate these Brooklyn neighborhoods (ibid., 5:28:5 and Addendum to O.C. 4:89). There is no other rational reason why Rav Moshe argued that both Boro Park and Flatbush contain more than shishim ribo if not that this was the defining motive to allow a city to be divided with a tzuras hapesach.
As to why some argue excuses in the name of Rav Moshe that don’t follow his teshvos, I would say they don’t know his teshuvos that well. However, to claim that these arguments are Rav Moshe’s is simply not true, and definitely not possible, since Rav Moshe wrote otherwise.
“iac: Where do you see Rav Moshe ever write that Queens is any different than Brooklyn, insofar as the Halacha l’maaisa on eiruven are concerned?”
See Igros Moshe O.C. 4:86, and addendum to 4:89.
“It is astounding as to how this entire issue has developed. We have people who were not even born when Rav Moshe ztl was alive quoting him and making statements in his name, etc. etc.
Where is your sense of kovod hatorah and kovod talmidei chachomim that you have the gall to quote Rav Moshes as if you knew him!!!!!! you are on thin ice.”
These arguments always leave me wondering what is the purpose of these diatribes. I believe that there is an underlying issue. (I would argue that it stems from an inability of yeshivaleit to pasken, hence the inability to realize halachic precedent.)
In any case, according to your argument, one can never quote a posek who is not alive (or maybe this principle only applies to Rav Moshe). Don’t you realize the absurdity of you arguments.
“To be clear, this is the Manhattan/Brooklyn-eruv-supporter interpretation of the Chazon Ish, right? Nowhere is there written evidence that the Chazon Ish called downtown Manhatten a “reshus hayachid.” I’m aware of the shittah to which you refer, and it’s your right to interpret it as you’ve been taught, but it’s a little disingenuous to make it sound like there’s an explicit Chazon Ish which states as you stated.”
You should learn the inyan prior to making such arguments. Even Rav Moshe agreed that CI would allow an Manhattan/Brooklyn eruv; hence he disagreed with the CI in order to proscribe these eruvin.
“If i recall… The Tosfos haRosh clearly states that a pirtzah greater than ten is only a rabanon. Hence, the above mentioned achronim did not see the tosfos harosh, as it was only recently discovered, one may say had they seen… they may have agreed.”
And so does the Hashlama and Haeshkol. However, the Mishkenos Yaakov (and Rav Aharon) claim some Rishonim maintain that pirtzos esser is d’Oraysa. (Rav Aharon adds Rabeinu Chananel.) However, the Bais Ephraim disagrees with these arguments. In any case, the three Rishonim that I mention Tosfos Rosh, Hashlama and Haeshkol, say clearly that the matter is only me’d’rabbanan, and the Mishkenos Yaakov did not have these sources.
“Milhouse is basically correct, there are many poskim who clearly state that the very concept that a צורת הפתח is not sufficient to permit in a רשה”ר is only a d’Rabonon. (See Shulchan Aruch haRav 364, Avnei Nezer hil Eruvin, Aruch Hashulchan. )”
Actually most poskim maintain that a tzuras hapesach is sufficient on a d’Oraysa level. However, as I mentioned some Rishonim and poskim maintain otherwise, including the Bais Ephraim (who admits that according to the Rashba re Rambam, and the Hagaos Ashri a tzuras hapesach is effective me’d’Oraysa) and the Chazon Ish. So its not as simple as Milhouse argues.
“Many here are confusing by saying “Eruv” with eruv Chatzeros or a tzuros haPesach of 4 lechis only where we say אתו רבים ומבטלי מחיצות at least מדרבנן.”
“As per Chazon Ish, most cities nowadays are by default a reshus hayachid, as most streets that are basically 2 mechitzos עומ”ר end up at one point in the city within a third wall, thus rendering it as a true reshus hayachid, and therefore permitted with a tzuras haPesach. in any case, brooklyn is surrounded by at least 3 mechitzos בנ”א by sea walls and gates עומ”ר and are not מפולשין ומכוונים due to the layout of the streets.”
I agree on both counts. Most people cant make the distinction that we usually don’t need to rely on the CI”s chiddush in large cities today.
“DaasYochid, what’s the difference between a house and any other eruv? Every eruv is by definition a reshus hayochid. If you could not make a reshus hayochid in a reshus horabim then you could not carry in a house. The answer is that min hatorah of course you can make an eruv, even a flimsy one consisting of nothing more than four strings, in a reshus horabim. But the rabbonon said if it’s a reshus horabim you need more than that. You can make an eruv, but it must be stronger than four strings.”
You are correct according to some (possibly most) Rishonim and Achronim. However, some maintain that a tzuras hapesach is not effective on a d’O’raysa level at all (such as the Bais Ephraim and the Chazon Ish).
“but lechol hade’os if you have rov mechitzos, and tzuros hapesach to fill in the gaps, and delosos across the main road, it’s OK.”
Not lechol hade’os. Some maintain (albeit we don’t pasken like them) that you would need delasos for every pirtzah greater than ten tefachim wide (Mishkenos Yaakov and a few others).
“There is a big argument whether Ocean Parkway is a reshus horabim min hatorah, if cars are counted with people or it is a separate reshus, houses around, intersecting roads or traffic lights diminish the reshus for pelatyeh gedolyeh.”
Ocean Parkway is not mentioned once in Igros Moshe. It simply never factors in Rav Moshe’s chidushim in eruvin.
However, Rav Moshe does count cars (although most poskim maintain otherwise). I don’t know what you mean regarding platya, Ocean Parkway is definitely not a platya, maybe its a sratya. In any case, Brooklyn is encompassed by mechitzos on three sides.
“I think it’s based in the way they’re partitioned. If there were no barrier between KGH and downtown Flushing (Mandarin Town) then I presume there probably wouldn’t be an eruv in KGH because it would be considered one town with well over 600k people. My understanding is that the LIE is essential in allowing there to be an eruv in KGH. The boarders between Flatbush and surrounding neighborhoods have no physical barriers like highways; they’re just random, so they might all get counted as 1.”
Rav Moshe never made the distinction of the LIE, and it is irrelevant according to his shitos in eruvin.
“R’ Moshe held Queens is different then Brooklyn as the neighborhoods are clearly defined as recognized by the US Postal Service. When you address a letter to a Queens address it is not to Queens NY but to an individual neighborhood (i.e. Forest Hills, Flushing) whereas you address a letter to Brooklyn, NY (not Flatbush or Boro Park.”
“Joseph: I heard it from Harav Hillel David when the same question was asked in 1979. I do not know if R’ Moshe wrote it or it was just an oral explanation.”
“Gaon: I don’t remember you being in the room when Reb Hillel David told this to me. As you may know, not every psak made it to the igros Moshe. Just because you never heard it doesn’t mean an oral interpretation was not given.”
You see an oral explanation cannot be in direct contradiction to a written teshuvah. The fact is Rav Moshe maintained that an eruv cannot be erected in any part of an area of 12 mil by 12 mil containing a population of approximately 3 million. Therefore, it is irrelevant (based on Rav Moshe’s teshuvos) if an area encompassing such a population consisted of individual neighborhoods, since an eruv cannot be erected in any part of this area. Sorry, Rav Moshe could not have made such a distinction.December 10, 2017 1:44 pm at 1:44 pm in reply to: Why are the lakewood rabbanim so against an eruv in thier Town?? #1423521
Joseph: “Once you start counting newly discovered Psaks, give it now time and you might discover even more psakim that change the majority back the other way. As stated, we don’t change what it considered the majority based on newly discovered psakim. There may be hundreds of Rishonim/Achronim who issued Psakim on the topic that is still lost.”
You don’t get it. It was the Mishnah Berurah following the Mishkenos Yaakov, who argued that the Bais Yosef did not mention all the Rishonim, and then they proceeded to list all the Rishonim known, including those that where just printed, such as the Ritva. The Aruch HaShulchan clearly states that the Mishkenos Yaakov argued that we now have more Rishonim unavailable to the previous poskim that state that we do not accept shishim ribo. So it was those who claim that we shouldn’t rely on shishim ribo who where making use of the newly published Rishonim in order to tabulate a majority.
Using their argument, we can demonstrate that we have Rishonim that they did not see.December 10, 2017 10:47 am at 10:47 am in reply to: Why are the lakewood rabbanim so against an eruv in thier Town?? #1423292
Joseph: “Gaon: Are you arguing that Rav Moshe’s Psak against an Eruv in Manhattan or Brooklyn would be applied by Rav Moshe to Radun and Mir as well?”
First of all, lets establish that Rav Moshe accepted the tenai of shishim ribo lechatchila.
You missed his point. Once a road is 16 amos wide you either rely on the criterion of shishim ribo and you can establish an eruv, or you don’t rely on the criterion, and an eruv can’t be made (if there is no other heter) even if its a tiny shtetl.
“YDS: Psak Halacha doesn’t work by counting (for majority or what not) seforim/sh”ut that were long lost but recently found, but were not considered by the corpus of responsa by the gedolei poskim of the intervening centuries.”
First of all, you are mistaken regarding recently found poskim. We accept their opinion as long as it does not overturn established halachah/minhag. In fact this is our argument, shishim ribo is the accepted minhag.
You missed the point. It was the MB/MY who argued that the majority of poskim opposed the criterion of shishim ribo. So by their own argument if we now know that the majority does uphold the criterion of course we can rely on it. But, if we follow the minhag then there is no doubt that we rely on shishim ribo.December 9, 2017 9:55 pm at 9:55 pm in reply to: Why are the lakewood rabbanim so against an eruv in thier Town?? #1423024
Joseph: “The towns shtetlach’s main road was a dirt road traveled by a few horse and buggy’s each day.”
Sorry these arguments are made by those who don’t know the inyan. Once a road is 16 amos wide you either rely on the criterion of shishim ribo and you can establish an eruv, or you don’t rely on the criterion, and an eruv can’t be made (if there is no other heter).December 9, 2017 9:55 pm at 9:55 pm in reply to: Why are the lakewood rabbanim so against an eruv in thier Town?? #1423022
GAON: “All I can say regarding his Gaonnas, I doubt anyone in the past 50 years comes close to his knowledge and gaaones…(with the exception of Rav Moshe)”
I know that this will bring some people out of their hole, but he was a greater posek than Rav Moshe. Definitely in the classic sense. He had it all, breadth and width.December 9, 2017 9:55 pm at 9:55 pm in reply to: Why are the lakewood rabbanim so against an eruv in thier Town?? #1423021
Neville ChaimBerlin: “I’m not going any further with the baal gaavah argument. Clearly nobody in the real world holds that holding by Rabbeinu Tam’s tzeis or 16 amos reshus harabim is gaavah with the exception of a few CR posters.”
Baal gaavah argument? What? In any case, the argument regarding Rabbeinu Tam is if it was the accepted minhag. However, there is no doubt that shishim ribo was the accepted minhag, witness the eruvin in all shtetlach. Or as the Bais Ephraim argues, that all the Reshonim of Ashknaz accepted shishim ribo as a criterion.December 9, 2017 9:55 pm at 9:55 pm in reply to: Why are the lakewood rabbanim so against an eruv in thier Town?? #1423019
Neville ChaimBerlin: “youdontsay: Why is that unfortunate? Would you rather live in a world where we can chose a “forgotten gaon of his time” over the Mishnah Berurah? No matter, you guys have shown that the shittah exists, so I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m still not convinced that it’s mainstream perse to hold the MB didn’t have all the information and made mistakes, and in your last comment you seem to also suggest that it is “unfortunately” not mainstream.”
He is not really a forgotten gaon. Many poskim refer to his teshuvos, including Rav Shlomo Zalman. Actually, in his first volume the Mishnah Berurah asked him at least one sheila.
I never said that the CC made a mistake c”v, only that his list (or actually the Mishkenos Yaakov’s list), has been superseded. This is not debatable, its a fact. The only question is how off is the MB’s list. There is no doubt that the MB did not see the Bais Ephraim’s list. There is no doubt that even the BE did not see the Rishonim that have been published after his time. If I made a list it would be over fifty who accepted shishim ribo as a criterion, and 14 who do not. I would just add that if the MB would have seen the BE maybe he would agree that this debate is not predicated on numbers but only on minhag, which is/was to accept the criterion.December 9, 2017 9:55 pm at 9:55 pm in reply to: Why are the lakewood rabbanim so against an eruv in thier Town?? #1423015
GAON: “I think the reason is that he only mentioned the above topic as kind of “BTW” ‘agav’. He didn’t really conclude or elaborate anything on that topic.”
I agree. The MY would not have even mentioned asu rabbim if not of the fact that the BE argued the point. Hence, the second teshuvah of the MY rebutting.December 9, 2017 9:55 pm at 9:55 pm in reply to: Why are the lakewood rabbanim so against an eruv in thier Town?? #1423007
GAON: “Agreed. However, as I see you are familiar with his works, you know why he is not so known?”
Possibly because of his machlokas with the Agudas Harabanim, which spilled over into the fiasco of chlitza al ydei shliach. However, considering his gadlus it should all be irrelevant. Then again most people today don’t know much about previous poskim.December 9, 2017 9:55 pm at 9:55 pm in reply to: Why are the lakewood rabbanim so against an eruv in thier Town?? #1422998
GAON: “Thanks for the link! BTW I had a look at the Toldos Shmuel, in Ois Yud in regards to Shisim Ribo b’Chol Yom, he brings the Avnei Nezer b’shem haGoan m’Kutno’ that the Shishim Ribo does not have to be “Bokin” it is enough that is open to Shishim Ribo etc.
Actually, the above in his responsa Yeshuos Malko says the exact opposite.
It is the da’as Hashoel only, who happened to have written to all Poskim about his concern and no one agreed with him. He is mentioned in Shu”T Marsham, Divrei Chaim of Sanz and Bais Yitzchom of Levov. They all disagreed with him.”
I believe that the Avnei Nezer did not see the Yeshuos Malko inside. It was only a shmuah in the name of Rav Yeshua M’Kutno.
No one agreed with this shoel’s arguments, which is proof that we don’t accept the Mishkenos Yaakov’s understanding of the Ritva in Rashi (and other Rishonim).December 9, 2017 9:49 pm at 9:49 pm in reply to: Why are the lakewood rabbanim so against an eruv in thier Town?? #1422985
GAON:”That’s is exactly my point, that at the end of the day, Rav Ahron is NOT in accordance with the MB, (Despite the MB being machmir). And his understanding of the Rambam is certainly not like the Shu”A and the Magid Mishnah.”
Rav Aharon has many chiddusim in his teshuvah regarding eruivn, including his understanding of the Bais Ephraim and mefulash (in which case he is arguing against the Magen Avraham and many poskim).
“It is also worthy to note, that Mishkenos Yaakov himself acknowledges that his shitah is not the Minhag, even in Karlin (town where he was Rav) they did not abide to his shitahs (I recall a responsum in Zkan Aharon of Karlin permitting delosos like the Rambam in Shu”a, actually I think its components were based on relying on the most lenient shitos…):
There is also the fact that there was an eruv in Karlin in the time of Harav Dovid Friedman. I think the teshuvah is in Zkan Aharon 1:21.December 8, 2017 2:50 am at 2:50 am in reply to: Why are the lakewood rabbanim so against an eruv in thier Town?? #1422686
Neville ChaimBerlin: ” Is what you’re saying actually mainstream? That the Mishnah Berurah was wrong about how most rishonim held and that were he alive today he would correct the “mistake”? Do you have a source that says this?”
Unfortunately, today one can’t make an argument, that the MB has been supersede, even with proofs. However, since you asked see the Bais Av (as cited by Gaon), and the following:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=39121&st=&pgnum=337December 8, 2017 2:50 am at 2:50 am in reply to: Why are the lakewood rabbanim so against an eruv in thier Town?? #1422682
GAON: “Speaking about the Mishkenos Yaakov, I recall his understating on Mefulash (as per Rashi, he quotes a Yerushalmi i think that argues) is not like RM nor R”A .”
I agree the MY’s understanding of mefulash according to Rashi is not in accordance with Rav Moshe nor Rav Aharon. However, the MY ultimately is not clear regarding the criterion of mefulash umechavanim.December 8, 2017 2:50 am at 2:50 am in reply to: Why are the lakewood rabbanim so against an eruv in thier Town?? #1422680
GAON: “BTW – I remembered there is a sefer of the Raavad on Hilchos Nidah named “בעלי הנפש”. He writes in his Hakdamah regarding a Baal Nefesh, as the following:
Do you really think every “machmir in Eruvin” fits that description?”
See also Tanya regarding who is classified as a Baal Nefesh. When it comes to eruvin it seems that every Tom Dick, and Harry is a Baal Nefesh.December 8, 2017 2:49 am at 2:49 am in reply to: Why are the lakewood rabbanim so against an eruv in thier Town?? #1422677
GAON “the Mishnah Berurah was wrong about how most rishonim held and that were he alive today he would correct the “mistake”? Do you have a source that says this?”
“”See the below link that states so in Anef Bais . Sefer Bais Av – He lived in the times of the MIshna Berurah:””
See also Rav Yisroel Yaakov Fisher (Even Yisroel 8:36). The Bais Av is incomparable regarding the inyan of eruvin (in fact all of his teshuvos are phenomenal).December 8, 2017 2:48 am at 2:48 am in reply to: Why are the lakewood rabbanim so against an eruv in thier Town?? #1422669
GAON: “However, he does agree that according to the MB’s understanding of the Rambam (as per Magid Mishnah etc) we would at least be “m’tzarif” the shitas ‘Rabanon’ of ‘Lo Asi Rabim um’Vatlin Mechtzos” to the shitos of Shishim Ribo. The only issue he has is with the GR”A, and on the same note, the Demasek Eliezer on the Biur haGr”a (364) is definitely NOT like R”A on the issue of mefulash.”
If you continue on in that same seif katan (10) you would see that Rav Aharon disagrees with the MB, and argues that even the Rambam would require delasos.
I agree the Demasek Eliezer is in opposition to Rav Aharon’s understanding of the Gra. Furthermore, the Gra always sources from a Gemara, so I really don’t understand Rav Ahraon’s proof regarding the mare makom that the Gra cites.December 8, 2017 12:05 am at 12:05 am in reply to: Why are the lakewood rabbanim so against an eruv in thier Town?? #1422670
GAON: “The MB is not the only one – the Shulchan Aruch HaRav also agrees that a Baal Nefesh should be Machmir: I will quote his words (345:11):
“ויש אומרים שכל שאין ששים רבוא עוברים בו בכל יום כדגלי מדבר אינו רשות הרבים אלא כרמלית
ועל פי דבריהם נתפשט המנהג במדינות אלו להקל ולומר “שאין לנו עכשיו רשות הרבים גמורה” ואין למחות בידם שיש להם על מי שיסמכו (וכל ירא שמים יחמיר לעצמופו)”
However I will quote Rav Avraham Chaim Naah בקונטרס השלחן (ע’ ל”ו הערה ס”ט) :
בדפוס קאפוסט תיבות “וכל יר”ש יחמיר לעצמו” נדפסו בחצאי עיגול במאמר מוסגר, וכן בדפוס טשערנאוויץ נדפס ממש כמו בקאפוסט ולפי”ז אפשר שהמאמר המוסגר הזה אינו מרבינו ז”ל אלא הוספה, ולכן אין עליו ציון במראה מקום בין כל המ”מ אלא ציון מיוחד בכוכב שהוסיפו אח”כ המאמר והציון, והנה מקור דברים אלו הם בט”ז ס”ק ו’ וז”ל וע”כ המחמיר יחמיר לעצמו ואין בידו למחות למה שנוהגין עכשיו כאותן הרבים שמקלילין עכ”ל, ולא כתב שכל יר”ש יחמיר לעצמו אלא המחמיר יחמיר, ובקונטרס אחרון ב’ בסי’ רנ”ב כתב רבינו בזה”ל “ואף מי שירצה להחמיר ברה”ר שלנו כהאומרים שיש לו דין רה”ר” ולא כתב ואף שיש ליר”ש להחמיר כו’, מכל זה נראה דמה שכתוב כאן וכל יר”ש יחמיר לעצמו, הוא מאמר מוסגר, כמו שנדפס בקאפוסט, והוא הוספת מהרי”ל כו’ עכ”ל.
“However, We can argue that he is not speaking in a case where there is a Tzuras haPesach..”
I agree, but following the above, it’s irrelevant.
“Also, the ones that are to be Machmir should be consistent with Baal Nefesh as above.”
I couldn’t agree with you more. When it comes to eruvin people are inconsistent, mainly because of am haaratzus.