youdontsay

GAON:
“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.

GAON:
“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.

Formerla:
“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.

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).

Some clarifications:
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.

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:
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.

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.

GAON:
“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.

Neville ChaimBerlin:
“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.

goldersgreener:
“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.

zahavasdad:
“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.

Joseph:
“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.

Neville ChaimBerlin:
“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.

GAON:
“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.”

I agree.

“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.

laskern:t
“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.

iacisrmma:
“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.