youdontsay

“I could answer every point, but there is no reason to.”
You can’t answer anything you do not know the inyan.

“We reached the end of the debate last time I posted and you didn’t even realize.”
Clearly you do not know what you are talking about, hence you don’t realize what I realize.

“You have proven yourself a hypocrite.”
Oh, please please inform.

“Rav Moshe clearly writes in the teshuva from 79 that it is all explained in Chelek Aleph. So clearly Rav Moshe’s opinion was not fluid. You just learned everything wrong.”
I will post again, as you have comprehension issues. Rav Moshe in this same teshuvah changed his mind from chlek aleph, so please stop with your nariskeit. Rav Moshe needed to formulate, at this time, his opinion, since Manhattan’s metzious was unlike Brooklyn. I reiterate, in his Brooklyn teshuvah Rav Moshe only referred to his Manhattan teshuvah in regards to his chiddush that shishim ribo is conditional on 12 mil by 12 mil.
Alas, I understand your issue. You do not accept that all teshuos in Igros Moshe where penned by Rav Moshe, but are afraid to utter this out of your mouth.

“Rav Moshe’s shitah is clear and constant: Six hundred thousand people on a street makes that street a reshus harrabim. The same number out and about in a city, makes the public places of the city into a reshus harrabim. Precisely how to count a city is of no consequence, because if it is close than we are unable to guarantee that the eruv will contribute to shemiras Shabbos and are exempt from building one.”
Gibberish. Besides you obviously do not know what a sratya is. No. Rav Moshe shita is not clear, and it changed over the years. You constantly lie about it, because you do not know what to do with the inconsistencies. How to count a city is stated clearly in Igros Moshe, stop lying about it. In fact Rav Dovid agreed that his fathers shita is three million, when he allowed the Chicago eruv. In fact, the absurdity was on full display in Chicago. The anti-eruvniks argued that they disagreed with Rav Dovid regarding his fathers shita. Only those who osser can disagree with him.

“1) So you are left wondering about Rav Moshe’s intentions with his Flatbush teshuva. Because there is no chance that you are wrong here. But you won’t wonder about it either. We should ask Rav Moshe to wonder for you.”
Childish

“2) Rav Moshe writes that he is forced to write about Flatbush, because people think he permitted it. What compelled him? Is it possible that he believed that people are not allowed to carry with an eruv based on a mistaken belief of Rav Moshe’s permission?”
That is exactly it. Nevertheless, he stated clearly that he cannot issue a psak din barrur because he is mechudash and is arguing on the poskim.

You can split hairs now.

“3) Comprehension alert! Without Rav Moshe’s opinion, there is less of a reason to build an eruv in a mega-city. The simple understanding was that a population of 600,000 makes the city into a rsh”r. Rav Moshe is bringing about new ways to be lenient throughout his teshuvos.”
Totally incorrect. Rav Moshe understood that shishim ribo is conditional of the street, but then came up with his chiddush. So in fact you are arguing on Rav Moshe. There is no posek of stature that maintains that shishim ribo is conditional of the city, besides for Rav Moshe. Hence, Rav Moshe is machmir. Even the Mishkenos Yaakov understood that it is conditional of the street.

“So take away his chiddush and try to use the Aruch Hashulchan. (Except that the Aruch Hashulchan is trying to incorporate the Mishkanos Yaakov into the accepted halacha. [Meaning, that the sugyos go according to the Mishkanos Yaakov, but the halachah is different because of his chiddush.] But I doubt that matter is a factor to you.)”
It is not a factor, because it is not the Aruch Hashulchan’s chiddush, but only Rashi himself, and other Rishonim (Eruvin 59b). Furthermore, there are many other reasons to allow, such as mefulash umechavanim, and mechitzos.

“Nobody is adding to Rav Moshe’s opinion to forbid the eruv. And there is no way around it. His shitah is very straightforward, as it appears in chelek aleph.”
You simply do not know what you are talking about. Just one example: Pirtsos esser. According to the anti-eruvniks of course Rav Moshe maintains that it is d”Oraysa, but Rav Moshe maintains that it is me’d’rabbanan.

“4) A thourough review of Rav Moshe’s writings, show that many of his rulings were not given with a horaah lasos. Rav Moshe was very humble about forcing his opinion on others.”
Irrelevant

“You can still build any eruv you want. You can even put up an eruv in a bungalow colony, that nobody will check for years on end. You can build an eruv without knowing the topography. I don’t care.”
Sure and throw out hilchos eruvin. This is what the campaign opposing eruvin achived.

“But don’t go around proclaiming that Rav Moshe’s shittah is not definitive, when Rav Moshe clearly says it is.”
His shita changed, and his psak was based on incorrect information.

“As he told Reb Tuvya, you can disagree with him. But at least make the effort to properly understand the teshuva.”
And Rav Tuvia believed that Rav Moshe would allow the current eruv.

“You have no clue what I am talking about, yet you invoke the mysterious ‘inyan’ again.”
We shall see if I don’t know what you are talking about.

“If anybody cares to know, in between the first teshuva and the Flatbush teshuva, Conservative Judaism started driving on Shabbos and abandoned their ‘eruv until the suburbs’ project. For further information, you can still find all kinds of silliness among Conservative teshuvos written this year about the concept of eruvin.”
Total nonsense. There simply is no analogy there. In fact Rav Moshe’s allowing an eruv in Queens is proof that you are just making up nonsense.

“I am not arguing that people should not use eruvin because of this battle. I’m pointing out that there were brilliant minds pushing for eruvin at this time, that were not long for Orthodoxy.”
Irrelevant, as the argument does not begin.

“At one point, almost every rav in Brooklyn was asking Rav Moshe if he supported an eruv. Misrepresenting gedolim to the public is not a new problem.”
Simply untrue. They just followed the askanim who talked them into signing.

“Uh, okay. But Rav Moshe did write a very clear teshuva that any competent Ben Torah can decipher.”
Uh, OK. But most did not bother to really learn through them, and many did not fully understand it. Even more so, they definitely do not know the other shitos.

“PS I wonder what ‘the inyan’ means to you.”
What you do not know.

“The fact is that dozens and dozens of Rabbanim heard directly from Rav Moshe that an eruv should not be built in Brooklyn.”
There are no dozens and dozens of rabbanim who spoke to Rav Moshe regarding eruvin. There aren’t that many rabbanim who know the inyan.

“4) Rav Moshe doesn’t pasken against other rabbanim. (Except for thousands of instances that are convenient to ignore.) And if one follows those rabbanim he can still not be in contradiction to Rav Moshe’s opinion. Even though Rav Moshe told them not to build an eruv. Because what he actually said and thought should not be considered when reading his writings.”
Gibberish. In any case, Rav Moshe many times does not follow other rabbanim, but how many times does it bother him enough that he writes that he therefore can’t issue a psak din barrur. Never, only in this particular case. This should be very telling. But of course, you never realized this because you do not know Rav Moshe’s teshuvos, and do not realize that there are major holes in the argument against establishing an eruv.

“Okay, that is what I think you are trying to argue. You don’t get that I am trying to give you a chance to talk. I could crush every one of your mistakes with a dozen responses. But then you come with a bunch more incoherence. Admittedly, this is not a topic I know well. But you are so tripped up, I can’t help myself. You fell into every net I put out. You are completely oblivious to how the eruv battle aligned with the attack on Orthodoxy. You don’t even know ten percent of the eruv story. And whatever you do know that I don’t you do not want to share. This isn’t a machlokes leshem shamayim on your part.”
Silly. Your arguments are demolished just by a cursory glance at this entire thread. You make grand statements and can’t back it up. You then continue with ancillary arguments and smokescreens to cover your am haratzus. You can’t demolish nothing, you simply are in over your head. Your insistence on arguing that the eruv battle aligned with the attack on Orthodoxy, demonstrates your meager knowledge regarding the inayn. Unless of course you are referring to those who are eino modeh beruv. How can someone who admittedly knows next to nothing about an inyan, wade into a maclokas and argue if it is leshem shamayim or not?

1) You are either thickheaded or a liar. You are not answering Rav Moshe’s own words. I am not the one making up the numbers. So if you believe that these numbers should have been included in chelek aleph, ask it on Rav Moshe, not me. Anyone who skips the numbers because of the few words that you are harping on, is dishonest. And yes I did offer possible answers to your irrelevant fake argument.
2) You never learnt the Brooklyn Eruv teshuvah in chelek aleph. It simply has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
3) You again are trying to pass yourself off as one who is all knowing. You do not know the inyan and are trying to play catch up. You are not the one to arbitrate if I am wrong or not.
4) No you have continuously left out numerous issues, but this is very glaring. It is obvious that you do not learn much halacahah. It is simple. Rav Moshe maintained that his chiddush was correct but since other poskim disagreed with him he did want to issue a clear p’sak. Hence, those following other rabbanim are not really contradicting a clear p’sak of Rav Moshe. [In any case, even if Rav Moshe would be issuing a clear p’sak one should follow his rav notwithstanding Rav Moshe’s opinion.]

Your just not able to understand simple matters. No, he was not referring to the numbers required in his first teshuvah, since he never mentioned numbers there. Your being silly for hanging onto words that are irrelevant to the conversation. Lets try explain Rav Moshe’s shita regarding shishim ribo again:
Like most poskim, Rav Moshe originally maintained (Igros Moshe, O.C. 1:109) that the criterion of shishim ribo was dependent on the street having shishim ribo traversing it. However, later (ibid., 1:139:5) he formulated his chiddush in which shishim ribo when applied to a city was not dependent on a street but over a 12 mil by 12 mil area. Rav Moshe added that the criterion of shishim ribo ovrim bo would require a sizable population living and commuting into the 12 mil by 12 mil area so that it could physically satisfy the condition of 600,000 people collectively traversing its streets. However, at this time Rav Moshe did not quantifying how many people would be required to live in this 12 mil by 12 mil area.

In the first teshuvah quantifying how many people would be required to live in this 12 mil by 12 mil area, Rav Moshe stated (ibid., 4:87) that since in the past eruvin had been erected in cities with populations exceeding shishim ribo, one could not classify a city as a reshus harabbim solely on the basis of the existence of a population of 600,000. He then added that although the actual number of inhabitants could possibly vary according to the city, in Brooklyn it would most likely require four to five times shishim ribo. In the final two teshuvos which followed regarding Brooklyn we see that Rav Moshe codified his chiddush that the requirement is, “just about three million people,” (ibid., 5:28:5) or, “at least five times shishim ribo,” (ibid., 5:29) which could amount to even more than 3 million people. Consequently, in the Chicago eruv pamphlet (West Rogers Park Eruv, 1993 p. 23) it is stated that Rav Dovid Feinstein shlita was in agreement that according to his father’s shitah there must be a minimum of 3 million people in order for the city to be defined as a reshus harabbim.

This is comedy. I continuously write what Rav Moshe meant, but you avoid his clear words that I cite, and I am the one that “refuses to explain”? You hang on to a few words of Rav Moshe, and refuse to admit that his shita evolved. What about the teshuvos that I cite, are they not Rav Moshe’s words? How utterly ridiculous is your argument. Forget knowing sugyos, how about alef bais.

It is amazing how obstinate you are. You clearly did not know Rav Moshe’s teshuvos, but fancy yourself as all knowing. Now you are trying to play catch up, but you have the gumption to write that my learning of the teshuvos are messy. You have the chuzpah to argue that I do not understand the sugya, when you barely know Rav Moshe’s teshuvos, never mind the Rishonim and Achronim on the sugya. You think that you are making strawman arguments, but in fact you are not making arguments at all. You simply have no inkling regarding the matter.

No one ever claimed that Rav Moshe is not entitled to his opinion. You can repeat this lie as much as you want it will not make it true. You cannot show me one person of repute who made this statement. It is a figment of your imagination, because you would like it to be true.

As to your exposition of Rav Moshe’s teshuvos, let us see who is omitting pertinent parts or not. (Never mind, the numerus mistakes that I illuminated – all along- that you conveniently do not answer. So much for understanding sugyos.)

שו”ת אגרות משה אורח חיים חלק ה סימן כח
ומווארשא שעשו שם עירובין, אף שהיה כרך גדול ידוע לפי חשיבות כרכים גדולים שברוסלאנד ופולין, לא היו בה ס’ ריבוא ברחובות שהוא רק בעיר שדרים בה ערך קרוב לשלשת מיליאן נפשות. ובווארשא לא היו שם כל כך אינשי ואף המחצה מזה לא היו שם. ועוברים ושבים ג”כ לא היו כל כך שישלימו המספר. ובשאר הכרכים לא היו עירובין, אלא בחלק קטן בהעיר מקום שדרו שם רוב היהודים ושם לא היו ס’ ריבוא

שו”ת אגרות משה אורח חיים חלק ה סימן כט
שיהיה שייך לאמוד שימצא בחוצותיה ששים ריבוא, דהוא שייך רק כשיהיו תושבי העיר עם העוברים ושבים ממקומות אחרים לכה”פ חמשה פעמים ס’ ריבוא דהוא ערך שלשה מיליאן

יראה העם וישפוט

I reiterate, regarding Brooklyn Rav Moshe only referred to his Manhattan teshuvah, in regards to his chiddush that shishim ribo is conditional on 12 mil by 12 mil. In light of the above to argue otherwise, demonstrates dishonesty.
Alas, I understand your issue. You do not accept that all teshuos in Igros Moshe where penned by Rav Moshe, but are afraid to utter this out of your mouth.

n0mesorah,
“I don’t understand how you reconcile Rav Moshe writing to the Rabbanim in Flatbush (1978) that it is all printed at length in every detail in the first volume of Iggres Moshe, with your opinion that Rav Moshe only came up with the three million number in this teshuva and then reworked a year later?”
Show me where Rav Moshe wrote in chelek aleph anything about the numbers which he required. They do not exist. Rav Moshe is referring to that he formulated his shita regarding shishim ribo being conditional of 12 mil by 12 mil. However, the actual number of people residing in the area that it would require to have 600,000 people traversing the streets at one time, he did not express in this teshuvah (since it was not nogeia for Manhattan). Rav Moshe originally wanted to argue that 600,000 people residing would be enough. In 4:87 he clearly makes this suggestion, and then argues that the minhag was not as such. Hence, how can one say that Rav Moshe did not add to his shitos later on, regarding Brooklyn? I do not have to explain these words of Rav Moshe when in fact his shita evolved over time. To deny that Rav Moshe’s number is three million is denying the entire Igros Moshe O.C. 4:87-88, 5:28-29.

“And all those who spoke in learning with Rav Moshe, testify that even to his last days he said his shita is like it is published in chelek aleph.”
I don’t care what people say they never learnt his teshuvos.

“Rav Moshe makes some additional side points. These may have come from the in person discussions. And then reiterates why he didn’t stop them even though he disagrees with putting up the eruv. His wording is, ‘that it is against what he holds is the law’.”
You again omit that Rav Moshe states that he can’t issue a p’sak din barrur, because he is mechudash.

“1) The assumption is that there is 600,000. One would have to prove that there isn’t. And even if they do, people won’t know about their proofs. And similar considerations.”
You keep on omitting Rav Moshe’s clear words, three million. It is obvious that Rav Moshe’s words are difficult to stomach. Since these numbers would allow an eruv in Brooklyn (and regarding his gezeirah he would allow a section to be demarcated with a tzuras hapesach).

“2) The Rashba about public open places (platya). This could be even if the total population is 600,000. There isn’t a clear precedent for this complication.”
No. As I mentioned previously, Rav Moshe, in the end allows that a platya is reckoned as part a 12 mil by 12 mil area, which would require a population of three million.

“Then Rav Moshe writes that all three reasons are valid even according to what they told him that there are not 600,000 in Brooklyn. Meaning, that there is no way to build an eruv in Brooklyn even if there is not for sure a rsh”r. It simply runs into too many problems that we don’t have a precedent for. So Rav Moshe held not to put up an eruv in Flatbush and avoid the problems. Which is comparable to Yerushalayim.”
No. The only reason not to make an eruv in Brooklyn, according to Rav Moshe, is because he thought there was a population of over three million over 12 mil by 12 mil in Brooklyn. If the numbers are any less than it is a gezeirah, that some may think that it is a reshus harabbim. However, regarding this issue if a tzuras hapesach would encompass a much smaller area in Brooklyn, there is no doubt that he would allow an eruv. Regarding Yerushalayim, as I mentioned, if an eruv was already constructed for Manhattan, Rav Moshe allowed, how much more so regarding Brooklyn, where he was not even sure if it can be compared to Yerushalayim. Moreover, Brooklyn is encompassed by mechitzos, so there is no doubt that Rav Moshe would allow an eruv.

“Rav Moshe has no intention of counting the city as was evident in his first teshuva. But if one would count and have 600,000 in the streets than Rav Moshe would have forbade the eruv. And it would be null according to his opinion.”
No. Rav Moshe did not need to count the numbers, because his first teshuvah was regarding Manhattan, where he realized that it was encompassed by mechitzos, and so the numbers are irrelevant. Only regarding Brooklyn did he need to calculate.

“Some people use this paragraph as way to calculate, but that is not the point. Such would only achieve that it is not a reshus harrabim beyond any doubt. It wouldn’t rule out a safek doraissa and it ignores all the nuance of the first teshuva. Additionally, there is no statistical rule here. Rav Moshe lists five different activities to count. In two different places. And three estimates. Since it has no practical application, there is no reason to be clear about it. The point is to get the idea.”
Absolute gibberish. No. Rav Moshe’s teshuvos are only about reshus harrabim, and that some may perceive that it is a reshus harabbim, and not about safek d’Oraysa. It has everything to do with statistics. If an area of 12 mil by 12 mil has a population of three million, then Rav Moshe maintained that it is a reshus harabbim. If a large city contained less than three million than he would not recommend an eruv be established (Rav Moshe never argued that it is a safek d’Oraysa, only that one may think that it is a d’Oraysa, hence it is more like a gezeira not to make one). A sratya would require 600,000 traversing therein to be classified as a reshus harabbim. You do not, “get the idea.”

“The debates that follow to our day are not really about halachah. The center of the debate since the late Seventies was, is Rav Moshe entitled to his opinion. Rav Moshe himself held he was, but others would say that the majority disagreed with him. And even Rav Moshe himself may have agreed that he wasn’t entitled to his own opinion.
Rav Shmuel Birnbaum was very bothered by this attitude. But not everybody should be a masmid like Rav Shmuel Birnbaum. He was enough for the whole Flatbush.
All the more so, to imagine what Rav Moshe was up against forty years ago, when rabbis still spoke about business acumen as a qualification for being considered an educated Jew.”
What a bunch of gibberish. No one upheld that Rav Moshe was not entitled to his opinion.

Someday:
“@Hoo Hoo
A reshus harabim deOraisa cannot have an eiruv, even with 3 mechitzos around it.”
So sorry you are simply incorrect. Most poskim maintain that an area encompassed by mechitzos, would be classified as a reshus hayachid, notwithstanding a reshus harabbim contained therein. Most poskim maintain that even a tzuras hapesach would reclassify me’dOraysa a reshus harabbim as a reshus hayachid.

“There is also the opinion that even full mechitzos are not enough for an open area where the public gathers. Rav Moshe expands this opinion and then says his shtikkel about Yerushalayim. Yerushalayim was fully enclosed but yet had a rsh”r inside it. This seems to uphold this opinion. And it is clear that there were times that putting up an eruv in a metropolis is not a given. And this that the minhag is to be zealous about putting up eruvin that is because they understood that there needs to be 600,000 for a rsh”r. All eruvin that were put up were in cities without 600,000. And we have no minhag to be lenient about this. This is clearly Rav Moshe’s psak not to put up an eruv without precedence.”
Major conflation of the issues. Rav Moshe maintains (O.C. 1:139) that mechitzos would not be sufficient for sratyas. Rav Moshe also states that we do not have a minhag regarding sratyas in cities containing shishim ribo. Rav Moshe argues that they did no establish an eruv for Yerushalyim even though it is a chiyuv to establish one, was because they did not want that those who come to Yerushlayim should establish eruvin in cities that are prohibited. Manhattan he compares to Yerushalyim, and Brooklyn he says is possibly like Yerushalyim regarding this issue.
Later Rav Moshe writes (O.C. 4:87-88, and Hapardus) that the minhag was to establish eruvin in cities containing shishim ribo, and hence, he sets forth his chiddush of three million over a 12 mil by 12 mil area. He also admits that the population of a 12 mil by 12 mil area is reckoned for a srtaya, and not the entire city. Rav Moshe also writes regarding Manhattan that once the rabbanim establish an eruv he would not make use of his argument regarding Yerushalyim.
There is no three million people over an area of 12 mil by 12 mil in Brooklyn. There is no sratya that services a 12 mil by 12 mil area that contains shishim ribo. If Manhattan after the establishment of the eruv, Yerushalyim was not a concern, how much more so regarding Brooklyn where he questioned if it can even be compared to Yerushalyim.
[Rav Moshe’s argument regarding Yerushalyim is puzzling. In fact there is no ciyuv to make an eruv for an entire city, only maavaos and chatzeiros. Some Rishonim actually state that an eruv was made for the maavaos and chatzeiros of Yerushlayim.]

“There are two opinions of reshus harrabim in the S”A. (OC 345:7) The first opinion states that markets and forums that are 16 amos wide (…sic…) the second opinion adds that if 600,000 don’t pass in it every day it is not a rsh”r.
There are numerous differences between these statements. Rav Moshe insisted that the only machlokes is about this minimum number. Three things come out from this. 1) There is no clear answer on what the first opinion holds is the minimum. 2) There is no differences that are dependent on this one. 3) What makes a rsh”r is the use of the area and not is shape and size.
So it follows that there are three psakim. 1) Without 600,000 we can always build an eiruv. And that has been the minhag as well. 2) The poskim that worked out instances of the Mishkanos Yaakov lekulah are not to be relied upon. That wasn’t the minhag. 3) The problem of d’oraysa is not about the circumstances of the town as much as the comprehensive area.”
What a bunch of gibberish. You are adding arguments to what Rav Moshe wrote.
Rav Moshe mentioned that we follow the vyesh omrim, lchatchilah. The rest of what you wrote is meaningless, and mostly incorrect. E.g. “The poskim that worked out instances of the Mishkanos Yaakov lekulah are not to be relied upon. That wasn’t the minhag.” Huh, the Mishkenos Yaakov was lechumrah. E.g. “The problem of d’oraysa is not about the circumstances of the town as much as the comprehensive area.” Huh, its about the number of people over an area of 12 mil by 12 mil, the area of the deigalei hamidbar.

Neville Chaim Berlin, n0mesorah,
The two of you are jokesters. You pontificate on every issue as if you are betoch hadvarim, but when you are called out, instead of admitting that you have no shychus to the inyan, you continue to argue. The joke is that you claim to have the poskim on your side, when in fact the overwhelming majority of poskim disagree. The only posek that I argue was mislead was Rav Moshe, and this demolishes your house of cards. Since the majority of those opposing the eruv were just following his lead (and do not know the inyan). The fact that these rabbanim would argue against an eruv consisting of mechitzos demonstrates that they either do not know the inyan or are not interested in the emes.
You are the one that is frustrated, because regarding every issue that you debate you try to argue with lists, but regarding this issue the list of authority would not be on your side (you simply did not realize). The two of you have made many statements that are clearly incorrect. I am not trying to demonstrate my knowledge of the inyan. It is only that you make statements as if you know what you are talking about. I feel bad for you as you are not capable of being modeh al haemes, that you are out of your league and should stay out of the matter.

Typical. You pick one point to argue. If I were to go back and collect all the arguments that I set forth that you did not address it would be illuminating how weak your arguments truly are.
At the minimum Rav Elyashiv did not hear from the pro side, so his statement is not complete. If Rav Belsky is any proof, there is no doubt that these rabbanim did not know, or did not follow Rav Moshe’s shitos. Hence, their arguments are not relevant to our debate. In any case, you cannot answer Rav Dovid’s inconstancies, and are throwing up smokescreens. You are not throwing half sources, you have no sources.

“5) Rav Tuvya’s story clearly shows that there were meetings about eruvin in the 50’s. This is what I was posting about the eruv vaad. Rav Aaron and Rav Moshe were trying to avoid specific pitfalls. You had enough chances to call out eruvin that aren’t properly constructed or maintained. It is all the same issue and issur. Whatever the reason that an eruv becomes passul, it’s the same problem. You want to throw around that one has to know all the halachah to be part of the conversation, but somehow can’t imagine why real life eruvin would be problematic.”
Rav Tuvia’s story does not demonstrate anything. Fiction. There was no vaad, only a pro eruv vaad. There were some meetings in the Agudas Harrabanim. No Rav Aharon and Rav Moshe’s arguments where regarding reshus harabbim, not regarding the possibility that an eruv would become passul. Stop making arguments that you can’t support. The claim that an eruv would become passul, is as good an argument as we should stop eating food because the hechsherim can become lax and allow treifos. You wouldn’t know a kosher eruv from a passul eruv if I hit on the head with it.

“3) Included in the talmidim of Rav Moshe that I know are two that actively build eruvin. They both would never carry in Brooklyn. Rav Moshe was clear his whole life not to build eruvin in Brooklyn. The teshuva opens up with that he doesn’t agree. Rav Belsky spoke about it many times. It is silly to claim more knowledge from his teshuvos than the many people who heard it directly from him. This was common knowledge when the eruv was put up twenty years ago.”
You entire argument is irrelevant, and demonstrates that you do not begin to understand the issue. No one disagrees that Rav Moshe did not personally agree to an eruv in Brooklyn. However, his teshuvos demonstrate that he was mislead about the facts on the ground. Rav Belsky’s opinion is not relevant to this debate. He clearly did not agree with Rav Moshe’s shitos. He maintained that shishim ribo is conditional on a city. Rav Moshe stated emphatically that the minhag was not so. Rav Belsky argued that pirtzos esser is d’Oraysa, Rav Moshe upheld otherwise.

n0mesorah,
“I was offline for most of the last month and did not have the headsapce for this thread. You posted some really out there stuff recently, and I won’t bother calling you out. I don’t know meseches eruvin but that won’t be a problem here. I now see that you don’t have a clue about the original sources and what they actually say. That is why you are so convinced of your side of the argument.
You do not know meseches Eruvin nor do you know hilchos eruvin. You throw around arguments as a smokescreen in order to cover your am haratzus.

Neville Chaim Berlin,
“Yes, I’m aware of what you’re referring to because we’ve had others* come here and make the same argument before, and it’s not only me that shoots them down.”
No you did not realize that I am not the one making the tally claim. This is again proof that you can’t be modeh al haemes. You simply do not know the inyan, but have no problem making sweeping statements.

“Unless you live in some obscure state with no Jews, you obviously interact with other yidden enough to know that your shittos are extremely out of the ordinary.”
I interact enough to know that they do not know the inyan. If my shitos, which are totally not my own, are considered out of the ordinary, it is proof that you simply do not know the inyan. It is not as if I am quoting shitos yechidaos. It is you who is relying one singular opinions, but do not realize it.

“You could say that at this point I’m just bullying you for being different rather than making real arguments, and that might be a fair criticism, but given how much you changed the tone of this thread for the worse, I don’t really care.”
It is not that you don’t care, but only that you do not know what to answer. It is for the worse because you have no real arguments. Why is it that when it comes to the inyan of eruvin people make up their mind prior to studying the sugya.

“The thing you quoted me seems to be a quote within a quote, and it seems like Rav Shlomo Kluger’s quote ends before it gets to the conclusion about places like Paris and London. What sefer is the whole thing actually from?”
Huh? Please reread the beginning of the Hebrew. Paris and London are not part of his quotes, but my observation.

“So, me telling him to follow his own rav is trying to convert him to my way, but you straight up telling him what to do is giving him options? Are you actually insane?”
First of all you did not read between the brackets. Second, all the CR threads are dispensing halachic arguments, and no one argues that you have to ask your rav, and so stop the debate. Why should eruvin be any different. This is a forum of ideas, which does not translate as final p’sak. Third, most people have been dispensing anti-eruv arguments, so it is the side that is pro that is under represented. Fourth, the overwhelming majority of poskim would be supportive, and the world should follow them. Fifth, an educated consumer is the best customer, and rabbanim need to step up to the plate, and learn hilchos eruvin, prior to just following what others say. I am insane because you disagree. This again demonstrates that when the inyan is eruvin people lose their mind.

Neville Chaim Berlin,
“With all due respect, I’m going to trust their counts over your’s. Obviously it isn’t purely quantitative.”
Your just shooting from the hip, and have no idea what I am referring to. The Mishkenos Yaakov (and the Mishnah Beruarh, who followed him), was the one who argued that it is quantitative, because in his times there were more Rishonim published. It was the Bais Ephraim who insisted it is minhag. [However, the Bais Ephraim did argue that in fact the Mishkenos Yaakov is incorrect regarding numbers as well.] Hence, either one follows the Bais Ephraim who argues that it is the minhag, or one follows the Mishkenos Yaakov and seeks out all the Rishonim that have been published to date. In fact today we know that the Mishkenos Yaakov’s tally has been greatly superseded.

“Unless they were time travelers, they didn’t say anything about reshusei harabim “today.”
This is a made up argument by people who never learnt the inyan, and don’t realize that the Rishonim and Achronim meant not just in their times, but forever. I will just quote Rav Shlomo Kluger:
זה לשון “ספר החיים” לגאון ישראל הגר”ש קלוגער ז”ל (סי’ שמ”ה סעי’ ז) שהשיב לחכם אחד שהקשהו מיבמות (קי”ג ע”ב) דר’ יצחק אתאביד לי’ מפתחי ברה”ר, הרי מוכח דאף בזה”ז יש רה”ר, והשיב: “אבל הבל יפצה, דאטו לא משכחת לה בימי הש”ס לאחר החורבן שהיה מקום שעוברין בו ס’ רבוא… והרי דעת רש”י הוא זה דאין בזה”ז רה”ר, אלא ודאי דבימי חכמי הש”ס היה שכיח מקומות שיהיה נחשב רה”ר שהיה בו ס’ רבוא, וזה פשוט”. דברי קדשו אלו נאמרו בזמן שעדיין היו עיירות גדולות כמו לונדון ופאריז שהיו בהם יותר מס”ר אוכלוסין ואעפ”כ כתב דבזה”ז אין רה”ר

“You can’t confidently say “we” when you have no idea what the questioner is. Hence why I told him he needs to go by his mesora/rav. You did the same thing with n0mesora regarding the OP; why can’t this discussion just be theoretical for you? Why do you insist on trying to convince people to be more meikel in actuality?”
You are obfuscating. You clearly meant that the issue is cut and dried, and that is why one should ask his rav. I argued that there are many reasons to allow, and hence there are really no reasons to be machmir. [However, I do not disagree that one should follow his rav.] Regarding shihsim ribo, unless he is Sfardei, we follow the Rema. I am pretty sure that the OP, you and n0mesora are Ashkenazim. Even for Sefardim it is not that simple what is the opinion of the Mechaber. Many poskim maintain the Shulchan Aruch accepts shishim ribo lechatchilah.
The question is not why I try to convince people to be mekil, but only why are people trying to argue that one should be machmir. From the get go, people make statements that a reshus harabbim cannot be encompassed by a tzuras hapesach, and that the only heter for cities is shishim ribo. All these declarations demonstrate that people simply do not know the inyan, and are seeking chumros. Why?

“Call it what you must.”
Sorry you are witness number one. It is comical that so many people shoot their mouth off regarding eruvin without admitting that they simply do not know the inyan.

Neville Chaim Berlin,
“OK, I’ll concede. I was wrong in my wording of this statement. I though I was clear enough that they aren’t considered machallel shabbos, but if not I apologize.”
I accept the apology.

“You’re using “rov,” or most way too loosely. The statement “there are no reshus harabim today” was generally made way before Brooklyn or Manhattan were a reality. If there aren’t reshusei harabim today, then there never can be.”
It is a modern day argument that shishim ribo applies to a city, as Rav Moshe himself exclaimed. Warsaw, Lodz, Odessa and Paris, all demonstrate that I am correct. Hence, all the poskim who maintain that there is no reshus harabbim today are even referring to cities such as Brooklyn and Manhattan. Only according to Rav Moshe’s chiddushim are Brooklyn and Manhattan unique. The few poskim who argue that shishim ribo applies to a city are going against the mesorah and the minhag, as stated by the Divrei Malkeil.
There is no such argument that otherwise there can never be a reshus harabbim. In fact that is exactly what those Rishonim and Acronim are arguing, there is no more a reshus harabbim at all.