HaloScan.com - Comments

Any way that you could provide a link to this document? FWIW, documents like this are yet another reason to live in "out of town" neighborhoods, especially KGH, which has the zcus of having an eruv approved in writing by RMF. Just curious-how much do you think that the document cost to print and distribute. I can't imagine that the proponents of any eruv in Flatbush consist of possibly a few YIs and some Chasidishe shtieblach. Doesn't such an extravagent pamphlet strike anyone as a waste of precious communal funds?
Steve Brizel | 06.15.05 - 5:34 pm | #

I'm not a halakhic-savvy teenager, so I don't comprehend eruv controversies.

But I wonder whether a pamphlet like that is effective. What happens to those who believe in the "sanctity of Shabbos" with the eruv? Are they under fire from Gedolim? Either it is halakhically permissable or it is not...(yes, that sounds black and white, but isn't an eruv either kosher or not? Why is it so complicated?) why is it necessary to bring various Gedolim into it?

We don't keep the eruv by choice, but that is a custom, I believe, and I don't live anywhere near Flatbush. Oh, well.
Chana | Homepage | 06.15.05 - 5:42 pm | #

The main issue Chana is whether or not parts of Brooklyn constitute a true reshus harabim. If it is, then an eruv will not help - you can only build an eruv around a karmelis. If not, then an eruv should be acceptable, as it is in many other communities (such as in Baltimore).

The Wolf
BrooklynWolf | Homepage | 06.15.05 - 5:51 pm | #

And I, too, would like a link to the document if one is available, Gil.

The Wolf
BrooklynWolf | Homepage | 06.15.05 - 5:52 pm | #

Gil,

You make an excellent point. However, you are missing one important factor. Your point is what should be.

When the Eiruv was for modern Jews then the eiruv is treif, when the gemara is transalated for modern Jews its treif when modern Jews defend themselves its treif. When heimeshe Yidden have an eiruv or use an artscroll gemara or have a shomrim then its OK.

If you are on the right side then its OK if you are on the other side then its not OK
Shragie | 06.15.05 - 5:57 pm | #

Shragie,
That sounds like a very jaded view of the world. For what it's worth i am sorry if you have come in contact with some poor representatives of a certain sect of jews...i also wish you would not paint a whole group of people w/ such a broad brush. obviously you don't like the same being done about the "Modern" Jews.
Homestar | 06.15.05 - 6:09 pm | #

Please fill in my ignorance. My impression was that the problem of an Eruv in Flatbush was Ocean Parkway being a Reshus Harabbim Deoraisa.

Thus, cant an Eruv be made which does not include OP?

Help me out here....
Dude | 06.15.05 - 6:22 pm | #

No. Any street that connects to Ocean Parkway becomes a problem also.
Gil | Homepage | 06.15.05 - 6:30 pm | #

Full document available here (large PDF)
Gil | Homepage | 06.15.05 - 6:37 pm | #

Who supports the eruv? I am well aware of RMF's sweeping influence in halacha and p'sak, but is it obvious that RMF's position is the only way to look at the Flatbush eruv? Are the poskim who support the eruv not being intellectually honest? If two different poskim both reach their respective conclusions based an informed view of the facts and sound halachic reasoning, why can't this be a legitimate machlokes, with some relying on the eruv and others not? Since when do we require uniform practice? Legitimate machlokes is an integral part of authentic Judaism. I don't believe Beis Shammai put up flyers about Beis Hillel just because they had different views on halacha (in fact, they intermarried, notwithstanding their opposing views on the halachos of yibbum).

BTW, we DO NOT follow RMF's rulings accross the board. For example, IIRC, he is VERY machmir about music, but the olam does not seem to follow his view.

BTW, Steve, don't get too comfortable in KGH! When I lived there, I heard rumblings from some machmirim that the streets of KGH (including Main Street) have changed considerably since RMF wrote his teshuva and that it no longer applies to the current facts on the ground (pardon the pun). (Note that these rumblings did NOT stop me from using the eruv.)
Chaim Gottesman | 06.15.05 - 6:43 pm | #

My point was that those who never used the Vaad HaRabbonim eruv should not be using the new one. Those who did, clearly did not follow R. Moshe Feinstein.

Supporters of the eruv have a website: http://www.flatbusheruv.org
Gil | Homepage | 06.15.05 - 6:46 pm | #

There is an extreemly important fact involved here that many do not realize, and is vital to understand the severity of the issue.

R' Moshe Feinstein was not thew 'only' one in the previous generation to prohibit the making of an eruv in brooklyn. about thirty years ago there was a metting of the greatest gedolim of the time (the satmar rov, the debriciner rov, Reb Moshe, Reb Yakov, R Aron Kotler as well as twenty odd other people. There was a unanimous decision amongst ALL of them that making an eruv in brooklyn is prohibited.

This eruv is a slap in the face to the entire previous generation of gedolei Torah.

I personally live in B.P. and will not eat meat or drink the wine of someone who carries with the eruv.

Good Post Gil
anon | 06.15.05 - 7:03 pm | #

And all those Young Israel members and rabbis?
Gil | Homepage | 06.15.05 - 7:08 pm | #

how come rav elyashav doesn't have a hat on???
Anonymous | 06.15.05 - 7:15 pm | #

This is exactly what I am talking about. According to the website, the eruv is approved by a legitimate posek, Rav Benzion Wosner. Even if you believe that Flatbush is a reshus harabim and the eruv is invalid, how can you say that someone who relies on the p'sak of a legitimate posek becomes a mechalel shabbos for purposes of kashrus, eidus, etc. Is that really the "mechalel shabbos" Chazal refer to for these halachos - someone who uses the eruv or performs some other action on shabbos under the consultaion, and with the approval, of a legitimate moreh hora'ah?

Do you mean that whenever the rishonim have a machlokes in Hilchos Shabbos as to the scope of a melacha, the machmir opinion must also hold that the meikil opinion is a mechalel shabbos for purposes of kashrus, eidus, etc.?

And, I agree, good post Gil.
Chaim Gottesman | 06.15.05 - 7:16 pm | #

I don't live in Flatbush, but I don't see the issue with Ocean Parkway.

There are two eruvim in the Bronx. One has the Henry Hudson Parkway going right through it; the other has Pelham Parkway going right through it. The Henry Hudson in particular is busier than Ocean Parkway. Nobody in the Bronx says you aren't Orthodox if you rely on the eruvim, which are endorsed by all the local Rabbis.

Also, check out http://www.erub.org. Included in the site are endorsements of the Sephardic Eruv and a tshuvah from Haham Obadia Yosef on the subject.
charliehall | 06.15.05 - 7:25 pm | #

why do we need pictures of gedolim with this? can we not understand that rabbi X disapproves of the eruv without the silly pictures? was there not a time when most of the gedolim frowned upon unnecessary pictures? do the people who want us to follow the gedolim think of them as celebraties or pop stars?
down_w/_ paparazzi | 06.15.05 - 7:29 pm | #

>>And all those Young Israel members and rabbis?

im not sure what your refering to, were they included in the meeting or would i eat their meat ??

if its the former i dont know, the latter, no, i wouldnt.
anon | 06.15.05 - 7:30 pm | #

Gil,

You may want to cut off the bottom of the pdf, as it contains your home address.
Jonathan | 06.15.05 - 7:44 pm | #

You've got to love the title

"Our Gedolei Yisrael" - in contrast to what ? "Their Gedolei Yisrael"

"Plead for the sanctity of Shabbos" - in contrast to those who disagree with their opinion who by definition are against the sanctity of Shabbos?

I'd laugh if I weren't already crying.

BTW do Briskers who generally hold eruvim not to be good not eat in anyone's house who holds from eruvim or is this a chiddush? Perhaps anon can share his/her list of current issues that put one in the no-eating zone (e.g. Flatbush carriers, R' Slifkin readers...)
KT
joel rich | 06.15.05 - 7:46 pm | #

Thanks. I removed it.
Gil | Homepage | 06.15.05 - 7:47 pm | #

Gil-There is a lot of blank space before the poster (I think it's too long).
Male Repellant | 06.15.05 - 7:58 pm | #

I think that this slick color brochure has style but no substance. It is a product of a good graphic house as opposed to The Community Eruv booklet in favor of the eruv, which is obviously the work of talmudei chachamim. It’s atypical of you, Rabbi Student, to be so categorically resistant to the challenge to the status quo that the Community Eruv booklet represents.
Anonymous | 06.15.05 - 8:04 pm | #

R' Dovid's letter states that Flatbush and environs have 2.5 million people. That is not true.
Brooklyn doesn't even have 2.5 million people, let alone Flatbush.
me | 06.15.05 - 8:04 pm | #

The address thing doesn't really matter, if you type R Gil's name into any address lookup you can get his address and phone number in a couple of seconds...it's not like he's trying to hide...
J | 06.15.05 - 8:04 pm | #

anon wrote
>>>R' Moshe Feinstein was not thew 'only' one in the previous generation to prohibit the making of an eruv in brooklyn. about thirty years ago there was a metting of the greatest gedolim of the time (the satmar rov, the debriciner rov, Reb Moshe, Reb Yakov, R Aron Kotler as well as twenty odd other people. There was a unanimous decision amongst ALL of them that making an eruv in brooklyn is prohibited.>>>

This meeting never occurred. The Satmar Rav never was on any kol korei against eruvin and maintained that there is no reshus harabbim today and the Deberciner’s issue was clearly not with reshus harabbim as well.

>>>I personally live in B.P. and will not eat meat or drink the wine of someone who carries with the eruv.>>>

According to HaGaon HaRav Moshe zt”l there is no aveirah in following one’s rav even on issurei chilul Shabbos, even when the halachah is not like his rav’s interpretation(Igros Moshe, 1:186) . Even Rav Moshe would not have a problem eating meat and drinking wine from one who utilizes an eruv that his rav approves of, why would you.
Anonymous | 06.15.05 - 8:08 pm | #

me - Gut gezogt
Anonymous | 06.15.05 - 8:10 pm | #

http://www.flatbusheruv.org/ Down...Eruvbooklet.pdf
Anonymous | 06.15.05 - 8:11 pm | #

R' Gil wrote
>>> My point was that those who never used the Vaad HaRabbonim eruv should not be using the new one. Those who did, clearly did not follow R. Moshe Feinstein.>>>

Why the new eruv is a mechitzos eruv.
anonymous | 06.15.05 - 8:15 pm | #

The Gerer Rebbe, whose picture appears, does not serve as a halachic decisor whatsoever.
Moreover, the Rav of the Flatbush Gerer Shtibel, who is a known posek, does not appear in the pamphlet.
This casts doubt upon the other Rabbonim's veracity as presented.
Cyrkle | Homepage | 06.15.05 - 8:16 pm | #

R' Gil wrote
>>> No. Any street that connects to Ocean Parkway becomes a problem also.>>>

No it does not since a tzuras hapesach would be sufficient to demarcate these streets from OP. That is if OP is a problem to begin with which it's not.
anonymous | 06.15.05 - 8:23 pm | #

So is the picture of Rav Shmuel Wosner shlita a farce since he alows carrying in BP.
anonymous | 06.15.05 - 8:26 pm | #

If Ocean Parkway is a problem, is there not a possible solution? As far as I'm aware (my facts may be incorrect), the Caulfield eruv in Melbourne, Australia, encounters the difficulty of Dandenong Road (a major arterial, which may pose a problem of reshut harabbim de'oraitah) being at its edge. Supposedly the poskim persuade the city authorities to shut down the highway temporarily (very late at night, about once a year). Would this suffice to turn it into a Carmelit? Perhaps only on a mekel opinion. Maybe someone can correct me if I have got my facts wrong.
Habib of KiwiJewPundit | Homepage | 06.15.05 - 9:33 pm | #

If I am not mistaken according to many poskim an eruv CAN be built around a true deoraita reshut ha-rabbim so long as it has 3 or 4 true walls (not just tsurot hapetah) -- this is what they have in LA.

www.laeruv.org/eruvguide.htm
Joe Socher | Homepage | 06.15.05 - 9:53 pm | #

"R' Moshe Feinstein was not thew 'only' one in the previous generation to prohibit the making of an eruv in brooklyn. about thirty years ago there was a metting of the greatest gedolim of the time (the satmar rov, the debriciner rov, Reb Moshe, Reb Yakov, R Aron Kotler as well as twenty odd other people."

RAK was a posek? Someone enlighten me.

"how come rav elyashav doesn't have a hat on???"
You shouldn't go around spreading motzi shem ra like that.
Alter Neulander | 06.15.05 - 10:02 pm | #

Brooklyn population
Gil | Homepage | 06.15.05 - 10:15 pm | #

" do the people who want us to follow the gedolim think of them as celebraties or pop stars?"

On target. There is an incidious securalization (or more accurately profanation) in the charedi world. Whereas the MO (attempt to) be selective of what secular influences are acceptable, in the charedi community elements of modernity seep in undetected and become synthesized mimetically . So much for buzzwords.
Symptomatic of all this is the immature manner in which the eruv controversy plays itself out. What we have is not an intellectual debate, but a petty campaign whose arsenal includes glossy posters, bumper stickers and mass mailings. Have they hired Karl Rove? Such political theater may be appropiate for deciding a gubernatorial race, but surely denigrates Judaism when used to decide halachic matters.
Alter Neulander | 06.15.05 - 10:17 pm | #

I see that R' Benzion Wosner gives a hechsher, and R' Shmuel Wosner is on the anti-eruv poster. Is the latter misrepresented, as suggested above, or is there some family tension?
Chaim | Homepage | 06.15.05 - 10:29 pm | #

On a distinct but related point, does anyone think that the ubiquity of eruvim in large communities (esp in Israel and USA) contributes to a taking for granted of the issur of tiltul be'shabbat? Living in a place without an eruv, it's scary how many people in the MO/Dati Leumi world (including well educated people) are ignorant of the status of tiltul and it's modern relevance.
Habib of KiwiJewPundit | Homepage | 06.15.05 - 10:31 pm | #

http://www.flatbusheruv.org/ Down...Eruvbooklet.pdf

I stopped reading it when I didn't see a name signed to it. Anonymous writing like that is worthless.

Why the new eruv is a mechitzos eruv.

That was never anyone's main objection to the Vaad HaRabbonim eruv.

So is the picture of Rav Shmuel Wosner shlita a farce since he alows carrying in BP.

I believe they asked him and he said people have to follow the rabbis in Flatbush.

Supposedly the poskim persuade the city authorities to shut down the highway temporarily (very late at night, about once a year).

I believe RM Feinstein would require them to close it much more often.

It’s atypical of you, Rabbi Student, to be so categorically resistant to the challenge to the status quo that the Community Eruv booklet represents.

Read my post!!! I'm not necessarily against an eruv in Flatbush. I'm against people deciding they don't like the pesak they've been following for three decades and suddenly changing it. The local MO rabbi told me that he feels a bit guilty about using the Vaad HaRabbonim eruv and I convinced him not to feel guilty!
Gil | Homepage | 06.15.05 - 10:45 pm | #

Living in a place without an eruv, it's scary how many people in the MO/Dati Leumi world (including well educated people) are ignorant of the status of tiltul and it's modern relevance.

Yes. Many of them come to the big city and don't even know not to wear gloves.
Gil | Homepage | 06.15.05 - 10:51 pm | #

It should be pointed out that the eruv supporters are irresponsible to present it as if R. Moshe would support the eruv. RDF is absolutley right to protest the all too typical misuse of his father in support of positions that he was against.
S. | Homepage | 06.15.05 - 10:53 pm | #

Although not properly indicated on www.erub.org (the teshuvah quoted there does not specifically pertain to this eruv), I am told that RO"Y permits and endorses that eruv.
David | 06.15.05 - 11:22 pm | #

page 6.
"20 years ago...after it was clarified that there are over 2.5 million people living in flatbush and its environs he (reb moishe) said that it is impossible to build this eruv"....
dovid feinstein.

according to the 2000 census all of brooklyn has a population about 2,465,000.

i'm not sure what the halachik issues are/were. i've ben told by people against the eruv that the human traffic on ocean parkway is what makes it a reshut harabim and that therefore an eruv cannot be put up. it a little hard to believe that 25% of brooklyn's population is on ocean parkway at any one time.
gubbyhays | 06.16.05 - 12:06 am | #

The order of the gedolim is R. Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, R. Aharon Leib Shteinman,R. Chaim Kanievsky,
the Gerrer Rebbe, and R. Shmuel Wosner.
Clarify | 06.16.05 - 12:17 am | #

"it a little hard to believe that 25% of brooklyn's population is on ocean parkway at any one time."
The Shulhan Aruch's definition of reshut harabbim is 600,000 per day, not at a particular point in time.
Habib of KiwiJewPundit | Homepage | 06.16.05 - 12:44 am | #

"I should add that it is clear that publications of this sort are frequently blatant lies."

All the people pictured here are on record as opposing the eruv, so where's the blatant lie?
Zev | 06.16.05 - 1:19 am | #

R' Gil wrote:
>>>I stopped reading it when I didn't see a name signed to it. Anonymous writing like that is worthless.>>>
Funny, you read the anti-eruv brochure and that’s anonymous as well. If the letters from the rabbanim classifies the brochure as non-anonymous, there are signed letters in The Community Eruv booklet as well. I think that you should try to read it; you may become educated in hilchos eruvin. I know I did. One thing I can tell you, the anti-eruv people don’t know Rav Moshe’s shita as well as these guys do.

>>>That was never anyone's main objection to the Vaad HaRabbonim eruv.>>>

Had RMF known about the mechitzos encompassing Brooklyn he would have allowed an eruv in Flatbush. None of his other reservations about the Flatbush eruv would have caused him to object futher.
anonymous | 06.16.05 - 1:32 am | #

S' wrote
>>>It should be pointed out that the eruv supporters are irresponsible to present it as if R. Moshe would support the eruv. RDF is absolutley right to protest the all too typical misuse of his father in support of positions that he was against.>>>

But RDF claimed in the West Rogers Park Eruv booklet (1993 p. 23) that his father’s shita is three million people and not 2.5 million as he writes in this letter. So how does 2.5 million create a problem for Brooklyn according to RDF.
anonymous | 06.16.05 - 1:34 am | #

Zev wrote
>>>All the people pictured here are on record as opposing the eruv, so where's the blatant lie?>>>

This is false. Rav Chaim Kanievsky shlita in Shoneh Halachos (siman 363) maintains the CI’s shita that there is no reshus harabbim today. Rav Shmuel Wosner maintains the CI’s shita as well and allows his talmidim to carry in the Boro Park eruv.
anonymous | 06.16.05 - 1:44 am | #

R' Gil wrote
>>>I believe they asked him and he said people have to follow the rabbis in Flatbush.>>>

No. He said every one should follow their rav.
anonymous | 06.16.05 - 1:47 am | #

its a slick madison ave booklet with out any content.
in one of the previous anti eiruv pashkvelin
they accused rav wosner from mosey as a ben avsholom. they claimed that rov wosner from bnai brak was against the eiruv.this has proven to be wrong as per the naroler rebbes letter to rav rubin where rav wosner from bb stated that is not taking a stand but in the same time stating that his son that is a moreh haroeh par excellance.
this slick booklet has the naroler stating that he didnt mean to insult any one ,but he never denied the contents of the letter.
its a grate booklet if your children collect gedolim cards.
rav gil why isnt it possible to support the new eiruv and not support the old one if the facts are that certain modifications were made to the new eiruv
tuly | 06.16.05 - 1:51 am | #

R'Gil
>>>(I should add that it is clear that publications of this sort are frequently blatant lies. I suspect that this one is not, but who really knows?)>>>

>>>I stopped reading it when I didn't see a name signed to it. Anonymous writing like that is worthless.>>>

You understand that a publication like this brochure can be blatant lies since the signatures can be false and so on; however you read it. But an anonymous Torah booklet where you can nevertheless debate its merits on its Torah alone you stop reading?
anon 1 | 06.16.05 - 1:59 am | #

>>>its a great booklet if your children collect gedolim cards>>>

Could you imagine if the pro-eruv side would publish such a brochure what the reaction would be. They would all criticize that there is no content. When the pro-eruv people publish real content then people like R’ Gil complain that its published anonymously. The pro-eruv side can never win. Judging from the content of this slick brochure I don’t believe that the anti-eruv people have what to answer to The Community Eruv booklet.
anonymous | 06.16.05 - 2:13 am | #

R' Gil
>>>Read my post!!! I'm not necessarily against an eruv in Flatbush. I'm against people deciding they don't like the pesak they've been following for three decades and suddenly changing it.>>>

Nobody is changing anything. We now know that Brooklyn is bounded by mechitzos. So why can’t things change.
anonymous | 06.16.05 - 2:42 am | #

R. Gil,

I think a ben Torah would be able to be careful enough not to remove and carry the gloves.
The Jewropean | Homepage | 06.16.05 - 4:30 am | #

according to the 2000 census all of brooklyn has a population about 2,465,000.

And in 1970, 2.6 million.

Had RMF known about the mechitzos encompassing Brooklyn he would have allowed an eruv in Flatbush.

The mehitzos are not sufficiently complete to be significant.

The Shulhan Aruch's definition of reshut harabbim is 600,000 per day, not at a particular point in time.

And they do not all have to be on Ocean Parkway. According to RM Feinstein, they merely have to be on a street in the city.

Funny, you read the anti-eruv brochure and that’s anonymous as well.

It is a collection of letters.

there are signed letters in The Community Eruv booklet as well.

Those, I read. But not the bulk of the booklet.

One thing I can tell you, the anti-eruv people don’t know Rav Moshe’s shita as well as these guys do.

So totally incorrect.

But RDF claimed in the West Rogers Park Eruv booklet (1993 p. 23) that his father’s shita is three million people and not 2.5 million as he writes in this letter. So how does 2.5 million create a problem for Brooklyn according to RDF.

No, RMF never gave an exact number of how many people have to be in the city. He gave an exact number of how many people have to be on the street during the day and then gave an estimate of how many would have to be in the city in order to have 600,000 on the street during the day. It is a mistake to take the estimate as gospel.

This is false. Rav Chaim Kanievsky shlita in Shoneh Halachos (siman 363) maintains the CI’s shita that there is no reshus harabbim today. Rav Shmuel Wosner maintains the CI’s shita as well and allows his talmidim to carry in the Boro Park eruv.

But, when asked, they also maintained that you must follow your local rabbis.

When the pro-eruv people publish real content then people like R’ Gil complain that its published anonymously. The pro-eruv side can never win.

For starters, they can start by being honest about who they are and what they have to say.
Gil | Homepage | 06.16.05 - 6:12 am | #

Unless the Eruv people are falsifying the numbers (it is pretty clear that they are not) Brooklyn doesn't have shishim ribo. The population of all of Brooklyn is 2.4 million people (2000 census) and only 55,000 cars drive on Ocean Parkway daily with an average of 1.5 occupants per vehicle(NYSDOT). I really don't understand why there is such great opposition.

Because RM Feinstein was not of the view that there has to be 600,000 people on Ocean Parkway. The city has to have 600,000 people on the street during the day (and not necessarily everyday either).
Gil | Homepage | 06.16.05 - 6:13 am | #

Where does R' Menashe Klein come into all this? I'm certainly not a buki in this whole topic, but as far as I recall, R' Moshe didn't assur it outright, he just said he couldn't be matir. And the Ungvarer had his svara, which many people accepted. I think this certainly is a case of marbeh machlokes b'lo tzorech.
That said, the people who don't hold of the eiruv in general aren't going to be eating at the houses of the people who do, in any event. I don't think any new changes will make much of a difference.

As far as eidus goes...what, people are going to come into beis din and the dayan is going to ask, do you hold of the Flatbush eiruv? I mean they might as well ask if you hold of hagshama.
Litvshe | Homepage | 06.16.05 - 6:44 am | #

Where does R' Menashe Klein come into all this?

He was the basis for the "old" Vaad HaRabbonim eruv. RM Feinstein and RA Kotler strongly disagreed with him, and their rulings were generally accepted by the Yeshiva world on this subject. I've lived in Brooklyn for a decade and it was never considered acceptable for someone in the "Black Hat" world to carry in the eruv. The reason is that they accepted RM Feinstein's ruling.
Gil | Homepage | 06.16.05 - 7:57 am | #

You are right but R' Moshe's opinion about 600,000 is a big chiddush which he himself admits. Most other poskim diagree.
bluke | Homepage | 06.16.05 - 7:59 am | #

You are right but R' Moshe's opinion about 600,000 is a big chiddush which he himself admits. Most other poskim diagree.

I'm not denying that. But those who followed his view for 30 years can't just stop now.
Gil | Homepage | 06.16.05 - 8:02 am | #

habib. do you think that there are 600,000 people on ocean parkway on any one day?
gubbyhays | 06.16.05 - 8:59 am | #

fyi
the address 1375 coney island ave is one of those mailbox services.
the money spent to put that brochure out could have been spent letova.
gubbyhays | 06.16.05 - 9:02 am | #

it's a control issue. keep the proletariat in line.
gubbyhays | 06.16.05 - 9:09 am | #

R Gil,

I wonder if you could explain further your post that
"I stopped reading it when I didn't see a name signed to it. Anonymous writing like that is worthless."
Why does its anonymity automatically make it worthless? I can see how an anonymous pesak might be worthless, but the pesak itself is signed. It seems to me that many great sefarim have been published anonymously. And, not to put too fine a point on it, but wasn't this blog itself anonymous?
For all I know, they're totally wrong, I just don't understand why it isn't even worth reading.
Dov | 06.16.05 - 9:54 am | #

Here on the UWS, we've had a local eruv for many years, recently expanded to include Central Park and the UES. It's accepted by the big MO shuls, not by the stieblach or the WS Kollel.

On warm Shabbasos, I've seen young people carrying basketballs, baseball gloves, and soccer balls through the park.

So eruvin may do some good, but they can also be harmful to the spirit of Shabbos.
Anon | 06.16.05 - 10:29 am | #

One of the saddest things about this is the placement of the gedolim in question. As a Brooklyn question, you'd expect prominence on the cover to be given to rabbanim from Brooklyn, New York, or, at least, the United States. Instead, those above the title are all from Israel, and the Americans are relegated to the bottom.

This is blatantly anti-halakhic: Poskim should be of the place for which they decide. But it illustrates a growing sociological truth.
Nachum Lamm | 06.16.05 - 10:31 am | #

"This is blatantly anti-halakhic: Poskim should be of the place for which they decide. But it illustrates a growing sociological truth."

Maybe but the strongest anti eruv argument is that Brooklynites are bound by having effectively accepted the psak of rav moshe, as the "City's rav."
Anonymous | 06.16.05 - 11:30 am | #

Gil, that was an unfair flip statement about the gloves on Shabbos issue. Normally you are more circumspect about brandishing a shitta. (p.s. You still don't get the difference between a baal nefesh, a ben torah, and everyone else, and you still don't know the difference between tov l'hachmir, yesh l'hachmir, assur, etc.)
Jeff | 06.16.05 - 11:38 am | #

I never used the Flatbush eruv, but I was impressed with the pro-eruv booklet. Rav Moshe clearly writes in the teshuvos that are photocopied in the booklet about the 3 million population requirement. Yet Rav Dovid states that it should be 2.5 million. Do you have info. on this discrepancy, R. Gil?

See above. RM Feinstein was insistent on the 600,000 number, and just estimated a ratio of how many people are necessary in a city to yield 600,000 on the street in a day. I think RYG Bechoffer discusses this in a footnote to his book (maybe p. 53 or so).
Gil | Homepage | 06.16.05 - 11:52 am | #

Gil, that was an unfair flip statement about the gloves on Shabbos issue.

You're too earnest. It was a joke.
Gil | Homepage | 06.16.05 - 11:52 am | #

Not that I'd eat meat served by someone who wears gloves in Flatbush on Shabbos, has ve-shalom.
Gil | Homepage | 06.16.05 - 11:53 am | #

Rav Ovadia Yosef only "approves" of this kind of eruv as a lesser of two evils as he firmly believes as he has written several times in Yabia Omer that if there are streets wider than 16 Amot then it is Reshut Harabim and the eruv doesn't help. Nevertheless, seeing that some people would be carrying and pushing strollers in these communities anyway whether there was an eruv or not, he would much rather there be an eruv there even if it isn't kosher by his standards in order to be melamed zechut on these people.
hoss | 06.16.05 - 12:26 pm | #

' I think RYG Bechoffer discusses this in a footnote to his book (maybe p. 53 or so).'

Which book is that?
Dave | 06.16.05 - 12:33 pm | #

R' Gil wrote
>>> And in 1970, 2.6 million.>>>

So what, there is less than 3 million.

>>>The mehitzos are not sufficiently complete to be significant.>>>

What are you talking about? Each of the three sides encompassing Brooklyn are omed merubeh al haparutz. This has been attested to by members of Rav Yechezkel Roth shlita’s Bais Din; see Emek HaTeshuvah (5:19), Rav Shlomo Gross shlita, Belzer Dayan of Boro Park. Rav Tuvia Goldstein zt”l sent a group from his kollel Emek Halacha. If your issue is pirtzos esser, Rav Moshe clearly states that pirtzos esser is only a rabbinical proscription (Igros Moshe, 2:89-90).

>>>And they do not all have to be on Ocean Parkway. According to RM Feinstein, they merely have to be on a street in the city.>>>

Not if Ocean Parkway is classified as a sratya.

>>>It is a collection of letters.>>>

Yes, but there are sidebars in this brochure that are written anonymously and you read them. Even more so, you are displaying them on your site. Additionally, the Muszay Rav’s letter has some very good points.

>>>Those, I read. But not the bulk of the booklet.>>>

You never read sefarim that are anonymous?

>>>So totally incorrect.>>>

You haven’t read the kuntres so you can’t judge it. I have read it and have discussed it with many people afterwards. Most rabbanim, never mind members of the community, don’t begin to know hilchos eruvin, nor do they know RMF’s teshuvas.

>>>No, RMF never gave an exact number of how many people have to be in the city. He gave an exact number of how many people have to be on the street during the day and then gave an estimate of how many would have to be in the city in order to have 600,000 on the street during the day. It is a mistake to take the estimate as gospel.>>>

So now you are disagreeing with RMF himself! RMF stated that since Brooklyn does not contain three million people the issue is no longer a D’Oraysa (Igros Moshe, O.C. 5:29). You are disagreeing with Reb Dovid shlita as well. He states clearly that the number is three million (West Rogers Park Eruv booklet, 1993 p. 23). Additionally, from the last two teshuvas that RMF wrote concerning eruvin, we see clearly that the number is three million (Igros Moshe, O.C. 5:28:5, 5:29).

>>>But, when asked, they also maintained that you must follow your local rabbis.>>>

Exactly, and those who would allow carrying should be able to say so freely. It’s amazing that some of the local rabbanim went to Eretz Yisroel to collect signatures! Are they so afraid that their congregants would not follow their p’sak?

>>>For starters, they can start by being honest about who they are and what they have to say.>>>

They are being honest about what they have to say, just read their kuntres. They probably don’t want to be ostracized from the community. I know people who can’t voice their true opinions because of their family’s stance, so I can understand the authors of this kuntres for wanting to
anonymous | 06.16.05 - 12:43 pm | #

R' Gil wrote
>>>The city has to have 600,000 people on the street during the day (and not necessarily everyday either).>>>

This is incorrect. RMF’s shita is like the Shulchan Aruch’s, that it has to be daily (Igros Moshe, O.C. 1:139:5, 4:87-88, 5:28:16).
anonymous | 06.16.05 - 12:45 pm | #

R' Gil wrote

>>>He was the basis for the "old" Vaad HaRabbonim eruv. RM Feinstein and RA Kotler strongly disagreed with him>>>

Rav Menashe Klein shlita was involved in eruvin way after RA Kotler was niftar. He was not involved in the Manhattan eruv, only Flatbush and Boro Park.
anonymous | 06.16.05 - 12:47 pm | #

anon wrote
>>>So eruvin may do some good, but they can also be harmful to the spirit of Shabbos.>>>

Well I guess you are smarter then Chazal.
anonymous | 06.16.05 - 12:48 pm | #

The book by RYG Bechoffer is entitled "The Modern Metropolitan Eruv", published by Feldheim.
S F | 06.16.05 - 12:50 pm | #

Dave wrote
>>>Yet Rav Dovid states that it should be 2.5 million.>>>

However, Rav Dovid said that his fathers shita is 3 million (West Rogers Park Eruv booklet, 1993 p. 23).
anonymous | 06.16.05 - 12:51 pm | #

RO"Y's arguments are agains standard tzurot ha-petah eruvin. He believes that this eruv (www.erub.org) is better since it consists of actual mehitzot. I am told this by somebody who personally spoke to him about this issue last year. He approves and endorses this eruv (as opposed to the one in Deal, NJ).
David | 06.16.05 - 1:01 pm | #

R' Gil wrote
>>>See above. RM Feinstein was insistent on the 600,000 number, and just estimated a ratio of how many people are necessary in a city to yield 600,000 on the street in a day. I think RYG Bechoffer discusses this in a footnote to his book (maybe p. 53 or so).>>>

Rabbi Bechhofer is in disagreement with RMF as well. The fact that RMF, after being told that the population of Brooklyn is less than his requirement, agreed that Brooklyn is no longer a D’Oraysa proves that it wasn’t just an estimated ratio but an actual amount.
anonymous | 06.16.05 - 1:04 pm | #

Rav Belsky has also looked at the "mechitzos" and he says that they aren't good enough.

I don't read anonymous things that are clearly politically motivated. If you believe what you are writing, sign your name. Otherwise you're just like one of those anonymous kol koreh writers, trying to stir up trouble without taking any responsibility.

I didn't read this booklet but I did read the one advocating the Kensington Eruv.

The 600,000 have to be on one day, but not on every day.

RYG Bechhofer, The Contemporary Eruv: Eruvin in Modern Metropolitan Areas (p. 53 n. 115):

Careful reading of Reb Moshe's teshuva yields the opposite conclusion: The presence of a population of 2.4 to 3 million people in an area is a siman that 600,000 people may be found in that area's streets. It is the latter phenomenon that is the sibba that the area is considered a reshus ha'rabbim. If, therefore, we can prove that more than 600,000 people are in the streets of an area, it is a reshus ha'rabbim, even if its population is less than 2.4 to 3 million.

RA Kotler's arguments apply equally to Manhattan and Brooklyn.
Gil | Homepage | 06.16.05 - 1:34 pm | #

As to most rabbis not knowing about hilkhos eruvin, before speaking about the "new" eruv 2 years ago my rabbi made a point of hazering the entire masekhta, not to mention RM Feinstein's and RA Kotler's teshuvos on the subject. He's still against the "new" eruv.

Someone earlier said that RA Kotler was not a posek. They published a whole book containing his collected teshuvos. Evidently, he did pasken.
Gil | Homepage | 06.16.05 - 1:37 pm | #

As far as I am aware, RM doesn't hold of the eruv in Manhattan as well. Anyone who holds of any eruv in Manhattan (e.g. upper west side and YU area) rely on the same reasonings of the Chazon Ish, that the brooklyn eruv does.

Whether you hold of the eruv or not, there is a bigger issue at hand. Has anyone considered the Chilul Hashem, Sinas Chinam, Loshon Horah, Motzei ShemRa, and a slew of other D'Araisas that ALL POSKIM agree on, that stems from propoganda about the eruv? Since when do people who won't even say good shabbos to each other when walking down the stree have so much "concern" about their neighbors actions (M'Din Kol Yisroel Aravim zeh l'zeh of course)? The point is - there is a reliable psak which people follow. If you don't want to hold of it - Dont. But when you up to heaven - your stringent opinion of the eruv will not outweigh the chilul hashem, sinas chinom, etc...
Just to keep things in perspective
NR | 06.16.05 - 1:44 pm | #

"Whether you hold of the eruv or not, there is a bigger issue at hand."

Who says this is a bigger issue than chilul Shabbos b'farhesya?
Zev | 06.16.05 - 2:10 pm | #

"This is false. Rav Chaim Kanievsky shlita in Shoneh Halachos (siman 363) maintains the CI’s shita that there is no reshus harabbim today. Rav Shmuel Wosner maintains the CI’s shita as well and allows his talmidim to carry in the Boro Park eruv."

What I said was that they oppose carrying in the Flatbush eruv, which is true.
Zev | 06.16.05 - 2:16 pm | #

"Who says this is a bigger issue than chilul Shabbos b'farhesya?"

Chilul Hashem, Sinas Chinam, Loshon Horah, Motzei ShemRa ALL B'Farhesya
vs
"chilul Shabbos b'farhesya" according to some poskim, and perfectly mutar according to others.

I don't see the justification.
NR | 06.16.05 - 2:31 pm | #

>>>Rav Belsky has also looked at the "mechitzos" and he says that they aren't good enough.>>>

I am happy to see that Rav Belsky shlita would admit that if the mechitzos are sufficient an eruv would be allowed. More importantly I heard Rav Belsky’s shlita’s shiur on eruvin where he discussed the mechitzos. He stated that since there were pirtzos esser in the mechitzos, they were deficient. However, he is in disagreement with RMF himself who states clearly that pirtzos esser is only a proscription Me’D’Rabbanan (Igros Moshe, O.C. 2:89-90). Never mind that Rav Belsky shlita is in disagreement with 99 percent of the Achronim who maintain that pirtzos esser is Me’D’Rabbanan. Even more so, all the rabbanim who surveyed these mechitzos disagree with Rav Belsky shlita.

>>>I don't read anonymous things that are clearly politically motivated. If you believe what you are writing, sign your name. Otherwise you're just like one of those anonymous kol koreh writers, trying to stir up trouble without taking any responsibility.
I didn't read this booklet but I did read the one advocating the Kensington Eruv.>>>

A kuntres that references with copious footnotes is really not anonymous. You can always peruse their references and disagree. I think this is a lame excuse. You are not answering why the sidebars of the brochure are any less anonymous. You look at the kuntres as trouble and those who read it with an open mind see it as disseminating the emmes.

I read both the Kensington booklet and the Flatbush booklet and you can’t compare the two. The Flatbush one is much more convincing. As an aside I would add that the Flatbush booklet seems to demolish Rav Hirsh’s critique.

>>>The 600,000 have to be on one day, but not on every day.>>>

This is incorrect. I am gave you references, please look them up. RMF’s shita is just like the Shulchan Aruch’s that the shishim ribo has to traverse the street daily (Igros Moshe, O.C. 1:139:5, 4:87-88).
anonymous | 06.16.05 - 2:59 pm | #

R'Gil wrote
>>>RYG Bechhofer, The Contemporary Eruv: Eruvin in Modern Metropolitan Areas (p. 53 n. 115):

Careful reading of Reb Moshe's teshuva yields the opposite conclusion: The presence of a population of 2.4 to 3 million people in an area is a siman that 600,000 people may be found in that area's streets. It is the latter phenomenon that is the sibba that the area is considered a reshus ha'rabbim. If, therefore, we can prove that more than 600,000 people are in the streets of an area, it is a reshus ha'rabbim, even if its population is less than 2.4 to 3 million.>>>

I reiterate, the fact that RMF, after being told that the population of Brooklyn is less than his requirement, agreed that Brooklyn is no longer a D’Oraysa proves that it wasn’t just an estimated ratio but an actual amount. According to RYG Bechhofer, why didn’t RMF just tell the rabbanim of Flatbush that notwithstanding the fact that Brooklyn’s population is less than 3 million there can still be shishim ribo in the streets? Instead RMF concurred that the smaller population of Brooklyn will remove its status from a D’Oraysa (Igros Moshe, O.C. 5:29).

>>>RA Kotler's arguments apply equally to Manhattan and Brooklyn.>>>

You still misspoke by claiming that RAK strongly disagreed with Rav Menashe Klein shlita since RAK was nifter way before Rav Menashe Klein shlita was involved with eruvin. Additionally, there is no proof what RAK would have said about Brooklyn (see The Community Eruv, p. 33).
anonymous | 06.16.05 - 3:01 pm | #

Zev wrote
>>>What I said was that they oppose carrying in the Flatbush eruv, which is true.>>>

Rav Shmuel Wosner shlita allows carrying in BP so why wouldn’t he allow carrying in Flatbush? The Gerrer Rebbe shlita does not mix into halachic issues period and that’s what he told these emissaries from Brooklyn. So I don’t believe a word of this kol korei.
anonymous | 06.16.05 - 3:02 pm | #

R' Gil wrote
>>> As to most rabbis not knowing about hilkhos eruvin, before speaking about the "new" eruv 2 years ago my rabbi made a point of hazering the entire masekhta, not to mention RM Feinstein's and RA Kotler's teshuvos on the subject. He's still against the "new" eruv.>>>

I would love to know his analysis. Why doesn’t he publish a kuntres to refute The Community Eruv booklet. I doubt that The Community Eruv booklet can be totally disproved. Never mind that the booklet illustrated open lies from the anti-eruv people.
anonymous | 06.16.05 - 3:11 pm | #

A question on 600,000: If it's based on Yetzias Mitzraim, shouldn't that be 600,000 adult (Jewish?) males, that is, over 3 million people (Jews?)? Does this argue for 600,000 being a symbolic number, perhaps even in its original context?
Nachum Lamm | 06.16.05 - 3:31 pm | #

And if it is based on Yetzias Mitzrayim, shouldn't it be 603,550?

The Wolf
BrooklynWolf | Homepage | 06.16.05 - 4:08 pm | #

Chaim Gottesman raised the issue that Main Street in KGH has changed since the eruv was constructed. IMO, as a more than 25 year resident of KGH, there is no evidence of any change in the basic construction of Main Street. Many yeshivaleit and the recent influx of Chahredi influenced Sefardim avoid the eruv because of the well known shitas HaRambam. FWIW, RHS viewed that shita as not a shita lhachmir that every Ben Torah should adopt, but rather as a Midas Chasidus for a Tzadik.

The notion that Main Street has changed simply is unsupported by the facts on the ground.Even if you added the entire housing stock of the neighborhood together with the houses directly on Main Street ( only a very few small apartment houses) and the fact that KGH's eruv excludes the main highways including the VWE, GCP and LIE (except for one very small halachically approved connection over the LIE to a nearby hospital), the issues of a mavui mfulash mshaar lsaar and shishim ribo were viewed as inapplicable by RMF.
Steve Brizel | 06.16.05 - 4:29 pm | #

Just curious-what are the boundaries of the eruv on the UWS, UES, etc? Obviously, a community that has a reliable eruv also should be aware of what an eruv permits and prohibits with regard to Hilchos Shabbos. One has to wonder whether baseball, basketball,etc, can be justified under any Biblical or Rabbinic rubric. IIRC, R Gil challenged R S Berman on this very issue in the Edah Journal. I know that when my wife's former community set up an eruv, they had numerous shiurim on what an eruv permits, etc.
Steve Brizel | 06.16.05 - 4:39 pm | #

Here is a link to the Upper Manhattan eruv map. This eruv was known as the Upper West Side eruv until it was extended to include Central Park and the Upper East Side.

http://www.ozny.org/fd.aspx?f=eruv

I've never seen a map for the Manhattan eruv. I've been told (by the rabbincal student who checks it every Thursday) that it includes essentially the entire island south of Dyckman Street, mostly using mechitzahs rather than wire. It is endorsed by Kehillath Jeshurun and Park East (both of which are now inside the Upper Manhattan eruv).

YU eruv:

http://www.yueruv.org/

When I visited the Spanish and Portuguese Synagogue, I was told that they dismissed all talk of building eruvim in Manhattan -- they hold that the entire island can constitute an eruv because it is an island. They told me that their families enjoyed pushing their strollers into Central Park back when the Upper West Side eruv ended at Central Park West. I think that they have held by this halachic position since before RMF arrived in America. Can anyone confirm this?

The online maps for both the Riverdale/Yonkers eruv and the Pelham Parkway eruv are inaccurate as both have been extended recently and the maps have not been updated.

There are also eruvim in Park Slope and Brooklyn Heights. Are they as controversial as the Flatbush eruv? I think there is only one Orthodox shul in each community.
charliehall | 06.16.05 - 5:53 pm | #

Why below Dyckman? And where is this student a student?

SB, you love them abbreviations, eh? An interesting site I saw recently was two Sephardim, walking to shul Shabbat morning, wearing (not carrying) their tallesim and reading aloud from a siddur they were carrying. Sometimes chumras lose track of the actual mitzvah. ("We don't carry our tallesim! We wear them! Why? Ummm...")

Of course, wearing tzitzit without tekhelet without an eruv is a problem. So are five-inch hat brims.
Nachum Lamm | 06.16.05 - 6:09 pm | #

I didn't have time to go through all the posts here. I can tell you this. My father davens by Rabbi Fievel Cohen and I asked him about this poster and he said Rabbi Fievel and others put it out.
The idea was to bring it to the attention of the masses and perhaps to shame those who thought it was ok according to Reb Moshe to permit an eruv.
Jewish Blogmiester | Homepage | 06.16.05 - 6:11 pm | #

Regarding the general Manhattan (not UWS/CP/UES) eruv, the following interesting letter "From The Rabbi's Study" appeared in the bulletin of the Fifth Avenue Synagogue:

Dear Friends,

In the December 2004 edition of this bulletin, I announced the completion of an Upper Manhattan Eruv, designed by and under the strict supervision of the Monsey-based Mechon L’hoyroa. In actuality, the existing local Upper West Side Eruv was expanded eastward (and slightly southward) to include all of Central Park and the Upper East Side, an area three times its original size. An eruv is a halachic mechanism, in our case composed of both solid walls (such as apartment buildings) and strings affixed to street lamps, that allows Jews to carry objects outside on Shabbat in areas where carrying would otherwise be prohibited. East Siders who did not rely on the decades-old eruv around all of Manhattan can now carry their keys and their kids on Shabbat.

Because most of Manhattan’s Orthodox Jews and many of its distinguished rabbis accepted the validity of the pre-existing Manhattan eruv, I have attempted to promote this new eruv while not in any way casting aspersions on those who rely on the old eruv. Referring to the new project as a “mehadrin eruv” and side-stepping inquiries about the existing eeruv with answers like “Many people think it’s acceptable,” I have given the impression to some that the new eruv is merely a halachic luxury. Visitors to our community and quite a few members continue to carry to and from areas south of the new eruv especially hotels in the 40’s and low 50’s) based on this perception.

A recently commissioned survey of the old Manhattan eruv, performed by an eruvin expert, has concluded that this impression is wrong. The old Manhattan eruv is no longer valid, even according to the most lenient interpretations of the relevant halachic material. This, of course, does not suggest that the eruv wasn’t valid in years past, only that it
isn’t right now. The rabbis of major synagogues in New York will gather in the weeks ahead to decide what, if anything, can or should be done to address this situation. In the meantime, please note that the Upper Manhattan Eruv (for a map, see our website www.5as.org or call the Synagogue office) is our neighborhood’s only eruv.
Anon | 06.16.05 - 6:24 pm | #

a few more questions-I saw that the Machon Haroyah of Monsey are the rabbanim hamachshirim of the UWS/UES eruv. How come ? How does the Park fall within the eruv? Isn't it a makom ptur or karpaf? How about the other shuls on the UES, R Bleich, R Schmidman, etc-do they all hold from the eruv
Steve Brizel | 06.16.05 - 6:39 pm | #

What I'm getting here is what I got from the Kensington booklet: Everyone who is against the eruv, including RM Feinstein, is either incompetent and ignorant or grossly dishonest.

An anonymous booklet is anonymous.

RM Feinstein holds that the 600,000 do not need to go through a particular street but just need to be outside in the city. But you are right that it is every day, but I don't think the "every day" is to be taken too literally. Most days should be enough.

You are correct that RA Kotler did not disagree with RM Klein. RM Klein disagreed with him, and not vice versa due to death.

I heard that R. Yosef Viener is planning a shi'ur to dispute the booklet.

Most of the Manhattan eruvin are approved by R. Hershel Schachter, who disagrees with RM Feinstein on many issues regarding eruvin. He takes no public position on the Flatbush eruv and tells people to ask rabbis in Flatbush.
Gil | Homepage | 06.16.05 - 7:11 pm | #

R Menashe Hakatan used to be employed by Klausenberg as their menahel - I am talking about fifty some odd years ago. He was not always the Ungvarer Rebbe/Rav that he poses as now. Hence he is close to and allied with the Klausenberger Chassidim who are one of the main forces behind this new push for eruvin on Shabbos, with their Dayan R F Hershkowitz. They pushed it in Williamsburg, where they were successful this time, with the weakened position of Satmar there now, due to infighting. They pushed it in Boro Park as well. Now they are pushing it in Flatbush.

Litvish - FYI, R M Hakatan is far from Litvish.
anon | 06.16.05 - 7:36 pm | #

There is an interesting photo of R M Hakatan from that period in a Yiddish book called Yiddishkeit in America by Asher Penn, as well as in the press at that time. He is shown presenting a menora to Presidential candidate Dwight Eisenhower. He doesn't look like a Chassidic Rebbe then. He is identified in fact as Rabbi of Congregation Liady of Hooper street in Williamsburg in contemporary press accounts. The NYT has some info on it - search for 'Menasha Klein' in the NYT index. I think it was in the issue of Oct. 31, 1952.
anon | 06.16.05 - 7:42 pm | #

One of the chief (if not the chief) leading poster here and in similar forums pushing the pro-eruv side is a American Klausenberger Chassid who is also close to R M Klein and R Katz of BP, so that explains his vehemence on behalf of the eruv cause. It is somewhat surprising though that he seems to think that he knows the shita of Rav Moshe better than his sons and talmidim. If he thinks that his profusion of posts will just overwhelm the opposition, he may be in for a surprise. He is of the opinion that the Litvaks can't pasken and are not proficient in things outside the Yeshivish mesechtos. It seems that he has serious issue with the Litvishe velt. While there is definitely room for improvement in that world, to say that no Litvaks can pasken strikes me as racist and off the mark.
anon | 06.16.05 - 7:50 pm | #

Here they go again!
I understand R' Elyashiv is urging all to be machmir on not wearing Indian hair wigs,unless there is a shomer at the source.
Maybe we can ship some of the "Erev Rav" off to Bombay for good.
unorthodoxjew | Homepage | 06.16.05 - 7:57 pm | #

R' Gil wrote
>>>What I'm getting here is what I got from the Kensington booklet: Everyone who is against the eruv, including RM Feinstein, is either incompetent and ignorant or grossly dishonest.>>>

You obviously did not read either one of these booklets since neither one speaks disrespectfully of any one of the Gedolim. It is the people who surrounded these Gedolim whose motives are questionable. In any case, there have been open lies disseminated by the anti-eruv group like the 1979 kol korei , but I have never seen blatant untruths being promoted by those supporting the eruv.

>>>An anonymous booklet is anonymous.>>>

I reiterate, the sidebars of the booklet are anonymous, as well, and you had no compunctions to post the whole megillah on your blog. I wonder why you read the Kensington booklet, it was also anonymous.

>>>RM Feinstein holds that the 600,000 do not need to go through a particular street but just need to be outside in the city. But you are right that it is every day, but I don't think the "every day" is to be taken too literally. Most days should be enough.>>>

Why shouldn’t it be taken literally? RM Feinstein bases his shita on the Shulchan Aruch, which states that it has to be daily (shishim ribo ovrim bo b’chol yom). There are some poskim who posit that it could be most days of the year (Maharsham, 3:188; Minchas Elazar, 3:4, and Minchas Yitzchok, 8:32:1; see The Community Eruv booklet p. 20). However, we don’t see that RM Feinstein maintained as such.

>>>You are correct that RA Kotler did not disagree with RM Klein. RM Klein disagreed with him, and not vice versa due to death.>>>

No. RA Kotler signed a kol korei against the Manhattan eruv not Brooklyn. We don’t know what RA Kotler’s opinion was regarding shishim ribo from his teshuvah.

>>>I heard that R. Yosef Viener is planning a shi'ur to dispute the booklet.>>>

I would love to see what he has to say in writing. I am sure that he will not be able to dispute all the points that The Community Eruv booklet presented.

>>>Most of the Manhattan eruvin are approved by R. Hershel Schachter, who disagrees with RM Feinstein on many issues regarding eruvin. He takes no public position on the Flatbush eruv and tells people to ask rabbis in Flatbush.>>>

Doesn’t he maintain the Chazon Ish’s shita?
anonymous | 06.16.05 - 8:27 pm | #

anon wrote
>>>R Menashe Hakatan used to be employed by Klausenberg as their menahel - I am talking about fifty some odd years ago. He was not always the Ungvarer Rebbe/Rav that he poses as now.>>>

This guy has the unmitigated gall to disparage RM Klein. What chutzpah Rav Klein does not pose he is the Ungvar Rav.

>>>Hence he is close to and allied with the Klausenberger Chassidim who are one of the main forces behind this new push for eruvin on Shabbos, with their Dayan R F Hershkowitz.>>>

You are a conspiracy seeker and you have no idea what you are talking about. HaRav Yechezkel Roth shlita a Satmer Chosid and HaRav Shlomo Gross shlita the Belzer Dayan of Boro Park and HaRav Tuvia Goldstein zt”l a Talmud/Chaver of HaRav Moshe zt”l were all instrumental in the Boro Park eruv and are not Klausenberger Chassidim.

>>>They pushed it in Williamsburg, where they were successful this time, with the weakened position of Satmar there now, due to infighting. They pushed it in Boro Park as well. Now they are pushing it in Flatbush.>>>

On the contrary, if there would not be so much infighting in Satmar, an eruv would not be an issue. HaRav Yechezkel Roth shlita is a Satmer Chosid and the most important Dayan Satmar had. He was one of the biggest eruv supporters in Boro Park and now in Flatbush. Most blocks in Willamsburg had euvin until lately because the Satmar Rav maintained that there is no reshus harabbim today.
anonymous | 06.16.05 - 9:19 pm | #

anon wrote
>>>There is an interesting photo of R M Hakatan from that period in a Yiddish book called Yiddishkeit in America by Asher Penn, as well as in the press at that time. He is shown presenting a menora to Presidential candidate Dwight Eisenhower. He doesn't look like a Chassidic Rebbe then.>>>

This is proof to what extent the anti-eruv camp would go to disparage a Gadol who disagrees with them. These posts from anon should be deleted.
anonymous | 06.16.05 - 9:20 pm | #

There is nothing disparaging in them! I don't like calling him R. Menashe HaKatan, but that is what he calls himself.

And, yes, RH Schachter follows the Hazon Ish. But he also leaves Flatbush for Flatbush rabbis to deal with.

Who are you trying to fool? R. Yehezkel Roth is a great talmid hakham but he does not represent mainstream Satmar politics.
Gil | Homepage | 06.16.05 - 10:22 pm | #

Unorthdox Jew:
R. Yisroel Belsky is probably the most outspoken critic of the Wig Ban, and also of eruvin in Brooklyn.
Gil | Homepage | 06.16.05 - 10:23 pm | #

Many of the last few posts have been marked by a reversion to Livishe-Hungarish-Chasidish sinas chinam. The largely anonymous opinions re the ability of a Litvishe or Hungarishe Posek to render a psak in Hilchos Eruvin strikes me as particularly inappropriate. IMO, Shimiras Shabbas Kehilchasa (SSK) has an excellent treatment on this issue with numerous mareh mkomos for much learning by all of us on the elements of a rshus harabim, etc.
Steve Brizel | 06.16.05 - 10:42 pm | #

"On the contrary, if there would not be so much infighting in Satmar, an eruv would not be an issue. HaRav Yechezkel Roth shlita is a Satmer Chosid and the most important Dayan Satmar had. He was one of the biggest eruv supporters in Boro Park and now in Flatbush. Most blocks in Willamsburg had euvin until lately because the Satmar Rav maintained that there is no reshus harabbim today."

So why didn't they put up a large eruv covering the Williamsburg area years ago, e.g. in the days When R. Yoel was still the Satmar Rebbe and when R Roth was still dayan for them, before he left ?
anon | 06.16.05 - 10:54 pm | #

"You are a conspiracy seeker and you have no idea what you are talking about. HaRav Yechezkel Roth shlita a Satmer Chosid and HaRav Shlomo Gross shlita the Belzer Dayan of Boro Park and HaRav Tuvia Goldstein zt”l a Talmud/Chaver of HaRav Moshe zt”l were all instrumental in the Boro Park eruv and are not Klausenberger Chassidim."

Okay, it's true that it's not only Klauzenbergers involved in the push for these new eruvs. But are you claiming that they are not in the vanguard of the push ?

R Roth left Satmar years ago. Belz is not that large in Brooklyn. Rav Tuvia Goldstein backed down from openly and strongly supporting it.
anon | 06.16.05 - 11:03 pm | #

R' Gil wrote
>>>There is nothing disparaging in them! I don't like calling him R. Menashe HaKatan, but that is what he calls himself.>>>

There is a big difference when R. Menashe Klein calls himself HaKatan then when someone else uses this term. Anon also used the term *posing* as Ungvar Rav -- the whole tone of his post was meant to be disrespectful and you know it.

>>> Who are you trying to fool? R. Yehezkel Roth is a great talmid hakham but he does not represent mainstream Satmar politics.>>>

I am sorry, R’ Gil, but you are wrong. HaGaon HaRav Yechezkel Roth shlita was appointed Dayan of Satmar of Boro Park by the old Satmar Rav who brought him from Yerushlayim in the early 1970’s. Later, in the early 1990’s, he left his post as Satmar Dayan because of politics. However, he is still considered (and considers himself) a full fledged Satmar Chasid and the biggest shailos in Satmar are still asked of him. He definitely knows the old Satmar Rav’s opinion better than most people. Additionally, there was an eruv erected in Willamsburg in 1981 and all the Satmar rabbanim were behind it then. Now it’s politics. I am happy that you realize there is such a thing as Satmar politics.
anonymous | 06.16.05 - 11:35 pm | #

Didn't RM Hakatan establish a BP eruv about a decade before thecurent version? IIRC it lasted about 2 weeks.

And, BTW, AFAIK, he was never Ungvar Rav. His family background is from that town.
aa | 06.16.05 - 11:35 pm | #

anon wrote
>>>So why didn't they put up a large eruv covering the Williamsburg area years ago, e.g. in the days When R. Yoel was still the Satmar Rebbe and when R Roth was still dayan for them, before he left ?>>>

I reiterate, there was an eruv established in 1981 by all the rabbanim of Williamsburg. The first discussion of an eruv in Williamsburg started in 1950 by HaRav HaGaon Rav Michol Ber Wissmandel zt’l who was niftar in 1958. In 1972, the Ratzferder Rav brought up the issue of eruvin again and in 1976, he spoke to the Satmar Rav about an eruv and he wished the Ratzferder Rav much hatzlacha and even contributed money to the cause. The eruv was established in 1981, but some outside forces mixed in. It’s extremely important to realize that before 1986, when the laws to allow eruvin in NY were written, it was very difficult to make tzuras hapesachim. All agree however that the Satmar Rav maintained that there is no reshus harabbim today. HaGaon HaRav Yechezkel Roth shlita was never a Dayan in Williamsburg; he came straight from Yerushalyim to Boro Park.
anonymous | 06.16.05 - 11:36 pm | #

anon wrote
>>>Okay, it's true that it's not only Klauzenbergers involved in the push for these new eruvs. But are you claiming that they are not in the vanguard of the push ?>>>

I don’t know but, I think not.

>>>Belz is not that large in Brooklyn. Rav Tuvia Goldstein backed down from openly and strongly supporting it.>>>

Belz is the third largest chasidus in Boro Park after Satmar and Bobov. Belz has the finest Dayanim and talmidie chachamim then any chasidus today. Your wrong for saying Rav Tuvia zt’l backed down he was just terrorized by some from the anti-eruv group. There is no talmid from Rav Tuvia who would agree with you.
anonymous | 06.16.05 - 11:52 pm | #

There are very few posters on this site fit to have an opinion about some of the most complex public Halakhic questions being discussed. Of course there are multiple views about eiruvin and of course talmidei khakhomim who know the issues can argue with each other. Most of those who have expressed opinions here are clearly out of their league and should be silent.
The issue in the Flatbush eiruv has little to do with eiruvin and everything to do with the authority of local rabbonim. Almost all the recognized morei horaah in Flatbush oppose the eiruv and these are the same rabbonim that most people go to with all their other she'elos. Their position is essentially that you should listen to your rov on the eiruv as you would listen to him on other psokim. They objected to the anonymous booklet because it was an attempt to treat the eiruv as something to be argued about by the general public rather than the poskim. Unfortunately, their response was vacuous and silly; the color brochure is an embarrassment even to those of us who see them as our morei d'asra.
Melech Press | 06.17.05 - 2:21 am | #

and we don't need to see their photos! We know what they look like!
Anonymous | 06.17.05 - 7:29 am | #

there should not have been pictures of the E"Y crew then, since the issue is mostly authority of local rabbinate (and I think also, the fact that Rav Moshe's p'sak was generally accepted as the p'sak for the city, and there's a feeling that the new eruv disrespects that he paskened for the city).

The fact that they added those pictures does seem to indicate that they feel they derive their authority more by association with E"Y charedim than from the sha'alos they answer locally and is troublesome IMO.
Anonymous | 06.17.05 - 7:33 am | #

"the new eruv disrespects that he paskened for the city"

Halachically, what constitutes "the city"? What constitutes "Brooklyn"? Brooklyn only became part of New York City in 1898. How about Westchester County? I can walk to Yonkers from my home in North Riverdale -- in fact, I did so just this past Yom Tov. And why are we supposed to follow RMF on eruvim when there are so many things for which we do not follow him? At least regarding Manhattan, which was where he lived, many rabbis in his time publically differed with him on this issue.

(BTW I could ask a similar question regarding the public water system. Most of Westchester County uses unfiltered water from the same source as most of New York City. I don't understand why many rabbis say we need to filter water in the City but not in the County.) The boundary seems artificial.

"There are very few posters on this site fit to have an opinion about some of the most complex public Halakhic questions being discussed."

I am not one of those fit to have an opinion on this one. I just follow my rav.
charliehall | 06.17.05 - 10:32 am | #

Do Kiryas Yoel and New Square have eruvin? Anyone know why the UWS/UES eruv is under the supervision of Machon Haroyah?
Steve Brizel | 06.17.05 - 11:03 am | #

Melech Press wrote
>>>There are very few posters on this site fit to have an opinion about some of the most complex public Halakhic questions being discussed. Of course there are multiple views about eiruvin and of course talmidei khakhomim who know the issues can argue with each other. Most of those who have expressed opinions here are clearly out of their league and should be silent.>>>

Who are we arguing with if not each other? I find it interesting that one would take issue with a debate about eruvin on a site dedicated to discussions of the basic fundaments of yiddishkeit. I would add that most rabbanim don’t know hilchos eruvin as well.
anon | 06.17.05 - 11:22 am | #

Melech Press wrote
>>>The issue in the Flatbush eiruv has little to do with eiruvin and everything to do with the authority of local rabbonim. Almost all the recognized morei horaah in Flatbush oppose the eiruv and these are the same rabbonim that most people go to with all their other she'elos. Their position is essentially that you should listen to your rov on the eiruv as you would listen to him on other psokim. They objected to the anonymous booklet because it was an attempt to treat the eiruv as something to be argued about by the general public rather than the poskim. Unfortunately, their response was vacuous and silly; the color brochure is an embarrassment even to those of us who see them as our morei d'asra.>>>

While at first the issue was that HaGaon Rav Moshe zt”l was against the eruv, it all changed when a booklet was disseminated showing that Reb Moshe would possibly allow an eruv. The issue then became the authority of local rabbanim. Nobody is forcing anyone to utilize an eruv; everyone should just follow his own rav. Are these rabbanim worried that their own followers will not listen to them? The question then is if halachically there are those who would allow an eruv, should the community not have one because some rabbanim are worried about their authority? Do rabbannim have a right to enforce a p’sak without good reason? It is the responsibility of each and every rav to educate his misspallelim why he is either for or against the eruv and not issue arbitrary statements. I don’t understand why even if only one rav wants to establish an eruv he can’t do so. Why should eruvin be different then any other issue, say as mikvaos? On the contrary, if a rav maintains that an eruv can be instituted he has a responsibility to do so (Teshuvos V’Hanhagos, 1:844). [Because eruvin is such a heated issue and there is a tremendous amount of pressure applied to rabbanim that they stay in line, there are some rabbanim who are afraid to voice their opinion.]

This concept that eruvin is different than any other halachic issue is just false. Take for example the shaitel issue, there were booklets disseminated debating the issue. Did anyone take umbrage that these booklets were appealing to the general public? No. Does anyone care that there are many halacha sefarim that are written for the layman? No. There is no reason why the general public can’t debate the eruv issue as well. This is the same type of lame excuse that R’ Gil used not to read The Community Eruv booklet. When he wants to read something because he agrees with its content it doesn’t matter that it’s anonymous, vacuous and he waxes poetic about it, “expensive Hebrew/English, multi-page and multi-color anti eruv pamphlet.” But when he is against something, he looks for an excuse not to read it. The bottom line is that the issue of eruvin has become political, a power struggle. The only thing that I would agree with you on is that the color brochure was vac
anon | 06.17.05 - 11:27 am | #

Steve Brizel wrote
>>>Do Kiryas Yoel and New Square have eruvin? Anyone know why the UWS/UES eruv is under the supervision of Machon Haroyah?>>>

Both Kiryas Yoel and New Square have eruvin. Regarding the UWS/UES eruv there was no one who would give a hecsher because of the history of eruvin in Manhattan only the Machon L’Haroyah.
anon | 06.17.05 - 11:33 am | #

Gil,
Belsky also is against metziza b'bpeh,agrees de facto to have another kashrus authority ok his kashrus authority(I would have advised him to quit the OU).
He is a lone drummer that marches to his own beat.
What's the point?
Unorthodoxjew | Homepage | 06.17.05 - 3:27 pm | #

Correction!!!
Belsky is PRO metzizah b'peh,and against using a tube(except in certain medical circumstances).
Unorthodoxjew | Homepage | 06.17.05 - 5:57 pm | #

There are basic problems with the piskei halacha cited by the commenters.

There is no procedure for obtaining a psak about the kashrus of an eruv from a recognized posek. In order for a psak to have any effect it must be based on fact. Yet we have piskei halacha based on ex parte applications to poskim.

We don't even know for sure why RMF assered the Bklyn eruv. Some say it revolves around Ocean Parkway; others, the total population of Bklyn. The truth may even lie elsewhere--we just don't know for sure. How can anyone know if the psak is correct or based on faulty knowledge of the specific facts of the case (especially if the pro-eruv group didn't have an opportunity to explain its position)?

The halachicly observant public must demand from its poskim that they speak for themselves--not making us rely on intermediaries to translate piskei halacha--so we know why a specific psak was given.

We must demand that no one give a psak until he has heard from BOTH sides to an issue and that each side be fully apprised of the other side's arguments, so we know the psak is based on full knowledge of the facts.
A Jew Who Once Learned | 06.19.05 - 2:20 am | #

Somehow, the posts on this issue are breaking down along the old Misnaged/Litvishe-Chasidishe/Hungarian,Galicianer divides that plagued Torah Jewry until the Agudah united these factions to fight haskallah, secular Zionism and any other trends that it deemed antithetical to Torah observance, including Religious Zionism and secular studies. For another example of this trend,look at Chakira's analysis of an article in Yeshurun that decries the anti-intellectualism of contemporary Chasidus and its negative influences both inside and outside of the Beis Medrash of what many consider the bastion of the Litvishe Yeshivishe world-Lakewood. IMO, this can be traced to R Schach ZTL and his well known attitutdes towards Chasidus and the splits between the Litvishe and Chasidishe worlds in EY.
Steve Brizel | 06.19.05 - 11:41 am | #

Both William Helmreich and David Landau in their books on the American yeshiva world and the Israeli charedi world have noted the increased presence of Chasidim in Lakewood and the increased emphasis on learning in the Chasidishe world. In Landau's book, there is a fascinating exchange of perspectives between R A Farbstein ZTL, the late RY of Hebron and one of the Chasidishe Admorim on this issue.

IMO, some of the Litvaks forget that some of the classic Sifei Acharonim and ShuT were not exactly Litvishe.The Chasam Sofer, Divrei Chaim, Minchas Elazar, Darchei Teshuvah,Minchas Chinuch, Eglei Tal/Avnei Nezer, Chiddushei HaRim, Maharal, Maharshal, and the seforim of R M Ziemba ZTL, HaShem Yimkam Damo are just a few cases in point. WADR, while the Brisker Derech was instrumental in taking pots and pans out of the kitchen and restoring the intellectual glory of lomdus so that it could attract the best and the brightest, the other seforim that I cited are all major-league seforim that Chas Ve Shalom cannot and should not be dismissed solely because of their place of origin,
Steve Brizel | 06.19.05 - 11:58 am | #

Unorthodoxjew wrote
>>>Belsky is PRO metzizah b'peh,and against using a tube(except in certain medical circumstances).>>>

Even if you are an unorthodox Jew you should have some respect for a man of such stature even if you don’t like his p’sak. Please preface HaRav Belsky’s name with an honorific.
anon | 06.19.05 - 12:09 pm | #

A Jew Who Once Learned wrote
>>>We don't even know for sure why RMF assered the Bklyn eruv. Some say it revolves around Ocean Parkway; others, the total population of Bklyn. The truth may even lie elsewhere--we just don't know for sure. How can anyone know if the psak is correct or based on faulty knowledge of the specific facts of the case (especially if the pro-eruv group didn't have an opportunity to explain its position)?>>>

There are five teshuvas written by RM Feinstein explaining the reason why he prohibited an eruv in Flatbush (Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:87-88, Addendum to 4:89, 5:28-29). Why should the truth lie elsewhere? By the way, there is no mention in any teshuvah from RM Feinstein that Ocean Parkway is a problem and according to his chiddushim in eruvin it is irrelevant. RM Feinstein maintains that the criterion of shishim ribo is dependant on an area of 12 by 12 mil and not a road. (If Brooklyn’s population is less than 3 million and OP was classified as a sratya, then according to RM Feinstein if OP would have shishim ribo traversing it daily, only then would it impede the establishment of tzuras hapesachim crossing over itself. The reason that some who prohibited an eruv in Flatbush used OP as the reason was to confuse the innocent Flatbush community; unless o f course, these anti-eruv people don’t know RM Feinstein’s shita themselves.)

>>>The halachicly observant public must demand from its poskim that they speak for themselves--not making us rely on intermediaries to translate piskei halacha--so we know why a specific psak was given.
We must demand that no one give a psak until he has heard from BOTH sides to an issue and that each side be fully apprised of the other side's arguments, so we know the psak is based on full knowledge of the facts.>>>

Wouldn’t it be nice to see the reason behind the issur in Flatbush? I think those in favor were pretty clear why they maintain as such.
anon | 06.19.05 - 12:13 pm | #

R’ Steve Brizel wrote
>>>Somehow, the posts on this issue are breaking down along the old Misnaged/Litvishe-Chasidishe/Hungarian,Galicianer divides>>>

There was only one poster who insinuated as such.
anon | 06.19.05 - 12:26 pm | #

Anon-that poster did not insinuate anything. He flatly called this a dispute between the Chasidim and Litvaks over their expertise in Psak and overall knowledge besides the yeshivishe masectos. IMO,that is a very strong and open statement, as opposed to just a thinly veiled comment. The comments in the Helmreich and Landau books,the development of Degel HaTorah vs Agudah, R Schach ZTL's comments and the article re the increased Chasidic presence in Lakewood and the above comments all add up to a reassertion of a Misnagid/Chasidic split that alwasys simmered under the banner of unity asserted by the Agudah both in Europe, the US and Israel. Am I correct in stating that many Chasidishe Yidden rely upon the BP eruv?That also proves my point that we seem to have a major assertion of chalukei deos on this issue and many others.
Steve Brizel | 06.19.05 - 2:52 pm | #

R Belsky did not agree to have another Posek ok his decisions.R Belsky and RHS are both halachic consultants/Poskim who the OU's Kashrus Department rely upon for Psak. For more evidence of how R Belsky and RHS interact, read Mesorah instead of claiming that he agrees de facto to have another Posek review his psakim. In fact, what is so bad about pilpul chaverim on these issues?
Steve Brizel | 06.19.05 - 3:12 pm | #

It appears that psakim are being reported in the names of gedolim in cases in which admittedly the godol's psak was issued ex parte.

In the Slifken matter, for instance, it is reliably reported that that the ban was issued after translated excerpts were privately read to the godol, who couldn't have read the book(s) in question because he doesn't have a reading knowledge of English, the language in which the book(s) is written. There is no way he could get the context and nuance without intermediation. (Presumably this is why just about all of the Israeli gedolim would be ineligible to be members of the sanhedrin.)

Is it too much to ask that people who are asked to decide important questions seek out the factual and argumentative representations of the "other" side before giving a psak.

I am informed that RMF's psak ultimately was based on incorrect census figures. (I do not know this to be factually correct.) This could not have happened if "pro-eruv" people had been asked to argue with "anti-eruv" people formally before RMF so he could get reliable information to enable him to apply his vast halachic knowledge to the actual situation.

An old English Baron (when they were the judges in England) said, "It doesn't matter what the law is; just let me be the finder of the facts." Yesh Chochma Bagoyim.
A Jew Who Once Learned | 06.20.05 - 12:14 am | #

' This could not have happened if "pro-eruv" people had been asked to argue with "anti-eruv" people formally before RMF so he could get reliable information to enable him to apply his vast halachic knowledge to the actual situation.'

If you would look at the teshuvos inside, you would see that many are addressed to the pro-eruv rabbis, including the Vaad Harabanim of Flatbush,(& presumably they advanced all the arguments they had) & there is one lengthy teshuvah responding to each of the 13 pro-eruv reasons put forward by R. Menashe Klein. So to say that R. Moshe didn't 'hear' the other side is ludicrous. After all is said & done, R. Moshe was very accessible to anyone who wanted to speak to him just by picking up the phone, so to say that no one ever told him that there were never 3 million people residing in Brooklyn is very curious, to say the least.
Dave | 06.20.05 - 10:13 am | #

"while the Brisker Derech was instrumental in taking pots and pans out of the kitchen"

they invented the barbeque? Who knew.
Anonymous | 06.20.05 - 1:58 pm | #

Dave

I was (among a group) told by RMF's grandson that his psak on the Flatbush Eruv was based on population figures for Brooklyn at the time. Unfortunately, neither he nor his grandson knew that the figures he was basing his psak on were wrong (and inflated).
A Jew Who Once Learned | 06.20.05 - 5:16 pm | #

To Steve Brizel,
If Belsky's hashgacha OU, needs another agency to approve of it,or if people will NOT eat Empire chicken without the RHS,is it not fair to say the Belsky hashgocha is inadequate to a segment of the charedi community?
Unorthodoxjew | Homepage | 06.20.05 - 8:40 pm | #

Anon,
Belsky is definitely one of the good guys.
Check my article on Deep Nose.
I do not use Sur Names for anyone,because at anytime,if they start acting crazy,they automatically lose their titles.
OK????
Unorthodoxjew | Homepage | 06.20.05 - 8:45 pm | #

Dave wrote
>>>If you would look at the teshuvos inside, you would see that many are addressed to the pro-eruv rabbis, including the Vaad Harabanim of Flatbush,(& presumably they advanced all the arguments they had) & there is one lengthy teshuvah responding to each of the 13 pro-eruv reasons put forward by R. Menashe Klein. So to say that R. Moshe didn't 'hear' the other side is ludicrous. After all is said & done, R. Moshe was very accessible to anyone who wanted to speak to him just by picking up the phone, so to say that no one ever told him that there were never 3 million people residing in Brooklyn is very curious, to say the least.>>>

The reality is RM Feinstein was misled regarding certain facts about Brooklyn despite having spoken to the rabbanim of Flatbush who supported the eruv. There really is no reason to have to answer for this. However, I would like to add that when RM Feinstein was made aware that Brooklyn’s population was in fact less than he was originally told it was, he agreed that Brooklyn’s eruv issue was no more a matter of a D’Oraysa. As is evident from his two teshuvos (Igros Moshe, Addendum 4:89, 5:28), RM Feinstein was clearly misled regarding other issues as well, such as the fact that the eruv encompassed more than shishim ribo in both Boro Park and Flatbush. Another puzzling issue was when RM Klein wrote that there were mechitzos encircling Brooklyn, RM Feinstein answered that, “Until now they [the mechitzos] did not exist but that one can investigate (5:28:5).” If a rav states that there are mechitzos and this is one of the reasons to allow an eruv, why didn’t RM Feinstein investigate the mechitzos before writing his teshuva?

At the time the Flatbush eruv issue was being discussed, there obviously was some access to RM Feinstein by those rabbanim supporting the eruv, but it was no comparison to the access of those against the eruv, which included RM Feinstein’s grandson. In Boro Park there was no access allowed to RM Klein at all (who happened to be close to RM Feinstein until certain family members didn’t allow him to come talk about the issue). Even more puzzling is the fact that the teshuvah against RM Klein’s eruv was not addressed to RM Klein but to RM Feinstein’s grandson and his chavrusa who were both extremely against eruvin in Brooklyn.
anon | 06.20.05 - 10:27 pm | #

A Jew Who Once Learned wrote
>>>I was (among a group) told by RMF's grandson that his psak on the Flatbush Eruv was based on population figures for Brooklyn at the time. Unfortunately, neither he nor his grandson knew that the figures he was basing his psak on were wrong (and inflated).>>>

I would add that his grandson probably is the one who told him these numbers. Additionally, RM Feinstein was misled about the amount of people coming into work and going to the beaches of Brooklyn (Igros Moshe, 4:88).
anon | 06.20.05 - 10:27 pm | #

There is one issue that I have not seen brought up by any of the posters. How is it that we are busy discussing an eruv that none of us (or at least most of us), as well as of the Rabbonim of Flatbush, has ever seen? How is it possible to write about a tzuras hapesach that is not readily discernable to the observer, as is the case with all other eruvin? I would think that if the rabbonim and the public would be able to judge the eruv based on sight, people might be able to form a more coherent opinion.
Jerry | 06.21.05 - 12:38 am | #

>>>There is one issue that I have not seen brought up by any of the posters. How is it that we are busy discussing an eruv that none of us (or at least most of us), as well as of the Rabbonim of Flatbush, has ever seen? How is it possible to write about a tzuras hapesach that is not readily discernable to the observer, as is the case with all other eruvin? I would think that if the rabbonim and the public would be able to judge the eruv based on sight, people might be able to form a more coherent opinion.>>>

The issue of eruvin in Brooklyn is regarding a reshus harabbim not with the kashrus of the tzuras hapesachim. I am sure if the tzuras hapesach were discernable to the observer they would not exist just like in 1979.
anon | 06.21.05 - 1:49 am | #

>>>I am sure if the tzuras hapesach were discernable to the observer they would not exist just like in 1979.>>>

The eruv in Boro Park raised opposition much stronger and more violent than in Flatbush, and it is up every week, in plain sight (I see it daily).
Jerry | 06.21.05 - 6:46 am | #

'However, I would like to add that when RM Feinstein was made aware that Brooklyn’s population was in fact less than he was originally told it was, he agreed that Brooklyn’s eruv issue was no more a matter of a D’Oraysa.'

So basically you're saying that in that teshuvah R. Moshe is saying that since Brooklyn is not a reshus harabim, the eruv is permitted? What am I missing here?
Dave | 06.21.05 - 10:14 am | #

Jerry wrote
>>>The eruv in Boro Park raised opposition much stronger and more violent than in Flatbush, and it is up every week, in plain sight (I see it daily).>>>

I suspect that in Boro Park they have much more manpower and that is the reason that the tzuras hapesachim are visible. Do you recall the first months of the BP eruv. I think that the reason there was more violence in BP was because they had what to rip.
anon | 06.21.05 - 12:00 pm | #

Dave wrote
>>>So basically you're saying that in that teshuvah R. Moshe is saying that since Brooklyn is not a reshus harabim, the eruv is permitted? What am I missing here?>>>

No. RM Feinstein maintained that despite the fact that Brooklyn’s population is less than his requirement to classify it as a reshus harabbim an eruv should not be constructed since in a large city one may think that there is shishim ribo over a twelve mil by twelve mil area (Igros Moshe, O.C. 5:29; see also 4:88).
anon | 06.21.05 - 12:08 pm | #

Does anyone have an idea as to how it is possible to hide a tzuras hapesach??
Yehudah | 06.21.05 - 2:16 pm | #

Steve Brizel - FYI, the two largest Chassidic groups in BP (according to a prior poster), Bobov and Satmar, don't hold of the eruv.
anon | 06.23.05 - 1:29 pm | #

It is funny that someone who is a Klausenberger Chassid, and who is relatively new to these matters, thinks that he is a greater expert on the shita of Rav Moshe than his children and talmidim.

Re the population of Brooklyn - it has risen substantially recently, as has the population of NYC in general.
anon | 06.23.05 - 1:35 pm | #

"Additionally, there was an eruv erected in Willamsburg in 1981 and all the Satmar rabbanim were behind it then. Now it’s politics."

"The eruv was established in 1981, but some outside forces mixed in."

It's funny that this poster consistently attributes opposition to the eruvin to 'politics', claiming that his pro-eruv side is wholly altruistic, while motives of others are otherwise.

To those who might want to buy his line - would you be interested in purchasing a bridge in Brooklyn perhaps as well ?
anon | 06.23.05 - 1:40 pm | #

I would like to clarify two points.(1)Rav Smuel Wosner cleary does not support the Flatbush or Boro park eiruv and states explictly in in his sefer chelek hey siman nun gimmel that brooklyn can not have one as it is a resus harabim.(2)anyone who doughts the accuracy or feels that those who signed on the 1979 or 1981 kol koreh was misinformed should speak to one of the many signtors still alive.It beyond the scope of this forum to refute the proeiruv phamphlet but there are outragous lies and false arguments presented there. the fact that they could deny something so well known and clear lake the 1979/1981 kol koreh or the claim Rav Smuel Vosner supports them should suffice for examples.May all our actions and words on this topic be sololy leshem shmoyim
ben torah | 06.23.05 - 7:35 pm | #

"thinks that he is a greater expert on the shita of Rav Moshe than his children and talmidim.

Re the population of Brooklyn - it has risen substantially recently, as has the population of NYC in general."

There’s nothing that Rav Moshe’s children or talmidim could say that would change what is written in his teshuvos.

As long as the population of the 12 mil by 12 mil area in Brooklyn is less than 3 million, there is no reason according to Rav Moshe to prohibit an eruv. The fact is there aren’t 3 million people in this area. Besides the mechitzos.
anon | 06.23.05 - 8:52 pm | #

"It's funny that this poster consistently attributes opposition to the eruvin to 'politics', claiming that his pro-eruv side is wholly altruistic, while motives of others are otherwise."

It’s not funny at all. The fact is that the anti-eruv group has a pattern of lying, why should they be believed now? The motives of those who want an eruv are clear -- they want to carry. What can the motives of those who are so vehemently against the eruv be if not to show me berosh?
anon | 06.23.05 - 8:53 pm | #

Mr M. P? aka anon: Is the stress on Klausenberger or on Chassid? From the tone of your previous posts I think you believe that no Chassid can comprehend Rav Moshe’s shita. It’s tiring to see you constantly allude to someone when it has no bearing on the conversation. Why not address the issue -- or are you the one who’s “relatively new to these matters”?
mordechai | 06.23.05 - 9:16 pm | #

“Steve Brizel - FYI, the two largest Chassidic groups in BP (according to a prior poster), Bobov and Satmar, don't hold of the eruv.”

Bobov is split in two and the new group’s rabbanim are the biggest talmidei chachamim in Bobov. They were always pro-eruv and utilized the eruv. Most of Satmar uses the Boro Park eruv since there is a split in the chasidus and everyone asks different rabbanim. Hagaon Harav Yechezkel Roth shlita is still the biggest posek for Satmar chassidim in Boro Park as well.
anon | 06.23.05 - 10:23 pm | #

ben torah wrote
"I would like to clarify two points.(1)Rav Smuel Wosner cleary does not support the Flatbush or Boro park eiruv and states explictly in in his sefer chelek hey siman nun gimmel that brooklyn can not have one as it is a resus harabim.(2)anyone who doughts the accuracy or feels that those who signed on the 1979 or 1981 kol koreh was misinformed should speak to one of the many signtors still alive.It beyond the scope of this forum to refute the proeiruv phamphlet but there are outragous lies and false arguments presented there. the fact that they could deny something so well known and clear lake the 1979/1981 kol koreh or the claim Rav Smuel Vosner supports them should suffice for examples."

In Shevet HaLevi, 5:53 Rav Shmuel Wosner is only commenting on if you include cars in the tally of shishim ribo but not if Brooklyn is a reshus harabbim. On the contrary from Shevet HaLevi, 6:41 we see that he maintains that the shishim ribo has to traverse the street and not the entire city. Since Brooklyn has no street that is traversed by shishim ribo it would not be classified as reshus harabbim. More to the point, Rav Wosner lets his talmidim carry in Boro Park so you don’t know what you are talking about.
There is nothing clear about the 1979 kol korei. Among other things, its doubtful Rav Moshe zt”l signed it. The text of the 1979 kol korei is also a lie. Rav Eliyahu Henkin zt“l never signed the issur against the Manhattan eruv as is claimed therein. IMO it’s not beyond the scope of this forum to debate the points of the pro-eruv pamphlet. I would be willing to debate you anytime, point by point, as I have read it thoroughly and think it’s excellent.
anon | 06.23.05 - 10:24 pm | #

to anon your distortian of shevet halavie 5:53 is so immense I feel it a waste of time to respond to you. however for the sake of the readers the theshuva was written tothe tenker rov and he says he has gone over the pro and anti eruv arguments and agrees it can not be made in addition he then discusses wheter cars can be counted or not and says they can. In relation to his misquoted teshuva to chicago frequently mentioned by eruv supporters he ends by saying it is NOT halacha lmaasah and wishes people would the Brooklyn oppstion.As far as rav henkin is concerner apparently he changed his views as both Rav Bick in a letter printed in kerem byavneh and rav scwab in mayan beis hasowave list him as an opponent and like before not another word on this topic till you speak to a signee
ben torah | 06.27.05 - 3:49 pm | #

To Ben Torah -- Regarding the Shevet HaLevi, 5:53, it’s true that Rav Shmuel Wosner shlita is commenting on what the Tenka Rav told him the facts were. However, in Shevet HaLevi, 6:41 when Rav Klein shlita corrects these facts and explains that there is no shishim ribo traversing any street even if we were to include the cars in the tally, Rav Shmuel Wosner states clearly there is nothing to talk about, an eruv is allowed. So who is distorting what? I repeat, the fact is Rav Shmuel Wosner allows his talmidim to carry in Boro Park, so this is all irrelevant. Never mind that we have now explored the mechitzos encompassing Brooklyn, and Rav Wosner was very happy to hear about them. Regarding Rav Shmuel Wosner’s Chicago teshuvah (Shevet HaLevi, 8:97),. it is clear that he would allow an eruv in WRP. However, as most poskim would, he didn’t want to seem like he is mixing in there. As an aside, who do you think in 1992 Rav Wosner meant you should ask in Brooklyn if not Rav Rav Fischel Hershkowits shlita and Rav Yechezkel Roth shlita, both who support an eruv today.

It’s funny that you think I have not spoken to any signatories. I have spoken to Rav Brown and the fact is his father zt”l didn’t sign on the 1979 text that they disseminated. I spoke to a rav and talmid who was present when they terrorized the Pupa Rav (one of the only rabbanim on the kol korei who really knew hilchos eruvin) and the fact is they made up some lies about Ocean Parkway and therefore he signed (the same was done to the Sharmasha Rav). In fact, this rav told me the Pupa Rav was extremely upset afterwards when he heard that he was hoodwinked. He obviously changed his mind later regarding Brooklyn since in 1981 the Pupa Rav was involved in the Boro Park eruv (ask the Pupa rav of Boro Park). Most of those that signed did so because the askanim against eruvin convinced them that it’s for the kavod of Rav Moshe zt”l and not because they know hilchos eruvin, so they count as one signature and I have nothing to talk to them about. Regarding Rav Schwab zt”l (Maayan Beis HaSho’eivah, pp. 232-234), he is just repeating the text of the 1979 kol korei and not commenting if Rav Henkin zt”l signed on the 1962 Manhattan kol korei or not; this is not proof at all. Anyone who would peruse Rav Schwab’s sefer would see how silly your proof is (despite that Rav Hirsch utilizes this). Rav Schwab was not one of the signers of the 1962 Manhattan kol korei so he was not privy to any more information than anyone else. Regarding Rav Bick zt”l, the fact is he wrote this letter concerning Rav Henkin (printed in Kerem Beyavnah, 3) five months before Rav Henkin wrote another letter that an eruv in Manhattan would be better than in most cities and that they should erect one before the rabbanim even get together (Kisvei Hagriah Henkin, p. 33 see also Divrei Menachem, O.C. vol. 2, p. 14 and Hapardes 1962). In any case you’re not answering to the point, which is that on the 1979 kol korei th
anon | 06.27.05 - 7:32 pm | #

In any case you’re not answering to the point, which is that on the 1979 kol korei they stated that Rav Henkin signed the 1962 kol korei and that is patently false notwithstanding what Rav Henkin may have maintained afterwards. Again you have nothing to go on, and I would debate you on any point—we’ll see who is telling the truth.
anon | 06.27.05 - 7:35 pm | #

ben torah, anon answerd well I looked up what he said lets see you respond.
dave | 06.30.05 - 1:38 pm | #

this is my last responce to anon and only for the the sake of dave.Anon once again misoutes the shevet halavei saying he stood corrected later on.This is just plain false.He allows RMK to pasken what he wants but repeats he does not agree.anon then goes on to be mebaze many talmedie chachocmim such as by claiming that(1)the Tenka rav gave RV false information (2)the pupa rov was such a complete idiot as to sign such an important kol koreh without verifg what he was told(3)the claim that most signoters werent famaliar with hilchos eiruvin.kol hamaze talmid chochom ain lo chelek lolam habah.anon then confirms he has not spoken to the signoters by refernses to their children/talmidims claims(not thier own).None of those claims have any HALCHOCIC crediblty against an uncontested signature.anon then claims that rav henkin put out a pro manhaatan letter 5 weeks after rav bick refered to him as an opponent in kerem byavneh. That is impossible because rav henkin was niftar 6 years before the date of rav bicks letter.seeing the what tactics anon uses I can not answer every new lie, misquote,distortan or hearsay he comes up with. keshem smitzvah lomar dover hanismah kach mitzvoh shlo lomer dover hayno nismah.P.S. anon is the name of the founder of kariate judiasm...
ben torah | 07.05.05 - 5:40 pm | #

Ben Torah:
You obviously didn’t read the end of Shevet HaLevi, 6:41. It is clear that Hagaon Harav Shmuel Wosner shlita agreed with Hagaon Harav Menashe Klein shlita that if there is no shishim ribo traversing the street including the cars occupants an eruv is allowed. Anyone can examine the Shevet HaLevi for himself and he will see how wrong you are. I repeat the fact is Rav Shmuel Wosner allows his talmidim to carry in Boro Park (I heard him say this personally), so this is all irrelevant.

As per your claim that signatures on a kol korei have credibility the facts are otherwise. The rabbanim and the individuals that I spoke to have more credibility than any signature on a kol korei. Some of these claims I heard 20 years ago and some signatures were contested already in 1979 (e.g. Harav Brown zt”l publicly contested his signature at the time). I will add that I personally spoke to Hagaon Harav Tuvia Goldstein zt”l he was emphatic that the anti-eruv activist fooled him by claiming that Ocean Parkway had shishim ribo traversing it and that it was mefulash (he said this b’rabbim many times as well). In Boro Park he fully supported the eruv. Hagaon Harav Avigdor Miller zt”l told me personally (and said it publicly it’s on tape) that he didn’t sign the kol korei. He then said that the anti-eruv activist showed him his signature on the 1979 kol korei but he doesn’t recall signing it. I pressed him further what does this mean the rav has an excellent memory how can it be that he doesn’t remember signing the kol korei. Rav Miller was noticeably upset and replied that his signature doesn’t count anyway. It was obvious that his purported signature was questionable. Regarding the Bobover Rebbe zt”l there is more to the story why he signed (suffice it to say he didn’t want to sign) and he had an eruv on his block anyway and carried weekly. So how anti-eruv could he have been. Rav Y. Liefer was fooled as well and that is why he has not signed a kol korei since (his grandson told this to me).

The letter from Hagaon Harav Bick zt”l was written on the second day of Rosh Chodesh Adar 1961 and the letter from Hagaon Harav Henkin zt”l was written on the 28 of Tammuz 1961. Hence why I stated that it was written 5 months afterwards. Harav Henkin was nifter in August of 1973. You obviously are clueless what the facts are. Anan Ben David was the name of the Karaite not anon but I suspect you know something about Karaite’s because they were also einoh modeh b’eruv.
anon | 07.06.05 - 12:18 am | #

I am not respondindg to anons fresh pack of lies and worthless hearsay however I would like to express my regret to the manner I reffered to the pupa rav. while it was said in the context of believing anons story (now stories) would be a major affront to those it was said about nontheless such terminoligy in reference to a talmid chocom is unexueseble and I sincerely regret it and ask the one above and the pupa rov for mechila with sincere sorrow and regrets ben torah
ben torah | 07.06.05 - 1:44 pm | #

it is nice to see anon acknowledge the pupa rav etc.signed (for whatever reason). on the kol koreh all this time the b.p. vaad haeruv and communal eruv phamphlet were claiming they were forged...
flatbush guy | 07.06.05 - 2:00 pm | #

flatbush guy - I am not admitting anything. There are two issues here 1) The Pupa Rav zt”l did not sign on this specific text of the 1979 kol korei -- I heard this from Pupa talmidim and rabbanim. 2) Hagaon Harav Neiman shlita from Montreal wrote a letter that his rebbe the Pupa Rav zt”l signed for reasons concerning tznius on Ocean Parkway (Rav Neiman shilta is considered perhaps the most important talmid of the Pupa Rav). The anti-eruv activist fabricated this reason because they knew that the Pupa Rav would not sign on a kol korei stating that Brooklyn is a reshus harabbim since he maintained otherwise. Regarding this issue tamidim and rabbanim of the Pupa Rav told us that their rebbe was extremely upset afterwards when he heard that he was hoodwinked.
anon | 07.06.05 - 11:44 pm | #

Bas Torah – Your ability to debate is limited to your meager knowledge. Your nonsense is typical of most of the anti-eruv activist. When they are hard-pressed to answer a substantiated claim from those in favor of an eruv the answer is it’s a, “pack of lies and worthless hearsay.” The game is up you can’t hide behind these falsehoods they will be exposed for what they are.

I am sure that you can’t refute what I proved Hagaon Harav Henkin zt”l maintained concerning a Manhattan eruv and that your proof from Hagaon Harav Bick zt”l is chronologically off. That is why you resorted to declaring that my statements are a, “pack of lies and worthless hearsay.” Additionally, you are not reading Shevet HaLevi, 6:41 correctly.

It’s interesting that after you state, “not another word on this topic till you speak to a signee,” I then go on to inform you that I have spoken personally to some signatories such as Hagaon Harav Tuvia Goldstein zt”l you then call it a, “pack of lies and worthless hearsay.” It’s useless to answer you since you are not interested in the truth. However, every one of my claims can be verified by talmidim. Many of my statements have either been written such as Rav Neiman shlita’s letter regarding the Pupa Rav or said many times publicly such as Rav Tuvia Goldstein zt”l repeatedly stating in public that he was lied to.

Here is fine example of the pot calling the kettle black. After castigating me for being mevazeh talmidei chachamim you go on to speak disrespectfully of the Pupa Rav. I don’t buy that you mean to apologize you only realized the irony of it. I however never intended to be mevazeh anyone I was only stating facts.

I will add another observation regarding the 1981 Boro Park kol korei. The signature of Hagaon Harav Moshe Feinstein zt”l is questionable. The signature on this letter is indistinguishable from the one on the haskamah to a booklet (Yetsios HaShabbos) against erecting eruvin, and it is not possible for two signatures to be exactly the same.
anon | 07.07.05 - 12:29 am | #

I stand corrected concerning Hagaon Harav Bick zt”l since I have now seen a letter he wrote in 1980 to Rabbi Shiah Director were he claims that Hagaon Harav Henkin zt”l was against the Manhattan eruv. However, b’mechilas kvod toraso it’s makes no sense to say that Rav Henkin zt”l was against an eruv in Manhattan. When did Rav Henkin reverse his opinion? After the Agudas HaRabbonim published the original kol korei in 1962 against the Manhattan eruv, which didn’t have Rav Henkin’s signature the Agudas HaRabbonim, published another kol korei in 1966 (HaPardes, 40th year, vol. 8) with out Rav Henkin’s signature as well. This is four years after the original issur was disseminated. When and why would Rav Henkin rescind his support for an eruv after 1966? The issue of eruvin in Manhattan went on for thirteen years and it’s clear from Rav Henkin that he was supportive of an eruv until the end. Most probably Rav Bick was in his 1980 letter referencing his original letter written on the second day of Rosh Chodesh Adar 1961 where he wrote that from Rav Henkin’s letter (written on the 13th of Cheshvan 1961) he was under the impression that Rav Henkin was against a Manhattan eruv. When in fact Rav Henkin wrote another letter five months after Rav Bick’s letter on the 28th of Tammuz 1961 approving an eruv.

All of this though is unrelated to the lie that is stated in the 1979 Flatbush kol korei, which states that Rav Henkin signed on the 1962 Manhattan kol korei his signature is nowhere to be found on the kol korei against an eruv in Manhattan nor is it found on the reissuing of the kol korei four years afterwards (HaPardes, 40th year, vol. 8). After the 1979 Flatbush kol korei was disseminated it’s possible that Rav Bick zt”l was influenced by this lie and therefore he mistakenly wrote in 1980 that Rav Henkin was against a Manhattan eruv.
anon | 07.07.05 - 11:24 am | #

I don't understand one fundamental thing: as I understand it, the new eruvin in Flatbush (both erub.org and flatbusheruv.org) rely on mechitzot on all sides which are omed merubeh al haparutz, and not on tzurot hapetach (except to fill gaps in the mechitzot). If this is so, then what difference does it make whether Brooklyn is a RHR?

Is there anyone who says one can't make an eruv mechitzot in a RHR? If that were the case, how could we carry inside our houses and yards? They are, after all, merely mechitzot standing in a RHR! Further, RMF explicitly permitted the eruv in Seagate, precisely because it has proper mechitzot. So why wouldn't he do the same for an eruv mechitzot in Flatbush, or Borough Park, or indeed in Manhattan itself?
Zev Sero | Homepage | 07.11.05 - 11:04 pm | #

Pirtzos asarah
Gil | Homepage | 07.11.05 - 11:11 pm | #

And Rav Moshe maintaines that pirtzos esser is d’rabbanan (Igros Moshe, O.C. 2:89 and 2:90). So do 99 percent of the poskim (Mabit in Kiryat Sefer, Shabbos Perek 16; Pri Megadim, Mishbetzes Zahav, 363:1; Zera Emes, eruvin 17; Bais Ephraim, O.C. 26 and 27; Shulchan Aruch HaRav, O.C. 345:11; Tikkun Eruvin Krakow, siman 1; Me’lamud Leho’il, siman 68; Avnei Nezer, O.C. 265:13, 265:25, 276:1 and 279:3; Aruch HaShulchan, O.C. 362:26; Mahari Slutsk, O.C. 11; Achi’ezer, 4:8; Chazon Ish, O.C.107: 5-8, 112:5; Chavatzelet HaSharon, O.C. 19 and Kol Mevaser, 1:20:2).
anon | 07.12.05 - 12:25 am | #

Rav Moshe zt”l was not aware that Brooklyn was encompassed by mechitzos. He stated (Igros Moshe, O.C. 5:28:5) regarding Brooklyn’s mechitzos, “Until now they [the mechitzos] did not exist but that one can investigate.” To claim that Rav Moshe’s issue with the mechitzos was concerning pirtzos esser is baseless since he did not negate the mechitzos by claiming that there are pirtzos esser. He only stated that, “one can investigate.” In any case, he maintains that pirtzos esser is d’rabbanan.
anon | 07.12.05 - 12:48 am | #

I'm not talking about the mechitzot around Brooklyn. I'm talking about the mechitzot that, according to the people who set them up, constitute the majority of the (shared) perimeter of the two Flatbush eruvin. Yes, there are pirtzot eser in those mechtizot, but pirtzot eser can be fixed with tzurot hapetach, so long as the wall remains omed merubeh al haparutz - is there anyone who claims that is not so?
Zev Sero | Homepage | 07.12.05 - 12:31 pm | #

These issues were some of the points of contention between the Mishkenos Ya’akov (O.C. 120-122) and the Bais Ephraim (O.C. 26). The Bais Ephraim maintains lo asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta and pirtzos esser is d’rabbanan. The Mishkenos Ya’akov upholds asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta and that pirtzos esser is a D’Oraysa. I posted a list previously showing that 99 percent of the poskim follow the Bais Ephraim regarding pirtzos esser and the following is a list: of most poskim who paskin like the Bais Ephraim regarding lo asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta Chacham Tzvi, siman 5, 37; Knesset Yechezkal, siman 2:3; Mayim Rabim, siman 34-36; Tosfos Shabbos, siman 363; Noda B’Yehudah, O.C. Mahadura Tinyana, 42 and Teshuvah M’Ahavah, siman 112; She’eilas Yaavetz, siman 7 and Mor U’Ketziyah, siman 363; Shulchan Aruch HaRav, O.C. 363:42, 364:4 and Kuntres Achron, O.C. 345:2; Bais Ephraim, O.C. 26; Keren Oreh, Eruvin 7a; Michtam L’David, siman 1; Chasam Sofer, O.C. 89; HaEleph Lecha Shlomo, siman 181; Aishel Avraham, siman 345; Chai Adam, klal 71:15; Chesed L’Avraham, siman 39; Maharham Shick, O.C. 171, 181; Maharia HaLevi, siman 94; Bais Shlomo, siman 43, 51; Tzemach Tzedek, Shabbos 100a and Eruvin, the end of Perek 5; Nefesh Chayah, siman 25; Avnei Nezer, O.C. 273:16, 279:2, 289:2; Aruch HaShulchan, O.C. 364:1; Maharsham, 3:188, 9:18; Yeshuos Malko, siman 21; Harei B’samim, 5:73; Imrei Yosher, siman 102 and Minchas Pitim, siman 364; Kaf HaChaim, O.C. 364:12; Divrei Malkiel, 3:10, 14; Rav Chaim Berlin in Tikkun Shabbos Odessa, p. 28 and in Nishmas Chaim, siman 29; Achiezer, 4:8; Even Yikrah, siman 58, and Chazon Ish, O.C. 74:10, 107:4. I can provide a list of Rishonim, most of whom we know today paskin lo asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta.

Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l follows the Mishkenos Ya’akov (Mishnas Rav Aharon, 6:2). The Mishnah Berurah follows the Mishkenos Ya’akov as well (Bi’ur Halachah 364:2). However, it should be noted that had the Mishnah Berurah seen the Bais Ephraim in conjunction with the Mishkenos Yaakov, there is a possibility he would have agreed with the Bais Ephraim that lo asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta, particularly since we know that he utilized the Bais Ephraim’s other sefarim [Sharei Ephraim, Mateh Ephraim] extensively. (See Bi’ur Halachah, 208:9 s.v. Eino MeVorech, where he states that he does not have the sefer Bais Ephraim. See Toldos Shmuel, 3:81:7 and 3:86:8; Bais Av, 2:5:2; and Even Yisroel, 8:36.)

Some want to say that Rav Moshe zt”l (Igros Moshe, O.C. 5:28:3) also paskind pirtzos esser is D’Oraysa. They are mistaken; he paskins pirtzos esser is d’rabbanan (Igros Moshe, O.C. 2:89 and 2:90). Having misread Igros Moshe, O.C. 5:28:3 they do not understand Rav Moshe’s difficulty with the Chazon Ish. There are three issues that the Chazon Ish’s bases his shita on: 1) That we pasken lo asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta. 2) We paskin pirtzas esser is D’Rabbanan. 3) That a reshus hayachid can create a mechitza even when no
anon | 07.12.05 - 8:50 pm | #

Some want to say that Rav Moshe zt”l (Igros Moshe, O.C. 5:28:3) also paskind pirtzos esser is D’Oraysa. They are mistaken; he paskins pirtzos esser is d’rabbanan (Igros Moshe, O.C. 2:89 and 2:90). Having misread Igros Moshe, O.C. 5:28:3 they do not understand Rav Moshe’s difficulty with the Chazon Ish. There are three issues that the Chazon Ish’s bases his shita on: 1) That we pasken lo asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta. 2) We paskin pirtzas esser is D’Rabbanan. 3) That a reshus hayachid can create a mechitza even when no mechitza is present (this is the Chazon Ish’s own chiddush). Rav Moshe is only taking issue with the Chazon Ish’s chiddush (number 3) and not with pirtzos esser. Therefore, if we have four mechitzos consisting of batim, Rav Moshe would agree that they are sufficient even if they have pirtzos esser. Only if we have two mechitzos and we would have to come on to the chiddush of the Chazon Ish would he object. I would recommend The Community Eruv kuntres for a good overview of hilchos eruvin.
anon | 07.12.05 - 8:51 pm | #

I'm still not following. Suppose pirtzot eser is de'oraita. We're not dealing here with unclosed pirtzot; they've been fixed with tzurot hapetach. Is there anyone who says you can't fix a gap in a mostly-intact wall with a tzurat hapetach of more than 10? Or that, if my property is enclosed on three sides by good fences with no gaps, I can't put a tzurat hapetach across the front and carry in the front yard?
Zev Sero | Homepage | 07.13.05 - 12:33 am | #

The Mishkenos Ya’akov and Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l maintains asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta and therefore a tzuras hapesach would not be sufficient; dalsos would be needed at the pirtzos. Asu rabbim and pirtzos esser are two separate issues. According to the Mishkenos Ya’akov if there is a pirtzos esser and we rectify it with a tzuras hapesach then the pirtzah does not mitigate the michitzah. However, if there is a rabbim (the Mishkenos Ya’akov does not consider a rabbim shishim ribo) traversing the pirtzah then we say asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta. (This is one of the benefits of the mechitzos encompassing Brooklyn since these pirtzos do not have a rabbim traversing them.) Nevertheless, the Mishkenos Ya’akov admits if we paskin as most poskim do, lo asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta when utilizing a tzuras hapesach to close the pirtzah it is as though the pirtzah itself ceases to exist (Mishkenos Yaakov, O.C. 122 p. 144). Private property does not have a rabbim traversing it therefore even those who paskin asu rabbim would allow a tzuras hapesach.
anon | 07.13.05 - 11:18 am | #

rabbsnu chnanel eiruvin daf 101 seems to imply pirtzis eser is dioraysa as he says that was the amount of pirtza which made yerusalyim into a reshus harabbim.in addition the bridges and tunnels to and from brooklyn change the mechitzos situation.
flatbush guy | 07.14.05 - 3:06 pm | #

Rav Moshe seems to have felt the whole mechitzo issue irrelevant.He adresses it by saying they dont (in a halachic sense) exsist but even if they did one would need dalsos.Unlike in Brooklyn Rav Moshe does question the mechitzoa around manhatten and says they are hukif ldirah but still does not allow construction of an eruv there. those who signed against the manhatten eruv were undougthly aware of the mechitzos.I do not understand why the vaad haeruv presents the mechitzos issue as if it is a new one,Rav Menasha Klein brought it up over 20 years ago and sent 5 people to look them over as he states in om ani chomo but it was not accepted by the poskim of that time
confused | 07.14.05 - 3:58 pm | #

The Gedolie H’Achronim clearly debated the shitos of the Rishonim and nevertheless, as I have stated previously, paskined pirtzos esser is d’rabbanan.

This Rabeinu Chananel is not your find but Rav Ahron Kotler’s zt”l (Mishnas Rav Aharon, 6:2). However, if it’s like Rav Ahron states that Rabeinu Chananel is referring to Yerushalayim and Rav Ahron adds there was shem daled mechitzos there, in this case at the minimum according to R’ Yehudah the pirtza would have to be 13 1/3 amos and not 10 amos. So I don’t understand Rav Ahron’s proof from the Rabeinu Chananel against the Chazon Ish (see Divrei Yechezkel, siman 5:13 for a different explanation of the Rabeinu Chananel). Additionally, one of the Rishonim the Tosafos Ha’Rosh (Eruvin, 17b) states clearly that pirtzos esser is d’rabbanan.

There is no problem with the bridges. Our Bridges are not parutz in the mechitzos, they are a way above them (Divrei Malkiel, 3:14 and Maharsham, 4:14). Even more so, some poskim state that if there are mechitzos beneath the bridges it is as if the bridges themselves have mechitzos (Noda B’Yehudah, O.C. Tinyana, 42 and Chai Adam, klal 44:12 see also Igros Moshe, O.C. 1:139:4).
anon | 07.17.05 - 12:16 am | #

With mechitzos, Brooklyn is no different than Manhattan where Rav Moshe wrote two letters (Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:89 and HaPardes, 33rd year, vol. 9) in support of the rabbanim’s right to establish an eruv (see Igros Moshe, Addendum to O.C. 4:89). [Only when Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l and other Roshei Yeshivos made a takanah not to erect an eruv in Manhattan did Rav Moshe join them and prohibit the eruv as well; Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:86 and Addendum to O.C. 4:89.] However, as I will explain further, since the situation in Brooklyn is different than Manhattan, according to Rav Moshe’s teshuvos he would allow an eruv to be erected there.

Rav Moshe zt”l does not say that the mechitzos don’t exist in a halachic sense, he clearly states that they didn’t exist in a physical sense. He says (Igros Moshe, O.C. 5:28:5) that, “until now they [the mechitzos] did not exist but that this is possible to investigate [yesh l’vaer].” What does he mean by investigate, if not literally. You are purposefully misconstruing Rav Moshe’s words. Rav Moshe says further that nevertheless he maintains that dalsos would be required even if the area was not a reshus harabbim. Rav Moshe is referring to his Manhattan teshuvos (Igros Moshe, O.C. 1:139:3, 1:140) where notwithstanding the fact that Manhattan was encompassed by mechitzos and was a reshus hayachid [a karmelis me’d’rabbanan] he required dalsos at the bridges. Rav Moshe maintained that dalsos would be need at the bridges themselves since they are open to a place that contained shishim ribo. However, Rav Moshe states that if the tzuras hapesach is erected in a reshus hayachid [inside of Manhattan] they are sufficient (Igros Moshe, 1:139 see the end of anaf 3). Since the tzuras hapesach we erected in our neighborhood only surrounds a section of Brooklyn and not the entire borough and its borders are not open to a reshus harabbim but to a reshus hayachid [the rest of Brooklyn that is encompassed by mechitzos], the tzuras hapesach is sufficient and dalsos are not required (see the Community Eruv kuntres note 31).

The mechitzos where the main reason to allow an eruv in Manhattan and therefore most rabbanim supported one.

The only rav who said anything against the Brooklyn mechitzos in writing was Rav Moshe Bick zt”l (Kerem Beyavnah, 3:27). He stated that there are hundreds of large pirtzos in the mechitzos and that whole neighborhoods are not included in these mechitzos. It’s clear that the facts today are not as Rav Bick stated. There are few pirtzos in the mechitzos (they are probably 99 percent closed) and all of our neighborhoods are included. Anyone who denies that Brooklyn is encompassed by mechitzos today either didn’t try to investigate them or is lying. It’s easy to verify and it’s logical as well that Brooklyn’s waterfront is fenced in. If the mechitzos are irrelevant as you state, why then did the anti-eruv activist even bother to claim that they explored the mechitzos? They should have ju
anon | 07.17.05 - 12:23 am | #

They should have just stated they are irrelevant in any case. You are not, “confused,” at all, your goal is just to confuse others.
anon | 07.17.05 - 12:27 am | #

??
david | 07.17.05 - 1:53 pm | #

you didnt answer my point RMK makes a clear reference to the mechitzos over 25 years ago and says he sent 5 people to look them over why does the vaad heruv claim it is a new issue? I am not convinced rav moshe would of accepted these mechitzos even now (other poskim dont)Rav Moshes thehuva is only to be understood in an halachic sense praticularlt where he states flatbush has shishim ribui and tha is very possibly the case by mechitzos as well
confused | 07.18.05 - 4:23 pm | #

anyone who truly wants to understand the mechitzo issue should go through shaarei yerushlayim written by a true talmid chocom yorey shomayim and rov in flatbush(rabbi taub)not some annonomous communal eiruv that neither the author nor any rabbi who supports the eruv is willing to take the heat of signing or endorsing it in addition one who wants to understand the whole issue should see yetzias hashabbos with its haskomos from rav moshe the debritzeiner rav and the satmer rebbeh.the communal eruv has no haskama for good reason.there is no heter to be publicly chosod bksherim and spread motzey shem ra by claiming the haskamos wrer forged.plus milsha davida lgluyay lo meshakrey bei enshay so none of those allegations have credibilty in halacha
flatbush guy | 07.18.05 - 4:41 pm | #

confused/flatbush guy/ben torah – I never saw the Vaad HaEruv of Flatbush state that the mechitzos are a new issue. You’re not convinced about Rav Moshe zt”l because you can’t debate his shita, you just don’t know it. The only Rav who has publicly stated that he has a problem with the mechitzos is Rav Belsky shlita and he has stated that the problem is pirtzos esser is D’Oraysa. However, Rav Moshe disagrees since he maintains that pirtzos esser is me’d’rabbanan (Igros Moshe, O.C. 2:89-90). I would have no problem if any rav were against an eruv as long as they state that it’s their personal opinion and leave Rav Moshe out of the picture.

I don’t think you know what you mean by, “Rav Moshes thehuva is only to be understood in an halachic sense praticularlt where he states flatbush has shishim ribui,” I sure hope Rav Moshe’s teshuvos are to be understood in a halachic sense. In any case, even if Brooklyn contained shishim ribo (it does not according to Rav Moshe’s shita), if it’s encompassed with mechitzos it would nevertheless be classified as a reshus hayachid.
anon | 07.19.05 - 1:51 am | #

Confused/flatbush guy/ben torah – I have read and know many talmidei chachamim who have read Sharei Yerushalayim. The overall flaw in his approach is his disregard of mesorah in halacha. 99 percent of the Gedolie H’Achronim have paskind one way, yet he appears today and states that he understands the Rishonim better than them. I always wonder what do people like him do with the last 500 years of the Gedolie H’Achronim. When they understand the Rishonim differently, they just disregard the Gedolie H’Achronim. Take for instance his main subject, the issue of pirtzos esser. In Sharei Yerushalayim he tries to prove with all kinds of svaras that all the Rishonim maintain that it’s a D’Oraysa. [I reiterate, one of the Rishonim the Tosafos Ha’Rosh (Eruvin, 17b) states *clearly* that pirtzos esser is d’rabbanan.] As I have shown previously, 99 percent of the Gedolie H’Achronim paskin that pirtzos esser is me’d’rabbanan, so with his svaras he is disagreeing with the Gedolie H’Achronim. Never mind that Rav Moshe zt”l would also differ with him since he maintains that pirtzos esser is me’d’rabbanan (Igros Moshe, O.C. 2:89-90) and Rav Moshe is the reason that there are rabbanim in Flatbush who are against erecting an eruv. Additionally, I can say svaras with the opposite conclusion of his, but there really is no need to since I rely on the Gedolie H’Achronim.

You have no answer why Rav Moshe’s signature on the haskamah to Yetsios HaShabbos is exactly the same as Rav Moshe’s signature on the 1981 Boro Park kol korei. This is a fact. What motzi shem ra are you talking about? The author wants to hold people back from the mitzvah of erecting eruvin and one is allowed to expose his lies. Talking about motzi shem ra, you should ask the author of Yetsios HaShabbos why he called a rav in St. Louis, Rav Zecharia Yosef Rozenfeld zt”l, a mechalel Shabbos when his only aveira was to establish an eruv there in 1895 (see Yetsios HaShabbos, 1981 p. 64). This claim that The Community Eruv kuntres is anonymous is just not true as it was published with original letters from rabbanim supporting the eruv. Additionally, the kuntres references with copious footnotes so you can peruse them and come to your own conclusions. They didn’t hide anything. I would debate you on any issue stated in Sharei Yerushalayim.
anon | 07.19.05 - 2:01 am | #

confused/flatbush guy/ben torah – You forgot the haskamah on the 1981 edition of the Yetsios HaShabbos from Rav Yechezkel Roth shlita. Oh I forgot the author removed this haskamah from the 2003 edition probably because Rav Roth supports these new Brooklyn eruvin. I would like to add that I have heard from the anti-eruv group that those in support of the eruv can’t refute Sharei Yerushalayim. This is wishful thinking on their part since those who support the eruv feel there is no need to answer for the Gedolie H’Achronim. However if you post some of his issues I would refute them (regarding his issue with pirtzos esser I have already shown that the Gedolie H’Achronim maintain otherwise and that there is no real proof from Rabeinu Chananel against them on the contrary the Tosafos Ha’Rosh *clearly* maintains pirtzos esser is d’rabbanan).
anon | 07.19.05 - 1:15 pm | #

confused/flatbush guy/ben torah – You forgot the haskamah on the 1981 edition of the Yetsios HaShabbos from Rav Yechezkel Roth shlita. Oh I forgot the author removed this haskamah from the 2003 edition probably because Rav Roth supports these new Brooklyn eruvin. I would like to add that I have heard from the anti-eruv group that those in support of the eruv can’t refute Sharei Yerushalayim. This is wishful thinking on their part since those in support of the eruv feel there is no need to answer for the Gedolie H’Achronim. However if you post some of his issues I would refute them (regarding his issue with pirtzos esser I have already shown that the Gedolie H’Achronim maintain otherwise and that there is no real proof from Rabeinu Chananel against them on the contrary the Tosafos Ha’Rosh *clearly* maintains pirtzos esser is d’rabbanan).
anon | 07.19.05 - 1:20 pm | #

Anon, I did a little research into a subject that you wrote about and I have a suggestion. ben torah said that Rav Bick stated (Kerem Beyavnah, 3:27) that Rav Henkin was against a Manhattan eruv. You could refute this by saying that after Rav Henkin wrote a letter clearly stateing his support for an eruv in Manhattan (Kisvei Hagaon Rav Y.E. Henkin, page 33) Rav Bick cant say otherwise without proof of a letter from Rav Henkin clearly withdrawing his support.
dave | 07.20.05 - 2:02 pm | #

R. Yehuda Henkin wrote to me that his grandfather was in favor of the Manhattan eruv, although he instructed his son and grandson not to rely on it.
Gil | Homepage | 07.20.05 - 2:05 pm | #

Gil, very interesting this just strengthens what I said. I wonder what the reason not to carry was.
dave | 07.20.05 - 8:48 pm | #

Dave - I guess you are referring to the teshuvah from the son of the Noda B’Yehudah (Noda B’Yehudah, Tinyana, Y.D. 29-30).

R’ Gil - Thanks for that bit of information. I wonder if the reason Rav Henkin zt”l instructed his son and grandson not to rely on the Manhattan eruv was because he questioned if the bridges and tunnels were actually closed (it wasn’t so simple to erect a tzuras hapesach then). It would be helpful if you could ask Rav Yehuda Henkin if he knows what his grandfather’s reasoning was and why he was in favor of an eruv in Brooklyn. In light of this we see clearly that what is stated in the 1979 kol korei that Rav Y.E. Henkin signed on the 1962 Manhattan kol korei is a lie. Additionally, R’ Gil, I would suggest that you mention to Rav Y. Hirsch that his proof from Rav Schwab zt”l (Critique of Eruvin in Brooklyn, p. 9) is incorrect.

I will add a few more proofs that Rav Henkin did not change his mind concerning a Manhattan eruv as claimed by some revisionists. Rav Kasher’s zt”l’s sefer Divrei Menachem, O.C. vol. 2 was published in 1980 and Kisvei Hagriah Henkin was published in 1989; both have the last letter (dated 28th of Tammuz 1961) from Rav Henkin where he maintains that an eruv should be constructed. Therefore, Rav Bick’s zt”l’s claim in 1980 that Rav Henkin was against an eruv in Manhattan was superseded. Additionally, in Kerem Beyavnah, 3:27 Rav Bick mentions to Rabbi Shiah Director that Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l and Rav Savitsky of Boston plus other rabbanim were against establishing an eruv in Flatbush. Rav Bick added that Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l and Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin zt”l were even against an eruv in Manhattan. If Rav Bick had seen the last letter from Rav Henkin (28th of Tammuz 1961) where he encourages the rabbanim of Brooklyn to erect an eruv, he would have addressed this fact and not just stated that Rav Henkin was against an eruv in Manhattan, since Brooklyn was the issue. Therefore, the conclusion is that Rav Bick did not see the last letter of Rav Henkin where he clearly supports an eruv in Manhattan and Brooklyn.

To reiterate, all of this is unrelated to the lie that is stated in the 1979 Flatbush kol korei, which states that Rav Henkin signed on the 1962 Manhattan kol korei. His signature is nowhere to be found on the kol korei against an eruv in Manhattan, nor is it found on the reissuing of the kol korei four years afterwards (HaPardes, 40th year, vol. 8).
anon | 07.21.05 - 1:05 am | #

Anon, I meant logically he would have to bring proof. I did lookup the Noda B’Yehudah though, beautiful.
dave | 07.21.05 - 1:49 pm | #

the noda beyuhda and others who pasken like can and should also be used against anons claim of the 1979/1981 kol koreh being forged altered or signed under false pretenses (after anon makes up his mind which of the 3 it was)
flatbush guy | 07.21.05 - 2:31 pm | #

Flatbush Guy, you are mixing up a kol korei and a teshuvah.
dave | 07.21.05 - 8:59 pm | #

confused/flatbush guy/ben torah – You are comparing apples to oranges. In the case of the Noda B’Yehudah’s teshuvah, no one claimed that it was forged just that it was superseded. This is what the son of the Noda B’Yehudah took issue with and he stated that in order to overturn an existing teshuvah you have to show proof. You can’t debate the evidence that these kol korei’s were tampered with. No, I don’t have to make up my mind which of the three it is -- the anti-eruv campaign has done that for me. They have used all three methods in their attempts to fool the public.

I will add another observation regarding the 1979 Flatbush kol korei. On the version with the handwritten signatures, it’s clear that Rav Moshe’s signature is smaller than the rest and it was obviously tampered with to fit into a smaller space.
anon | 07.24.05 - 4:03 pm | #

to anon can you really posal a shtar if one aid has a smaller signuture?In any event I dont see your assertion as being true. how does the vaad haeruv learn the sugya of kiyum hasthar bechosmuv?moreover you now provide the kol koreh with a migo as why would the forge rav moshes signiture in smaller. you have not adreesed my point that the kol koreh had a chazokoh of milsha davidah lgluyay lo meshakrei bay inshe.what do you say about Rav D feinteins letter.rabbi ginzburg from agudas harrobonims.why did it take 25 years and the death of every person you refer to in past posts fot this "forgery"to come to light?etc.etc.etc.
flatbush guy | 07.25.05 - 3:33 pm | #

confused/flatbush guy/ben torah – You’re totally missing the point. The signature on the 1979 kol korei was not forged but was probably lifted (photocopied) from another letter of Rav Moshe’s and reduced into the given space. After the activist had finished getting the rabbanim to sign on the kol korei, they didn’t want to put Rav Moshe’s signature after the others. So they squeezed it in first, under the text of the kol korei, by reducing it so that it ended up being the first signature on the kol korei, hence its smaller size. Since Rav Moshe declined to issue a p’sak against the Flatbush eruv, as he acknowledged his chiddush was not mentioned in the Achronim, and moreover it was obvious that the Aruch HaShulchan would not agree with him (Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:87), it doesn’t make sense that Rav Moshe would sign a kol korei against the Flatbush eruv. As a matter of fact, it’s known that Rav Moshe didn’t want to sign the 1979 kol korei. I would add that anyone who would see the kol korei with the handwritten signatures would agree that a lot of cutting and pasting was done.

Rav Dovid shlita didn’t mention that his father signed the kol korei. R. Ginsburg is referring to the Boro Park kol korei. It didn’t take 25 years to declare that the Flatbush kol korei is full of falsities. I have already mentioned in prior posts to you that some rabbanim declared at that time that they didn’t sign on this kol korei. Additionally, Rav Menashe Klein shlita mentioned several of my claims many years ago in his sefer Oim Ani Chomah (see the reprint siman 7). Those who forged this kol korei didn’t expect that one would analyze it that carefully; therefore, you can’t claim that kol milsa da’aveda l’igluyay lo meshakrei bah enashei. All your claims are smokescreens and do not answer why there were so many shenanigans with both the 1979 and 1981 kol korei. I hope that you are taking notes so you don’t repeat these lies in your try at a rebuttal to The Community Eruv kuntres.
anon | 07.26.05 - 3:22 am | #

the gemorah yevomos 66-68 by the sugya of moavi vlo moavis says amsha was bleived to say he heard that halacho from shmuel hanovi despite(1)they had no answer to doegs arguments against it (2)amsha had a major vested intrest in saying so (see tosfos)the reason was that noone would lie in shmuels name when he and his beis din were still around(see rashi which explains milsha davida etc).I referred to that gemora when Isaid that when the kol koreh was written they had/have a milshe davidah.Seeing your expertese in invalidatig documents I ask could tell us the 5(plus)ways of kiyum hasthar that override an irur without cheating?While RDF and R Ginzburgs letters do not refer to the kol koreh they override the a major conponent of the communal eruvs thesis.While I find the communal eruv to be full of misquotes and false arguments rest assured as a grubbe baal habos I know my place and have no intentions to give my opnions publicly on a issue of halacha...P.S. seeing that you posted at 2:22 a.m. may I suggest you get more sleep?
flatbush guy | 07.27.05 - 4:34 pm | #

confused/flatbush guy/ben torah/TW – You’re not proving anything by citing this Gemara. The 1979 kol korei does not have a din of a shtar at all. There was no meeting of rabbanim, some activist went around collecting signatures, and therefore there was no maseh beis din. Even if the kol korei did have a din of a shtar, since the eidus (the signatories) themselves declared that they didn’t sign on this text the kol korei is worthless (Ktzos HaChoshen, 43:3). I reiterate, there were rabbanim who declared then that they didn’t sign on this text, so you can’t claim milsa da’aveda l’igluyay. Furthermore, no one knows who wrote the text of the kol korei, so what’s to stop the writer from advancing a mistruth. Therefore, you couldn’t employ the klal, kol milsa da’aveda l’igluyay lo meshakrei bah enashei since he would never be exposed. Even regarding chazaka, if one can prove differently others cannot claim that they have a chazaka (see Pnei Yehoshua, Kesubos 22b). I am not interested in your riddles.

You brought Rav Dovid’s and Rav Ginsburg’s letters as proof that the 1979 kol korei is true, but now you are changing your story. Only Rav Ginsburg’s letter addresses The Community Eruv kuntres. Notwithstanding, the proofs still stand particularly the fact that the 1981 kol korei purports that according to Rav Moshe’s Shevat 1979 teshuvah (Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:88) Rav Moshe joined the Agudas HaRabbonim in prohibiting eruvin in Brooklyn. Rav Moshe never mentioned a word in that teshuvah about joining the Agudas HaRabbonim in prohibiting eruvin in Brooklyn. So b’michlas kavodo, I don’t believe this kol korei since Rav Moshe could not have signed such a letter. I wonder why the anti-eruv activist didn’t proffer this letter in their booklet? I find it illuminating that you have not been able to refute one point of the kuntres, and yet you still claim that the kuntres is, “full of misquotes and false arguments.” Isn’t it more likely that you aren’t interested in the truth? To reiterate, your nonsense is typical of most of the anti-eruv activist. When you are hard-pressed to answer a substantiated claim from those in favor of an eruv, your answer is it’s, “full of misquotes and false arguments.” It’s clear you don’t consider yourself a grubba baal habos in eruvin since some of your arguments contain information that gives you away as one of the members of the anti-eruv activist group (like your knowledge of Kerem Beyavnah). You did try to debate halachic issues, so please save your false humbleness for someone else.

P.S. The best thinking is done at night (Rambam, Hilchos Talmud Torah 3:3 and Shulchan Aruch, Y.D. 246:23). The time stamp is off.
anon | 08.03.05 - 12:51 am | #

Anon, I thought that you are not going to answer. I have a question for you that I was asked lately. The Achiezer, 4:8 seems to say that the shishim ribo is a requirment of the city not of the street. With this some are trying to say that those who wrote the kuntres are tryng to fool the public.
dave | 08.03.05 - 7:31 pm | #

You’re right maybe I shouldn’t have answered an einoh modeh b’eruv.

This is a misunderstanding since according to the Achiezer at least one street would need to meet the requirement of shishim ribo traversing it, and only then would the entire city be considered a reshus harabbim (see the Aishel Avraham, O.C. 345, who maintains a similar view). Even if we were to believe that the Achiezer upholds that shishim ribo is dependent on a city, it’s important to note that he paskins *lo* asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta and that pirtzos esser is d’rabbanan. Therefore, since we are using mechitzos for our eruv there is no question that the Achiezer would allow one to be erected. This is typical of the anti-eruv activists, to collectively select just one shita from different poskim and to conveniently forget the rest of that posek’s views.
anon | 08.04.05 - 1:27 am | #

Anon, thanks. Another question that has been mentoned to me that has not been covered in the kuntres is the Rashba. Rav Moshe states that even with mechitzos we can’t make an eruv because the Rashba doesn’t agree that if there is shishim ribo mechitzos help. Thanks for answering all my questions.
dave | 08.04.05 - 7:42 pm | #

What is your hetter to refer to me as a einu modeh beruv?are you not being chosod bksarim I have an eruv between me and my nieghbor and yes I make a brocha on it as has been done for the past 25 years despite the old flatbush eruv by everyone.While the vaad heruv (or certain pro eruv elements) goes on a mass smear campaign to be motze laz on klal yisroel and be malig on divrey chocomim and refer to all those who disagree with them as einu modeh beruv like the tzdukim the issue of wheter tzdukim were modeh beruv is actually a machlokes risonim.I frequently dont answer your points so as not to go in endless circles.I"ll believe rabbonim denied signing the kol koreh when I"ll see it in writing.What false humilty do you refer to?Do YOU think knowledge of kerem byavneh makes one a posek?Those who support the eruv will be faced after 120 years with explaining who were you to be macnis rosech bain snai horim and to change the status quo and go against the overwhelming majority of the local rabbonim etc. I pity them.
flatbush guy | 08.04.05 - 9:41 pm | #

Dave - It is mentioned in the kuntres albeit not by name (see footnote 31; I don’t know why they didn’t mention the Rashba by name?). According to the Rashba, if the area in question has a din of a reshus harabbim dalsos would *not* help at the pirtzos in the mechitzos. (Rav Moshe states that in Europe the cities didn’t contain shishim ribo, therefore they were not concerned about the Rashba’s shita. However, it’s interesting that the Rashba himself didn’t agree that shishim ribo is a criterion of a reshus harabbim.)

However, Rav Moshe states that if Brooklyn was encompassed by mechitzos, dalsos would be needed at the pirtzos (Igros Moshe, O.C. 5:28:5; see also 1:140 where regarding Manhattan Rav Moshe allowed that dalsos would help as well). We see from this teshuvah that since Rav Moshe allowed that dalsos would help, the Rashba’s shita was not a major concern. See The Community Eruv kuntres footnote 31 why these shitos yachidaos (Rashba’s, Rabeinu Ephraim’s and the shita mentioned in the Terumas HaDeshen) was not an obstacle to erect an eruv according to Rav Moshe and why, as I mentioned previously, dalsos would not be needed for an eruv in Brooklyn.
anon | 08.06.05 - 11:13 pm | #

confused/flatbush guy/ben torah/TW – You can call me a Karaite, but I can’t call you an einoh modeh b’eruv? The fact is that some of the reasons that have been proffered by the anti-eruv activist can be said against all eruvin e.g. playing ball. You are a member of that group and the fact that you have an eruv between you and your neighbor doesn’t make you less of an einoh modeh b’eruv. Actually, I don’t understand why you feel that you can make an eruv even between houses - maybe someone will play ball between both of your houses. It’s clear that the Tzadukim were einoh modeh b’eruv. The question was did they believe you don’t need an eruv to carry or that you can’t carry even with an eruv (the Rambam 2:16 called the Tzadukim einoh modeh b’eruv). You’re full of it, it’s not that you don’t want to answer my rebuttals, ”so as not to go in endless circles,” you do try to answer them but you were soundly defeated. I don’t care that you want to see it in writing since in any case most kol korei’s are questionable. Over twenty years ago Rav Menashe Klein shlita wrote that there are lies in the 1979 and 1981 kol korei’s (Oim Ani Chomah, siman 56, 77). Additionally, no one is going to retract their signature in writing because they would only be terrorized afterwards. You stated that, “I know my place and have no intentions to give my opinions publicly on a issue of halacha.” That is false humbleness since you did try to debate halachic issues. I reiterate, your knowledge of Kerem Beyavnah proves that you don’t consider yourself a grubba baal habos in halachos eruvin. Even if it were true that an overwhelming majority of rabbanim is against erecting an eruv, every rav has a right and a responsibility to establish an eruv. There is no difference between mikvaos and eruvin in both cases one just follows his own rav. The machlokes regarding eruvin has little to do with halacha only with mi be’rosh.
anon | 08.06.05 - 11:22 pm | #

It is not me but hashem who you will have to answer to, not me but hashem who will judge you.Once again I pity you for when that day arrives.
flatbush guy | 08.07.05 - 3:39 pm | #

Is this the best you can do? I believe that you have scraped the bottom of the barrel.
anon | 08.07.05 - 10:28 pm | #

Flatbush Guy – Did you realize that Harav Elyashuv’s signture in the booklet against the Flatbush eruv was a later date from the others on the kol korei.
dave | 08.09.05 - 3:06 pm | #

In closing I would like to thank the flatbush vaad heruv and those who carry for teaching me the meaning of the expresion that epitomizes there essense"Fools rush to where angels fear to tread"My sympithes.Kol Tuv.
flatbush guy | 08.09.05 - 4:31 pm | #

Dave - I think the date discrepancy is strange and there is more to the story such as Rav Elyashuv’s signature dates from the time of the wig controversy.
anon | 08.12.05 - 12:40 pm | #

confused/flatbush guy/ben torah/TW –I would think that one who is preaching holiness wouldn’t quote Alexander Pope. Be careful who you call fools there are great rabbanim who allow an eruv.
anon | 08.12.05 - 12:42 pm | #

chochma bakum tamin.However if you want a better source;on the posek in mislhei "A fool believes everything"some rishonim learn it to be a reference to those who are mekabel loshon horah,others learn it to mean those who grab or accept any tzad hetter.I no no longer refer to the flatbush eruv exclusivly with this posting(I think we finished that topic)
flatbush guy | 08.15.05 - 1:39 pm | #

Your absurdity is a cover for your inability to answer my rebuttals. This is typical of the anti-eruv activist. After all of your allegations have been disproved, you still claim that you don’t believe what has been stated in the kuntres. I am still waiting for you to offer up some rock-solid proofs. There have been so many lies spread by your group, yet when you are taken to task, the only answer is that those supporting an eruv are liars. To reiterate, Rav Henkin zt”l didn’t sign the 1962 Manhattan kol korei as claimed in the 1979 Flatbush kol korei, and Rav Moshe zt”l couldn’t have signed on the text of the 1981 kol korei. Additionally, Rav Moshe was not against other rabbanim of Flatbush establishing an eruv as stated clearly in Igros Moshe, 4:87. Even more so, if Rav Moshe would know the facts as they are today he would probably allow an eruv in Flatbush as he allowed in KGH, Queens.

A friend told me that Rabbi S is working on a rebuttal of the kuntres. We are all waiting in bated breath what the anti-eruv activists come up with next.
anon | 08.15.05 - 11:50 pm | #

your responce is virtriolic that I suspect I hit a raw nerve. Are you already preparing a disclaimer and denial before you see the rebuttal due to a subconcios fear/awerness of the truth?I suspect so Yes the truth hurts and once again I pity you for when you will be confroted with it after 120 years.for the time being however you can either do teshuva or post more misquotes on the internet and pride yourself for being a bar plugtah and
"mentzach" the gedolay olam of the past generation.
flatbush guy | 08.16.05 - 4:05 pm | #

confused/flatbush guy/ben torah/TW –If you are the best that the anti-eruv activists can put forth, then those activists have a lot of work to do. I will not debate your asinine claims and let you sidetrack the debate. You obviously don’t have the tools or the capacity to argue. Get it through your head; it’s the anti-eruv activists who are at variance with the mesorah. It’s clear from the answer to the kuntres that, “the truth hurts,” and you got it all wrong. Now that I hear that the anti-eruv activist are planning a rebuttal to the kuntres -- not just some childish picture book -- I see that, “the truth (really) hurts.” You are continuing the time honored tradition of the anti-eruv activist who when forced to prove an allegation can only offer that those in support of an eruv are posting, “misquotes.” You can’t substantiate anything. Stop hiding behind our Torah, it has nothing to do with it. The only concern is mi be’rosh.
anon | 08.16.05 - 9:47 pm | #

AGAIN It is not I the baal habosh but rav moshe feinstein,rav ahron kotler,rav Y. kamenetsky,rav M. bick,the satmer rebbeh the debritzeiner rov etc.etc.etc. who represent the opposition to the eruv and they will be mekatrag on you in the next world as a macshil harabim not me but dont worry thet will answer better and have more clout up there.You lost crediblty by for claiming rav S.wosner retracted his opposition in cheleck 6 when he ends that teshuva by saying it is a mininum of asofek dioroysa. In addition you claim rav avigdor miller told you he doesnt remember signing against it when he issued a rare hand written letter saying he did.You offer no proof that what you heard from other signotors is true so only a fool would take your annonmous words. divrei torah aniyim bmokom echod vashirim bmokom acher.These side issues which you refuse to debate give a perspective to this one. In addition you show that your concept of crediblty is not based on the the torah concept of nemonis but your own boich.(while I did not not expect you to know the 5+ ways of kiyum hasthar I am suprised you didnt realize to answer me that the kol koreh is not a shtar due to lack of daas hamichayiv)seeing your your prephipharal lack of knowledge it is shocking that insead of being a chochom who is makir mekomo you chose to open yourself to eternal gehonim by rushing to where the rishonim kmalochim feared/realized not to.At this point I ask why do feel it prudent to stick out you neck like that you stand the risk of eternal gehonim for the sake of what???
flatbush guy | 08.17.05 - 4:34 pm | #

P.S. even assuming the eruv is the right thing to do I have no dought in the next world they will accept your saying you were scareed to go against those who know/knew more then you as well as overwhelming majority of flatbush rabbonim and more learned residents.my sympitheis for when they ask you why you werent.chaval that someone should risk eternal gehenim for nothing.
flatbush guy | 08.17.05 - 4:42 pm | #

confused/flatbush guy/ben torah/TW – It’s ironic that you insist on calling yourself a baal habos when you signed some of your posts as, “ben torah.” But who am I to argue with you? You must be right; you’re definitely not more than a baal habos. Rav Ahron Kotler, Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky and the Satmer Rav never said a word about Brooklyn. The Debrecziner Rav did not maintain that Brooklyn is a reshus harabbim. Regarding Rav Moshe we have debated his shita and it’s clear that you don’t know it. Rav Bick, as I have shown you clearly, was not talking about our mechitzos. There is a second part to Shevet HaLevi, 6:41 that you can’t seem to locate. Anyone who has examined the Shevet HaLevi will see how mistaken you are. I repeat, the fact is Rav Shmuel Wosner allows his talmidim to carry in Boro Park (I heard him say this personally, and you can go ask his talmidim), so this is all irrelevant. I wrote regarding Rav Miller zt”l, “He then said that the anti-eruv activist showed him his signature on the 1979 kol korei but he doesn’t recall signing it.” You missed my point. Rav Miller gave Moshe W. this letter that you are referring to because Moshe W. showed Rav Miller his signature on the 1979 kol korei, but he didn’t recall signing it to begin with. It’s obvious that Rav Miller’s purported signature is questionable particularly since he stated publicly (it’s on tape) that he didn’t sign the kol korei. Although you would like us to accept kol koreis as true, you’re out of luck since most people don’t believe in a kol korei’s veracity for very good reasons.

I would debate you on any subject that you think you know about. However, the issue at hand is hilichos eruvin, about which you clearly don’t have an inkling. I don’t have time for your silly banter and Yeshivishe reid (never mind your spelling) none of which has to do with halacha. Stick to the point. I am not impressed with the few Gemaras that you quote. You make it sound as if the anti-eruv activists never question the written word. In your Kerem Beyavnah it’s stated that the Achiezer’s (4:8) only reason to allow the eruv in Paris was because the Jewish Parisians were carrying in any case. Therefore, the heter was only b’deieved. Since the Achiezer never mentions this very pertinent fact, it’s obvious that this claim is purely fictional and was invented today way after the fact (never mind the Achiezer’s heterim are not chiddushim just accepted halacha p’suka). What about the many pro-eruv letters from the rabbanim of Williamsburg that the anti-eruv activists now say should be disregarded? I have yet to see a written retraction of any of these pro-eruv letters. How about the letter from Hagaon Harav Neiman shlita from Montreal stating that his rebbe, the Pupa Rav zt”l, signed for reasons concerning tznius. Accordingly, it’s not possible that the Pupa Rav signed on the text of this kol korei, which focused on the issue of a reshus harabbim. Is Rav Neiman shlita, chas ve
anon | 08.19.05 - 12:29 pm | #

Is Rav Neiman shlita, chas veshalom, a liar as well? The fact that you are resorting to these silly threats of gehenom is indicative that you have nothing to answer. I wonder why you’re not concerned about the anti-eruv activist’s gehenom since they have perpetuated so many lies concerning a mitzvah. Who do you think are the gedolei haposkim in America if not Rav Fischel Hershkowits shlita and Rav Yechezkel Roth shlita, both of whom support an eruv today?

You are still tying to sidetrack the debate with smokescreens since you still have not answered what I have stated prior. I reiterate, Rav Henkin zt”l didn’t sign the 1962 Manhattan kol korei as claimed in the 1979 Flatbush kol korei, and Rav Moshe zt”l couldn’t have signed on the text of the 1981 kol korei. Why did Rav Moshe state that both Boro Park and Flatbush contain more than shsihim ribo if not that he was lied to? Additionally, Rav Moshe was misled by the claim that over one million people come in to Brooklyn to work (Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:88) when in fact the number is much less. Additionally, Rav Moshe was not against other rabbanim of Flatbush establishing an eruv as stated clearly in Igros Moshe, 4:87. Even more so, if Rav Moshe would know the facts as they are today he would probably allow an eruv in Flatbush as he allowed in KGH, Queens.

Your only concern is mi be’rosh. Again stick to the point or I am out of here.
anon | 08.19.05 - 12:30 pm | #

a baal habosh should also be a ben torah.both rav moshe and rav gedaliah schorr understood the 1962 kol koreh to be a refernce to brooklyn as the 1979 kol koreh states.since they signed both they clearly knew what they were talking about.beer moshe 3:69 refers to new york being a chsas rh"r a well known fact.I trust the hiacdus harabonim +to be more famaliar with the posotion of the pupa rav and satmer rebbeh then you are. your story about rmw and ram is just plain plain motze shem ra on both (which tape do you refer to)rav moshe clearly meant flatbush having 600000 peole in a halachic sense.according to your brazeness you should say rav moshe didnt know what he was talking about in queens as in both teshuvas not onlt does he not acnowledge 600000 residents he explictly refers to it as a "small city".I dont stop you from getting out of here.
flatbush guy | 08.19.05 - 2:39 pm | #

Pleas read: E Sefer, and mail-Jewish volume30 number95, and Back Row of The Beis: The Slow Strikes Back, posts by Shiah Director, on this web site, for more informaton, and facts, concerning eruvin in Brooklyn.
Shiah Director | Homepage | 08.20.05 - 11:12 pm | #

Most people posting comments over look the fact stated in Igros Moshe (4:87). His reason for not allowing eruvin in Flatbush was no accepted by the Acronim. Rabbi Soloman Sharfman, Rabbi of Young Israel of Flatbush, mentioned in this letter, told me, he asked Reb Moshe:if he can rely on poskim who disagree with him and make an ERUV. Reb Moshe answered YES.
He told me: he then asked him, if he could ask questions about it's construction. Reb Moshe answered:YES He got detailed instructions from Reb Moshe on how to construct this ERUV.
Obviously, he was not against eruvin in Brooklyn.He just wanted to be machmer.
Rav Tuvyah Goldstein, of blessed memory,told me, he asked Reb Moshe about eruvin in Brooklyn. He answered: he is not against those who follow rulings of most poskim and make, and use, an eruv in Brooklyn.
Rav Menasha Klein asked him about eruvin in Boro Pk. He told him he can make an eruv there. This was recorded in a booklet, 5,000 copies were distributed, and Reb Moshe saw it.
Also, see: mail-Jewish volume 30 number 95, on this web site. Where it is stated: a talmid of Reb Moshe, living in Flatbush, asked him if he can use he eruv there an h replied YES.
Therefore, all publicity, against eruvin is a lie. Posters, and letter, with his signature, against eruvin, were forged.
Those leading the fight aginst eruvin, are liars, who have no fear of the Almighty. Dovid Hamelech, in Thillim(12:4 and 5:7 and other places}prayed that they be obliterated from the earth.
May the Almighty have mercy on His holy people, and save them from being hoodwinked, by vile liars.
Shiah Director | Homepage | 08.22.05 - 1:10 am | #

Rav Moshe zt”l clearly didn’t believe that the 1962 Manhattan issur was on Brooklyn as well (Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:86). Even more so, Rav Moshe told Rav Menashe Klein shlita that the issur was only on Manhattan (Oim Ani Chomah, siman 7). I have proven to you beyond a shadow of doubt that Rav Moshe didn’t sign the 1979 Flatbush kol korei and I believe that MW knows the truth but won’t admit it. Your proof from Rav Schor zt”l doesn’t hold up either since he most probably didn’t see or sign this text, as many other rabbanim didn’t. There are so many questions about the 1979 Flatbush kol korei as to make every thing stated therein suspect and the same can be said about most kol korei’s. Additionally, the 1979 Flatbush kol korei claims that it’s *stated* in the 1962 Manhattan kol korei that all large cities and Brooklyn are included in the issur. That is a lie since the 1962 kol korei clearly mentions only Manhattan. Therefore, notwithstanding what Rav Schor’s personal opinion was, one can’t claim that it’s stated therein, only that it’s their opinion. The claim that the 1962 Manhattan issur includes Brooklyn is pure fiction.

The Debrecziner Rav clearly maintained that Brooklyn is a karmelis (Be’er Moshe, 1:40, in 3:69 he is referring to Manhattan; this is typical of the anti-eruv activist to try and extend the term New York to include all five boroughs and not just Manhattan as they did the same with the 1979 Flatbush kol korei). The Hisachdus HaRabbanim doesn’t know the Pupa Rav’s zt”l shita better than his talmidim nor did they ever claim to (Rav Neiman shlita from Montreal is most probably the biggest talmid of the Pupa Rav’s and he has written a letter of support for the eruv in Boro Park and so did the Pupa Rav’s son from Boro Park; every Pupa talmid would agree with me). Who mentioned the Satmar Rav zt”l? In any case, the Satmar Rav never was of the opinion that Brooklyn is a reshus harabbim. There is no proof what the Satmar Rav maintained on the subject of an eruv in Brooklyn either. I would debate you on any argument you make regarding the Satmar Rav and eruvin since all of it is speculative. Rav Yechezkel Roth shlita, a Satmar talmid, states in his letter regarding the Boro Park eruv that his Rebbe would not be against an eruv in Boro Park. Therefore he supports an eruv in Boro Park and Faltbush. It’s interesting that the Hisachdus HaRabbanim as an organization never came out against eruvin until the year 2000, which shows the politics of the issue. There is no better proof that the Satmar Rav was not against eruvin in Brooklyn then the letter in 1966 from the Sharmash Rav, the head of the Hisachdus Harabanim, that stated that the Satmar Rav was not in agreement to an eruv in Manhattan (HaPardes 40th year, vol. 8). However, in 1973 the Sharmash Rav gave a letter of support for an eruv in Williamsburg. Who knew the Satmar Rav’s opinion better than him? (The reason he signed the 1979 Flatbush kol korei was the same reaso
anon | 08.23.05 - 1:14 am | #

...Who knew the Satmar Rav’s opinion better than him? (The reason he signed the 1979 Flatbush kol korei was the same reason that the Pupa Rav did and obviously he couldn’t have signed on this text since he maintained that Brooklyn is not a reshus harabbim as is evident from his 1973 Williamsburg letter in support of an eruv.) Additionally, why is there is no signature from the Satmar Rav (who at the time was still with us) on the 1979 Flatbush kol korei?

Your statement, “rav moshe clearly meant flatbush having 600000 peole in a halachic sense,” is indecipherable and in any case is most probably fictitious since it wouldn’t fit Rav Moshe’s words. You can’t explain what Rav Moshe’s shita was concerning KGH, Queens. The best explanation is in The Community Eruv kuntres (footnote, 29). The claim that KGH is encompassed by mechitzos and therefore Rav Moshe allowed an eruv there was made up after the fact since Rav Moshe doesn’t mention this very important detail. In any case, if KGH’s mechitzos are sufficient Brooklyn’s mechitzos should be to. You are a glutton for punishment.
anon | 08.23.05 - 1:16 am | #

"He told me: he then asked him, if he could ask questions about it's construction. Reb Moshe answered:YES He got detailed instructions from Reb Moshe on how to construct this ERUV.
Obviously, he was not against eruvin in Brooklyn.He just wanted to be machmer."

The fact that Rav Moshe allowed others to erect an eruv didn’t mean that Rav Moshe was personally in favor of one. This misconception caused Rav Moshe to write his teshuvas and clarify that -- in light of the information available to him -- he personally was not in favor of an eruv (Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:87). However Rav Moshe was misled (see section two of The Community Eruv kuntres).
anon | 08.23.05 - 1:24 am | #

kol tuv
flatbush guy | 08.23.05 - 11:01 am | #

Fact remains, Reb Moshe's psak din was: one can make, and use, the Flatbush and Boro Park eruv. His personal opinion on this matter, was not his psak din, it was only his reason to be machmer against the Acronim. Please read previous posts by this writer. Also, see: Just Passing Through, and Gedanken Travel Experiment, and posts by this writer.
Rav Tuvyah Goldstein, of blessed memory, lectured on this subject many
times in his yeshiva, Emek Halacha. This is common knowledge to all his students. Reb Moshe's personal opinion was not his psak din for others.
Concerning kol koreah from 5739 (1979)proclaiming an issur to make eruvin in all large cities where 600,000 people live, with 50+ signatures, is ignored by all, because they know it's a fraud.Fact is there are eruvn in Los Angeles, Detroit, Chicago, Boston, and other cities, with more than 600,000 people. Reb Moshe's personal opinion(not his pasak din), was only for Brooklyn. Obviously, he didn't sign on a kol kore stating such nonsense.

time in his yeshive, Emek a
Shiah Director | Homepage | 08.26.05 - 12:44 am | #

Also please be advised, those signing on kol kore in 5739, had a moral obligation to talk to Rabbonim of Flatbush, before signing against them.Had they done this Rabbi Sharfman wold have told them:REB MOSHE APPROVED OF THEIR PLANS. Therefore, his signature on this document was forged. He also would have told them: he spoke to Rav Hutner, Rosh Yeshiva of Chiam Berlin, ( far greater than all who signed this document).He approved of this project: and told Rabbi Sharfman, if any boys from his yeshiva make trouble he should let him know.He also would have told them the Yaser Rov, a known, and highly respected posek,in Flatbush, aproved their eruv project.
Had this been done there never would have been a poclamation against eruvin.

With all due respect:and, forgive me for being blunt.One cannot rule on a matter of Torah Law, by hearing loshon hara.He can only rule on it after careful study and research. Eruvin, a subject taking months, and years, to understand properly, was decide by 50+ rabbonim with the stroke of a pen.Completely ignoring works of holy sages for the past 200 years, and holy sages in our generation, who toiled in Torah,and wrote on this subject.
Shiah Director | Homepage | 08.26.05 - 1:29 am | #

get this blank box off
shiah director | Homepage | 08.28.05 - 5:04 am | #

Talk about the Pupa Rov, and others who signed on lies, in 5739, just don't make sense.Please read previous post by this writer carefully. This being a fact, an undisputable fact, their signatures are worthless. More, so, please be advised, in all generations, problems in Jewish Law were discussed by those involved. Many times there was an exchange of letters.Noteworthy, are exchange of letters, concerning eruvin, between the Mishkanos Yakov, and Bais Efriam. The Mishkanos Yakove could have gotten many signatures from Rabbonim, supporting his view against eruvin. Fact is he relied on ruling of the Villna Gaon, who ruled that we don't need 600,000 people on one street for a city to be a reshus harabim (the Lvush Mordechi, in a tshuva,says that three people on a street 16 amos wide make it a reshus harabim). Many famous rabbonim who learned in the Yeshiva of Volozin, maintained this view, basis for Brisker's ruling against eruvin.(We might add, even, though, they were against eruvin, and had valid reasons, they never protested against those using eruvin.) However, the Miskanos Yaakov understood, one does not decide matters of Jewish Law by collecting signatures on posters, more, so, from those who never learned the subject. He engaged in an involved discussion with the Bais Efriam. Their Torah was preserved for generations, was there for all to study, and lit up the world with the Almighty's holy Torah.
shiah director | Homepage | 08.28.05 - 6:31 am | #

Fact is, those protesting against eruvin in Brooklyn, are protesting against Reb Moshe Feinstein, and other famous Rabbonim, in our genration, and previous generations, approving of eruvin in all large cities.Please read previous posts by this writer.
shiah director | Homepage | 08.28.05 - 6:49 am | #

RECENTLY A BOOKLET "LETTERS BY RABBI SHIAH DIRECTOR" WAS DISTRIBUTED DOOR TO DOOR IN FLATBUSH. IT CLEARLY EXPLAINS REB MOSHE FEINSTEIN'S ,OF BLESSED MEMORY, VIEWS ABOUT ERUVIN IN BROOKLYN. OTHER FACTS, UNKNOWN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, ABOUT ERUVIN IN BROOKLYN,ARE PRINTED THERE.
ANYONE WHO WANTS THIS IMPORTANT BOOKLET CAN WRITE TO: P.O.B.786,WOODBOURNE,NY 12788
SHIAH DIRECTOR | Homepage | 09.26.05 - 12:32 am | #

CSIVA VCASIMA TOVA TO ALL

SHIAH DIRECTOR
SHIAH DIRECTOR | Homepage | 09.26.05 - 12:39 am | #

Commenting by HaloScan