New Brooklyn Eruv: Time to Accept?

You are so wrong that it was only about halacha for Rav Moshe and Rav Aaron. They felt an obligation to turn the entire Jewish Diaspora back to the Torah. They both continually expressed how lacking they were to fulfill the task. It’s an absolute sin that their legacy heirs today do not understand how active they were on behalf of yidden that were far removed from Torah. Rav Aaron especially, wouldn’t tell his inner circle muttar or assur. He would say, zuhl tun, cen tun, besser nisht tun, and most commonly, nisht kdei.

Almost all of the gaonim that came out of the pre war yeshivos were against the eiruv in Manhattan. Some were even older than Rav Moshe. Their opinions are published in their seforim. Or can be found in their notes. They mostly thought that allowing an eiruv in such a metropolis is a chiddush. I didn’t mention the kol korei.

The Boro Park Eiruv features many poskim of little renown. They had dozens of peers that were still in kollel. I don’t think such would count as rov poskim. It’s not bechachma or bminyan. It was not in my mind to belittle them CH”V. Mostly they signed to announce to their peers that they felt ready and able to defend the eiruv.

I don’t go care for either KK. I just posted because you mentioned something like rov poskim.

The Yeshivshe Velt takes the Brooklyn Eiruv personally because it was aggressive toward the status quo of the leadership at that time. It was much more contentious then eiruvin that had a lot less validity. It’s one thing to claim that a Ry doesn’t know the halacha. It a whole nother ballgame to claim that a RY is being paid off to be against the Eiruv because he doesn’t care about the Torah. Do you really want to go through all the mud?

I was there for a shabbos when the eiruv was new and people had no idea how vast it was. I returned recently, and most of the new people don’t know the large eiruv exists, and only use the smaller neighborhood ones.

It’s weird that you will kahser an eiruv that you only heard an online poster mention.

That was the thrust of this post.

And it is what irks the YV.

n0mesorah,
“What does your first sentence mean? Wearing a large brimmed hat or jewelry? What if I never leave my house on Shabbos because I have nowhere to go? I’m curious about it, and would love sources.
I agree with you on the modern day arguments that do away with all eiruvin. It does not apply to the Mishkanos Yaakov himself.”
נימוקי או”ח להגה”ק בעל מנח”א ממונקאטש זצוק”ל סימן שצ”ד ס”ק א וז”ל: “מקובל בידינו בשם קדוש זקיני בעל בני יששכר ז”ל (כשהי’ בעירו או במקום שהוחזקו העירובין בטוב) ביציאתו לחוץ מביתו בש”ק, לקח לתוך בגדו מפתח וכיוצא, כדי שישאוהו במקום העירוב, ולא יהי’ בכלל מי שאינו מודה בעירוב”, עכד”ה. ועי”ש שציין לדברי התשב”ץ המובא בברכ”י דמי שלבו נוקפו בזה, הדיוטות גמורה היא או מינות נזרקה בו, וכן ציין לדברי האריז”ל המוזכר לעיל בהערה 10. ועי’ בס’ דברי מנחם מהגה”ק מסטראפקוב בהערה מהרב המו”ל לעמוד קמה וז”ל: “בדידי הוה עובדא שבא כ”ק אדמו”ר בעל מנחת אלעזר ממונקאטש זצל”ה לשב”ק לעיר בערעגסאז אשר אני הייתי ממונה שם על כשרות עירובין, ובש”ק בבוקר כשהלכו לתפילה לקח האדמו”ר הסידור בידו והוליכו בעצמו, ואמר, שבעיר אשר איש ירא שמים ות”ח ממונה על העירובין, אין מן הראוי להחמיר שלא להוציא, כדי שלא יהא ח”ו כאינו מודה בעירוב. וכמדומני שאמר זאת בשם זקנו הקדוש בעל בני יששכר”. (בתשובת כ”ק אדמו”ר ממונקאטש שליט”א כתב שכ”ק זקינו המנח”א זי”ע קיבל הנהגה זו גם מרבו הגה”ק בעל דברי יחזקאל משינאווא זי”ע.) קפידא זו של הגה”ק בעל בני יששכר ידועה ומקובלת גם בין שאר יוצאי חלציו, וכפי שכתב הגאון רבי חיים קרייזווירט זצ”ל אב”ד אנטווערפן בהסכמתו על ספר “רחובות העיר”, ומוזכרת גם בספר “קנה וקנמון” (סימן ה אות נו) מהגאון בעל זכרון יוסף.

מפי הרה”ח ר’ חיים מאנדל הי”ו מחשובי חסידי גור באנטווערפן, שסיפר שכאשר נכנס פעם ראשונה אל הגה”ק בעל “בית ישראל” זצ”ל לאחר הסתלקות הגה”ק בעל “אמרי אמת” זצ”ל, אמר לו: שמעתי שאינך מטלטל בעירוב, היתכן? והשיב ר’ חיים, הרי גם הרבי ז”ל (האמרי אמת) לא טלטל. על כך נענה הבית ישראל ואמר לו: “מה שאבא מארי ז”ל לא טלטל, הוא כי מישהו בדור צריך לקיים הברייתא ‘חייב אדם למשמש בגדיו בע”ש עם חשכה שמא ישכח ויצא – אמר רב יוסף הלכתא רבתא לשבתא’, אך ענין זה אינו נוגע לך. זקני החידושי הרי”ם נהג לטלטל בעירוב של גור, באומרו שצריכים להיות ‘מודה בעירוב”. ונטל הבית ישראל שקית והכניס לתוכו פירות ונתן בידו של ר’ חיים וליוה אותו עד הדלת למען יטלטלנו חוצה. וראה עוד בספר “סדור תפלה ליקוטי יהודה” (עמוד קפו) וז”ל: “ודודי מרן אדמו”ר הבית ישראל זצ”ל כו’ הוסיף ואמר: בפולין הי’ עסק שלם עם העירוב שהסתמכו על כל מיני היתרים כדי שיוכלו לטלטל בשבת וכגון חוט החשמל ונהרות והכל מפני שהי’ קשה מאד שלא לטלטל בשבת ולכן סמכו גם על היתרים דחוקים. אולם בגור שהיתה עיירה קטנה, תקנו את העירוב עפ”י הלכה ובלי שום היתרים. וזקני החידושי הרי”מ ז”ל טלטל בשבת בגור, ואמר שזה ענין של מודה בעירוב”.

“אע”ג דהבית מאיר ומשנה ברורה פקפקו בזה על המג”א וטו”ז, כנראה נהוג עלמא כהני סבא, וכן ראינו ושמענו מהרבה צדיקים שעשו כן למעשה להראות הלכה להקל בעיירות המתוקנין בעירובין ע”י צורת-הפתח, ואדרבה חששו על המחמיר בזה שהוא בכלל אינו מודה בעירוב” (שו”ת “מרפא לנפש” ח”ג סימן נב). ומפי הגה”צ אב”ד נאראל זצ”ל שמענו, שבעיניו ראה את הרה”ק המהרי”ד מבעלזא זצ”ל יצא מביתו בשב”ק ובידו החזיק חומש במשך הילוכו לביהמ”ד. עי’ בשו”ת “והרים הכהן” לדומ”ץ דק”ק אנטווערפן (ח”ג סימן א) שמרן החתם סופר הקפיד לטלטל בעירוב, ושמע זאת מפי הגאון הגדול המפורסם מו”ה יצחק שלמה אונגר (שליט”א) [זצ”ל] אב”ד חוג חתם סופר בני ברק, וכתב דמוכח כן מתשובת החתם סופר סימן פ”ט שכתב מפורש ששינה ממנהגו (לטלטל) מחמת השאלה שהיתה שם, אבל דרך הסימטא דשם טלטל בעירוב.

n0mesorah,
“You are so wrong that it was only about halacha for Rav Moshe and Rav Aaron. They felt an obligation to turn the entire Jewish Diaspora back to the Torah. They both continually expressed how lacking they were to fulfill the task. It’s an absolute sin that their legacy heirs today do not understand how active they were on behalf of yidden that were far removed from Torah. Rav Aaron especially, wouldn’t tell his inner circle muttar or assur. He would say, zuhl tun, cen tun, besser nisht tun, and most commonly, nisht kdei.”
Please, I am referring to the issue of eruvin, which is not some American issue. Both Rav Aharon and Rav Moshe wrote teshuvos regarding eruvin. Clearly this is an halcahic issue. No one has a right to oppose eruvin with meta halcahic arguments. It is simply apikorsis

n0mesorah,
“Almost all of the gaonim that came out of the pre war yeshivos were against the eiruv in Manhattan. Some were even older than Rav Moshe. Their opinions are published in their seforim. Or can be found in their notes. They mostly thought that allowing an eiruv in such a metropolis is a chiddush. I didn’t mention the kol korei.”
There were five rabbanim who signed the kk opposing a Manhattan Eruv. There were maybe 2-3 more who opposed and did not sign. There were 16 people who supported the Manhattan Eruv. Including , the Amshinover Rebbe, Kapishnitzer Rebbe, Boyaner Rebbe, Novominsker Rebbe, the Shatzer Rebbe, Rav Michoel Dov Weissmandel, Rav Yonasan Steif, Rav Tzvi Eisenstadt, Rav Menachem Kasher, Rav Menachem Pollak, and Rav Yosef Hersh. Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank, lent support, and Rav Henkin at one point suggested to establish the eruv, but later did not want to be (the main one) involved.
The chiddush was halachic in nature. Rav Moshe disagreed regarding their halachic concerns, because there were city’s that established eruvin whose population was greater than 600,000 (but he had his own reason to oppose). Only Rav Schwab opposed on meta halachic concerns. He did however admit that at some point in time they should be allowed to establish one. I believe his concerns were based on the Frankfurt controversy. His arguments to me are beyond comprehension.
No one has a right to claim meta halacha to oppose any halachic issue. In any case, all would have to admit that meta halachic opposition is either a gezeirah or a takanah and unless this is hora’as sha’ah, only a Sanhedrin has a right to implement this gezeirah forever or as Rav Moshe states that rabbanim may only enact a takanah for their particular locale and only for a short period of time.

“The Boro Park Eiruv features many poskim of little renown. They had dozens of peers that were still in kollel. I don’t think such would count as rov poskim. It’s not bechachma or bminyan. It was not in my mind to belittle them CH”V. Mostly they signed to announce to their peers that they felt ready and able to defend the eiruv.”
Your argument is incorrect, and is telling. The anti-eruv kk includes many names who are either not that well known, or have no shaychus to halacah. Please. In any case, the two most important poskim for BP supported an eruv, Rav E F Hirshkowitz, and Rav Y Roth. I would argue that they were the greatest poskim in America at the time.

“I don’t go care for either KK. I just posted because you mentioned something like rov poskim.”
I never said rov regarding BP.

n0mesorah,
“The Yeshivshe Velt takes the Brooklyn Eiruv personally because it was aggressive toward the status quo of the leadership at that time. It was much more contentious then eiruvin that had a lot less validity.”
Not the reason at all. The only reason was because they did not respect the opposition, and maintained that one cannot argue on Rav Moshe. Nevertheless, most the those in opposition did not know the inyan. The aggressiveness was from the anti-eruv group.

“It’s one thing to claim that a Ry doesn’t know the halacha. It a whole nother ballgame to claim that a RY is being paid off to be against the Eiruv because he doesn’t care about the Torah. Do you really want to go through all the mud?”
There is nothing to go through. Its fiction. No one claimed that the RY were paid off. The only argument was that they were not baalei halachah.

n0mesorah,
“I was there for a shabbos when the eiruv was new and people had no idea how vast it was. I returned recently, and most of the new people don’t know the large eiruv exists, and only use the smaller neighborhood ones.”
Please share with us the information. I am sure that I know what you are referring to, and that you are making things up.

“It’s weird that you will kahser an eiruv that you only heard an online poster mention.”
I am sure that I know as much about it as you do.

“That was the thrust of this post.’
No it was regarding the Brooklyn Eruv, and later about the local Brooklyn eruvin.

“And it is what irks the YV.”
No. It is that they have a superiority complex, and believe that the lowly others have no right to an opinion. However, they are out of their league regarding halachic issues.

“..not many other inyanim have followed suit.”

Kashrus is in constant flux. Zmanim have been reimagined. Commercial Arba Minim has exploded. Brochos on food have undergone intense reinvestigations. The halachic concept of Khal is nearing extinction. Where have you been? Halacha in the Modern World is constantly in motion.

(Before we get sidetracked, I am not endorsing the idea that halacha is transitory.)

Eiruvin had to be reassessed in North America. Modern Cities and suburbs was a new concept in Halacha. Besides, every city and county has it’s own logistical challenges.

Anyways, Rav Moshe has written many teshuvos that only discuss what would or wouldn’t happen from issuing a psak that is fully compliant with Halacha. What do you make of that?

To make the 16 supporters of the Manhattan Eiruv into rov against the 5, they would have to be disagreeing on one specific reason (besides for other factors). Rov poskim is still a din of rov.

I’m not really interested in debating what rov poskim is or isn’t. There have been hundreds of dissertations on this topic. And I don’t know why you mentioned the Manhattan Eiruv from sixty years ago. It’s not up anymore.

“Rav Moshe disagreed regarding their halachic concerns, because there were city’s that established eruvin whose population was greater than 600,000 (but he had his own reason to oppose).”

And therefore?

Rav Moshe’s teshuvos lay out his reasoning. I don’t know what is missing here.

The mitziyus (That we went back and forth on.) is irrelevant to Rav Moshe’s psak on Brooklyn. I don’t know what you see here. Why would 2.5M be different than almost 3M? And my point was that Rav Dovid knew this claim and wasn’t fazed by it. He thought 2.5M to be accurate. Why didn’t anyone convince Rav Dovid of this?

I expect that in a number of years the claim will be that Rav Dovid was also mislead. I know personally that he knew that Rv Moshe wasn’t misled.

n0mesorah,
“That doesn’t tell me that Bnei Torah should carry in a questionable eiruv.”
It is less questionable, as I demonstrated (regarding reshuyos), than most pieces of meat that we put into our mouth.

n0mesorah,
“By the fact that I knew the story, obviously I knew that Rav Moshe disagreed with using the Mishkanos Yaakov.”
That doesn’t mean that you know regarding which issues Rav Moshe disagreed with Rav Aharon. As a matter of fact, I am definite that Rav Moshe never read the Mishkenos Yaakov in the original (and in fact agreed with him regarding one issue, albeit for other reasons). Rav Moshe was just making a general statement regarding who was accepted lhalachah.

“If you believe that anecdote was all there was to Rav Aaron’s shitos, you know nothing about Rav Aaron.”
It is irrelevant what I believe, this is what Rav Besser said over many times. In any case, there is no doubt that Rav Aharon followed the Mishkenos Yaakov over the Bais Ephraim. There is absolutely nothing wrong, or shocking, to say that one wanted to follow the psak of his forefathers. All rebbes do so and most poskim follow their rebbeim in halachah (and try to explain their opinions).

“PS What was Reb Tuvya doing at an Hisachdus meeting without Rav Moshe?”
Huh, please reread what I wrote.

n0mesorah,
“Not the Divrei Chaim? Not the Divrei Yoel? Not the Be’er Moshe? Not the Mishna Berurah?
Maybe I misunderstand what you mean with the word ‘halacha’.”
If one had meta halachah concerns, there would need to be halcahic objections as well. To do away with eruvin, which is a mitzvah, at the minimum drabbanan, solely with meta halachah, is unacceptable. Rav Schwab said explicitly that he can’t mix into the halcahic issues.

n0mesorah,
““We do not paskin from Shas.””
“Okay. But when someone’s whole thinking process has been taken apart, they need to rethink things. Wherever one paskens from, they still think with their mind.”
Does not negate what I said. Your just so predictable.

“I could get behind this statement. But do you know why it is so?”
Because to argue on the SA and NK is frowned upon, as they were accepted by all.

Rav Moshe was not doing away with hilchos eruvin. Where did you get that one from?

“It is less questionable”

It depends what the “it” refers to. “Questionable” refers to the doubts Rav Moshe had about those eiruvin.

We have Rav Moshe’s shitta on eiruvin and the same Rav Moshe’s shitta on Kashrus. But being a fresser doesn’t justify building a questionable eiruv.

“Because to argue on the SA and NK is frowned upon, as they were accepted by all.”

So it’s about what was universally accepted. That is why I was referencing Conservative Judaism before.

Dear Youdont,

This post of yours is what confuses me.

YOU ““Rav Moshe disagreed regarding their halachic concerns, because there were city’s that established eruvin whose population was greater than 600,000 (but he had his own reason to oppose).””

ME “And therefore? Rav Moshe’s teshuvos lay out his reasoning. I don’t know what is missing here.”

YOU I am referring to the fact that these gedolim on the Manhattan kk could not have opposed the eruv for the same reason as Rav Moshe. His opposition was almost exclusive to Manhattan (and later on Brooklyn). However, the others signors seemed to be opposing any eruv in a city containing shishim ribo. Or according to Rav Aharon all city eruvin past a present.

End of your post, Now me again.

So I am left very befuddled how you just do away Rav Moshe with a claim of misinformation. (Which nobody managed to get Reb Dovid to recant.) Rav Moshe goes through all the reasons why Manhattan as a reshus harrabim would be problematic. He offers alternatives why it could be permitted. His result is not to rely on these permissions. And that leaves us – very clearly – that Rav Moshe held the eiruv is not good enough. You can disagree with Rav Moshe. But what do you mean that it is permitted according to Rav Moshe, when he himself concluded not to use these permissions?

Are you claiming that Rav Moshe does not agree with his own interpretation of reshus harrabim according to the SA? Because the entire teshuva is a straight line. Nowhere does Rav Moshe write that we should count the exact population.

Just because Rav Moshe disagreed with the machmirim, it doesn’t mean that he disagreed with Rav Moshe.

Other than the misinformation claim, which I think is the wrong way to read Rav Moshe’s teshuvos – there doesn’t seem to be any way to claim that Rav Moshe permitted an eiruv in Brooklyn.

n0mesorah,
“So you know nothing about Rav Aaron. That’s okay. But don’t go on and on about how it’s only halacha. If you accept Rav Besser anecdote as true, that there can just as easily be all kinds of meta reasons for the mattirim. This can easily become absurd. Maybe they only built the eiruv because they thought that it was accepted to so.”
I reiterate, it has to be couched in halachah. Because one is following his forefathers halachic arguments, does not make meta halachah. Sure there are those who support an eruv because of their forefathers halachic arguments.

And I reread your post. Here it is:

…after an Agudas Harabbnim meeting, which Rav Moshe did not attend, he asked Rav Tuvia what occurred at the meeting.

Rav Tuvia was there. Why? Rav Moshe was not. It’s news to me that Rav Tuvia was a member of Hisachdus in the 1950s.

n0mesorah,
““It is less questionable””

“It depends what the “it” refers to. “Questionable” refers to the doubts Rav Moshe had about those eiruvin.”

Besides for Rav Moshe objection it is less questionable. Rav Moshe is mechudash, and is in opposition to most poskim (e.g. the criterion of mefulash, which case he is disagreeing with the Magen Avraham). Regarding Brooklyn he never issued a psak din barrur.

n0mesorah,
““Because to argue on the SA and NK is frowned upon, as they were accepted by all.””
“So it’s about what was universally accepted. That is why I was referencing Conservative Judaism before.”
Huh. The more I debate you the more I realize that your just throwing a bunch of chaff..