New Brooklyn Eruv: Time to Accept?

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

Dear Youdont,

I do not agree with anti eruv group. They are going to reimagine everything just to get their point across. But they never learned enough to make their own points. So they will just go around in circles, destroying whatever they are entrusted with.

But there is something else going on here. And you blissfully ignorant of it. Or doing a great job of faking it. You are throwing every half source at the issue to try to force it. Never mind that the petitioner didn’t care for any sources. He would carry as long as we (Or his real world associates.) don’t attack him for it. He is not here for the Torah at all. Neither are you.

Rav Shmuel Birnbaum, Rav Yisroel Belsky, and Rav Aahron Shecter, could have went to speak with Rav Elyasiv in person and he wouldn’t have felt the need to go along with them. No American Rabbonim where able to pressure him. There was a lot of people keeping him away from the public. Maybe you are lying on purpose. I can’t tell anymore.

Rav Elyashiv paskened against the eruv because of the only person who he esteemed for his Torah Knowledge. That is Rav Dovid Feinstein. Rav Dovid almost never got involved in halacha battles. Here he even brought in Rav Elyashic and Rav Chaim. He was very confident that he was right. And you shrug. Until you claim that he was mislead or whatever.

Rav Dovid was just living and you could have had your answers.

But that would assume that you are open to being taught something.

Instead you have the audacity to insinuate that Rav Dovid didn’t know what he was talking about. But still Rav Elyashiv was mislead by it. Anybody who knows how to learn anything at all, can see what a fool you are.

I give up trying to get any answers out of you. You are the toughest poster I ever interacted with on this site. Even worse than Health who I miss dearly.

No, Rav Dovid refused to answer regarding the eruv. Instead he wrote about 1978-79, and did not mention the current Flatbush eruv. Never insinuated anything. Stop insinuating that I said something that I never did. No, you got many answers from me, but I did not get any from you. You continuously come back with ancillary arguments, as you cannot not answer anything of substance. You simply do not know the inyan. Stay out of issues you know nothing about. As I said, if one where to go through the entire thread they will see that you never answered the core issues.

For posterity alone I will post what I know of Rav Moshe’s position. This is from learning the teshuvos with those who had some relationship with him. I have no idea how Rav Moshe dealt with precedence. I did the learn the topic from beginning to the end. And of course there are great Rabbonim who are far more versed than me in Iggros Moshe. I’m sure they learn it differently (Read, better.) than me, but of those that I know they all concur that the eiruv in Flatbush is not in accordance with Rav Moshe’s viewpoints.

There are two opinions of reshus harrabim in the S”A. (OC 345:7) The first opinion states that markets and forums that are 16 amos wide (…sic…) the second opinion adds that if 600,000 don’t pass in it every day it is not a rsh”r.

There are numerous differences between these statements. Rav Moshe insisted that the only machlokes is about this minimum number. Three things come out from this. 1) There is no clear answer on what the first opinion holds is the minimum. 2) There is no differences that are dependent on this one. 3) What makes a rsh”r is the use of the area and not is shape and size.

So it follows that there are three psakim. 1) Without 600,000 we can always build an eiruv. And that has been the minhag as well. 2) The poskim that worked out instances of the Mishkanos Yaakov lekulah are not to be relied upon. That wasn’t the minhag. 3) The problem of d’oraysa is not about the circumstances of the town as much as the comprehensive area.

Rav Moshe starts his teshuva dismissing using the Els as a mechitza. There is a long discussion about Manhattan being surrounded by good mechitzos and the only question being the the bridges coming over them. Rav Moshe divides it into three shittos. 1) The Ri that it is not included in the partitions. But it is not a rsh”r at all. 2. Tosofos that it is included. 3. The Rosh the partitions are not including on top of the bridge at all. There are several possibilities. It could be a rsh”r. Or not, but still need a door that closes. Or a door at each end. (As I recall, there is another Rosh involved here.) Possibly even locked doors at each end. Rav Moshe works out some kulos even in this opinion. But he ends of that it would need doors to the bridges and they should be locked. This is about half of the teshuva. Any refutation of Rav Moshe’s shitta would take place on this discussion.

Rav Moshe explains that it would further depend if the bridges are included in the city than they would all be rsh”r because of the city according to all shittos. But Rav Moshe reiterates that perhaps the bridges are outside the city and a tzuras hapesach would be enough even according to the Rosh.

There is also the opinion that even full mechitzos are not enough for an open area where the public gathers. Rav Moshe expands this opinion and then says his shtikkel about Yerushalayim. Yerushalayim was fully enclosed but yet had a rsh”r inside it. This seems to uphold this opinion. And it is clear that there were times that putting up an eruv in a metropolis is not a given. And this that the minhag is to be zealous about putting up eruvin that is because they understood that there needs to be 600,000 for a rsh”r. All eruvin that were put up were in cities without 600,000. And we have no minhag to be lenient about this. This is clearly Rav Moshe’s psak not to put up an eruv without precedence.

Any attempt to explain away Yerushalyim’s lack of eruv would be applied to Manhattan. An additional matter of the max size of an eruv is mentioned. This would have impact encompassing the bridges an extending the eruv indefinitely beyond the city. He tehn writes off only counting certain types of people for 600,000. Excluding cars and trains. And rejects the theory of needing perfectly straight streets. As is was never really about the streets in the first place.

Rav Moshe signs off that even with locked doors there would be a problem of reshus harrabim in Manahattan and even in Brooklyn. According to some opinions it would still be a karmelis. There is no precedence against these opinions. And even if would disagree, there would be a the issue with the bridges. And even if that would be settled, ther would still be an issue because some would think that they can make an eruv in Brooklyn. And even if they fix in Brooklyn there would be places that would not be able to, or not care to build a proper eruv. And perhaps for that alone there should be no eruv even in Brooklyn alone.

One would really wonder what Rav Moshe’s opinions where regarding eruvin in Brrooklyn.

Wow it took you so long to learn the Rav Moshe’s teshuvos, and you still do not know what you are talking about

“Rav Moshe starts his teshuva dismissing using the Els as a mechitza. There is a long discussion about Manhattan being surrounded by good mechitzos and the only question being the the bridges coming over them. Rav Moshe divides it into three shittos. 1) The Ri that it is not included in the partitions. But it is not a rsh”r at all. 2. Tosofos that it is included. 3. The Rosh the partitions are not including on top of the bridge at all. There are several possibilities. It could be a rsh”r. Or not, but still need a door that closes. Or a door at each end. (As I recall, there is another Rosh involved here.) Possibly even locked doors at each end. Rav Moshe works out some kulos even in this opinion. But he ends of that it would need doors to the bridges and they should be locked. This is about half of the teshuva. Any refutation of Rav Moshe’s shitta would take place on this discussion.
Rav Moshe explains that it would further depend if the bridges are included in the city than they would all be rsh”r because of the city according to all shittos. But Rav Moshe reiterates that perhaps the bridges are outside the city and a tzuras hapesach would be enough even according to the Rosh.”
Correct, but Rav Moshe allows that if the tzuras hapesach is erected in the reshus hayachid it would be sufficient. His issue with the bridges in Manhattan is that they run outside of the mechitzos, and so the integral tzuras hapesach on the bridges is not included in the mechitzos encompassing the island. Hence, tzuras hapesachim which enclose an area, which is encompassed by mechitzos, are sufficient. That is exactly what was done in Brooklyn. As to your comment, “Any refutation of Rav Moshe’s shitta would take place on this discussion,” in fact this is another chiddush of Rav Moshe. Very few poskim would agree with him. On the contrary, most poskim maintain that tzuras hapesachim would suffice for a karmelis.

“1. All the Local Rabbonim agreed. (This has happened almost nowhere else.)”
Right, and all the rabbanim agreed in KGH. Actually the Minchas Asher did not agree. If Rav Moshe was so concerned with a consensus, why did he not tell the rabbanim in Flatbush that how can they make an eruv there is no consensus (see the beginning of 4:87). How could Rav Moshe have agreed that the rabbanim of Manhattan have a right to establish an eruv, when there was no consensus, and he himself did not agree (4:89).

“3. It is difficult for it to become ruined.”
Rav Moshe said the same regarding Seagate, and in fact it did get ruined.
Keep on learning the inyan maybe you will figure it out

Rav Moshe addresses the newly built Flatbush eruv that he hadn’t wanted to get involved in the project because there is many opinions on what is reshus harrabim and what is dalsos neulos and they can always consult the seforim instead of him. But once it was publicized that Rav Moshe was the one who permitted the eruv because of the previous sentence, he felt compelled to respond with his personal opinion as it was already laid out in his first teshuva.

Rav Moshe is trying to make five public points:

1) There is rational for an eruv in Flatbush.
2) The reasoning is evident in the seforim.
3) It is not Rav Moshe’s opinion to put an eruv in Flatbush.
4) Rav Moshe’s own opinion is clear from his first teshuvah.
5) People have difficulty reconciling 1 and 2 with 3 and 4.

This really is the whole story. Rav Moshe saw that people are misinterpreting what he he clearly wrote and said, and responded just to refute what they were stating in his name.

The debates that follow to our day are not really about halachah. The center of the debate since the late Seventies was, is Rav Moshe entitled to his opinion. Rav Moshe himself held he was, but others would say that the majority disagreed with him. And even Rav Moshe himself may have agreed that he wasn’t entitled to his own opinion.

Rav Shmuel Birnbaum was very bothered by this attitude. But not everybody should be a masmid like Rav Shmuel Birnbaum. He was enough for the whole Flatbush.

All the more so, to imagine what Rav Moshe was up against forty years ago, when rabbis still spoke about business acumen as a qualification for being considered an educated Jew.

Rav Moshe continues that counting is a chumrah that there would be a definite reshus harrabim, and a kulah that in a place where there isn’t enough people to have 600,000 on the streets we would be able to build an eruv. But then he goes on to say how none of this applies to Manhattan and Brooklyn. There we would always assume there is enough to get 600,000 on the streets. Then he goes on to be lenient if there is a larger area. But doesn’t mention the maximum size like he did in the first teshuva.

There is two ways to understand Rashi in Meseches Eruvin. 1) That any city where there resides 600,000 people is always a rsh”r. Or 2) that if people enter the city daily they contribute to this number. Rav Moshe rejects the first reason because the minhag is to build eruvin even in cities with this number. So he goes with the second explanation. And it follows that commuters count toward this number.

Then you have to know what is “Tzidei Reshus Harabim KeRH”R.” The Chazon Ish has a drawing/shitah on this in his sefer, that would extend Ocean Parkway quite some distance of side streets to side streets.

It is also well known that R’ Ahron Kotler z”l would not allow an eiruv in Lakewood because of the amount of traffic on Rt. 9.

“Rav Moshe addresses the newly built Flatbush eruv that he hadn’t wanted to get involved in the project because there is many opinions on what is reshus harrabim and what is dalsos neulos and they can always consult the seforim instead of him. But once it was publicized that Rav Moshe was the one who permitted the eruv because of the previous sentence, he felt compelled to respond with his personal opinion as it was already laid out in his first teshuva.”
After trying to give a running commentary of Rav Moshe’s teshuvos, the fact that you leave out pertinent points demonstrates that you either don’t get it, or that you learn lekanter. E.g., you omitted that Rav Moshe did not want issue a p’sak din barrur, because he knew that he was mechudash, and was going against the poskim.

“4) Rav Moshe’s own opinion is clear from his first teshuvah.”
You are discombobulated. The teshuvah prior is regarding Manhattan (you cannot be referring to 1:138, since that has nothing to do with reshus harabbim). Rav Moshe needed to formulate, at this time, his opinion, since Manhattan’s metzious was unlike Brooklyn.

“Rav Moshe says that the population would be estimated to produce the amount on the streets, and it is likely that different cities vary on this calculation.”
No, Rav Moshe at the end of the day did give a number. You do not realize that you are not making any sense. Rav Moshe’s final number is three million people. If the population of a large city is any less, then one may think that it’s a reshus harabbim, and that is why they should not establish an eruv. According to you, Rav Moshe should have argued, when he was made aware that Brooklyn and Detroit has less than three million (and the reason not to make an eruv was because one may think that it was a reshus harabbim), that it is irrelevant. Since, “different cities vary on this calculation.”

“Also, the area would be 12 mil square [slightly over 7 miles] (less than 9 miles) like it was in the dessert encampment. So then if one would measure in such an area enough people to have 600,000 in the streets then it would be a reshus harrabim for sure. [And Rav Moshe would have told the Rabbonim that there is no way to make an eruv without dalsos and so on.] But if there is a street anywhere in this vicinity that carries 600,000 by itself, than that street alone would be a reshus harrabim for sure.”
No. It is slightly over eight miles. Go learn Rav Moshe’s shiur amah, in regard to hilchos Shabbos. Since it is impossible to know how many people are actually in the streets at one time, Rav Moshe resorted to giving a number, three million, the amount of people in the midbar. You are avoiding this fact because it makes you uneasy, and it would allow an eruv in Brooklyn, if the metziuos is otherwise.

“Rav Moshe continues that counting is a chumrah that there would be a definite reshus harrabim, and a kulah that in a place where there isn’t enough people to have 600,000 on the streets we would be able to build an eruv. But then he goes on to say how none of this applies to Manhattan and Brooklyn. There we would always assume there is enough to get 600,000 on the streets. Then he goes on to be lenient if there is a larger area. But doesn’t mention the maximum size like he did in the first teshuva.”
Nonsensical. Manhattan, according to Rav Moshe is not a reshus harrabim because of 600,000 on the streets, since it is encompassed by mechitzos (only regarding bridges, which are not included in the mechitzos, does he discuss numbers). Brooklyn, according to Rav Moshe had three million over 12 mil by 12 mil, and hence is a reshus harabbim. Even if Brooklyn did not contain such a number, since one may think that it does, an eruv should not be established. However, this objection would only be a gezeirah.

Someday:
“Then you have to know what is “Tzidei Reshus Harabim KeRH”R.” The Chazon Ish has a drawing/shitah on this in his sefer, that would extend Ocean Parkway quite some distance of side streets to side streets.”
Ocean Parkway according to most poskim would not be a reshus harabbim because of its numbers. Moreover, it is not mefulash, and it is encompassed by mechitzos.
What tzidei reshus harrabim are you talking about. Furthermore, a tzuras hapesach would be sufficient.

“It is also well known that R’ Ahron Kotler z”l would not allow an eiruv in Lakewood because of the amount of traffic on Rt. 9.”
Fiction. Rav Aharon did not accept shitas Rashi at all.

It is also well known that R’ Ahron Kotler z”l would not allow an eiruv in Lakewood because of the amount of traffic on Rt. 9.

Dear Youdont,

““4) Rav Moshe’s own opinion is clear from his first teshuvah.”
You are discombobulated. The teshuvah prior is regarding Manhattan (you cannot be referring to 1:138, since that has nothing to do with reshus harabbim). Rav Moshe needed to formulate, at this time, his opinion, since Manhattan’s metzious was unlike Brooklyn.”

And,

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

I don’t understand how you reconcile Rav Moshe writing to the Rabbanim in Flatbush (1978) that it is all printed at length in every detail in the first volume of Iggres Moshe, with your opinion that Rav Moshe only came up with the three million number in this teshuva and then reworked a year later?

And all those who spoke in learning with Rav Moshe, testify that even to his last days he said his shita is like it is published in chelek aleph.

Someday,
“When I said 3 mechitzos, I was referring to the 3 redundant tzuros hapesech put up by 3 independent batei dininim.”
Huh. Actually, most poskim maintain that a tzuras hapesach is a mechitzah d”Oraysa. In any case, huh

“The Teshuvos HaRashba’s psak is accepted, not to use a tzuras hapesach for a RH”R deOirsissa. If shishim riboi is required to constitute a RH”R deOiraissa according to roiv Roishoinim (which I believe is what you were touching on,) depends on how you count the shitois.”
Since you are not clear in what Rashba you are referring to, I will include all the possibilities.
1) You are referring to accepting the criterion of shishim ribo (and that is why you mentioned his teshuvos). You are absolutely incorrect. We do not follow the Rashba, we accept shishim ribo lechatchilah. The Rema and all the Reshonim from Tzarfas and Ashkenaz accept shishim ribo lechatchilah. While the Rishonim argue that the Rashba did not accept the criterion, and therefore we accept it as a given that he opposes the fundament, it is not at all clear from where we see this in his actual words (I have a lot to say about this matter but alas it is irrelevant because the Rishonim take it as a given).
2) You are referring to a tzuras hapesach reclassifying a reshus harabbim to a reshus hayachid me’d’Oraysa. The Rashba maintains that the Chachamim maintain that a tzuras hapesach would do so. [However, the Rashba paskens like Rav Yehudah.] In fact many poskim maintain as such, notably the Shulchan Aruch Harav.
3) You are referring to shitas HaRashba regarding platyas. In fact most Reshonim do not accept the Rashba’s shita at all. Most poskim do not follow the Rashba regarding platyas.

“This is the famous machloikes of the Mishkonois Yaakov and the Bais Ephraim. See SH”A OR”CH soman 364 se’if 2, Bais Ephraim OR”CH siman 26 and Chazon Ish OR”CH siman 107 ois 4. [The Mishkanois Yaakov became famous with this teshuvah of his in disagreement with the renowned gadol hadol R’ Ephraim Zalman Margoliois z”l.]
(I think?)”
Their machlokas was mainly regarding four issues:
1) Do we accept shishim ribo lchatchilah?
2) Do we pasken like the Chachamim or Rav Yehudah?
3) Are pirtzos esser me’d’Oraysa or me’d’rabbanan?
4) Are delasos required for a karmelis?
The world followed the Bais Ephraim regarding all these issues. We accept shishim ribo lchatchilah. We pasken like the Chachamim. Pirtzos esser is only me’d’rabbanan A karmelis does not require delasos.

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

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

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

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

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

יראה העם וישפוט

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

Oh, your still learning the teshuvos. But you argued in the name of Rav Moshe from the get go. If you never learnt the teshuvos, how could you have claimed to know what you are talking about? Clearly you are not capable of being modeh al haemes.

While I answered that one line twice, you have not answered the many lines that I cited.

From Rav Moshe’s words in this teshuvah (4:87) there is proof that Rav Moshe’s shitah was not static. You do not have a better answer for the fact that Rav Moshe himself wrote that he initially (in 1:139) only wanted to reckon those living in the 12 mil by 12 mil towards 600,000. The fact that only in this teshuvah (4:87) did Rav Moshe admit that eruvin were established in cities containing shishim ribo, is proof that his shita evolved. Clearly, one would need to learn 4:87-88, and 5:28-29, to comprehend Rav Moshe’s final thoughts on the matter, and the Manhattan teshuvah was not his last words on the matter.

“Anybody who actually knows how to learn,” would realize that you are in over your head. Stay out of matters that you know nothing about.

Dear Youdont,

Maybe you don’t see it, but 600,000 is the only number that is real according to Rav Moshe. For a city, that is the amount that is out and about daily on the streets. That is what he wrote in the first teshuva. He reiterates it in the second teshuva. And he points out that it is the foundational point in the third teshuva.

All the other number are ways to come to 600,000.

And Rav Moshe writes that the other numbers are not to be relied on. Not because of a gezeira. Because those are not real numbers.

Correct, 600,000 people traversing the streets at one time, which Rav Moshe states happens when there is three million people over a 12 mil by 12 mil area. However, if the population is less than three million, then if it is a large city it is only a gezeira, where some may think that it contains such a population. Clearly, Rav Moshe maintained that the number is three million [unless one can prove that there is 600,000 people traversing the streets of such an area; however, the flipside would possibly be considered a reshu harabbim even without 600,000 in the streets, as it is similar to the degalei hamidbar]. This number is based on the degalei hamidbar, and so Rav Moshe considered it a “real number.” Nowhere, does Rav Moshe argue that the other numbers are not real, you simply are making things up.
I realize that many of your ilk, have an issue with the three million number, you would rather that Rav Moshe stuck to 600,000 in the city. Unfortunately for you and your friends Rav Moshe did not want to argue with precedent. [While your ilk (would have) just lied and claimed that there was no such precedent.] Moreover, it is very difficult to accept this chiddush of Rav Mohse, which is not mentioned anywhere else.

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

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

“that he doesn’t want to get involved… But it is not the same opinion as he gave in person. It is something that is unsourced and never heard before.”
No. He did not give an opinion in person. He did not want to get involved period. Now that he had to write a teshuvah regarding Brooklyn, because he was ‘told’ that there where those who said that he allowed, he needed to clarify the matter, and write a teshuvah. The teshuvah needed to explore why Brooklyn was osser as well. Rav Moshe did not need to give numbers for Manhattan (although he may have had it worked out at that time, and may be that’s is what he was referring to), because they were irrelevant in light of the mechitzos encompassing the island.
I am not making anything up, the fact is Rav Moshe is the one who made up these numbers. Where do you get the chutzpah to cite Rav Moshe’s opinion, and leave out his own words. Stop this nariskeit. Furthermore, you cite the entire beginning of 4:87, and conveniently leave out that Rav Moshe did not issue a psak din barrur for Brooklyn. How deceitful of you.

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

Dear You dont,

What is the point of being evasive? Whatever your shittah is, you should own it. And say ‘I don’t know’ or ‘I can’t explain that’.

I will take the liberty of responding directly on your behalf.

1) Rav Moshe wrote something completely new, and we are left wondering if it is a new opinion or an omission from his first letter. Even though he writes that it is all explained at length in his teshuva, we see a new idea in the Flatbush letter of three million.

2) There can not be any teshuva that is about Brooklyn as then Rav Moshe could be accused of issuing a psak din barrur. Rav Moshe in 4:87 writes that he is compelled to respond with his opinion because he writes stuff about his own thinking. These lines are to be ignored.

3) The understanding of the topic is not important. It’s all about what could we get away with in spite of Rav Moshe’s well publicized, thoroughly printed, and until recently, testified by many great chachamim. Anybody who points to Rav Moshe’s opinion, and doesn’t admit that it can be manipulated, must be ignorant.

4) Rav Moshe doesn’t pasken against other rabbanim. (Except for thousands of instances that are convenient to ignore.) And if one follows those rabbanim he can still not be in contradiction to Rav Moshe’s opinion. Even though Rav Moshe told them not to build an eruv. Because what he actually said and thought should not be considered when reading his writings.

Okay, that is what I think you are trying to argue. You don’t get that I am trying to give you a chance to talk. I could crush every one of your mistakes with a dozen responses. But then you come with a bunch more incoherence. Admittedly, this is not a topic I know well. But you are so tripped up, I can’t help myself. You fell into every net I put out. You are completely oblivious to how the eruv battle aligned with the attack on Orthodoxy. You don’t even know ten percent of the eruv story. And whatever you do know that I don’t you do not want to share. This isn’t a machlokes leshem shamayim on your part.