- This topic has 54 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 6 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
Why do people never seem to argue about the LA eruv? There’s a major road that just casually runs right through the middle of it, and it’s also a pretty well-populated area (I’m not sure how it compares to Brooklyn).
Is it just because most of the posters here are more familiar with NYC? I’m not advocating against the LA eruv; I’m just wondering why it’s so much less discussed. Is it just that much more accepted than the Brooklyn eruv?
Neville: When was the LA eruv established? The eruv in Brooklyn was controversial from day 1 (either in 1978 or 1979) due to R’ Moshe’s psak. Yes, there were other poskim who argued with R’ Moshe (the Debrecener for one) while others agreed with him (notably Rabbi Bick). The yeshiva olam generally followed R’ Moshe and did not use the eruv while others did not follow R’ Moshe’ psak and used the eruv. In addition, I can personally attest that there was those in my shul who did not verify before shabbos that the eruv was up and came to shul shabbos morning carrying something only to see the “red flag” that the eruv was down.
iac: Your response has nothing to do with Neville’s question.
I assume that it is the density of LA that differs. As per Rav Moshe, 600k is applied by 12 Mil x 12 Mil needing 2.4 million inhabitants.
I doubt you have that calculation within the above parameters in LA.
Joseph: You are partially correct. He wants to know why we don’t talk about the LA eruv. So first we have to know if it was established prior to March of 1986.
Neville, it is arbitrary. I lived in Flatbush during the 70s.
The truth is, Rav Moshe was trying to avoid giving a psak , but the local Vaad, against advice, thought they could pressure him to approve it. They were wrong. Queens and LA elected not to ask Rav MosheThe difference between the LA eriv and other Eruvin is that the LA Eruv has 3 wall that are omed merubah al haparutz and closed off with tzuras hapesaches
The only difference is that Rav Moshe wrote about the Brooklyn eruvin but not the LA Eruv.
Just some random clarifications:
The Debrecener signed kneged the eruv, but not because of reshus harabbim issues (he actuality wrote in his teshuvos that Brooklyn is a karmelis).
While the density of LA may be less then Brooklyn, Rav Moshe would have opposed it (if he was asked) because of his gezeirah (since its a large city and some my think that it contains shishim ribo).
Rav Moshe wrote in (4:87) that he did not want to mix into the matter, but after he was told that some say that he supports the eruv, he had to write a birur regarding the issue. After Rav Moshe wrote his teshuva opposing the eruv, he stated clearly that he can’t issue a psak din barur, since the poskim would not agree with him.
Rav Moshe did write a letter in support of the Queens eruv (4:86).
Brooklyn also has mechitzos that are omed merubeh al haparutz on three sides. So there is no difference between, Brooklyn and Queens, according to Rav Moshe.YDS, Queens has many eruvs. Which one did R’ Moshe support?
Some clarifications:
Rav Moshe wrote in (4:87) that he did not want to mix into the matter of a >>Flatbush Eruv<<, but after he was told that some say that he supports the eruv, he had to write a birur regarding the issue. After Rav Moshe wrote his teshuva opposing the eruv, he stated clearly that he can’t issue a psak din barur, since the poskim would not agree with him.
Brooklyn also has mechitzos that are omed merubeh al haparutz on three sides. So there is no difference between, Brooklyn and <<LA>>, according to Rav Moshe.Since few rabbanim know hilchos eruvin (at least as it concerns hilchos reshuyos), its much easier to rely on a psak from a great gadol such as Rav Moshe. Rav Moshe did not issue a psak for LA, so they allow it. Some rabbanim do no recommend the eruv in LA for yeshivahliet. All the excuses, such as the LA Eruv is an omed merubeh eruv, is irrelevant, Brooklyn also has mechitzos. If it works for LA it can work for Brooklyn.
“An issue unique to LA, which I don’t think is present in the Brooklyn case, is a major 4-lane road running through the middle of the eruv. I guess the local LA rabbonim determined that it isn’t traversed by 600K cars.”
If it has a din sratya then according to Rav Moshe the shishim ribo would need to traverse the road itself. Otherwise, its tally would be included in the 12 mil by 12 mil area that it runs through. It may also have its own mechitzos, but that can create other problems.
“It may also have its own mechitzos”
Are you referring to the Mechtzos of the Ohr Zoruah? i.e. two Mechitzos m’d’Oraisa, (at least to exclude it from applying etc..)
GAON: No I am referring to the possibility that these roads are removed from the equation because they may have mechitzos that encompass them (when major arteries cut through a neighborhood they, at times, do this for safety reasons).
As an aside, today we know that the Or Zerua is not a das yachid, since his son the Maharach also paskens this way and so does the Remak (as per Rav Fischel Herskowitz).
Rav Moshe did pasken against the LA Eruv. It is a controversial Eruv. There are rabbanim that say that Rav Moshe wasn’t given the correct metzios. There are other rabbanim who were there when rav Moshe was asked who assur the Eruv. I even heard one of those rabbanim say that they would not use anyone who carries in that Eruv to be an Aid at a Chasunah.
yehudayona:
“YDS, Queens has many eruvs. Which one did R’ Moshe support?”The KGH Eruv
Not sure if my original post went through-
The premise that no one argues about the LA Eruv is incorrect. There are Rabbonim who went to Rav Moshe about an Eruv in LA and Rav Moshe Paskened that LA can’t have an Eruv. A few Rabbanim after Rav Moshe was Niftar said that Rav Moshe was given the wrong Metzios. I personally heard directly from one of the Rabbanim who were part of the discussion with Rav Moshe say that he would not allow someone who uses the Eruv in LA to be an Aid at a Chasunah.Formerla:
“Rav Moshe did pasken against the LA Eruv. It is a controversial Eruv.”He did not, show me one teshuvah where he mentioned LA. It’s all heresy.
“There are rabbanim that say that Rav Moshe wasn’t given the correct metzios. There are other rabbanim who were there when rav Moshe was asked who assur the Eruv.”
So what, some say that Rav Moshe wasn’t given the correct metzios regarding Queens. But since Rav Moshe wrote a teshuvah allowing the eruv that is what counts. I don’t believe any of these stories, they are all made up after the fact.
“I even heard one of those rabbanim say that they would not use anyone who carries in that Eruv to be an Aid at a Chasunah.”
Shame on him. Rav Moshe wrote (1:186) that when one follows one’s rav on any issue, even on issurei chilul Shabbos, albeit the halachah is not like their rav’s interpretation, no aveirah is transgressed.
You Don’t Say-
The Rabbanim on both sides are Choshuva Poskim. I am just responding to the original post that states that no one argues about the LA Eruv. That is simply not true. The Rabbanim who oppose the LA Eruv did not get a written Tshuva they flew to New York and sat and discussed it with Rav Moshe. The rabbanim who are pro the Eruv agree that Rav Moshe said no. They are just saying that Rav Moshe Paskened based on wrong Metzius. You should be careful before disparaging Rabbanim whom you don’t even know. I am sure Rabbanim on both sides of the coin know a lot more than you or me. Again I am not attempting to say that I “agree” with either side as I don’t even know anything near the amount these Rabbanim know, when it comes to Halacha.When the LA Eruv was first built aroumd 40 years ago. I personally discussed this with Harav Pinchas Gruman who is one of the most respected Rabonim in LA for more than 50 years personally discussed the issues with Rav Moshe. Rav Moshe NEVER EVER said that an Eruv can not be built in LA. There were people said in the name of Rav Moshe that he said such a thing but it was an outright lie. 20 years later Rav Bess instituted improvments to the Eruv as well. Bottom line: The Eruv in LA was always argued about. According to almost all poskim with a few exceptions as always its a completely kosher Eruv. I personally inspected the Eruv using a drone with Rav Bess who paskened on it. If one wants to be Machmir and not use it Harei ze Meshubach. Anyone who cares can simply pick up a phone today and Call Rav Gruman or Rav Bess
Angelino Yid that is not what the Rabbanim who oppose it say. They also say they discussed it with Rav Moshe (or at least two of them that I have spoken to did) perhaps even with Rabbi Gruman, and that he was clearly against it. I would be happy to tell which Rabbanim these are if you want to discuss it with them. The problem I have with publicly giving their names is that people like You Don’t Say tend to be Mevazeh Rabbanim that don’t agree with them.
Rav Gruman has written proof from Rav Moshe that he never said such a thing that an Eruv can not be built in LA. i talked to Rav Gruman and Rav Bess about this many times. I also know there are very Choshuve Rabanim that Aser the Eruv who I also talk to many times. If you want to be Machmir and not use it Harei Ze Meshubach. If you want to say that Rav Moshe said what he did not say you can ask them to take it up with Rav Gruman who has it written from Rav Moshe himself that he never said such a thing.
“people like You Don’t Say tend to be Mevazeh Rabbanim that don’t agree with them.”
With all due respect, isn’t the following precisely what they are doing:
“I even heard one of those rabbanim say that they would not use anyone who carries in that Eruv to be an Aid at a Chasunah.”
אין לך בזיון היתר גדול מזה….In any case, why isn’t anyone asking Rav David Feinstein?
As stated earlier, Based on Rav Moshe’s calculations it should not be a RhR of 600k.And as for the issue mentioned by youdont.. of the gezero etc. I don’t think its relevant after the Eruv has already been constructed. Thus, how can one say it is any transgression of הוצאה, because a גזירה מחודשת. The way I understand , it is a reason enough prior to withold one from constructing an eruv, but once its a kosher eruv, one cannot declare any issur because such a gezero.
Said that, i don’t understand the opposing side..
Rav Gruman til this day has a telegram directly from Rav Moshe that he never ever said such a thing. You can ask whichever Rabanim who told you they discussed it with Rav Moshe and ask about the telegram Rav Gruman has to this day. Rav Gruman is very straightforward about this.
when the la eruv was described to rav eliayshiv his response was “mutter li’smoch aliv bi’shas ha’dchak, vi’chol ha’machmir aliv bi’shas ha’dchak tavo aliv bracha” akd
-as quoted in the RCC booklet about the eruvAngelino Yid:
First of all, from experience I don’t believe anything said over in the name of Rav Moshe zt”l. Furthermore, I spoke to Rav Gruman as well. It’s clearly lies. Additionally, if these rabbanim would know Rav Moshe’s shitos in eruvin they would realize that he would allow an eruv (even more so the current eruv, which which makes use of omed merubeh).“You Don’t Say tend to be Mevazeh Rabbanim that don’t agree with them.”
This quote of yours, is a bizyain, “I even heard one of those rabbanim say that they would not use anyone who carries in that Eruv to be an Aid at a Chasunah.”
Angelino – I will try to see if I can ask the Rav one of the Rabbanim is Rabbi G. Whose shut is on Beverly closer to Fairfax. I will ask him about the telegram.
Gaon- the Rav that said about the Eidus says he was involved in us discussion with Rav Moshe and he is of the same caliber as the matirim so I don’t think that would fall into the same category as people on a chat being mevazeh.
Again to clarify I am just saying that it isn’t so poshut as was reported at the beginning of the chat. I personally don’t carry as the dissenters are the rabbanim my family in Los Angeles uses.
I apologize for coming off strongly. It just bothers me when people have opinions about Rabbanim that aren’t founded.GAON:
“And as for the issue mentioned by youdont.. of the gezero etc. I don’t think its relevant after the Eruv has already been constructed. Thus, how can one say it is any transgression of הוצאה, because a גזירה מחודשת. The way I understand , it is a reason enough prior to withold one from constructing an eruv, but once its a kosher eruv, one cannot declare any issur because such a gezero.”No I am not referring to Rav Moshe’s gezeirah regarding Yerushlayim (in which case Rav Moshe allowed once an eruv was established he would not be machmir; HaPardes, 33rd year, vol. 9). I am referring to the issue that Rav Moshe inveighed when he was told that that Brooklyn does not meet his criteria of a reshus harabbim. Rav Moshe argued (O.C. 4:88) that since Brooklyn is a large city and some my think that it contains shishim ribo, one should not establish an eruv (in any case, he finishes his teshuvah that he was then told that Brooklyn does meet his criteria of a reshus harabbim). In O.C. 5:29 Rav Moshe discussed why he would not make use of this gezeirah in Detroit, (because the eruv only encompassed two small areas), but otherwise he would have used it. Clearly one can make an argument that LA is no different than Brooklyn, in this matter.
Few people know about this gezeirah, but it would proscribe additional eruvin, besides for Brooklyn. However, I believe that Rav Moshe would not make use of this gezeirah if the area encompassed by the tzuras hapesachim contains a population less than shishim ribo. This would explain KGH, Queens. But this begs the question. the Brooklyn eruvin also encompass a population less than shishim ribo? So why did Rav Moshe oppose? The answer is that Rav Moshe believed that these eruvin did contain populations greater than shishim ribo (O.C. 5:28:5 and Addendum to O.C. 4:89). In fact these eruvin do not contain shishim ribo. So if we do not use Rav Moshe gezeirah in LA we can’t use it in Brooklyn, as well.
Its not clear if Rav Moishe ever considered the substantive merits of the LA eruv, at least not according to the books and recollections of R’ Aron Tendler. If you go to the website of the LA Eruv, (I think its against the CR rules to post a URL link) you will see a lengthy list of chashuva Rabbonim from YI, OU, several esteemed roshei yeshiva etc. who have endorsed the kashruth of the LA eruv.
For,
“Gaon- the Rav that said about the Eidus says he was involved in us discussion with Rav Moshe and he is of the same caliber as the matirim so I don’t think that would fall into the same category as people on a chat being mevazeh.”
Same caliber or not is not the issue – the one using the eruv has a psak from a legit posek, hence by declaring one ‘Posul le’Edus’ is a Bezoyun in the worst degree possible!!
It is a b’zoyun – toward all other poskim that it is based upon. (especially when there is nothing written by Rav Moshe pertaining LA and is all hearsay.)
!תורה תורה חגרי שק
Its a bizoyun – toward each and every city that relied on the very heterim i.e. מוציא לעז על ראשונים – אל תסיג גבול
Its a bizoyun – toward each and every person using an eruv in Yerushalayim, on top of Malbim Pnei Chavero i.e. the person that is an Eid, and his posek and, all present at the chupah that rely on the eruv.
Imagine one saying: all relying on Rav Moshe’s psakim (Chalav Stam, shavers, etc) are posul l’Edus…anyone using a shabbos timer is pasul. Or sfardim saying anyone eating non-beis Yosef shchitah etc..
“when the la eruv was described to rav eliayshiv his response was “mutter li’smoch aliv bi’shas ha’dchak, vi’chol ha’machmir aliv bi’shas ha’dchak tavo aliv bracha” akd”
Are you aware that Rav Elyashiv holds the very same regarding the eruv in Jerusalem, BB or any Eruv in Israel (due to the issue of Schiros/Chatzeros)
Bottom Line: Another one of these endless line of shailos where a yid should follow a 3-step process:
1. Aseh l’cha Rav
2. Consult with that rav/posek on inyanim such as whether the eruv in your community is kosher
3. Don’t go venue shopping if you are unhappy with the answer to step 2.Neville ChaimBerlin:
First we have to figure out whats the difference between Brooklyn and Queens, according to Rav Mioshe, then we can try to understand LA.
“Rav Moshe argued (O.C. 4:88) that since Brooklyn is a large city and some my think that it contains shishim ribo, one should not establish an eruv ”
This again is only in reference to “establishing” an eruv not once it has been established. No?
Nev,
“The question is, is LA comparable to KGH (matir’d by Reb Moshe) or to Brooklyn ”Define the difference and you might have the answer.
In any case, as I have posted above, it may very well be diff, due to the factor of not having the amount within 12 Mil x 12 Mil, which is a major factor of Rav Moshe’s issur.
I think according to Rav Moshe, you are not suppose to wear a talis openly showing that you don’t rely on the eruv.
GAON:
“This again is only in reference to “establishing” an eruv not once it has been established. No?”Rav Moshe only says that he would allow an eruv once it was established regarding Yerushalyim, but not regarding this issue.
If you don’t wear a Tallis in the street on Shabbos, and you don’t have a Tallis in shul beforehand, how will you wear a Tallis for Shabbos Shachris?
Joseph, under the coat or take it before Shabbos.
laskern: What if it is a sizzling hot summer day and you’re davening as a guest in another shul, which isn’t your usual one? (Either because you’re unexpectedly late to your regular shul or you have a simcha at a faraway shul.)
YDS, I think you meant “hearsay” not “heresy.”
Usually all Shuls have a talis to borrow.
““This again is only in reference to “establishing” an eruv not once it has been established. No?”
Rav Moshe only says that he would allow an eruv once it was established regarding Yerushalyim, but not regarding this issue.””
I agree that Rav Moshe himself did not specify. However, nor do we find any statement regarding the Gezero once an Eruv has been constructed.
Hence, logic and halacha would point out that, if halachakly it is permitted to carry, it makes no sense to be able to be ‘mechadesh’ a new gezera’ to asur one from what the Torah clearly permits i.e. carrying in a reshus haYachid’.
Yes, if one would ask Rav Moshe if constructing an eruv is advisable, he would respond: although eruv has a tremendous benefits, but in this case it is better not to, due to his chashash. That is not exactly enacting a “new Gezero”. It is just leaving everything in its former status of Shav va’al Ta’seh…
Otherwise it makes no sense..
Years ago it was very common not to wear taleisim in a visible manner. Many people wore an over coat or in hot weather wore the talis under their jacket. I once heard a drasha from R’ Yechiel Perr, Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshiva of Far Rockaway who explained that wearing a talis in a visible way in the street might have caused an anti-Semitic response. I think he quoted R’ Yaakov that it was proper no to wear the talis openly.
Queens is more Like Brooklyn than LA is like Queens
KGH is very much like Marine Park, so one cannot make a comparrison of neighborhoods
Las,
There is indeed an inyan ‘al Pi Zohar’ – quoted by the Bes Yosef and Rema (OC 25:2) to go to shul with your talis – see below link:
http://beta.hebrewbooks.org/tursa.aspx?a=oc_x63I figure it is not possible weekdays as the Tefilin passing Makom Tinofos etc., so it is practically done shabbos only.
There is also an halachik reason as well, as there is a machlokes about the bracha (being that you recited a bracha on the Talis Katan, if merely walking to shul is considered a ‘hefsek) .
See below a resposum from the Ben Ish Chai (Ch 5) regarding one going with a thin talis to shul.http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1401&st=&pgnum=229
Hence, it certainly does not indicate ones preference regarding an eruv.
Personally, I go to shul wearing a talis on YT as well.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.