Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“There are two opinions of reshus harrabim in the S”A. (OC 345:7) The first opinion states that markets and forums that are 16 amos wide (…sic…) the second opinion adds that if 600,000 don’t pass in it every day it is not a rsh”r.
There are numerous differences between these statements. Rav Moshe insisted that the only machlokes is about this minimum number. Three things come out from this. 1) There is no clear answer on what the first opinion holds is the minimum. 2) There is no differences that are dependent on this one. 3) What makes a rsh”r is the use of the area and not is shape and size.
So it follows that there are three psakim. 1) Without 600,000 we can always build an eiruv. And that has been the minhag as well. 2) The poskim that worked out instances of the Mishkanos Yaakov lekulah are not to be relied upon. That wasn’t the minhag. 3) The problem of d’oraysa is not about the circumstances of the town as much as the comprehensive area.”
What a bunch of gibberish. You are adding arguments to what Rav Moshe wrote.
Rav Moshe mentioned that we follow the vyesh omrim, lchatchilah. The rest of what you wrote is meaningless, and mostly incorrect. E.g. “The poskim that worked out instances of the Mishkanos Yaakov lekulah are not to be relied upon. That wasn’t the minhag.” Huh, the Mishkenos Yaakov was lechumrah. E.g. “The problem of d’oraysa is not about the circumstances of the town as much as the comprehensive area.” Huh, its about the number of people over an area of 12 mil by 12 mil, the area of the deigalei hamidbar.Wow it took you so long to learn the Rav Moshe’s teshuvos, and you still do not know what you are talking about
Neville Chaim Berlin, n0mesorah,
The two of you are jokesters. You pontificate on every issue as if you are betoch hadvarim, but when you are called out, instead of admitting that you have no shychus to the inyan, you continue to argue. The joke is that you claim to have the poskim on your side, when in fact the overwhelming majority of poskim disagree. The only posek that I argue was mislead was Rav Moshe, and this demolishes your house of cards. Since the majority of those opposing the eruv were just following his lead (and do not know the inyan). The fact that these rabbanim would argue against an eruv consisting of mechitzos demonstrates that they either do not know the inyan or are not interested in the emes.
You are the one that is frustrated, because regarding every issue that you debate you try to argue with lists, but regarding this issue the list of authority would not be on your side (you simply did not realize). The two of you have made many statements that are clearly incorrect. I am not trying to demonstrate my knowledge of the inyan. It is only that you make statements as if you know what you are talking about. I feel bad for you as you are not capable of being modeh al haemes, that you are out of your league and should stay out of the matter.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.
Typical. You pick one point to argue. If I were to go back and collect all the arguments that I set forth that you did not address it would be illuminating how weak your arguments truly are.
At the minimum Rav Elyashiv did not hear from the pro side, so his statement is not complete. If Rav Belsky is any proof, there is no doubt that these rabbanim did not know, or did not follow Rav Moshe’s shitos. Hence, their arguments are not relevant to our debate. In any case, you cannot answer Rav Dovid’s inconstancies, and are throwing up smokescreens. You are not throwing half sources, you have no sources.“6) Brooklyn is more than 12 mil. Rav Moshe never meant that Boro Park alone or Flatbush alone have 600k. Any statician would laugh at the idea of Rav Moshe’s teshuvah being a source for an exact number. Nowhere does Rav Moshe say to take a count.
At some point I’ll just give up on trying to get answers and I will post the whole thing myself.”
Rav Moshe repeated it twice, he clearly meant it but was mislead. Please, the entire teshuvah (87-88) is regarding counts. Please stop making up arguments on the go. Learn the inyan prior to making grand statements. There is no doubt from you arguments that it wasn’t that you were offline, but only that you tried to learn the inyan a little, but unfortunately failed miserably. You will not give up trying to answer, you do not have what to answer. Learn the inyan.“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.“4) What is your argument about Rav Moshe:
A – Rav Moshe would permit today’s eruv even though he didn’t permit the eruv in the 70’s.
B – Rav Moshe only forbade then because of wrong information.
C – Rav Moshe never forbade any eruv.
D – Rav Moshe is unclear on the matter.
E – Rav Moshe didn’t write exactly why this eruv is no good and that is enough to move on.’
Wow. You simply don’t get it. The answer is B“3) Included in the talmidim of Rav Moshe that I know are two that actively build eruvin. They both would never carry in Brooklyn. Rav Moshe was clear his whole life not to build eruvin in Brooklyn. The teshuva opens up with that he doesn’t agree. Rav Belsky spoke about it many times. It is silly to claim more knowledge from his teshuvos than the many people who heard it directly from him. This was common knowledge when the eruv was put up twenty years ago.”
You entire argument is irrelevant, and demonstrates that you do not begin to understand the issue. No one disagrees that Rav Moshe did not personally agree to an eruv in Brooklyn. However, his teshuvos demonstrate that he was mislead about the facts on the ground. Rav Belsky’s opinion is not relevant to this debate. He clearly did not agree with Rav Moshe’s shitos. He maintained that shishim ribo is conditional on a city. Rav Moshe stated emphatically that the minhag was not so. Rav Belsky argued that pirtzos esser is d’Oraysa, Rav Moshe upheld otherwise.“2) You prattle on about Rav Moshe having wrong info. But Rav Dovid insisted on it and Rav Elyashiv agreed with him. Rav Dovid was alive for the whole controversy. Why didn’t anybody clarify the facts with him? I know the answetr. In thirty years you will be sayinfg that Rav Dovid also would agree. So just shrug off Rav Moshe the same as Rav Dovid. There is no reason to say that Rav Moshe never forbade this exact eruv, because even if he did it would not bother you.”
No you do not know the answer. You are making things up as you go along. Rav Elyashiv said no such thing. He may have agreed to maintain the fact that there was no eruv, because of the Flatbush Rabbanim harassing him, but he did not say a word regarding Boro Park. Rav Moshe clearly was mislead. You continuously throw up ancillary arguments, but can’t answer this fact. I do not care what Rav Dovid says, he can’t argue on his fathers teshuvos. Rav Dovid clearly was being circuitous. This entire argument is also a smokescreen. No one can answer why Rav Dovid would agree that his father would allow Chicago, but not Brooklyn. In fact we can all agree with Rav Dovid’s statement that his father opposed a Flatbush eruv in 1978-79. However, the argument is only if his father was mislead, and if he would allow today. In fact Rav Dovid refused to talk to anyone regarding the current eruv, so no one could clarify anything.n0mesorah,
“I was offline for most of the last month and did not have the headsapce for this thread. You posted some really out there stuff recently, and I won’t bother calling you out. I don’t know meseches eruvin but that won’t be a problem here. I now see that you don’t have a clue about the original sources and what they actually say. That is why you are so convinced of your side of the argument.
You do not know meseches Eruvin nor do you know hilchos eruvin. You throw around arguments as a smokescreen in order to cover your am haratzus.Many poskim disagree with the mentality of the anti-eruv group. Witness Boro Park. I am frustrated by am haraatzus
Neville Chaim Berlin,
“Yes, I’m aware of what you’re referring to because we’ve had others* come here and make the same argument before, and it’s not only me that shoots them down.”
No you did not realize that I am not the one making the tally claim. This is again proof that you can’t be modeh al haemes. You simply do not know the inyan, but have no problem making sweeping statements.“Unless you live in some obscure state with no Jews, you obviously interact with other yidden enough to know that your shittos are extremely out of the ordinary.”
I interact enough to know that they do not know the inyan. If my shitos, which are totally not my own, are considered out of the ordinary, it is proof that you simply do not know the inyan. It is not as if I am quoting shitos yechidaos. It is you who is relying one singular opinions, but do not realize it.“You could say that at this point I’m just bullying you for being different rather than making real arguments, and that might be a fair criticism, but given how much you changed the tone of this thread for the worse, I don’t really care.”
It is not that you don’t care, but only that you do not know what to answer. It is for the worse because you have no real arguments. Why is it that when it comes to the inyan of eruvin people make up their mind prior to studying the sugya.“The thing you quoted me seems to be a quote within a quote, and it seems like Rav Shlomo Kluger’s quote ends before it gets to the conclusion about places like Paris and London. What sefer is the whole thing actually from?”
Huh? Please reread the beginning of the Hebrew. Paris and London are not part of his quotes, but my observation.“So, me telling him to follow his own rav is trying to convert him to my way, but you straight up telling him what to do is giving him options? Are you actually insane?”
First of all you did not read between the brackets. Second, all the CR threads are dispensing halachic arguments, and no one argues that you have to ask your rav, and so stop the debate. Why should eruvin be any different. This is a forum of ideas, which does not translate as final p’sak. Third, most people have been dispensing anti-eruv arguments, so it is the side that is pro that is under represented. Fourth, the overwhelming majority of poskim would be supportive, and the world should follow them. Fifth, an educated consumer is the best customer, and rabbanim need to step up to the plate, and learn hilchos eruvin, prior to just following what others say. I am insane because you disagree. This again demonstrates that when the inyan is eruvin people lose their mind.While I do not have to answer for why in the times of Chazal there was a reshus harabbim and later there wasn’t, I would suggest it had to do with the way cities were laid out.
Neville Chaim Berlin,
“With all due respect, I’m going to trust their counts over your’s. Obviously it isn’t purely quantitative.”
Your just shooting from the hip, and have no idea what I am referring to. The Mishkenos Yaakov (and the Mishnah Beruarh, who followed him), was the one who argued that it is quantitative, because in his times there were more Rishonim published. It was the Bais Ephraim who insisted it is minhag. [However, the Bais Ephraim did argue that in fact the Mishkenos Yaakov is incorrect regarding numbers as well.] Hence, either one follows the Bais Ephraim who argues that it is the minhag, or one follows the Mishkenos Yaakov and seeks out all the Rishonim that have been published to date. In fact today we know that the Mishkenos Yaakov’s tally has been greatly superseded.“Unless they were time travelers, they didn’t say anything about reshusei harabim “today.”
This is a made up argument by people who never learnt the inyan, and don’t realize that the Rishonim and Achronim meant not just in their times, but forever. I will just quote Rav Shlomo Kluger:
זה לשון “ספר החיים” לגאון ישראל הגר”ש קלוגער ז”ל (סי’ שמ”ה סעי’ ז) שהשיב לחכם אחד שהקשהו מיבמות (קי”ג ע”ב) דר’ יצחק אתאביד לי’ מפתחי ברה”ר, הרי מוכח דאף בזה”ז יש רה”ר, והשיב: “אבל הבל יפצה, דאטו לא משכחת לה בימי הש”ס לאחר החורבן שהיה מקום שעוברין בו ס’ רבוא… והרי דעת רש”י הוא זה דאין בזה”ז רה”ר, אלא ודאי דבימי חכמי הש”ס היה שכיח מקומות שיהיה נחשב רה”ר שהיה בו ס’ רבוא, וזה פשוט”. דברי קדשו אלו נאמרו בזמן שעדיין היו עיירות גדולות כמו לונדון ופאריז שהיו בהם יותר מס”ר אוכלוסין ואעפ”כ כתב דבזה”ז אין רה”ר“You can’t confidently say “we” when you have no idea what the questioner is. Hence why I told him he needs to go by his mesora/rav. You did the same thing with n0mesora regarding the OP; why can’t this discussion just be theoretical for you? Why do you insist on trying to convince people to be more meikel in actuality?”
You are obfuscating. You clearly meant that the issue is cut and dried, and that is why one should ask his rav. I argued that there are many reasons to allow, and hence there are really no reasons to be machmir. [However, I do not disagree that one should follow his rav.] Regarding shihsim ribo, unless he is Sfardei, we follow the Rema. I am pretty sure that the OP, you and n0mesora are Ashkenazim. Even for Sefardim it is not that simple what is the opinion of the Mechaber. Many poskim maintain the Shulchan Aruch accepts shishim ribo lechatchilah.
The question is not why I try to convince people to be mekil, but only why are people trying to argue that one should be machmir. From the get go, people make statements that a reshus harabbim cannot be encompassed by a tzuras hapesach, and that the only heter for cities is shishim ribo. All these declarations demonstrate that people simply do not know the inyan, and are seeking chumros. Why?“Call it what you must.”
Sorry you are witness number one. It is comical that so many people shoot their mouth off regarding eruvin without admitting that they simply do not know the inyan.Neville Chaim Berlin,
“By definition, you can only build an eruv where the issue of hotzaah would be d’rabbonon. If it’s a reshus harabim m’doraysa, it would be unfit according to everyone.”
Simply incorrect. Most poskim maintain that a tzuras hapesach would downgrade a reshus harrabbim a reshus hayachid me’d’Oraysa. Only me’d’rabbanim do we require delasos. Furthermore, according to the overwhelming majority of poskim, if the area is encompassed by mechitzos it is irrelevant if there is a reshus harabbim contained therein.“So, the discussion comes down to what makes something a reshus harabim. There are far more than 2 opinions.”
Correct, there is the criterion of shishim ribo, mefulash umechavanim, and if the area is encompassed by mechitzos. One would have to object to all these criteria in order to prohibit an eruv.“On the one extreme, there is the “reshusei harabim literally don’t exist” crowd as you can see here.”
So the Rishonim and Achronim who maintain that there is no reshus harabbim today are just a, “crowd?” Why don’t you admit that the argument that these Rishonim are not referring to today, is simply faulty (for multiple reasons). Those making this argument never thought through the inyan. As the Chacham Tzvi stated, if today the Chacahamim did away with reshus harabbim, so be it.“On the other extreme, there are those that reject the 600K definition which would make every single city eruv pasul (I assume this is the “anti-eruv” crowd people keep alluding to). L’maaseh you just have to go by what your mesora/rav says on the issue, ”
We follow the Rama who it was accepted allowed the criterion of shishim ribo (contrary to the Bais Meir). Furthermore, all the Rishonim of Tzarfas and Ashkenaz accepted the fundament of shishim ribo. This is our mesorah. Additionally, the Mishkenos Yaakov’s/Mishnah Berurah’s list has been superseded, the overwhelming majority of Rishonim uphold the criterion of shishim ribo. Even Rav Moshe accepted the criterion lechatchila. Furthermore, those who do not accept the criterion of shishim ribo, can rely on mefulash umechavanim, and mechitzos, to allow an eruv. They can also rely on that a tzuras hapesach would allow me’d’Oraysa, and medrabbanan we would not require delasos, as we can rely on shishim ribo.“and you should know that there are some extremely far-out, non-mainstream opinions being shared on this forum and elsewhere on the internet.”
No there is only am haaratzes. I would love to hear the extremely far-out, non-mainstream opinions being shared on this forum.Neville Chaim Berlin,
“OK, I’ll concede. I was wrong in my wording of this statement. I though I was clear enough that they aren’t considered machallel shabbos, but if not I apologize.”
I accept the apology.“You’re using “rov,” or most way too loosely. The statement “there are no reshus harabim today” was generally made way before Brooklyn or Manhattan were a reality. If there aren’t reshusei harabim today, then there never can be.”
It is a modern day argument that shishim ribo applies to a city, as Rav Moshe himself exclaimed. Warsaw, Lodz, Odessa and Paris, all demonstrate that I am correct. Hence, all the poskim who maintain that there is no reshus harabbim today are even referring to cities such as Brooklyn and Manhattan. Only according to Rav Moshe’s chiddushim are Brooklyn and Manhattan unique. The few poskim who argue that shishim ribo applies to a city are going against the mesorah and the minhag, as stated by the Divrei Malkeil.
There is no such argument that otherwise there can never be a reshus harabbim. In fact that is exactly what those Rishonim and Acronim are arguing, there is no more a reshus harabbim at all.Always_Ask_Questions,
“Eruv is given to us so that we can enjoy sholom together, instead, it seems that it is dividing us …”
The question is why are people so unaccepting of those who disagree with them and allow carrying?“I disagree with the opinion that “those who carry were mislead” and thus are still considered shomrei shabbos. I don’t think you need Igros Moshe for that. Simply, Beit Hillel and Beis Shammai navigated different opinions on mamzerim without relying on the other group being mislead.”
I agree with you. However, I am using Rav Moshe against those who are arguing in his name.n0mesorah,
“I will post how I understand Rav Moshe’s opinion when you answer the question.”
No you will not. You do not know the inyan.“Is your perspective helping the OP with his dilemma? Do you think that your posts here would help respond to his detractors? [Do you even understand what I am getting at with these questions?]”
Irrelevant. Most threads do not stick to the OP’s exact questions or arguments, and many times take a turn. You are putting up smoke screens. Answer exactly how you understand Rav Moshe’s shitos otherwise. Be honest you made up your mind prior to knowing the inayn, and at this point are trying to protect your ill informed opinion.“PS Of all the talmidim of Rav Moshe that I met that are okay with using wipes on Shabbos, cholov hacompanies, and turning off gas burners on Yom Tov, none are okay with the Brooklyn eiruv. This includes some serious talmidei chachamim that are renowned for paskening sheilos.”
Irrelevant. Do they know hilchos eruvin?Neville Chaim Berlin,
“Depends on the machlokes, and it’s really a question for your rav. Even by those who hold Brooklyn is a Reshus Harabim (the mainstream yeshivish opinion), those who carry in the eruv probably don’t get the status of not being shomer shabbos since they’ve been “mislead” into believing it’s ok. That’s usually how we get around these things, but on a theoretical level, yes, they are being machalel shabbos according to the machmirim.”
Actually Rav Moshe wrote (IM, O.C., 1:186) that when 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. Hence, they are not classified as mechalal Shabbos.“As far as the “ok when going for a mitzvah,” no. There is no heter to be over an isser d’oraisa on Shabbos for a mitzvah. This is exactly why we don’t blow shofar or take arba minim on Shabbos.”
Actually, as most poskim maintain that there is no reshus harabbim today, they would need to grapple with this issue. In fact, many poskim maintain that the reason we are machmir today regarding shofer and arba minim on Shabbos is because of the original takanah (see Maharsham, OC, 8:25). While the reason is not nogiea anymore, we are not mevatal the gezeirah (there are other reasons as well).Always_Ask_Questions,
“This learnt discussion is well above my head, but it convinced me to avoid Brooklyn on shabbos!”
Please do not feel that way, most of the people arguing here do no not know much more than you. Why would you avoid Brooklyn on Shabbos, you do not need to carry?“My question – given the subtlety of the issue and, in some cases, lack of clear psak – is it all 1/0? That is, if we have some allowing, others – not, would carrying be always considered hillul shabbos by those who do not allow, or it maybe something like “ok b’dieved” or “ok when going for a mitzva” or “ok when not observed by public”?”
As the issue is possibly a matter of a d’Oraysa, there would be no heter. However, there are so many reasons to allow, and each reason would allow lchatchilah, hence, the argument to abstain from carrying is very weak.n0mesorah,
“It’s funny that I overheard Reb Dovid talking about it and still don’t know about it. And it’s also funny that nobody managed get a straight answer from him.”
If you read what Rav Dovid said, you will realize that he was not referring to current eruvin. He is in fact referring to his father’s position on the 1979 eruv and not his father zt”l’s theoretical position on the current eruv. That is probably the reason he would not give a straight answer.“The OP want’s to use the eruv with the approval of the YV. We are still following Rav Moshe’s opinion as the RY of the just departed generation maintained they heard directly from him. Rav Dovid, Rav Shmuel Birnbaum, Rav Belsky, and others. What other Poskim feel comfortable with isn’t going to help change the status quo. The Brooklyn eruv has too much grief on it to become accepted by the YV.”
I don’t know what Rav Birnbaum maintained. He never wrote about it. Rav Belsky’s teshuvah demonstrates that he did not follow Rav Moshe’s shitos in eruvin. The YV should stay home on Shabbos. They are not the benchmark of halachic matters.“You may have a bunch to say why it should not be that way. But the historical fact is that this is how it played out. Rav Moshe did not endorse any eruv in Brooklyn at any point. And as of today there is still no consensus to move away from that position.”
By those who actually learnt Rav Moshe’s teshuvos there is a consensus.“So you do realize, that while you may permit him to carry in Brooklyn, your not helping the OP.
If we agree on that, then we can move on.”
I don’t care what some say, only what those who learnt the inyan have to say on the matter. As usual, you did not answer any of my pointed rebuttals, which is illuminating. Learn the inyan prior to pontificating.n0mesorah,
You never knew about Rav Moshe being mislead, and now you read it differently. Please, stop your revisionisms.n0mesorah,
Please stop claiming you read it differently. Lay it out. Otherwise you are just repeating the am haratzus.
I am not going to repeat myself, this is the last time. Please show me in the teshuvos where Flatbush and its enviros plays a role. If you can’t, it is a tzruch iyon on Rav Dovid.n0mesorahת
“So it boils down to that the mattirim feel that they are not in full dispute with Rav Moshe. And perhaps in the current day, Rav Moshe would agree to permit it.
I understand that they are not lying in their assessment. still, it’s all conjecture that Rav Moshe would permit it. Maybe the opposite.”
Everyone should follow their rav. Rav Moshe possibly would allow. Most poskim would allow. So there is no reason to object. And its conjecture to argue that he would forbid. So who gives anyone a right to osser in the name of Rav Moshe.“Today, Rav Moshe would absolutely forbid it. It’s basically saying that the mattirim feel ready to move on from Rav Moshe.”
No. Who said that he would absolutely forbid it. He would need to add to his chiddusin to do so. We have most poskim on the side of allowing, and we would rather not (although he is very mechudash and we are not required to follow him) go against Rav Moshe.n0mesorah,
“The Aruch Hashulchan and other poskim is definitely not what stopped Rav Moshe from a clear psak.”
Before shooting from the hip go learn the teshuvos:
ובאו”ח ח”ד סימן פז כתב האג”מ לענין העירוב בפלעטבוש וזה לשונו: הנה כשהיו אצלי הרבנים החשובים הרה”ג מוהרש”ז שארפמאן שליט”א והרה”ג מוהר”נ שרייער שליט”א בדבר תיקון עירוב בפלעטבוש, ואמרתי שאיני רוצה להתערב בזה כי הרי כמה שיטות איכא בפירוש מה זה רשות הרבים ובפירוש דלתות נעולות וספרי השו”ע מצוים, אבל מאחר שיצא קול שאני הוא מתיר בעצם מצד לשון זה שאמרתי, מוכרח אני לבא בזה לברר בקיצור מה שאני בעצמי סובר וכו’, עכ”פ אני סובר לדינא כדכתבתי אבל לא רציתי לומר זה לפסק דין ברור מאחר שלא הוזכר זה בפירוש בדברי רבותינו האחרונים ובערוך השולחן משמע שודאי לא נחית לזה וכו’, בזה טעם שלא אמרתי למה שאני סובר לרבנים חשובים לפסק דין ברור, אבל מאחר שיצא קול שאני הוא המתיר שהוא בעצם נגד מה שכתבתי ונגד מה שאני סובר כן לדינא הוכרחתי לכתוב מכתבי זה עכ”ל.n0mesorah,
“I don’t understand what you gain by repeating that Rav Moshe was mechudash. You were trying to argue that the Brooklyn Eruv is valid even according to Rav Moshe’s opinion. Then it doesn’t come in to play if he or you termed his opinion mechudash.”
The argument is follows: 1) Rav Moshe would allow for three reasons. 2) Rav Moshe never issued a psak din barrur. 3) It is unfair to add to Rav Moshe’s chiddushim to negate an eruv, since to begin with he is mechudash, and so only Rav Moshe can add additional reasons.n0mesorah,
“Are your three examples – that Rav Moshe was misled; 3M, 12×12, and mechitzos.”
Not 12×12. BP and Flatbush contain a population greater than shishim ribo.n0mesorah,
““Rav Moshe never offered reasons to allow””
“Black on white, a large part of his teshuva. Otherwise he would have felt compelled to stop them. And he would have considered the eruv to be Chillul Shabbos.”
No, Rav Moshe only admitted that the Aruch Hashulchan and the poskim would not agree with him. That is why he did not issue a psak din barrur.n0mesorah,
“Let me misquote you.”
“There is no oral Torah. I simply do not believe”
“Wait. So Rav Dovid Feinstien is not enough of an opinion to have to clarify his very public intentions, but you feel compelled to defend the mattirim that claim Rav Moshe agrees with them?”
I do not have to defend the teshuvos. It is black and white what I am saying. Rav Dovid said his own sevarah. There is no other explanation, and at the least is being inconsistent.n0mesorah,
“I don’t know how you lump everyone who disagrees with you on eiruvin in one group. Those that are inclined to assur all eruvin are obviously not coming from Rav Moshe. Are you implying that Rav Moshe was the only yeshivishe gadol that knew eruvin?”
Never said that. There are people who make meta halachic arguments without realizing that these arguments would do away with all eruvin (such as tznius inyanim). This is apikorses. Those Yeshivalite who make arguments that would do away with city eruvin are going against minhag and the mitzvah of shtufei mavaos. I am not lumping them together. Sure there were RY who new eruvin, but not many knew hilchos eruvin. Rav Moshe knew kol haTorah, and was very unique. However, he really was very mechudash in eruvin, but the Yeshivah velt in their ignoramity believed his shitos to be normative halacaha.n0mesorah,
“I don’t know how you got that disagreeing with the Magen Avraham’s interpretation of mefulash is mechudash.”
The Magen Avraham (345:6; based on the Bais Yoseph) and most poskim (Olas Shabbos, Tosfos Shabbos, Elya Rabbah, Prei Megadim, Shulchan Aruch Harav, Mishnah Berurah, and Aruch Hashulchan) assert that mefulash m’shaar l’shaar infers mefulash u’mechavanim m’shaar l’shaar, meaning runs straight from gateway to gateway. Therefore, since all Rishonim (and Achronim) maintain that mefulash is a fundament of a reshus harabbim even in a city that is not walled (e.g. Rashi, Eruvin, 59a; Ravyah, Eruvin, siman 379; Rokeach, siman 175; Rid, Piskei, Sukkah 43a, and the majority of Rishonim who mention the criterion of mefulash without the qualifier of city walls), and the Gedolie Haposkim uphold that mefulash infers mechavanim, hence, all city streets would need to be mefulash u’mechavanim m’shaar l’shaar to be classified as a reshus harabbim, irrespective if the city is walled or not.
This is contrary to Rav Moshe and Rav Aharon, who maintained that mefulash is a criterion of a reshus harabbim, but mechuvanim only applies to a walled city. Furthermore, the SA is referring to a walled marketplace. Hence from the SA we only see that a platya may need to be walled to fulfill the criterion of mefulash umechavanim. Mavo’os hamefulashim, which our streets on the whole are classified as, no doubt would need to be mefulash and mechavanim, walled or unwalled.
[The Shulchan Aruch in 345:7 uses the words rechovos and shevakim, which, according to most poskim, are just alternative labels for marketplaces (see Metzudos Tzion, Shir Hashirim 3:2; Mayim Rabim, siman 38, and Bais Ephraim, siman 26 p. 44b). The Magen Avraham indicates on the word rechovos (345:5) that sratyas are included in these halachos set forth by the Shulchan Aruch. In 345:8-9 the Shulchan Aruch deals with mavo’os hamefulashim.]n0mesorah,
“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.””
You are truly befuddled. I never spoke about Rav Moshe allowing in Manhattan (even though there is what to talk about). When I say that he would allow in Brooklyn I am referring to if he had the correct information. [Again, I only wrote that he would allow according to his teshuvos. I can’t say that he would have actually agreed, prior to him making some additional clarifications to his chiddushim.]
Rav Moshe never offered reasons to allow, he only declared that the rabbanim do not have to follow his chiddushim in Manhattan. Stop making statements that are simply incorrect.
No the population is integral to his chiddushim in Brooklyn. In Manhattan the population was ancillary (because of the mechitzos), and hence, he never gave an exact figure that would be required according to his chiddushim. You did not even know that he mentioned 3 million. Otherwise it is a gezeira (and obviously not a matter of d’Oraysa). Rav Moshe’s chiddushim were a work in progress. I don’t need anyone’s interpretation of Rav Moshe’s teshuvos, they are very explicit.“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.”
As can be discerned from the entire back and forth, you simply do not know his teshuvos. So please do not pontificate if this is the correct way to read Rav Moshe’s teshuvos. I gave three examples where I prove that Rav Moshe was mislead, and you just disagree without providing any substantial arguments. Just stop this am haraatzus nariskeit.n0mesorah,
“He had a good reason to be vague. The exact number isn’t an issue according to Rav Moshe’s shitta. You didn’t answer why this wasn’t cleared up with Rav Dovid.”
He admitted in Chicago and LA that the number is 3 million. According to Rav Moshe’s last two teshuvos anything less is a gezeira. I believe that Rav Dovid was trying to answer for the incorrect facts that Rav Moshe was mislead about. However, it is irrelevant, we all have a right to learn his fathers teshuvos, and judge for ourselves. I don’t have to clarify it even with his son, he wrote it clearly. There is no oral Torah. I simply do not believe anything that contradicts his teshuvos, no matter who says it. Flatbush and its environs does not exist in Rav Moshe’s teshuvos, period.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..n0mesorah,
“Eruvin is to localized to be inconsistent in ones chumros. But still I agree that people take chumros in eruvin that are way above their general standards. This is not relevant to the epicenter of BP or Flatbush eruvin fights. I think the YV lost some battles by being to frum. But surely your not insinuating that such an attitude is based on Rav Moshe.”
Yes it is regarding Rav Moshe, they don’t on the average know the iyan themselves. They are inconsistent because it became fashionable, and it smacks of apikursis.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,”””…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.”
Not Hisachdus, but Agudas Harabbanim. 1962. I don’t know if he was a member. Who says that he would have to be a member to attend. I don’t know why Rav Moshe could not make it.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,t
“Rav Moshe was not doing away with hilchos eruvin. Where did you get that one from?”
I have no idea what you are referring too.n0mesorah,
“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?”
It is very relevant. Anything less than 3 million would only fall into Rav Moshe’s prohibition because of his geziera. Rav Moshe basically said so in this same teshuvah. Rav Dovid said 3 million is the number in Chicago and in Los Angeles. What Rav Dovid meant by, “there are over 2.5 million people living in Flatbush and its environs.” is extremely unclear. The fact is, Flatbush and its environs, does not follow any shita of Rav Moshe (unless he meant that the tzuras hapesach is encompassing 2.5 million, which is incorrect), and so I do not understand Rav Dovid’s statements at all.“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.”
And I know personally that he was being vague.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.n0mesorah,
““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.”
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.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,
“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.”
Oh, but they are disagreeing regarding a particular issue. That is they believe that there is no issue of reshu harabbim, hence an eruv can be established.“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.”
This why I mentioned it. As you will see you introduce the word rov.
“”n0mesorah,
As I have posted above, other rabbonim are entitled to their opinion and may disagree with Rav Moshe’s psak. Yet even the mattirim didn’t think that applied to a rav that didn’t even kn ow mishnayos eruvin. Even if he had photographic memory of the teshuvos.””
“RMMK knew more than just teshuvos, stop this silliness. In fact he was supported by most rabbanim in Manhattan. You simply do not know what you are talking about.”
“”Chas v’shalom that any Rav would not want to associate with RMMK! Where did you get that from?””
“As Rav Tuvia used to say, there were more rabbanim who supported an eruv in Manhattan then not.”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,
“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.”
Fiction. Our cities are no different than the large metropolises that doted pre-was Europe. Those who made these arguments are actually the ones who are changing the minhag.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,
“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.”
The point is that people are inconsistent in their chumros (I am not referring hidur). It is extremely noticeable with khashrus.Always_Ask_Questions,
“We insist on eating hot food to show we are not tzdukim. Maybe same applies to eruv?”
Being a modeh beruv is one of the issues that the tzdukim did not accept. I will admit that what we can infer from this is up for debate. However, I believe that these disagreements do descend into being an eino modeh beruv. I would argue, that those who vehemently oppose today’s city eruvin, are eino modeh shtufei mavaos. City eruvin are an outgrowth of the halachos of shtufei mavaos, and is a separate mitzvah classified in the Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 395:1).“One interesting argument I see in this discussion – if some shita is constructed in a way that invalidates all eruvin (or, if I can expand – invalidates what was normal practice before) – then it is apikoirosus, not chumras. Thus, if there is a kosher eruv, one must carry. There is probably a loner list of activities that one must similary do because of people asurim what used to be matir. I’ll leave it to others to suggest them.”
I would believe that when it comes to chumros we should look to see consistency (I know that some argue otherwise, but with eruvin this should be the benchmark, because of the eino modeh issue). Even more so, in hilchos reshuyos and eruvin, since all criteria have to be met for the area to be classified as a reshus harabbim, even if we were to employ a shitas yachid regarding reshus harabbim that would then disqualify the eruv based on only one criterion, the other conditions would not be met and an eruv would be permissible l’chatchilah. Consequently, to invalidate an eruv, one would have to selectively choose from disparate shitos yachidos ― which in many cases are contradictory ― and that is an unjustifiable approach to halachah. The reality is that if someone learns hilchos reshuyos and eruvin with an open mind, he would realize that since it is almost impossible to meet all the criteria of a reshus harabbim, creating an eruv l’chatchilah is a real possibility.