Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
n0mesorah,
“I was there for a shabbos when the eiruv was new and people had no idea how vast it was. I returned recently, and most of the new people don’t know the large eiruv exists, and only use the smaller neighborhood ones.”
Please share with us the information. I am sure that I know what you are referring to, and that you are making things up.“It’s weird that you will kahser an eiruv that you only heard an online poster mention.”
I am sure that I know as much about it as you do.“That was the thrust of this post.’
No it was regarding the Brooklyn Eruv, and later about the local Brooklyn eruvin.“And it is what irks the YV.”
No. It is that they have a superiority complex, and believe that the lowly others have no right to an opinion. However, they are out of their league regarding halachic issues.n0mesorah,
“My point with Rav Dovid was that he knew the mitziyus and was aware that people claimed he didn’t.”
You maintained that Rav Moshe knew the mitziyus as well. This is clearly incorrect.n0mesorah,
“The Yeshivshe Velt takes the Brooklyn Eiruv personally because it was aggressive toward the status quo of the leadership at that time. It was much more contentious then eiruvin that had a lot less validity.”
Not the reason at all. The only reason was because they did not respect the opposition, and maintained that one cannot argue on Rav Moshe. Nevertheless, most the those in opposition did not know the inyan. The aggressiveness was from the anti-eruv group.“It’s one thing to claim that a Ry doesn’t know the halacha. It a whole nother ballgame to claim that a RY is being paid off to be against the Eiruv because he doesn’t care about the Torah. Do you really want to go through all the mud?”
There is nothing to go through. Its fiction. No one claimed that the RY were paid off. The only argument was that they were not baalei halachah.n0mesorah,
““The only debate can be halachic.””
“Says you. But if someone’s understanding of the mesechta can be shredded without much effort, I wouldn’t care much for their version of halacha.”
There is no such an argument. We do not paskin from Shas. You are speaking as a typical Yeshivah guy, who knows nothing about the halachic process. In fact Rav Moshe, who had a novel approach to his teshuvos, would not argue on SA, and did not ague on the Nosei Keilim with abandon.“For the record, there was endless discussions with Rav Tuvya and his most notable peers when he was younger. When he was older they left him alone.”
Fiction. There was limited debate“A notable exception was Rav Shmuel Birnbaum who was close with him throughout. And may have agreed with him.”
Originallyn0mesorah,
“Almost all of the gaonim that came out of the pre war yeshivos were against the eiruv in Manhattan. Some were even older than Rav Moshe. Their opinions are published in their seforim. Or can be found in their notes. They mostly thought that allowing an eiruv in such a metropolis is a chiddush. I didn’t mention the kol korei.”
There were five rabbanim who signed the kk opposing a Manhattan Eruv. There were maybe 2-3 more who opposed and did not sign. There were 16 people who supported the Manhattan Eruv. Including , the Amshinover Rebbe, Kapishnitzer Rebbe, Boyaner Rebbe, Novominsker Rebbe, the Shatzer Rebbe, Rav Michoel Dov Weissmandel, Rav Yonasan Steif, Rav Tzvi Eisenstadt, Rav Menachem Kasher, Rav Menachem Pollak, and Rav Yosef Hersh. Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank, lent support, and Rav Henkin at one point suggested to establish the eruv, but later did not want to be (the main one) involved.
The chiddush was halachic in nature. Rav Moshe disagreed regarding their halachic concerns, because there were city’s that established eruvin whose population was greater than 600,000 (but he had his own reason to oppose). Only Rav Schwab opposed on meta halachic concerns. He did however admit that at some point in time they should be allowed to establish one. I believe his concerns were based on the Frankfurt controversy. His arguments to me are beyond comprehension.
No one has a right to claim meta halacha to oppose any halachic issue. In any case, all would have to admit that meta halachic opposition is either a gezeirah or a takanah and unless this is hora’as sha’ah, only a Sanhedrin has a right to implement this gezeirah forever or as Rav Moshe states that rabbanim may only enact a takanah for their particular locale and only for a short period of time.“The Boro Park Eiruv features many poskim of little renown. They had dozens of peers that were still in kollel. I don’t think such would count as rov poskim. It’s not bechachma or bminyan. It was not in my mind to belittle them CH”V. Mostly they signed to announce to their peers that they felt ready and able to defend the eiruv.”
Your argument is incorrect, and is telling. The anti-eruv kk includes many names who are either not that well known, or have no shaychus to halacah. Please. In any case, the two most important poskim for BP supported an eruv, Rav E F Hirshkowitz, and Rav Y Roth. I would argue that they were the greatest poskim in America at the time.“I don’t go care for either KK. I just posted because you mentioned something like rov poskim.”
I never said rov regarding BP.n0mesorah,
““I highly doubt that you originally realized this fact.””
“LOL! I knew Reb Tuvya’s story.”
I am referring to the halachic differences between Rav Aharon and Rav Moshe. You did not know that they disagreed regarding these issues. Rav Tuvia actually recalled that after an Agudas Harabbnim meeting, which Rav Moshe did not attend, he asked Rav Tuvia what occurred at the meeting. Rav Tuvia told him that Rav Aharon read from the Mishkenos Yaakov. Rav Moshe then retorted that he does not understand Rav Aharon. The fact is Rav Moshe decaled the world did not follow the Mishkenos Yaakov. Rav Yecheskel Besser added that he asked Rav Aharon why did he cite the Mishkenos Yaakov, the world accepted the Bais Ephraim lhalachah. To which Rav Aharon answered that he followed the Mishkenos Yaakov, since he was a descendent. Rav Besser argued that the world was not descendants and sis not accept his shitos lhalacahah. Rav Aharon did not answer this rebuttal.n0mesorah,
“You are so wrong that it was only about halacha for Rav Moshe and Rav Aaron. They felt an obligation to turn the entire Jewish Diaspora back to the Torah. They both continually expressed how lacking they were to fulfill the task. It’s an absolute sin that their legacy heirs today do not understand how active they were on behalf of yidden that were far removed from Torah. Rav Aaron especially, wouldn’t tell his inner circle muttar or assur. He would say, zuhl tun, cen tun, besser nisht tun, and most commonly, nisht kdei.”
Please, I am referring to the issue of eruvin, which is not some American issue. Both Rav Aharon and Rav Moshe wrote teshuvos regarding eruvin. Clearly this is an halcahic issue. No one has a right to oppose eruvin with meta halcahic arguments. It is simply apikorsisn0mesorah,
“What does your first sentence mean? Wearing a large brimmed hat or jewelry? What if I never leave my house on Shabbos because I have nowhere to go? I’m curious about it, and would love sources.
I agree with you on the modern day arguments that do away with all eiruvin. It does not apply to the Mishkanos Yaakov himself.”
נימוקי או”ח להגה”ק בעל מנח”א ממונקאטש זצוק”ל סימן שצ”ד ס”ק א וז”ל: “מקובל בידינו בשם קדוש זקיני בעל בני יששכר ז”ל (כשהי’ בעירו או במקום שהוחזקו העירובין בטוב) ביציאתו לחוץ מביתו בש”ק, לקח לתוך בגדו מפתח וכיוצא, כדי שישאוהו במקום העירוב, ולא יהי’ בכלל מי שאינו מודה בעירוב”, עכד”ה. ועי”ש שציין לדברי התשב”ץ המובא בברכ”י דמי שלבו נוקפו בזה, הדיוטות גמורה היא או מינות נזרקה בו, וכן ציין לדברי האריז”ל המוזכר לעיל בהערה 10. ועי’ בס’ דברי מנחם מהגה”ק מסטראפקוב בהערה מהרב המו”ל לעמוד קמה וז”ל: “בדידי הוה עובדא שבא כ”ק אדמו”ר בעל מנחת אלעזר ממונקאטש זצל”ה לשב”ק לעיר בערעגסאז אשר אני הייתי ממונה שם על כשרות עירובין, ובש”ק בבוקר כשהלכו לתפילה לקח האדמו”ר הסידור בידו והוליכו בעצמו, ואמר, שבעיר אשר איש ירא שמים ות”ח ממונה על העירובין, אין מן הראוי להחמיר שלא להוציא, כדי שלא יהא ח”ו כאינו מודה בעירוב. וכמדומני שאמר זאת בשם זקנו הקדוש בעל בני יששכר”. (בתשובת כ”ק אדמו”ר ממונקאטש שליט”א כתב שכ”ק זקינו המנח”א זי”ע קיבל הנהגה זו גם מרבו הגה”ק בעל דברי יחזקאל משינאווא זי”ע.) קפידא זו של הגה”ק בעל בני יששכר ידועה ומקובלת גם בין שאר יוצאי חלציו, וכפי שכתב הגאון רבי חיים קרייזווירט זצ”ל אב”ד אנטווערפן בהסכמתו על ספר “רחובות העיר”, ומוזכרת גם בספר “קנה וקנמון” (סימן ה אות נו) מהגאון בעל זכרון יוסף.מפי הרה”ח ר’ חיים מאנדל הי”ו מחשובי חסידי גור באנטווערפן, שסיפר שכאשר נכנס פעם ראשונה אל הגה”ק בעל “בית ישראל” זצ”ל לאחר הסתלקות הגה”ק בעל “אמרי אמת” זצ”ל, אמר לו: שמעתי שאינך מטלטל בעירוב, היתכן? והשיב ר’ חיים, הרי גם הרבי ז”ל (האמרי אמת) לא טלטל. על כך נענה הבית ישראל ואמר לו: “מה שאבא מארי ז”ל לא טלטל, הוא כי מישהו בדור צריך לקיים הברייתא ‘חייב אדם למשמש בגדיו בע”ש עם חשכה שמא ישכח ויצא – אמר רב יוסף הלכתא רבתא לשבתא’, אך ענין זה אינו נוגע לך. זקני החידושי הרי”ם נהג לטלטל בעירוב של גור, באומרו שצריכים להיות ‘מודה בעירוב”. ונטל הבית ישראל שקית והכניס לתוכו פירות ונתן בידו של ר’ חיים וליוה אותו עד הדלת למען יטלטלנו חוצה. וראה עוד בספר “סדור תפלה ליקוטי יהודה” (עמוד קפו) וז”ל: “ודודי מרן אדמו”ר הבית ישראל זצ”ל כו’ הוסיף ואמר: בפולין הי’ עסק שלם עם העירוב שהסתמכו על כל מיני היתרים כדי שיוכלו לטלטל בשבת וכגון חוט החשמל ונהרות והכל מפני שהי’ קשה מאד שלא לטלטל בשבת ולכן סמכו גם על היתרים דחוקים. אולם בגור שהיתה עיירה קטנה, תקנו את העירוב עפ”י הלכה ובלי שום היתרים. וזקני החידושי הרי”מ ז”ל טלטל בשבת בגור, ואמר שזה ענין של מודה בעירוב”.
“אע”ג דהבית מאיר ומשנה ברורה פקפקו בזה על המג”א וטו”ז, כנראה נהוג עלמא כהני סבא, וכן ראינו ושמענו מהרבה צדיקים שעשו כן למעשה להראות הלכה להקל בעיירות המתוקנין בעירובין ע”י צורת-הפתח, ואדרבה חששו על המחמיר בזה שהוא בכלל אינו מודה בעירוב” (שו”ת “מרפא לנפש” ח”ג סימן נב). ומפי הגה”צ אב”ד נאראל זצ”ל שמענו, שבעיניו ראה את הרה”ק המהרי”ד מבעלזא זצ”ל יצא מביתו בשב”ק ובידו החזיק חומש במשך הילוכו לביהמ”ד. עי’ בשו”ת “והרים הכהן” לדומ”ץ דק”ק אנטווערפן (ח”ג סימן א) שמרן החתם סופר הקפיד לטלטל בעירוב, ושמע זאת מפי הגאון הגדול המפורסם מו”ה יצחק שלמה אונגר (שליט”א) [זצ”ל] אב”ד חוג חתם סופר בני ברק, וכתב דמוכח כן מתשובת החתם סופר סימן פ”ט שכתב מפורש ששינה ממנהגו (לטלטל) מחמת השאלה שהיתה שם, אבל דרך הסימטא דשם טלטל בעירוב.
n0mesorah,
“Are you referring to my posts, or actual society? Other inyanim in eiruv or other fields of halacha?”
Other feilds of halachahThe Brooklyn Eruv is under the hechsher of Rav Yaakov Zeide
n0mesorah,
“Several of my posts referenced the eiruvin vaadim. This started with Rav Aaron and Rav Moshe and did not have a halachic function.”
There was never any vaddim. The only Vaad that existed was the Manhattan Vaad, which actually built the eruv in 1962. The meetings that the Agudas Harabbanim convened were attended at times by Rav Moshe and Rav Aharon (but never by Rav Henkin). These meetings were not vaadim they were called to discuss issues. They put out a kol korei opposing the eruv after the Vaad published a kol korei supporting the eruv in 1962.“In pure halacha, Rav Moshe was completely opposed to Rav Aaron’s shitta of RSHH”R. As much as Rav Moshe opposed any of the NYC eiruvin. This that I quoted the debate about Rav Moshe as going back to Rav Aaron, goes back to the Agudas Harrbanim. It’s not what you want to debate.”
For these rabbanim it was only about halachah. And no, you refferenced Rav Aharon’s shitos, and that is exactly what I rebuted. They were not on the same page at all. I highly doubt that you originally realized this fact.“The many Talmedei Chachamim that sided with Rav Moshe since the 50s is about more than just hilchos eruvin. I know about it from the inside. Most of them would never sign on anything that has bigger leaders already dealing with it.”
Correct, it has to do with the fact that they did not know the inyan and so just followed the leader. Hence, their signatures are worthless. If thier reasons were meta halachah, then we can argue that it is apikorsis.“I was not referring to the Kol Korei of R”Y. That had a different purpose.”
No, you were referring to that KK. It had the same purpose as the pro eruv KK, which you belittled because of the stature of the signors.“There is also the disputes between Rav Tuvya Goldstein and his peers from the Yeshivos in Europe about what is halacha and what is called knowing the inyan.”
There was no such debate. In any case, there is no such a debate. Do not try to fit into this debate what you said previously, the issue that I called you out on, forgetting to mention the SA. The only debate can be halachic, period.“This thread isn’t about my complaints. The OP wants to know why he would not face backlash from the YV for a kula in kashrus, but he would for the eiruv. I’ll debate you on the Rav Moshe’s opinion. B ut even if you are prove me wrong, it won’t help him not be shunned for carrying. That is the reality of today even if it’s based on wrong information.”
Your point is unclear.“The YV takes the Brooklyn Eiruv personally. I think we agree on that.”
We do, and the reason for this is that they believe that no one knows the inyan.“I only brought in Conservative Judaism for this part of the debate. If you just want to discuss the halacha or Rav Moshe’s teshuva, it doesn’t matter.”
can”t follow.“Whatever you know about the Muzayer Rav would interst me. I only know him as the Nephew of the Satmar Rav. If I read your post right, he was the one who sent Rav Moshe the map with incorrect information.”
No, he sent the correct statistics (although I don’t believe they actually showed it to Rav Moshe). Hence, Rav Moshe mentioned his gezeria. But someone then told Rav Moshe that close to 3 million people reside in Brooklyn and that a million people come into the borough.“A correction. I never said Rav Moshe used the census.”
You mentioned Rav Dovid knew the census by heart. Clearly you are inferring that this informed Rav Moshe’s opinion.“It really doesn’t matter what the exact population of Brooklyn is. This is critical to Rav Moshe’s teshuva. I intend to get to all of that in another post.”
It sure does. Please don’t waste my time learn the inyan first.“the eiruv I’m referring to is not even known by most of the people who live inside of it. It was constructed within the last ten years. There have been over a dozen eiruvin constructed within it’s perimeter since then. And every single one makes a bracha.”
And who says that this is a problem. Besides for which, I don’t believe people do not know about it, and so its their choice albeit incorrect to do so lechatchilah.n0mesorah,
Most of the above is to prove that you are privy to information, and are familiar with the inayan. I don’t buy it. However, I will play along with your need to demonstrate your broad knowledge base.
“I am getting the sense that you want to only discuss the halachic permissibility of an eiruv in Brooklyn versus other American Cities. Now, this issue is not in a vacuum. The real world influence has been alluded to numerous times. I don’t know how you feel about it.”
I have no problem discussing any city. There is no reason why an eruv can’t be established everywhere.“The Halachos of Eiruvin have three distinct fields of application.
1. The townspeople are supposed to build an eiruv.
2. The specifications to which the eiruv can be built.
3. Carrying in the eiruv.
The permissibility of an eiruv is the second field. Comparing cities is the first field. So, we keep missing each other’s points.”
I never saw this classification, and it does not exist.
1) Yes townspeople should demand an eruv, but the responsibility is on the rav.
2) This is for the rav to concluded. This point has changed dramatically, and not many other inyanim have followed suit.
3) There are Chasidim who maintained that one must carry in an eruv. I believe they were referring to today. Arguments opposing eruvin that would do away with all eruvin (even if they are inconsistent with the application of their arguments), should be called out as apikorsis. I do not thing I missed any of your points.n0mesorah,t
“What is the purpose of counting all these names? There are hundreds of Living Rabbanim and dozens of Post-War Gaonim that assured the eiruv but weren’t worthy of being named. But every corner shul rav that permitted it, got his name published.”
Huh. The kol korei which was disseminated by the anti-eruv group, contained many names of rabbanim and Roshei Yeshivos who do not know halachah. You simply are shooting from the hip.“I’m not the type to belittle any rav. And the truth is that eiruvonline is a great resource. But it completely ignores the many problems that come up. How is it okay to have a major eiruv with nobody checking it at all?”
There is no such eruv. You are motzei laz. I know what you are referring to and it is a lie.n0mesorah,
“Exactly the response that I wanted!”
Because you are clueless“The first rule of the halachic process is that it doesn’t take place in nameless online forums.”
Why not? If you can debate the issues there is no reason not to. It will stand on its merits. You on the other hand do not know the inayn, and so resort to inane arguments.“We could discuss the halachic process how it works and fails. Never mind. You can’t keep up with me in describing what the halachic process was throughout the centuries and how it is today.”
Childish. It is clear that you do not learn many teshuvos.“The issue at hand is how well the posters understand eruvin in concept. And how much integrity they have.”
That is your issue“<strength>This thread was not about halacha before you started blabbering.</strength>
It was about one poster who wanrs to use the Brooklyn Eiruv without losing his standing in the YV. Even many of the mattirim will say that these eiruvin weren’t built for Bnei Torah to carry. A lot of the discourse of Agudas Harrabonim regarding eiruvin was that it is not worth it to make an eiruv only according to some shittos. If one disagreed with them, then it follows that Bnei Torah would not automatically be carrying just because there is a kosher eiruv.”
Mostly these arguments are am haratzus. You cannot even judge the veracity of my claim. Bnei Torah are not today the benchmark for halachah.n0mesorah,
“Rav Moshe gets 350K by dividing a million into thirds. The math is off by almost seventeen thousand. Do the mattirim deduce that Rav Moshe didn’t know arithmetic, or do they claim he was misled?”
Please read the teshuvah carefully. You see I am more careful with Rav Moshe’s words than you are. Rav Moshe says ‘approximately’ 350,000 people, not that it is exactly a third.n0mesorah,
“Rav Moshe ‘would allow/wouldn’t allow’ is a continuation from Rav Aaron. It’s pretty much agreed that Rav Aaron’s own shittos are not well defined in the public consciousness. One thing is certain, that Eiruvin need to be properly constructed and checked regularly. It’s not okay when nobody in the bungalow colony remembers who is in charge of maintaining the eiruv.”
Absolutely not. Rav Moshe disagreed with Rav Aharon. Unlike Rav Aahron, who did not uphold the criterion of shishim ribo at all, Rav Moshe accepted shishim ribo lchtchilah. Rav Moshe disagreed with Rav Aharon, and accepted that a pirtos esser is only me’drabbanan. The fault of the many problematic eruvin is the anti-eruv group.“The Original Point on this thread was that the YV should accept their own carrying in the new eiruv. This is irrelevant to what Rav Moshe’s shittah would or wouldn’t be. The OP is promoting an attitude to eiruvin that leads to all kinds of negligence. And it is a direct assault on the Yeshiva in general. These last few pages are a demonstration of that.”
When you complain about all the issues with other hechsherim and the hechsherim on mikvaos, I will acept you complaints regarding eruvin.n0mesorah,
“Rav Moshe gets 350K by dividing a million into thirds. The math is off by almost seventeen thousand. Do the mattirim deduce that Rav Moshe didn’t know arithmetic, or do they claim he was misled?”
Silly and irrelevant.n0mesorah,
“Rav Moshe says that the number would be 4 or 5 times 600,000.
So, at two and a half million it is already problematic.”
Rav Moshe originally thought 600,000 would be sufficient. He then realized that they were nohig to make eruvin in cities containing shishim ribo. He then entertained 4-5 shishim ribo. The last two teshuvos on the matter he stated that the number would be 3 million, and Rav Dovid agreed in Chicago. Rav Moshe’s shita was a work in progress.n0mesorah,
3) Rav Moshe is not sure if mechitzos would help for Brooklyn. It is mefurush in this teshuva. He never mentions that there aren’t mechitzos. In the other Flatbush teshuva it only mentions dalsos and reshus harrabim. So, clearly there was some consensus that mechitzos were not enough.(או”ח ה’ כ”ח או”ק ה’) וז”ל: ומצד מחיצות סביב ברוקלין כפי
הידיעה שעד עתה אינו כן וזהו אפשר לברר עכ”ל.
There is no doubt that Rav Moshe would not have a problem if do not include the bridges that mechitzos are sufficient for Brooklyn.n0mesorah,
“”2) Rav Moshe was led to believe that both BP and Flatbush contain a population of over shishim ribo. This is factually incorrect, as the population is less than half.””
“Source?”
(ביו”ד ח”ג השמטה לאו”ח ח”ד סי’ פ”ט)
וז”ל: אבל על ברוקלין שתלוי בדין הס’ ריבוא אם נמצאו בשטח דלא יותר מי”ב מיל על י”ב מיל וכיון
שנתברר שפלעטבוש יש שם הרבה יותר אף שהוא עוד על שטח הפחות מי”ב על י”ב מיל וכן בארא
פארק הוא אסור מדינא בלא דלתות וכו’ עכ”ל.(או”ח ה’ סי’ כ”ח או”ק ה’) וז”ל: אבל ברוקלין, הא כל חלק חשוב כמו פלעטבוש
ובארא פרק וכדומה הם רה”ר בפ”ע, דיש בכל אחד על משך שעוד פחות מי”ב על י”ב מיל ס’ ריבוא.
שאף אם שייך לחלקם לשני מקומות חלוקין, הוי כל אחד בפני עצמו רה”ר דס’ ריבוא וכו’ עכ”ל.“Rav Moshe in this teshuva counts from the water up to Flatbush. No mention of Boro Park. Which was then significantly less populated than the waterfront, and only estimates 350K. He then goes on to summarize why this could be considered 600K according to some Rishonim. That pretty much disproves any possibility of demonstrating that Rav Moshe was fed misinformation.”
All of the above only proves that even after you scramble to learn the teshuvos you still do not know what your talking about.n0mesorah,
“1) How do you know what Rav Moshe was lead to believe? He quotes a ‘city map’. If you know the map to have been fraudulent, then say so. (And then produce the map. Or something like that.)”
Oh I thought Rav Moshe was quoting the census. Now it is a map (you finally looked inside). First of all, we do not know what kind of map he is referring to, since maps usually do not give population statistics. Two, it is irrelevant. The fact is there was much less there three million people in Brooklyn. Even more so, over the 12 mil by 12 mil section of Brooklyn (there was also much less then one million people coming into Brooklyn). There is no doubt that he was mislead. I know a lot more about this, because I heard it from the Muzayer Rav who was involved, but I will not cite his side of the story because it is not written (I actually have a copy of the map and statistics that he sent Rav Moshe, which was the underlying cause for Rav Moshe to pen siman 88).“If your deducing from some inconsistencies, that Rav Moshe was mislead, I’ll explain them to you for the benefit of the audience. Anyone who thinks they can outthink Rav Moshe because they can’t fit all the pieces of his teshuva together, is obviously stupid.”
You did not even know his teshuvos until now, but you call others stupid. What does being mislead have to do with outthinking? The statistics he cited are incorrect. There are no two ways about it. They lied to Rav Moshe.“If the ‘city map’ was accurate then he wasn’t misled.”
So the census is incorrect, but Rav Moshe’s information is correct? Stop this narishkeit.“Rav Dovid Feinstein wrote that his father was told 2.5 million which is on par with census.”
No Rav Dovid”
Correct, but that is not what Rav Moshe wrote. Rav Moshe wrote close to three million. Neverminded, what Rav Dovid wrote regarding Flatbush, has little to do with his fathers shitos. Moreover, in Chicago Rav Dovid was vey clear that his fathers shita was 3 million. Hence, I am not sure what he was referring to regarding Flatbush.“Rav Moshe starts the Flatbush teshuva with the number 600K in the ‘streets’. What does this mean? (Some of the mattirim say in the streets of the eiruv. It doesn’t read well and Rav Moshe rejects that shitah in a different teshuva.)”
It is very clear in the teshuvos that he maintains that the streets are over the 12 mil by 12 mil area. It clearly has nothing to do with the eruv.“The inference of the whole teshuva is that Brooklyn is more than 12 mil and that there are ways different ways to measure it. Rav Moshe explains at one point why parts of Manhattan should not be counted in Brooklyn.”
No, the different ways of measuring is only regarding where one is standing, but he never wavers that Brooklyn is less than 12 mil by 12 mil (it is clearly less). In fact if one was to include part of Queens in the 12 mil area the population would be even less. Correct, Rav Moshe believes that the water is a separation and hence Manhattan would not be included in the 12 mil area (obviously he is referring to if one is living in Brooklyn closer to the water).“Rav Moshe also says it wouldn’t need to be every day of the they year. It’s a very vague teshuva in terms of statistics.”
It is not vague at all. You are simply incorrect. Rav Moshe admits that since the Shulchan Aruch maintains that the criterion is every day we can be makil regarding this inyan. t’s the Shulchan Aruch’s leniency and therefore, Rav Moshe himself would agree that it’s possible to be lenient. More so, in the aforementioned teshuvos Rav Moshe states clearly (ibid., 1:139:5, 4:87, 5:28:16) that the requirement of shishim ribo is daily.“One of the mattirim (Boro Park Eiruv) told me that if Rav Moshe would have written it slightly differently he would assur.”
I don’t if you are referring to Rav Shlomo Gross, but he said this many times. The point is he left room to allow an eruv. However, the fact is the statistics are not as Rav Moshe wrote them, so there is more reason to argue that Rav Moshe could have allowed an eruv.“as if Rav Moshe was writing the teshuva for his benefit only. When you learn a teshuva you are supposed to consider the writer’s opinion and forget your own.”
Absolutely not. WE accept only what he wrote and nothing more.n0mesorah,
“I don’t know eruvin. Knowing eruvin means having learned well every Gemara with Rashi Tosafos and the Rosh. And then retaning near instant recall on every pertinent point. That is the standard I was taught in yeshiva to know a mesechta.”
Typical Yeshivah guy, doesn’t even mention the Shulchan Aruch, and the Nosei Keilim. However, I will add that from the few issues that one would really have to know the syguos (to be mashlim), is regarding eruvin. Since the SA does not mention all the issues explicitly. Otherwise it would be sufficient to know the sugyos, if one learns through the Bais Yosef, or maybe the Aruch Hashulchan and Mishnah Berurah (I am not denying that a great posek would need to know the sugyos as well). The fact that you did not even mention the SA is proof positive you have no shychus to the halachic process.“I have never seriously learnt the topic, though I have read plenty of Iggros Moshe.”
I am sure that you never learnt through all the teshuvos regrading eruvin in Igros Moshe. The most fundamental to his shitos OC 139, is very difficult (and absolutely brilliant, demonstrating his absolute mastery of kol haTorah) and very few people have learnt through it thoroughly.“It would only be fair to first learn the teshuvos that immediately preceded him to know what standard ideas he was coming from. I could argue what Rav Moshe says. But not what he holds. Which cannot be deduced from his teshuvos alone. And anyone who only throws around one line from two dozen teshuvos, is a fraud.”
I as mentioned above, you simply have no inkling how the halachic prosses works. Teshuvos are meant to be dissected and are the only words that can be relied on. There is no such a thing as someone writing a teshuvah and others come around and argue that they heard otherwise. As the Noda Byehuda’s son writes, there is no end to rumors, and they should not be accepted. I don’t care what others say I have the teshuvos on may side. The fact that you argue that I am throwing around one line demonstrates that you are intellectually dishonest. First you did not even know what I was referring too. Then when I cite that it is in two different teshuvos, you have the temerity to say that it is one line of a teshuvah. How many lines in the first teshuvos of Igros Moshe regarding the issue, was 4-5 times shishim ribo mentioned? As I wrote, the last two teshuvos on the matter Rav Moshe clearly stated that his shita is a population of 3 million. The only fraud is that up until this point you sold yourself as one who knows the inayn.“Such a fraud probably knows that Rav Moshe’s talmidim all say he never published exactly how to measure the 600,000 (Or any number.) for reshus harrabim linyan Shabbos.”
As I said above I do not believe those who are disagreeing with the teshuvos. In fact it can be gleaned from those who make statements contrary to the teshuvos, that they actually do not know Rav Moshe’s teshuvos at all.Neville Chaim Berlin,
“Like I said earlier on this thread, if there were a change in metzius, I think he would reevaluate. You have not offered up any evidence or theory that there has been such a change. It seems like Brooklyn today is fully analogous to the Brooklyn of his times for these purposes.”
First, get through your head it not a change of a metzius, it was that they lied to Rav Moshe. You just can’t admit, what I have demonstrated time and again, that Rav Moshe was lied to. 1) Rav Moshe was led to believe that Brooklyn’s population at the time was close to 3 million, and that over a million people come into Brooklyn everyday. Besides for the fact that Brooklyn did not have a population of nearly 3 million, the area of Brooklyn is greater than 12 mil by 12 mil, in which case Rav Moshe would not even include the entire population of the borough of Brooklyn in the tally (there was much less than a million people who came into the borough everyday). 2) Rav Moshe was led to believe that both BP and Flatbush contain a population of over shishim ribo. This is factually incorrect, as the population is less than half. 3) Rav Moshe was led to believe that Brooklyn is not encompassed by mechitzos. Who ever made this claim to Rav Moshe was lying through his teeth. The only issue if it is omed 99% or 99.95%. That is correct, I eruv could have been made according to Rav Moshe’s even in his lifetime, and today as well.“What?! Do you not realize I’ve been the one simply repeating his psak on Brooklyn over and over, while you put your random nonsense in his mouth?”
You can repeat it a thousand times, but you do not know what you are repeating. You are actually relying on kol kories, while I rely on his teshuvos.“The difference between me and you is you do not know Rav Moshe’s shitos in eruvin”
“No, the difference is that you are so obsessed with Brooklyn having an eruv that the idea of the posek hador not allowing it is too emotionally difficult for you to grasp. So, rather than shaking and crying in a corner, you have created a wild rationalization whereby even he agrees with you despite his well-known stance to the contrary. The rest of us, on the other hand, are mature enough to live in the real world where some people matir things, and others don’t. We pick and lane, and deal with it rather than having to convince ourselves that everyone agrees with us.”
You are not picking a lane. You simply never learnt his teshuvos. It is your opinion and kol kories that you are following. Answer, the above facts, that demonstrate that Rav Moshe was not told the truth about Brooklyn, and then maybe we can talk.“I am defending the mattrim who argue that even according to Rav Moshe’s shitos an eruv would be allowed for the entire Brooklyn”
“No such group exists. It’s just you, Richmond, and that nutty website.”
No? Just to name a few of those who maintain that Rav Moshe would allow today, 1) The Belzer Dayan, Rav Shlomo Gross. 2) Many members of Rav Tuvia’s kollel. 3) Even Rav Y Roth wrote that he believed that Rav Moshe would allow.“Unfortunately, most of the anti-eruv debaters”
“”We aren’t anti-eruv. We’re anti misrepresentation.””
Anti misrepresentation, when you do not know what is being misrepresented. You need to go learn the inyan, prior to making these inane statements.Neville Chaim Berlin,
“However, Rav Moshe would disagree with you.”
“”Stop speaking for him, jeesh. How is this stuff OK? Reb Moshe was asser Brooklyn, n0m wants to be asser Brooklyn. B’pashtus they agree, so I don’t know why the imaginary friend version of Reb Moshe that you’ve concocted conveniently sides with you on everything.””
No, Rav Moshe objected to an eruv in Brooklyn at the time, but your “imaginary friend version of Rav Moshe that you concocted” would oppose a Brooklyn eruv even if he knew the correct facts. The difference between me and you is you do not know Rav Moshe’s shitos in eruvin, and you have no problem projecting into Rav Moshe that he would oppose no matter what the facts are. I admit that Rav Moshe possibly would have adjusted his shitos accordingly to oppose an eruv in Brooklyn. However, according to his teshuvos he would definitely allow an eruv in Brooklyn. [Again when I claim that Rav Moshe “would allow” I am only referring to according to his teshuvos.]““I thought you came here just defend the poskim who were not accepted by their own peers.”
As I said you made up your mind and do not want to be mixed up with the facts.”
“No, as you should be able to tell from this thread, we would not be arguing if you were just defending the matirim. There’s nothing wrong with that. This thread no longer has anything to do with the Brooklyn eruv except in a superficial sense. This has become about you representing Reb Moshe as you fantasize him with no respect for the reality.”
I am defending the mattrim who argue that even according to Rav Moshe’s shitos an eruv would be allowed for the entire Brooklyn, and even more so for BP and Flatbush. If you would know Rav Moshe’s shitos we can have a debate. Unfortunately, most of the anti-eruv debaters never learnt the inyan and project their personal opinion into the matter.n0mesorah,
“It is interesting to note that Rav Moshe starts off the Flatbush teshuva saying that even if Brooklyn does not have 600K and it is not a rshh”r it would still be assur.”
Oh, and how can you omit the previous teshuvah (siman 87) where Rav Moshe states that he can’t issue a p’sak din barrur regarding Brooklyn.n0mesorah,
“To all the posters who think this is about Rav Moshe using the 2.5M for Flatbush and it’s environs:”
Where does 2.5 million and its environs come into play. Isn’t it intreasting that In Chicago Rav Dovid said that his fathers shita is three million. Frankly I do not care what anyone says. There is no oral halachos here. Rav Moshe wrote his shitos clearly. There is no doubt that his final number was 3 million. Rav Moshe’s shita was a work in progress, and the last two teshuvos on the matter he clearly wrote 3 million. It is obvious you did not know this important piece of information, as you asked me for the citation.“This is largely because Rav Dovid Feinstein put out such a letter almost twenty years ago. You had fifteen years to correct him. and he was the most approachable person I ever met. (He was aware of your claims. He believed that Brooklyn has the highest population of all the boroughs since he came to America. He cited the exact census data by heart. And they said not to rely on census data.) So, why are you making this into some mystery about Rav Moshe?”
Stop claiming that you are privy to information. It’s not clear what Rav Dovid intended with this statement that “there are over 2.5 million people living in Flatbush and its environs.” According to his father zt”l, the boundaries of a city aren’t measured as one unit but rather in blocks of twelve mil by twelve mil. Since Brooklyn encompasses an area of a little more than twelve mil by twelve mil, the entire population of Brooklyn would not be included in the calculation to evaluate if it’s a reshus harabbim. Furthermore, at the time of his statement the census figures indicate that the population of the entire Brooklyn is less than 2.5 million. In any case, In Chicago he wrote that the number is 3 million, and there is no doubt that this was his fathers final number.“It is interesting to note that Rav Moshe starts off the Flatbush teshuva saying that even if Brooklyn does not have 600K and it is not a rshh”r it would still be assur. I’m wondering how you get around that. (If you say, others disagree that’s fine. If you say Rav Moshe didn’t mean it or say it, your a fraud.)”
Oh you finally looked inside. Great Idea. In fact this added gezeira of Rav Moshe that some would think that the population is greater that 3 million, is not an issue at all. In Chicago, which has a much smaller population than Brooklyn, he was not concerned with this gezeria, because they were encompassing only a small area (less than 600,000). The BP and Flatbush eruvin clearly do not included a population of 600,000 (although he was told that it did). Moreover, with mechitzos Rav Moshe would not have an issue whatsoever, since in any case Brooklyn would be classified as a reshus hyachid. .“Then he goes on to why it’s a rshh”r because of platya.”
And then he agrees that a platya would be reckoned as part of the 12 mil by 12 mil, which actually does not contain a population of 3 million.“Then he says the city map has close to 3 million living in Brooklyn, so it definitely is a rshh”r.”
Why are you leaving out the fact that with this argument it is demonstrable that he was mislead. A 12 mil by 12 mil area in Brooklyn does not have a population anywhere near 3 million.“But thanks for finding one line in the teshuva that by itself doesn’t contradict anything you posted.”
As I wrote Rav Moshe’s final number is 3 million (in the earlier teshuvah which you cited his number was 4-5 times shishim ribo), and Brooklyn does not have such a population over 12 mil by 12 mil area.“Maybe you are the type of yeshiva guy who spends the whole zman on one line and thinks he knows everything.”
No. You just never learnt any of his teshuvos, and are now playing catch up.n0mesorah,
“What was your point in joining this thread?”
To disseminate the truth.“You joined just to tell everyone that Rav Moshe had wrong information?”
NO.“We heard that story a thousand times and it is not true. And anyways, that has nothing to do with most of the issues here as you yourself have stated.”
Its not true because you personally disagree. However, Rav Moshe would disagree with you. You see you made your mind and do not want to be mixed up with the facts.“Before you worry about reading comprehension, know where you stand on all the parts of the issue.”
Funny, I thought you do not even know Rav Moshe’s teshuvos. Oh, wait, you do not know Rav Moshe’s teshuvos, you just claim that what I say is not true.“I thought you came here just defend the poskim who were not accepted by their own peers.”
As I said you made up your mind and do not want to be mixed up with the facts.Neville Chaim Berlin,
“The only ones doing that here are you and Richmond, to the degree that I’m surprised it’s even allowed.”
Of course it should not be allowed, because you disagree.“”And, then a mere few sentences later you say this:””
“Actually, I offered several reasons why Rav Moshe would allow an eruv in Brooklyn”
Reading comprehension alert! How does “would allow” translate that he allowed. The point being, that he would allow according to his shitos. As I wrote, I do not know if he actually would have agreed to an eruv. It is possible that he would have added to his shitos and ossered. However, according to what he wrote there are reasons to allow. We definitely have no right to add to his chiddushim, in order to object to an eruv. There is no reason that the resting position is that an eruv is osser.““Rav Moshe is not a rebbe””
“Why do you feel the need to keep saying this?”
Because a rebbe’s word does not require any qualification. On the other hand a posek bases his outcomes on placing facts in context.“Actually no. We recently had a thread on here where posters were using a very similar argument that the poskim didn’t have the right facts, therefore they were wrong. In that case, the debate was about electricity on Shabbos, but it’s the same idea.”
It is rare that people argue as such. Most teshuvos require context and facts. When the facts are otherwise it is a given that the teshuvah is not applicable. The story with electricity, is unique, and there are auditory reason to prohibit. I would argue that its not proof to anything.n0mesorah,
“Just because I wouldn’t know, it doesn’t mean that every single reader of this site wouldn’t know. So why don’t you post it? And if nobody can understand you poor little thing, why did you come here in the first place?”
Just because I state that you do not understand the inyan, does not meant I believe that no one here understands. Richmond Braun, seems to understand for one.n0mesorah,
“Besides the rav, you also need to have the eiruv. If there is no eiruv, yeshivaliet don’t carry. Even if a rav says there is an eiruv. Now, we should be debating what Eiruvin consists of. But you are too hesitant to get to a place where there is no rav than can just declare there to be an eiruv. Guess what? That is what an online forum is.”
What are you referring to? Your track record does not inspire much confidence, that there is any veracity to the story.n0mesorah,
“There is only more rabbonim if you don’t count Reb Tuvyia’s peers from the Lithuanian Yeshivos.”
No in actual numbers.n0mesorahת
“It’s not about how much halacha you know. It’s your unwillingness to insist that the eruv be up to the the standards that you know are required. The ‘shrug’ = it’s a good eiruv I’ll see it whenever but until then go ahead and carry – is the crux of the problem. It is not a Torah approach to Shmiras haMitzvos. And it is what caused the downfall of Conservative Judaism.
I know that after a rav actually sees the eruv he is bombarded with issues by many who do not know what they are talking about. But that comes with the territory of being a rav. If your not interested, one (Or two!) can become a high end driver and drive the rav. That way when the rav is not around, the driver can play the role himself.”
A bunch a gibbrish. I never said any such thing.n0mesorah,
“I’m not anti Eruv. The problem is that you are assuming what I am from an online post. Just like you assume Rav Moshe’s entire rational from Rav Dovid’s letter. Where in his teshuva on Williamsburg (I 138) Flatbush (IV 87-8) or Boro Park (V 28) does he write that Brooklyn contains three million people?”
Finally you ask a question and don’t try to convince me that you know the inyan.
שו”ת אגרות משה אורח חיים חלק ד סימן פח
רק בעיר שדרים בה ערך קרוב לשלשת מיליאן נפשותשו”ת אגרות משה אורח חיים חלק ה סימן כט
דהוא שייך רק כשיהיו תושבי העיר עם העוברים ושבים ממקומות אחרים לכה”פ חמשה פעמים ס’ ריבוא דהוא ערך שלשה מיליאןn0mesorah,
“It is about making rabbinical prerogatives out of the Torah. No matter what your opinion is about Rav Moshe’s opinions, a proper eiruv still needs to be constructed.”
Who said otherwise.“I really can’t tell what you understand form my posts and what you don’t. Conveniently, you don’t seem to get my references to any of the recent scandalous eiruvin. But I’m glad that you remembered that an eiruv needs shituf.”
Actually, there are no recent scandalous eruvin. This is just more fiction. Shituf can be forced it is a zechus (in any case there are numerous reasons why this is not an issue).Neville Chaim Berlin,
“Wasn’t meant as an excuse, just a reminder to n0m and any passerbys that we are the normal ones here and you guys are the cooky ones, as I’m sure you are fully aware if you’ve ever gone off on these unhinged rants in front of normal frum people before. One doesn’t have to be an expert on eruvin to know that Reb Moshe was asser Brooklyn. You just have to not be a crazy person. And before you start whining that I’m not arguing in good faith by saying all of this, let me just remind you that you have concluded almost every single paragraph with an insult to the intelligence of whomever you were addressing.”
The reason being because of the lies being presented as fact on this forum. Stop for a second, and be modeh that you do not even know Rav Moshe’s teshuvos, and yet you insist on arguing in his name. No one denied that Rav Moshe objected to a Brooklyn eruv, and you cannot demonstrate that I said otherwise. My point is that the facts are not like Rav Moshe was led to believe and accordingly (from his teshuvos) an eruv can be established. Would Rav Moshe have actually allowed, knowing these facts, no one knows. However, to add to his chiddushim is unseemly.“I think his point was that the need for a BP eruv (and even Flatbush) proves that one could not put one all the way around Brooklyn, as they did last year. As stated earlier several times, we don’t have a problem with the BP eruv; it has its rabbonim with their reasons. The discussion is of the new, all-Brooklyn eruv. There’s no way you can apply your “comparable to KGH” logic to it.”
Actually, I offered several reasons why Rav Moshe would allow an eruv in Brooklyn, I never said that he would allow the entire Brooklyn for the same reason as KGH (go back and read what I said). However, he would allow because of mechitzos (which I stated was the reason), and the population does not fulfil his requirement of 3 million.“He obviously had easy access to census data. This is an example of an “excuse,” if there ever was one. Any time people don’t like a Rav’s psak, but still want to respect the Rav, they come up with a wild conspiracy that he was purposely lied to about the facts or some such nonsense.”
The facts demonstrate that his numbers are incorrect. I do not need to prove if he did or didn’t have access to the census (in fact it really is beyond just census statistics). Rav Moshe is not a rebbe. He wrote his reasons, and that is the only thing we have to work with. Only when the issue is eruvin, do people have a problem that we peruse the teshuvos to see if they are applicable. Rav Moshe objection was based on his facts, they either do or don’t pan out.n0mesorah,
“Do you even realize what you just posted?!? I caught you with your pants down!”
Reading comprehension alert!“That was your response to why an Eruv needs to actually be constructed by one who is knowledgeable in eruvin. So your saying, that it doesn’t matter if the eruv is kosher or even if it exists, just just trust the rav hamachshir and that’s it.”
Were did I say that you don’t need a rav hamachshir? What does the fact that the average Yeshivaman does not know the difference between a kosher eruv or not, have to do with rav hamachshir? Does the average Yeshivaman know much about hechsherim at all? Does he go into plants to observe their kashurs. Why should eruvin be any different?“This is exactly what Rav Moshe had on his mind. That some piously cultured individuals would come along and drag the whole community into an eruv debate without ever bothering to prove that they actually constructed the eruv. There are dozens of his rabbonim that can attest to this. Some of them who support putting up an eruv in Brooklyn.”
Fiction alert. Please stop making statements as if you know what you are talking about. These claims are being made up on the spot. Rav Moshe never said anything like this. We do not see this in any of his teshuvos.“Your method is crucial to the existence of Conservative Judaism. Just let the rabbi decide. Nobody else knows enough to contradict him. If the rabbi says it then so it is. But the yeshiva world will always insist that we have a Torah. No rav will ever be good enough to convince us that we don’t.”
Gibberish alert. The problem with Conservative Judaism is that the rabbis rewrite halachah as the please. Rov of the Yeshivah world simply does not know halachah, and would not know what they are looking at. They have nothing to add to the kashrus of the eruv, and they do not involve themselves with any other issue requiring kashrus.
Stop trying to convince us that you actually know the inyan.n0mesorah,
“So I am still missing your point. So then what is your point?
Because I think I’m doing an excellent job putting words in your mouth.”
You wouldn’t know what I am talking about if I hit you over the head with it.n0mesorah,
“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,
“And obviously you are way out because Reform and Conservative didn’t care much for observance. They wanted communal affiliation. (And social mobility.)”
Huh. So the concept of eruvin cited in Chazal, to be mearev, or shituf, c”v has underpinnings in the Conservative movement. Do you even realize what you are arguing? Such heveln0mesorah,
“Your position is not that far off of theirs. The difference is that Conservative was honest enough to eventually say what the theory behind their approach was.”
To call the position of those who actually learnt hilchos eruvin, as not being far off from the Conservative’s movement, is proof of how far the ant-eruv group has come. There is no doubt that you are a eino modeh beruv, or eino modeh bshitufei mavaaos. The fact that you are selective in what you allow, dose not change this fact, but only your arguments.n0mesorah,
“An eruv having never been put up, or put up by those who don’t know eruvin well, is an absolute deal breaker to almost all yeshivaliet.”
As if the average Yeshivaman knows the difference between a kosher eruv and not. Stop this narishkeit.n0mesorah,
“Eruvin are the responsibility of the local rav. No rav equals no eruv. This is an old criteria.”
Just like all hechsherim if there is no rav then there is no hechsher. What are you adding.“And it is close to the core of the Brooklyn Eruv as can be demonstrated by the original need for the Boro Park Eruv.”
Gibberish“I first heard of the eruvin vaad from Rav Tuvya’s talmidim.”
Fiction. There was no such vaad, and you never heard it from anyone.“Rav Moshe was very serious about Brooklyn and all his contemporaries admitted that is what he held. Nobody is impressed that you can read a loophole into his shittah.”
It is not a loophole. Rav Moshe, was mechudash, hence if we can find an avenue why he would allow, no one has a right to object. Do not add to his chiddushim to osser eruvin, you definitely do not have a right to do so.
No one has a right to force the world to follow a self admitted mechudash shita, no matter how great the posek is. How much more so that it was based on misinformation. Moreover, he never issues a psak din barrur for Brooklyn.” It’s not Rav Moshe’s way to force an issue, yet he did that with Brooklyn <strentgh>more<strentgh> than Manhattan.”
Gibberish, you have not learnt many of his teshuvos.“I’m not starting with Rav Moshe’s teshuvah.”
Because you do not know them.n0mesorah,
“I want to know what your point was that made you post here originally. I see that you think Rav Moshe’s opinion was that Brooklyn has the same population problems as Manhattan did. This isn’t true. And you keep insisting it is, because you insist it is so.”
Huh. Absolutely incorrect. Never said so, because Rav Moshe’s issues with Manhattan were somewhat different than Brooklyn. Then again I am not going to explain it to one who does not know the basics. Just the fact that you accuse me of this demonstrates that you do not understand what I am referring to.“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.“Richmond Braun
Participant
youdontsay,
Thank you.
As for #6, I meant it for good measure,”
In truth he would have found a reason to osser, so maybe your right. I won’t spend more time on his shitos, because I was never impressed. For more on his opinions see Kerm Beyavne.Neville Chaim Berlin,
“Ah, ok. So, it’s just that you guys feel qualified to “correct” the posek hador. I guess I can go ahead and trust all eruvin unconditionally now that random CR posters have stated that Reb Moshe didn’t know what he was talking about.”
No, stop making Rav Moshe into a rebbe. His psak is predicated on the metzius, period. It is not that Rav Moshe c”v didn’t know what he was talking about, but only that the metzius was not as he was led to believe.“n0m:
Sadly, this discussion transcends the YWN coffeeroom. There is this whole website dedicated to making exactly the types of arguments we’re seeing here that I came across. There is a major constituency of people who want to argue all eruvin are inherently kosher and twist Reb Moshe’s words to sound like even he would agree. Rest assured, you haven’t gone insane; all the things you are saying are the normative shittah.”
Excuses. You simply do not know the inyan, and can’t debate the issues. My arguments were made after carefully learning through all of RMF’s teshuvos on the inyan.Richmond Braun,
“Well, there actually wasn’t. It’s just that the metzius was actually kosher to begin with but Rav Moshe worked with a superimposed one.”
As Rav Blumenkrantz mentioned to me, in 2000, that when he established an eruv for FR he asked RMF his rebbe, if he can do so. RMF said of course. When he announced that the eruv was a fact, he received a phone call from the rav who was the one who fed RMF all the information regarding the facts on the ground in Brooklyn. This Rav asked Rav Blumenkrantz who gave him permission to establish an eruv. RB answered that he is a rav and he issues hechsherim on many items, so why should eruvin be different. This rav then argued that eruvin is different and he needs a consensus. RB ran back to his rebbe and asked for his approval in writing. To which, RMF answered, that he cannot give a written statement, as this rav will start to scream, and he does not have the koach to argue.
It is absurd that people argue that the metzius is irrelevant, because RMF issued a psak. A teshuvah is written to demonstrate the underlying reasoning of the psak. Absent of correct metzius the teshuvah cannot be used as a argument either way.Richmond Braun,
I agree with all that you wrote, besides for something in number 6.
Only according to Rav Aharon, and Rav Soloveitchik x2, are all the Lakewood eruvin problematic. I believe that RMB subscribes to shitas Rashi, and Lakewood does not have shishim ribo in the city.
In any case, lets see Neville scramble.n0mesorah,
“Rav Moshe was a Rav in Russia and a Rosh Yeshiva in Manhattan. You can take all your useless halacha and throw into the any of the bodies of water in between. None of this works that way.”
By the way, my argument stands. The Ramban (and other Rishonim) asked on shitos Behag/Rashi that such a chiddush should have been mentioned by Chazal. But we can’t argue that at the minimum the Rishonim should have mentioned Rav Moshe’s chiddush that shishim ribo is conditional of five times the number of people over an area of 12 mil by 12 mil. Furthermore, Rav Moshe would not issue a psak din barur, because he agreed that even the poskim did not mention his chiddush. This absurdness comes from those who never learnt the inyan.Neville Chaim Berlin,
“No, it’s how he paskened and everyone knows it. You need to stop, because you are seriously embarrassing yourself.”
No and his psak was based on facts that are incorrect or have changed. Funny I am embarrassing myself, when you have waded into an inyan, which you know nothing about. Please learn the inyan prior to telling others what to do.“As I personally asserted earlier, if there were a change in metzius then it could be worth reevaluating and maybe Reb Moshe’s psak would no longer apply. Hundreds of posts in and not one person has given any evidence or even theory of a change in metzius. You, not unlike Richmond, keep alluding to some mysterious device without naming it.”
First of all, you are not capable of evaluating an inyan that you know nothing about. Second, I wrote many times what has changed. 1) The fact is over an area of 12 mil by 12 mil in Brooklyn the population is much less than 3 million. 2) Rav Moshe stated that both BP and Flatbush contain a population greater than 600,000. This is demonstrably incorrect. 3) Rav Moshe declared that Brooklyn is not encompassed by mechitzos. The issue is not if Brooklyn is omed merubeh al haparutz, but only if the mechitzos are 99% or 99.95% omed. Anyone denying this fact is either an am haaretz or blind. In fact there is more than one set of mechitzos encompassing Brooklyn today.“In short, if there was a change in metzius between Reb Moshe’s psak and now, tell us what it was. If not, we’re going to continue to assume you’re just making stuff up and have no real answer.”
See above. It is clear that you wouldn’t know which particular teshuvos I am referring to in Igros Moshe, and that you are going to scramble to figure out what I am referring to.n0mesorah,
“You still didn’t post your point.”
Because you don’t understand does not mean that I didn’t post my point. But you know what, tell which point you are seeking, and I will answer directly.“There were some rabbonim in Europe who were hesitant about all eruvin. They kept it to themselves and didn’t build or forbid eruvin. I agree that it is weird how some want to be machmir and have an eiruv. Proper construction and regular inspection is not a new concept.”
A lot of gibberish. Which rabbanim kept to themselves, and did not forbid? The Mishkenous Yaakov? Did you read his teshuvos on the matter? He clearly forbid eruvin. However, his own city had an eruv. You probably are making things up as you go along. To claim that most eruvin are not properly constructed is a modern day krankhayt, and is banged around to sow doubt.“I am getting the feeling that you are trying to defend a certain figure who was disgraced by the mattirim of the Boro Park Eruv.”
No one was disgraced by the mattirim. This argument sounds like the claim that both sides act as terrorist. My rejoinder, when is the last time you saw someone chasing someone in the street and screaming, why are you not carrying. This never happens and there is only screaming from the other side.