Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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. There was a Vaad for Eruvin that met constantly. And Rav Moshe kept repeating that Brooklyn can’t have an Eruv.”
Of course you are going to make statements such as, “You can take all your useless halacha and throw into the any of the bodies of water in between.” You are after all an eino modeh beruv, and Chazal had choice words for such people. People making arguments such as yours are really not part of our mesorah. Regarding your claim that there was a Vaad for Eruvin that met constantly for Brooklyn, you can’t back it up, because its fiction. By the way, eruvin is no different than any other halachic issue. Every rav large or small has a right to express his opinion.n0mesorah,
“Eruvin is one of the most learned mesechtos by kolleliet today.”
Rav Tuvia mentioned this years ago. In any case, much of eruvin is learnt lekanter.“There was much more to Rav Moshe’s stance than population by area. Your entire knowledge of Rav Moshe’s teshuva seems to come down to just the parts where the word ‘chiddush’ is included. It’s like learning the whole Shulchan Aruch in the old print, but just where the pointing finger was inserted.”
First of all, why don’t you demonstrate your bekeious in Rav Moshe’s teshuvos. From your writing it is clear you have a limited knowledge of his shitos. Second, these are the reasons why Rav Moshe objected to an eruv in Brooklyn, because he was led to believe that a 12 mil by 12 mil section of Brooklyn contains a population of 3 million, and that both Boro Park and Flatbush, each contain a population greater than 600,000. Additionally, he was informed that Brooklyn is not encompassed with mechitzos. These are factually incorrect. All the other reasons for which he could have possibly objected (which I am sure you do not know, but will go scrambling to figure out) fall away once the above reasons are shown to have been superseded. Please lean the inyan prior to answering.“Rav Moshe published how he understood the sugya. He paskened according to how the public would treat the issue. Puk chazi how Hilchos Eruvin is slowly unraveling.”
Exactly. However, to require the world to follow an opinion of one who notwithstanding his stature made arguments that are so mechudash, that they should have been at the minimum mentioned in the Rishonim, is absurd. Eruvin is unraveling by lamdanim who never learnt halachah, and never were meshamish rabbanim. Otherwise it is just fine.n0mesorah,
“The issues of proper construction and frequently checked, are even greater factors in the year 2023.
I have no idea what the debate at hand is. It is hard for me to isolate your posts to a single point.”
No, this is a modern day argument. In order to allow some eruvin, begrudgingly, they have come up with chumros in the construction of eruvin in order to sow doubt in peoples eyes regarding all of them. In fact no one accepted all the modern day chumros previously.n0mesorah,
“So to be clear, Rav Moshe’s opinion was against eruvin in Brooklyn. You don’t have to agree with it. Or even know why it fits with what he writes, but that was without a doubt his actual opinion.”
No that’s your ill informed opinion projected into Rav Moshe. Rav Moshe was not a rebbe, he was a baal halachah, who wrote his decisions based on the facts as told to him. If the facts are not correct, or have changed, there is no reason to follow his psak. Moreover, Rav Moshe never gave a psak di barrur regarding Brooklyn. Learn the inyan prior to pontificating.n0mesorah,
“Modern American Cities are set up very differently than cities in prewar Europe. The suburb was just coming into existence. This is a major key to reading all the teshuvos from that era.”
Revisionism. Rav Moshe would disagree with you. He maintained that because eruvin where established in cities containing shishim ribo, we cannot today say that cities encompassing such a population cannot erect an eruv. Furthermore, Warsaw, Lodz, Oddesa, and Paris, are no different than todays modern cities. If anything, as Rashi states in Eruvin 59b, the reshus harabbim of the city in the times of Chazal, does not pertain to the way cities are currently laid out (similar to the the Aruch HaShulchan’s argument).n0mesorah:
“The CJLS understands Eruv as a neighborhood marker. They considered entire regions to be enclosed by eruvin. They allowed driving to shul in 1950. By the sixties, the laymen were driving everywhere. Which sentence is outlandish and needs a source?”
Huh, that’s proof to what? You don’t get it. The Reform and to some extent the Conservative movements (today) were embarrassed of the concept of eruvin, and considered them loopholes. The other part of the Conservative movement, did away with much of the halachic issues at hand. In other words, those people who argue against eruvin today are closer to these movements than those who establish eruvin.Neville Chaim Berlin,
“Therefore, according to Rav Moshe there is no reason not to allow an eruv.”
“”And yet he didn’t.””
Correct. However, the metzious is not as he wrote. Oh, I forgot that is not possible, Rav Moshe opposed an eruv in Brooklyn, because he opposed, and the metzious that he based his teshuvah on are irrelevant.“If one can make a subsection of Queens then one can make in a subsection of Brooklyn.”
“”And yet he didn’t.””
Correct. However, the metzious is not as he wrote. Oh, I forgot that is not possible, Rav Moshe opposed an eruv in Brooklyn, because he opposed, and the metzious that he based his teshuvah on are irrelevant.“The Brooklyn Eruv is relying on mechitzos. With mechitzos there is no issue according to all”
“”And yet the posek hador was asser Brooklyn and nearly the entire yeshivish oilam agreed. Doesn’t seem so mutar “according to all.””
Correct. However, the metzious is not as he wrote. Oh, I forgot that is not possible, Rav Moshe opposed an eruv in Brooklyn, because he opposed, and the metzious that he based his teshuvah on are irrelevant. Oh, I would accept the “yeshivish oilam’s” opinion when they have an educated opinion. Rav Tuvia used to say, bring me the unused volume, when asking for the fourth chelek of the Mishnah Berurah (Eruvin). He would always say, its unused because its not a Yeshivish mesechta, and learning halachah is not their strong point.“”You can keep lying about Reb Moshe’s stance all you want, we’re just going to keep calling you out on it.””
You made up your mind and do not want to be mixed up with facts. Go learn the inyan prior to pontificating.Richmond Braun,
“B) only when it would not (which you state it doesn’t – just like KGH doesn’t).”
I did not want to get into it, but yes, any area that contains less than 600,000 can be encompassed by tzuras hapesachim according to Rav Moshe’s shitos. The main point is Rav Moshe believed at the time that a 12 mil by 12 mil section of Brooklyn contains a population of 3 million, and that each Boro Park and Flatbush contain a population greater than 600,000. Hence, he opposed an eruv for BP and Flatbush. This understanding is the only explanation as to why Rav Moshe allowed an eruv in Queens and Detroit, but did not allow in Brooklyn.n0mesorah,
“Conservative Jews built those kinds of eruvin before they all started driving on Shabbos.”
Care to provide support for this outlandish statement. Neverminded, forget it, it does not exist.n0mesorah,
“If you want to discuss the actual nuance of eruvin, I’ll try my best. But you can’t just quote one liners. We would have to establish what was the general precedent all over Europe and how the postwar generation transplanted it to America. And then we could examine Rav Moshe’s take. I concede that there can be a kosher eruv in Brooklyn. But anybody who cares about authenticity knows that it would have to be under the auspices of a qualified Rav who can attest to it’s proper construction and that it is frequently checked.”
Rav Moshe maintains that eruvin were established in previous generations in cities which contained populations greater than shishim ribo. Do I need to cite more proof? There is no such thing as “transplanting halachah to America.” Halachah is the same all over and forever, unless you are a Conservative Jew. The issue of “proper construction and that it is frequently checked,” is irrelevant to the debate at hand, and is simply a smokescreen.“To my knowledge, Rav Tuvya Goldstien was one such example. Though he explicitly said that it does not conform with Rav Moshe’s opinion. Are you claiming that it does?”
Rav Tuvia allowed carrying and did not accept Rav Moshe’s chidushim at all. Those who argue otherwise are lying. There is no talmid who would disagree.n0mesorah,
“Look in that very teshuvah and he writes that he was told off for using that sevarah. The poster on the first page wanted to use that specific idea that Rav Moshe and Rav Aaron completely rejected. And none of the previous poskim entertained. It would throw out the whole mesechtes eruvin. Good Yidden don’t throw away mesechtos or invent new ones. If we are to build eruvin in cities there is a whole list of precedent on how to do so. To just do a run around on the whole topic, when we have more resources than we did in the last millenium is too deviant to have a place in any form of Orthodoxy. Conservative Jews built those kinds of eruvin before they all started driving on Shabbos. This was Rav Moshe’s concern more than anything else. In his amazing foresight he saw that Brooklyn would be the battleground for the pseudo halachic eruvin.”
To call those who made use of eruvin, which our grandparents relied on as deviant (witness Warsaw, Lodz, and Odessa), is Conservative Judaism. You are even unfamiliar with Rav Moshe’s writings on the inyan. If you are referring to the Aruch Hashulchan’s sevarh, well Rashi says similar (Eruvin, 59b), so sorry it is not such a chiddush after all. If you are referring to the issue of cars being included in the tally, well most poskim would disagree with Rav Moshe regarding this issue [Rav Aharon never weighed in the matter (contrary to what some say in his name), for in fact he did not uphold the criterion at all]. If you are referring to traffic lights, it was only used as a snif lheter (and there are more people who accepted it than you realize).n0mesorah,
“Your completely wrongheaded in your proclamations. Do you even know what eruvin issues are about? Rav Moshe was bothered that it may come to exactly what you are proposing. Paper Eruvin. It has no place in Orthodoxy.”
Rav Moshe was not worried that it will lead to paper eruvin at all. He knew that he was mechudash, and that others disagreed with him. Moreover he never issued a psak din barrur regarding Brooklyn (that is only if you accept his teshuvos over kol koreis).Neville Chaim Berlin,
“Highly recommend you read an article published by the OU called “Major Cities and Their Eruv Status.” Eruvin in highly populated cities is not a “general concept” where if you accept one you accept them all. Each one seems to have a unique heter for its situation, and all the cities listed have more than 600K people.”
This is probably Rav Belsky’s argument, but in fact most poskim would disagree.“Sadly, they don’t say why Reb Moshe was ok with considering KGH its own reshus separate from the rest of Queens. They do mention that he forbade the inclusion of the highways, which means the new connector between KGH and Forest Hills does not have the backing of Reb Moshe. The author of the OU piece agrees with you that this would allow for eruvin in sub-sections of Chicago.”
If one can make a subsection of Queens then one can make in a subsection of Brooklyn.“There are plenty of extremely meikel shittos on the books, but the new Brooklyn eruv needs to detail which one(s) they are utilizing, otherwise no frum yid should be using it and signing on to blindly trust a mystery heter. Again, not talking about the BP or Flatbush eruvin, talking about the new one that goes all the way around Brooklyn.”
The Brooklyn Eruv is relying on mechitzos. With mechitzos there is no issue according to all, besides for Rav Aharon.Neville Chaim Berlin,
“Saying that an area with over 600K people is a reshus harabim is definitively not a chiddish. The shittah of the Aruch HaShulchan doesn’t seem to have ever been accepted by anyone; he’s just choosing his wording wisely when talking about a previous posek hador.”
First of all, Rav Moshe says explicitly that one cannot argue that shishim ribo is conditional of a city. Since they had established eruvin in cities that contain shishim ribo. Therefore, he came up with his chiddush of three million over 12 mil by 12 mil. This chiddush is what Rav Moshe is referring to when he states that he is saying something mechudash.
Second, The Aruch HaShulchan, chiddush has nothing to do with it. Rav Moshe is referring to the fact that the Aruch HaShulchan maintains that only machneh Leviah was a reshus harabbim. Rav Moshe’s chiddush is predicated on the entire machneh Yisroel being classified as a reshus harabbim. Third, Rav Moshe admits that his chiddush is not mentioned in any of the Achronim (in fact, most Rishonim and Achronim clearly maintain that only machneh Lviah was a reshus harabbim). Fourth, the Aruch HaShulchan is not a chiddush, Rashi says almost the same thing in Eruvin 59b.“We went through this same issue with Richmond: you can’t claim that Reb Moshe “would have” been matir a Brooklyn eruv. He was explicitly asser it. We don’t need to guess how he would have held based on other teshuvos.”
Those who learn teshuvos do project into them. That is why they are written. The metzious is that Brooklyn does not meet Rav Moshe’s criteria to be clasified as a reshus harabbim. Moreover, Brooklyn is encompassed by mechitzos.
Therefore, according to Rav Moshe there is no reason not to allow an eruv. Especially, since Rav Moshe wrote that he cannot issue a psak din barrur.
Please learn the inyan prior to pontificating.Igros Moshe, OC, 1:139:5
אבל בענין הס׳ רבוא נלע״ד דבר חדשIgros Moshe, OC, 4:87
עכ”פ אני סובר לדינא כדכתבתי, אבל לא רציתי לומר זה לפס”ד ברור, מאחר שלא הוזכר זה בפירוש בדברי רבותינו האחרונים, ובערוך השלחן משמע שודאי לא נחית לזה… אבל בזה טעם שלא אמרתי למה שאני סובר לרבנים חשובים לפס”ד ברור.AviraDeArah,
“You – where does rav moshe say it’s a chidush?”
Igros Moshe, OC, 1:139:5, 4:87“Counting Street lights as mechitzos, something the matirim use, is most certainly a chidush.”
First of all, its less a chiddush than Rav Moshe’s chiddushim. Second, the light snif has nothing to do with mechitzos, but only that the philush is broken. Third, the mechitzos they are referring to, have nothing to with the lights, but only regarding the mechitzos encompassing Brooklyn. Please learn the inyan prior to pontificating.AviraDeArah,
“So no, i do not think it was appropriate for those poskim to authorize a communal norm change which went against him and the majority of poskim, including many chasidishe poskim as well.”
An eruv is the same community norm as say a mikvah. No one argues when others make mikvaos.DaMoshe,
“n0mesorah, regarding R’ Tuvia GOldstein zt”l, I was told by one of his main talmidim that while he himself held an eruv was allowed in Brooklyn, he wouldn’t pasken that way out of respect for R’ Moshe, except for very specific circumstances. He never allowed it to be used openly. The example told to me was that if someone has asthma and needs to carry an inhaler, R’ Tuvia held that it could be kept in your pocket, because it’s not visible. R’ Moshe would have held that one shouldn’t leave the house on Shabbos with it.”
This is simply untrue. All Rav Tuvia’s talmidim agree that he allowed carrying in the Brooklyn eruvin. He simply did not agree with Rav Moshe’s chiddushim in eruvin at all.AviraDeArah,
“Neville, while rav roth might have lived contemporaneously with tav moshe, one can hardly compare the two. There just isn’t a comparison.
Learning dibros moshe is like learning the maarachos of rav akiva eiger… Rav moshe was similar to the Gaon in that he did not belong in his generation, and was sent here to hold back yeridas hadoros. I say this not only as a talmid of his talmidim, but as someone who learned his seforim on shas while learning sugyos. So no, i do not think it was appropriate for those poskim to authorize a communal norm change which went against him and the majority of poskim, including many chasidishe poskim as well.”All irrelevant. One does not have to be on the same level to disagree. Furthermore, Rav Moshe admitted that his chidushim regarding eruvin do not follow the poskim, so of course we do not have to follow his shitos.
AviraDeArah,
“Anon, again, apples and oranges; kitnios is a minhag. Hotzaah is deoraysoh. And it wasn’t only rav moshe – it was tje vast majority of poskim in America who joined him.”
Rav Moshe stated that his shitos are mechudash. It was most definitely not the vast majority of poskim who learnt the inayn.“Besides that, you’re cherry picking a handful of psakim which rav moshe made which were not accepted. Rav Moshe paskened the biggest shailos in the country and was, in the satmar rovs words, “mara d’asra of America” despite their disagreements.”
Fiction, Satmar Rav never said this regarding Rav Moshe.Neville Chaim Berlin,
“Actually you would address a letter to “Flushing” if writing to someone in Kew Garden Hills, and he definitely wasn’t matir an eiruv for all of Flushing.
From their website, it seems like it has to do with the highways.”
Rav Moshe only said that they did not include the highways. Boro Park does not contain any highways either.DaMoshe,
“I was told that R’ Moshe’s reason for allowing Eruvin in Queens but not in Brooklyn is because of the way the boroughs are viewed. If you mail a letter to someone in Brooklyn, you address it to “Brooklyn, NY”, no matter which area in Brooklyn it is. Nobody writes “Boro Park”, “Midwood”, etc.
In Queens, the common practice is to write the name of the area – it will be addressed to “Kew Gardens”, “Kew Garden Hills”, etc.
So R’ Moshe allowed eruvin in Queens, but each section has its own, and they also have to make eruvin to allow for crossing from one area to another. That is indeed how it’s done in Queens.”
Explain how this follows Rav Moshe’s shitos in eruvin. An area of 12 mil by 12 mil which contains a population of 3 millions, is classified as a reshus harabbim. If Brooklyn does not contain such a population then it is no different than Queens.AviraDeArah,
“Hoo hoo, most poskim held that mechitzos wont help, but even if they would, the matirim said rhat things like traffic lights are mechitzos….very big dochak.”
Huh. Most poskim including Rav Moshe would allow with mechitzos. You simply never learnt the inyan. Traffic lights were never used for more than a snif lheter. Only those who listen to people who propagate machlokas believe that mechitzos are not the main heter.AviraDeArah,
“Gadol, it needs to be very clear that rav moshe did NOT say the slippery slope thing about the eruv. He held it is assur medeoraysoh, and has no tzad heter whatsoever. And the vast majority of poskim backed him on it. Some were on the fence but joined the prohibition to show solidarity.
And after rav moshe was niftar….people made the eruv. It was a chutzpah norah.”
Rav Moshe stated that his shitta was a chiddush, so how can one argue that most poskim agreed with him? Actually, an eruv was made in Boro Park and Flatbush in Rav Moshe’s lifetime, so what chutzpah are talking about?AviraDeArah,
“An eruv is a far greater concern. It’s allowing widespread chilul shabbos deoraysoh, not something which is a modern day decree designed to prevent a situation where factories are running on Shabbos etc.”
Actually, Rav Moshe never issued a psak din barur regarding Brooklyn. Furthermore, Rav Moshe admitted that his objections are mechudash. Hence, how can one argue that those who do not follow Rav Moshe are mechalal Shabbos.Reb Eliezer,
“Reb Moshe ztz’l holds that a platyeh gedolah which is market or a park having 600,000 people spreads all over the city making the whole city a reshus harabim.”
First of all a platya is not a park.
Actually, Rav Moshe says the opposite.n0mesorah,
“The point is that he admits that it’s his opinion and he couldn’t persuade his contemporaries. It doesn’t matter who else had the same idea. It’s misleading to build an eruv according to a self described minority opinion.”Actually, Rav Moshe is in the minority regarding these issues. Learn the inyan first.
midwesterner,”
“Does the Great Wall of China make that entire country no longer a Reshus Harabim?”You obviously never learnt the inyan.
catch yourself,
“Yes, according to Rav Moshe v’siyato, anyone who carries in Brooklyn on Shabbos is mechalel Shabbos. If they are ill-advisedly listening to someone who thinks there is a valid Eiruv, they are not Reshai’m, but this does not change the facts of the case.”What, Rav Moshe maintains that we need three million people over 12 mil by 12 mil square area to be classified as a reshus harabbim. Brooklyn does not contain such a population over such an area. Brooklyn is encompassed by mechitzos, and Rav Moshe would allow as well.
GAON:
“I agree that Rav Moshe himself did not specify. However, nor do we find any statement regarding the Gezero once an Eruv has been constructed.
Hence, logic and halacha would point out that, if halachakly it is permitted to carry, it makes no sense to be able to be ‘mechadesh’ a new gezera’ to asur one from what the Torah clearly permits i.e. carrying in a reshus haYachid’.
Yes, if one would ask Rav Moshe if constructing an eruv is advisable, he would respond: although eruv has a tremendous benefits, but in this case it is better not to, due to his chashash. That is not exactly enacting a “new Gezero”. It is just leaving everything in its former status of Shav va’al Ta’se”It does not seem so from Rav Moshe’s teshuvos. Clearly he maintained that we have to be concerned that some may think that an area does contain shishim ribo. Hence, he was concerned enough to entertain using this gezeirah against establishing an eruv in Brooklyn and Detroit. Hence, even if I agree with you, it’s difficult to argue things in Rav Moshe’s name when he didn’t say so explicitly.
In any case, if your arguing about making sense, eruvin is not one of those inyanim where sense plays a role, particularly when it comes to interpreting Rav Moshe’s shitos. Furthermore, if you are asking on Rav Moshe’s gezeirah, you can might as well ask on all of his shitos regarding eruvin, they are just as mechudash.
GAON:
“This again is only in reference to “establishing” an eruv not once it has been established. No?”Rav Moshe only says that he would allow an eruv once it was established regarding Yerushalyim, but not regarding this issue.
Neville ChaimBerlin:
First we have to figure out whats the difference between Brooklyn and Queens, according to Rav Mioshe, then we can try to understand LA.
GAON:
“And as for the issue mentioned by youdont.. of the gezero etc. I don’t think its relevant after the Eruv has already been constructed. Thus, how can one say it is any transgression of הוצאה, because a גזירה מחודשת. The way I understand , it is a reason enough prior to withold one from constructing an eruv, but once its a kosher eruv, one cannot declare any issur because such a gezero.”No I am not referring to Rav Moshe’s gezeirah regarding Yerushlayim (in which case Rav Moshe allowed once an eruv was established he would not be machmir; HaPardes, 33rd year, vol. 9). I am referring to the issue that Rav Moshe inveighed when he was told that that Brooklyn does not meet his criteria of a reshus harabbim. Rav Moshe argued (O.C. 4:88) that since Brooklyn is a large city and some my think that it contains shishim ribo, one should not establish an eruv (in any case, he finishes his teshuvah that he was then told that Brooklyn does meet his criteria of a reshus harabbim). In O.C. 5:29 Rav Moshe discussed why he would not make use of this gezeirah in Detroit, (because the eruv only encompassed two small areas), but otherwise he would have used it. Clearly one can make an argument that LA is no different than Brooklyn, in this matter.
Few people know about this gezeirah, but it would proscribe additional eruvin, besides for Brooklyn. However, I believe that Rav Moshe would not make use of this gezeirah if the area encompassed by the tzuras hapesachim contains a population less than shishim ribo. This would explain KGH, Queens. But this begs the question. the Brooklyn eruvin also encompass a population less than shishim ribo? So why did Rav Moshe oppose? The answer is that Rav Moshe believed that these eruvin did contain populations greater than shishim ribo (O.C. 5:28:5 and Addendum to O.C. 4:89). In fact these eruvin do not contain shishim ribo. So if we do not use Rav Moshe gezeirah in LA we can’t use it in Brooklyn, as well.
Angelino Yid:
First of all, from experience I don’t believe anything said over in the name of Rav Moshe zt”l. Furthermore, I spoke to Rav Gruman as well. It’s clearly lies. Additionally, if these rabbanim would know Rav Moshe’s shitos in eruvin they would realize that he would allow an eruv (even more so the current eruv, which which makes use of omed merubeh).“You Don’t Say tend to be Mevazeh Rabbanim that don’t agree with them.”
This quote of yours, is a bizyain, “I even heard one of those rabbanim say that they would not use anyone who carries in that Eruv to be an Aid at a Chasunah.”
Formerla:
“Rav Moshe did pasken against the LA Eruv. It is a controversial Eruv.”He did not, show me one teshuvah where he mentioned LA. It’s all heresy.
“There are rabbanim that say that Rav Moshe wasn’t given the correct metzios. There are other rabbanim who were there when rav Moshe was asked who assur the Eruv.”
So what, some say that Rav Moshe wasn’t given the correct metzios regarding Queens. But since Rav Moshe wrote a teshuvah allowing the eruv that is what counts. I don’t believe any of these stories, they are all made up after the fact.
“I even heard one of those rabbanim say that they would not use anyone who carries in that Eruv to be an Aid at a Chasunah.”
Shame on him. Rav Moshe wrote (1:186) that when one follows one’s rav on any issue, even on issurei chilul Shabbos, albeit the halachah is not like their rav’s interpretation, no aveirah is transgressed.
yehudayona:
“YDS, Queens has many eruvs. Which one did R’ Moshe support?”The KGH Eruv
GAON: No I am referring to the possibility that these roads are removed from the equation because they may have mechitzos that encompass them (when major arteries cut through a neighborhood they, at times, do this for safety reasons).
As an aside, today we know that the Or Zerua is not a das yachid, since his son the Maharach also paskens this way and so does the Remak (as per Rav Fischel Herskowitz).
Since few rabbanim know hilchos eruvin (at least as it concerns hilchos reshuyos), its much easier to rely on a psak from a great gadol such as Rav Moshe. Rav Moshe did not issue a psak for LA, so they allow it. Some rabbanim do no recommend the eruv in LA for yeshivahliet. All the excuses, such as the LA Eruv is an omed merubeh eruv, is irrelevant, Brooklyn also has mechitzos. If it works for LA it can work for Brooklyn.
“An issue unique to LA, which I don’t think is present in the Brooklyn case, is a major 4-lane road running through the middle of the eruv. I guess the local LA rabbonim determined that it isn’t traversed by 600K cars.”
If it has a din sratya then according to Rav Moshe the shishim ribo would need to traverse the road itself. Otherwise, its tally would be included in the 12 mil by 12 mil area that it runs through. It may also have its own mechitzos, but that can create other problems.
Some clarifications:
Rav Moshe wrote in (4:87) that he did not want to mix into the matter of a >>Flatbush Eruv<<, but after he was told that some say that he supports the eruv, he had to write a birur regarding the issue. After Rav Moshe wrote his teshuva opposing the eruv, he stated clearly that he can’t issue a psak din barur, since the poskim would not agree with him.
Brooklyn also has mechitzos that are omed merubeh al haparutz on three sides. So there is no difference between, Brooklyn and <<LA>>, according to Rav Moshe.The only difference is that Rav Moshe wrote about the Brooklyn eruvin but not the LA Eruv.
Just some random clarifications:
The Debrecener signed kneged the eruv, but not because of reshus harabbim issues (he actuality wrote in his teshuvos that Brooklyn is a karmelis).
While the density of LA may be less then Brooklyn, Rav Moshe would have opposed it (if he was asked) because of his gezeirah (since its a large city and some my think that it contains shishim ribo).
Rav Moshe wrote in (4:87) that he did not want to mix into the matter, but after he was told that some say that he supports the eruv, he had to write a birur regarding the issue. After Rav Moshe wrote his teshuva opposing the eruv, he stated clearly that he can’t issue a psak din barur, since the poskim would not agree with him.
Rav Moshe did write a letter in support of the Queens eruv (4:86).
Brooklyn also has mechitzos that are omed merubeh al haparutz on three sides. So there is no difference between, Brooklyn and Queens, according to Rav Moshe.goldersgreener: “Nonetheless, there is a suggestion – primarily by הגאון ר’ משה פיינשטיין about brooklyn and the מנחת יצחק about London, to say that the מחבר does not refer too a literal 600k every day, rather, basically, the מחבר means a street which is מיועד for 600 k. Exactly what each pisek held, and exactly how one is קןבע the מציאות can be debated, and it remains הררים התלוים בשערה.”
Only the Mishkenos Yaakov maintains that מיועד is sufficient. Rav Moshe maintains that the criterion of shishim ribo is dependent on 12 mil by 12 mil , were the shishim ribo actually traverse the streets. The Minchas Yitzchak (8:32:1) maintains that the shishim ribo needs to traverse the street, just not on a daily basis (this is how he understands the Bais Ephraim).
The only reason why some large roads in EY are not included in the eruvin, was because originally these roads did not have mechitzos habbatim so the Chazon Ish excluded them from the eruv (http://eruvonline.blogspot.com/2008/05/would-chazon-ish-have-utilized-his.html).
anonymous: Thanks for your opinion, but as is discernible from all your rants you know nothing about halachah, and mesorah. Furthermore, all your arguments point in one direction, you fail to grasp the difference between chumra and issues of d’Oraysa. Your only argument is, but the Gedolim, but the Gedolim, but the Gedolim. (Oh, and by the way, your citation of where Rav Chaim mentions the Maharil demonstrates exactly as to why these type of seforim should not be relied upon. Your proof is utter inanity.)
The only thing that is afar l’pumay is how you throw around the kefirah and OO label. As I said, you lose every time you resort to such vacuous statements.
anonymous:
This is my point, “of course Derech Emunah is a completely different caliber of a sefer.” The issue of techeiles is not to be taken lightly, and I don’t think that a sefer that is not muga by the person himself should be inveighed against an issue such as this one. There is a lot more to be said regarding these sefarim (I have them all), but I don’t want to get into it.The minute you resort to hurling the kefira argument against someone you lost the battle. I looked at FakeMaven’s posts, and I think your arguments demonstrate that you miss the point, particularly regarding the Maharil (this is a solid argument). I simply don’t understand the Daas Noteh regarding nignaz (The Medrash is referring to Tannaim – Rav Yose – while the Gemara is referring to Amoraim, and we know that even the Geonim had techeiles, hence the time span is much greater, therefore, I don’t understand what is stated in Daas Noteh).
I don’t want to spend much time on this issue, but I will say this. 1) Much of what the rabbanim, argue is not about the murex, but the cuttelfish. 2) The claim that the Gedolim do not agree that the murex is techeiles is besides the point. This issue requires an immense amount of time to research, which they sorely lack. However, the new crop of younger Gedolim have made the time, and plenty of them believe that the murex is the real deal. Its only a matter of time.
Derech Emunah was looked over prior to publishing by Rav Chaim himself.
anonymous: As a bystander, I must comment on your inability to realize the difference between a sefer such as Daas Noteh and say Derech Emunah. You don’t understand how Daas Noteh was written (and it is totally irrelevant that his son wrote it). However, he himself wrote Derech Emunah, that is the big difference.
Gaon:
“There are basically two shitos on how to determine 600k, according to the Mishkenos Yaakov;
A) its either any road that leads to 600k, no matter the size of the town (as per Ritvah and his opinion in rashi) B) or, all 600k need to traverse through one road etc. (As per shitas Tur and Shulchan Aruch in Rashi) .”I would just amend it as such: A) The road has the possibility of shishim ribo traversing it (as per Ritva and Rosh). B) The road actually has shishim ribo traversing it (as per Sefer HaTrumah, Semag, Smak, Rokeach, Or Zarua and Maharam MeRotenberg).
It’s of interest to note that the Ritva on Shabbos, which was not printed in the time of the Miskenos Yaakov, uses the term bokim bo as well. Clearly the Ritva when using the terms shyichnsu bo shishim ribo, or derch l’shishim ribo only means to denote that we include in the count, of the shishim ribo, those who do not live in the city, as well.
GAON:
“Rav Moshe’s concept is not totally unique. The Mishkenos Yakov’s believed that is really Rash’s shitah according to the Ritvah (also in Chidushei haRa”n), that any “road” that serves to 600k is rendered as a RH”R of 600K.
However, he specifically states that it is not conditional or depending on any city population – any road that is “open” or leads to 600k will suffice, (that means even a small town with any road leading to any major highway is a Rh”R). ”Rav Moshe’s shitos are definitely mechudosh. The Mishkenos Yaakov clearly does not say that the criterion of shishim ribo is dependent on a city (he argues that according to some Rishonim the possibility of shshim ribo traversing a street would classify the road as a reshus harabbim). Rav Moshe’s main chiddushim is that the tenai is 600,000 people traversing an area of twelve mil by twelve mil, and this would require a population of 3 million. No posek ever made similar arguments.
goldersgreener:
“1) R’ meir Rosner has made his feelings clear that one may not carry on most the main roads in yerushalayim, including recently the sheaf Chayim road. As such one is limited to the loacal eiruvin, I think many are makpid not to carry on Shmuel hanovi or Bar ilan etc.”I don’t know why R’ Rosner is cited as if he is the posek achron. People should know that he is machmir in all inyanim of eruvin.
“2) Even the eida hachareidis eiruv excludes kvish one, kvish nine [except for the tunnel to ramat shlomo] etc… the other rads have police barriers in place on Shabbos, as such at least on Shabbos they are very different and possibly this effects their denim even when the barriers are not in place. The same applies to b’nei b’rak, there are barriers by the coca cola bridge on kahaneman and in other places.”
These are all excuses after the fact. Police barriers many times are not halachicly valid mechitzos.
“3) as far as I heard R’ ehrentrau shlit”a said that even with a tzuras hapesach at Spaniards inn he agrees that it is not a rambam eiruv.”
I don’t think that this is true regarding Rav Ehrentrau. In any case, we do not follow the Rambam. Almost all eruvin prior to WWII did not follow the Rambam. Today we seek all chumros regarding eruvin.
“4) R’ Yosef Babad – belzer dayan of Stamford hiil has said that it is unfair to compare townhouses with front and backyards to e”y where people live in 50 or 70 sq mr with a large number of children, many windowless machsanim, and many do not use electricity on Shabbos. as such he has said that the leniencies in place in e”y cannot be used in London.”
This is suspect, as most Belzer daynim are very pro eruv. There are no leniencies in EY, only accepted halacha.
“5) Rabbi Roberts says that r’ shimon eider told him that the a406 and a1 are undoubtedly reshuyois harabbim, and cannot be compared to Israeli roads. he has expressed himself extensively on the subject, and repeatedly said that there are questions of de’oiraysa involved.”
And I have spoken to other rabbanim in London who deny that Rav Eider said any such thing. Rav Eider maintained that there was no issue regarding d’Oraysa in London. In any cased, notwithstanding what Rav Roberts claims there is no difference between Israeli roads and London roads.
The bottom line is that there is no difference between EY and London. These are all excuses to deny the Charedim in London an eruv.
Neville ChaimBerlin:
“You think it’s the right of any random CR poster to do that and use it as a basis to posken for himself differently than the posek hador?”Are you for real? As GAON mentioned, Rav Henkin, Rav Zvi Pesach Frank, Rav Yonoson Stief, Rav Weissmandel and others, all disagreed with Rav Moshe at the time. They all relied on precedent. All current Manhattan rabbanim can rely on those rabbnim who disagreed with Rav Moshe. Moreover, no one is required to follow Rav Moshe even if he was the posek hador (as a matter of fact, many Chasiddim did not accept him as the posek hador, because he did not peruse precedent). Every rav big or small has a right and a duty to pasken as he sees fit.
Moreover, to begin with, this question is irrelevant as there are few non MO rabbanim living in Manhattan today.
“Even Gaon admitted that frum poskim haven’t come out in support of the eruv after Reb Moshe’s psak.”
This is simply untrue. Rav Moshe’s teshuvah was written and disseminated in 1952, and all those who are mentioned above signed onto the eruv in 1962.
“Also, the population of Manhattan has grown by a magnitude of 10 in the past century. How could it make sense to bring proofs from Rabbonim of the early 20th century?”
As some posters have mentioned your figures are simply incorrect. In any case, is there such a thing as a jumbo reshus harrabim? Of course not. Once an area contains a population of shishim ribo the debate begins. No one cares if the population is much larger.
“This is why I’m still posting on this thread. What issue do you guys have with just admitting that only MO people hold of the eruv? I thought I was pretty specific that when I referred to “common practice” I was excluding the Modern crowd.”
Why are you harping on Manhattan? Maybe because there are few non MO rabbanim residing there? Lets talk about the Brooklyn eruvin, Boro Park in particular, where the population is almost entirely non MO. Rav Moshe objected to this eruv as well, but many rabbanim allow carrying. So is following Rav Moshe common practice, or not? The rest of you comment is entirely out of line.