Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Neville ChaimBerlin:
“Gaon: The point about how accepted Reb Moshe’s psak was is as simple as this: name one non-MO Rabbi TODAY who told you you can carry in Manhattan. Not presumptions on what Rabbis in 19th century Warsaw would have said on the matter. The common practice in the frum velt is to go like Reb Moshe on this halachah; that fact that common practice doesn’t go like him in other areas proves absolutely nothing.”As GAON mentioned many non-MO rabbanim supported the eruv. Actually most rabbanim at the time (Rav Tuvia Goldstein mentioned this many times) allowed for an eruv in Manhattan. What is wrong with presumptions based on similarities? Don’t most teshuvos deduce from precedent? There is no such common practice. It is simply illogical to require that the world follow Rav Moshe when he admitted that his shitos are mechudash. In fact Brooklyn had many eruvin (in front of houses) that would have been proscribed according to (the way many misunderstand) Rav Moshe. Hence, there is no such common practice.
goldersgreener:
“Although the מחבר clearly says ששים רבוא עוברים בכל יום nonetheless many פוסקים including ר’ משה felt that his intent was undoubtedly עיר שיש בה שיים רבוא as it said in Rashi. If I understood right, R; Shimon eider, and ylach”t R’ meir rosner שליט”א feel that I the road was intended to serve 600,000, even if not necessarily at the same time or even day it constitutes a רשות הרבים דאורייתא.It is not many poskim at all. Rav Moshe would not subscribe to R’ Meir Rosner argument. On the contrary he would disagree with R’ Rosner’s chiddushim. Rav Moshe maintains that the possibility that we should have 600,000 people traversing the streets of a 12 mil by 12 mil area, could only be if there are 3 million people living or commuting therein. On the contrary, Rav Moshe argues that we do not include those who are inside, and not traversing the streets. Hence if a city only has a population of 600,000 Rav Moshe would not classify it as a reshus harabbim, since shishim ribo needs to traverse the streets themselves.
Furthermore, Rav Moshe agreed that the Shulchan Aruch is referring to a street, and therefore, he claimed that the SA is denoting a sratya, in which case Rav Moshe agrees that the shishim ribo needs to traverse the street itself to be classified as a reshus harabbim.
I don’t believe that Rav Eider agreed with R’ Rosner.
To understand why Rashi make use of the word city in reference to the criterion of shishim ribo, we need to reference Rashi in Eruvin 59b:
דרך עיירות להיות פתחי פילושיהן לאורכם ורה”ר עוברת מפתח לפתח וחלוקה לאורכה … והני דרסי בהך רה”ר … ורה”ר זו מחברתם שכולם מעורבין בה
Rashi is informing us as to how cities were designed. Cities in the past had a main road that all residents used to enter and exit the city (because most cities were walled), and this thoroughfare was the reshus harabbim of the city. Consequentially, when Rashi and the Rishonim who follow him use the word city in reference to shishim ribo, they are not signifying that the criterion is conditional on a city but only that the main thoroughfare in a city containing shishim ribo would be classified as a reshus harabbim since it is traversed by its entire population.In any case, where do we see that to accept the simple meaning of the Sulchan Aruch is considered novel?
“I think that they have always expressed concerning London that even if one makes various strings and צורות הפתח one is nevertheless transgressing an איסור דאורייתא and is חייב כרת.”
They made use of mechitos that are omed merubeh al haparutz. Those who still require that one should be stringent is treading on thin ice.
Joseph:
“Halacha doesn’t care which side of the Brooklyn-Queens border the eiruv is. Halacha doesn’t differentiate whether an eiruv is in Brooklyn or whether it is in Queens.
The difference is not based on artificial local intracity borders set by a government. Both are part of the same city. And the border is virtually meaningless.”Rav Moshe would disagree with you. Furthermore, if you don’t follow Rav Moshe, I would challenge you to find the word city in the Shulchan Aruch regarding shishim ribo. Clearly, the criterion applies to a street.
zahavasdad:
“Queens is slightly bigger in Land area than Brooklyn, Brooklyn is slightly bigger in Population than Queens”Queens is more than slightly larger then Brooklyn. Hence, my main point was that at the minimum Queens should have been proscribed according to Rav Moshe because of his gezeirah. All the excuses, why Queens differs from Brooklyn, are made up after the fact, by people who never learnt through Rav Moshe’s teshuvos on the inyan.
iacisrmma:
“youdontsay: Yes I understand R’ Moshe’s psak regarding 3 million people in a 12 mil by 12 mil area. That is why the question was asked in 1979 as to why should Queens and Brooklyn be treated differently. Brooklyn has approximately 69.5 mi of land area and Queens has 108.2 mi. Total population in Queens was slightly less than Brooklyn. So why was the entire Brooklyn used cover a 12 mil by 12 mil area but Queens not? I heard from Rav Hillel David the response I gave above as he conferred numerous times with R’ Moshe as he is now and was then one of the noted poskim in Flatbush during the eruv controversy in the late seventies. You don’t want to believe it, fine. I know what I heard from him.”Brooklyn is smaller than twelve mil by twelve mil, and Rav Moshe stated this clearly in his teshuvos:
(Igros Moshe, 4:87).ולכן בברוקלין שהוא עיר אחת מלאה אוכלוסין אבל אפשר שהיא יותר מי”ב מיל על י”ב מיל
And then Rav Moshe’s final teshuvah on the matter (ibid., 4:88):
ונמצא שכל ברוקלין הוא רק י”ב מיל על י”ב וקצת יותר
Brooklyn is over sixty-nine square miles (without its inland water, which I think should also be included in the tally and would make it even larger). Twelve mil by twelve mil is sixty-four square miles (according to Rav Moshe’s shiur amah in regards to hilchos Shabbos). However, after Rav Moshe was informed that the area that Brooklyn encompasses is greater than twelve mil by twelve mil, he argued that an eruv should not be established, because some may think that since it was a heavily populated area it was a reshus harabbim (in essence a gezeirah, — shema yitu; see ibid., 4:88, and see also 5:29 where he argues that even Detroit could be problematic because of this gezeirah).
However, the end of the story was, that Rav Moshe was led to believe that besides for a population of close to three million, over a million people come into the borough to work (ibid., the end of 4:88). Therefore, he argued that Brooklyn is osser l’dinah. (These facts were made up out of whole cloth by people who simply did not want an eruv and were willing to tell tale tales to Rav Moshe in order to achieve their goals.)
Consequentially, the issue with the Queens eruv is, why didn’t Rav Moshe object at least because of his gezeirah. Queens is also a heavily populated area (no less than Detroit).
The only answer that follows all of Rav Moshe’s teshuvos is:
While Rav Moshe maintained that if an area of twelve mil by twelve mil is classified [or thought of] as a reshus harabbim, an eruv cannot be erected in any part of that area; nevertheless, we see that he allowed eruvin for Kew Garden Hills, Queens (ibid., 4:86); Oak Park and Southfield, Detroit (ibid., 5:29); and the Jewish quarters in Europe (ibid., 5:28:5) which he would have otherwise objected to. The reason Rav Moshe allowed for a neighborhood of these large cities to be demarcated with an eruv was because they contained less than shishim ribo. However, regarding Boro Park and Flatbush Rav Moshe was led to believe that independently they contained populations greater than shishim ribo; therefore, an eruv could not demarcate these Brooklyn neighborhoods (ibid., 5:28:5 and Addendum to O.C. 4:89). There is no other rational reason why Rav Moshe argued that both Boro Park and Flatbush contain more than shishim ribo if not that this was the defining motive to allow a city to be divided with a tzuras hapesach.As to why some argue excuses in the name of Rav Moshe that don’t follow his teshvos, I would say they don’t know his teshuvos that well. However, to claim that these arguments are Rav Moshe’s is simply not true, and definitely not possible, since Rav Moshe wrote otherwise.
Joseph:
“iac: Where do you see Rav Moshe ever write that Queens is any different than Brooklyn, insofar as the Halacha l’maaisa on eiruven are concerned?”See Igros Moshe O.C. 4:86, and addendum to 4:89.
Talmidchochom:
“It is astounding as to how this entire issue has developed. We have people who were not even born when Rav Moshe ztl was alive quoting him and making statements in his name, etc. etc.
Where is your sense of kovod hatorah and kovod talmidei chachomim that you have the gall to quote Rav Moshes as if you knew him!!!!!! you are on thin ice.”These arguments always leave me wondering what is the purpose of these diatribes. I believe that there is an underlying issue. (I would argue that it stems from an inability of yeshivaleit to pasken, hence the inability to realize halachic precedent.)
In any case, according to your argument, one can never quote a posek who is not alive (or maybe this principle only applies to Rav Moshe). Don’t you realize the absurdity of you arguments.
Neville ChaimBerlin:
“To be clear, this is the Manhattan/Brooklyn-eruv-supporter interpretation of the Chazon Ish, right? Nowhere is there written evidence that the Chazon Ish called downtown Manhatten a “reshus hayachid.” I’m aware of the shittah to which you refer, and it’s your right to interpret it as you’ve been taught, but it’s a little disingenuous to make it sound like there’s an explicit Chazon Ish which states as you stated.”You should learn the inyan prior to making such arguments. Even Rav Moshe agreed that CI would allow an Manhattan/Brooklyn eruv; hence he disagreed with the CI in order to proscribe these eruvin.
GAON:
“If i recall… The Tosfos haRosh clearly states that a pirtzah greater than ten is only a rabanon. Hence, the above mentioned achronim did not see the tosfos harosh, as it was only recently discovered, one may say had they seen… they may have agreed.”And so does the Hashlama and Haeshkol. However, the Mishkenos Yaakov (and Rav Aharon) claim some Rishonim maintain that pirtzos esser is d’Oraysa. (Rav Aharon adds Rabeinu Chananel.) However, the Bais Ephraim disagrees with these arguments. In any case, the three Rishonim that I mention Tosfos Rosh, Hashlama and Haeshkol, say clearly that the matter is only me’d’rabbanan, and the Mishkenos Yaakov did not have these sources.
GAON:
“Milhouse is basically correct, there are many poskim who clearly state that the very concept that a צורת הפתח is not sufficient to permit in a רשה”ר is only a d’Rabonon. (See Shulchan Aruch haRav 364, Avnei Nezer hil Eruvin, Aruch Hashulchan. )”Actually most poskim maintain that a tzuras hapesach is sufficient on a d’Oraysa level. However, as I mentioned some Rishonim and poskim maintain otherwise, including the Bais Ephraim (who admits that according to the Rashba re Rambam, and the Hagaos Ashri a tzuras hapesach is effective me’d’Oraysa) and the Chazon Ish. So its not as simple as Milhouse argues.
“Many here are confusing by saying “Eruv” with eruv Chatzeros or a tzuros haPesach of 4 lechis only where we say אתו רבים ומבטלי מחיצות at least מדרבנן.”
I agree.
“As per Chazon Ish, most cities nowadays are by default a reshus hayachid, as most streets that are basically 2 mechitzos עומ”ר end up at one point in the city within a third wall, thus rendering it as a true reshus hayachid, and therefore permitted with a tzuras haPesach. in any case, brooklyn is surrounded by at least 3 mechitzos בנ”א by sea walls and gates עומ”ר and are not מפולשין ומכוונים due to the layout of the streets.”
I agree on both counts. Most people cant make the distinction that we usually don’t need to rely on the CI”s chiddush in large cities today.
Milhouse:
“DaasYochid, what’s the difference between a house and any other eruv? Every eruv is by definition a reshus hayochid. If you could not make a reshus hayochid in a reshus horabim then you could not carry in a house. The answer is that min hatorah of course you can make an eruv, even a flimsy one consisting of nothing more than four strings, in a reshus horabim. But the rabbonon said if it’s a reshus horabim you need more than that. You can make an eruv, but it must be stronger than four strings.”You are correct according to some (possibly most) Rishonim and Achronim. However, some maintain that a tzuras hapesach is not effective on a d’O’raysa level at all (such as the Bais Ephraim and the Chazon Ish).
“but lechol hade’os if you have rov mechitzos, and tzuros hapesach to fill in the gaps, and delosos across the main road, it’s OK.”
Not lechol hade’os. Some maintain (albeit we don’t pasken like them) that you would need delasos for every pirtzah greater than ten tefachim wide (Mishkenos Yaakov and a few others).
laskern:t
“There is a big argument whether Ocean Parkway is a reshus horabim min hatorah, if cars are counted with people or it is a separate reshus, houses around, intersecting roads or traffic lights diminish the reshus for pelatyeh gedolyeh.”Ocean Parkway is not mentioned once in Igros Moshe. It simply never factors in Rav Moshe’s chidushim in eruvin.
However, Rav Moshe does count cars (although most poskim maintain otherwise). I don’t know what you mean regarding platya, Ocean Parkway is definitely not a platya, maybe its a sratya. In any case, Brooklyn is encompassed by mechitzos on three sides.Neville ChaimBerlin:
“I think it’s based in the way they’re partitioned. If there were no barrier between KGH and downtown Flushing (Mandarin Town) then I presume there probably wouldn’t be an eruv in KGH because it would be considered one town with well over 600k people. My understanding is that the LIE is essential in allowing there to be an eruv in KGH. The boarders between Flatbush and surrounding neighborhoods have no physical barriers like highways; they’re just random, so they might all get counted as 1.”Rav Moshe never made the distinction of the LIE, and it is irrelevant according to his shitos in eruvin.
iacisrmma:
“R’ Moshe held Queens is different then Brooklyn as the neighborhoods are clearly defined as recognized by the US Postal Service. When you address a letter to a Queens address it is not to Queens NY but to an individual neighborhood (i.e. Forest Hills, Flushing) whereas you address a letter to Brooklyn, NY (not Flatbush or Boro Park.”
“Joseph: I heard it from Harav Hillel David when the same question was asked in 1979. I do not know if R’ Moshe wrote it or it was just an oral explanation.”
“Gaon: I don’t remember you being in the room when Reb Hillel David told this to me. As you may know, not every psak made it to the igros Moshe. Just because you never heard it doesn’t mean an oral interpretation was not given.”You see an oral explanation cannot be in direct contradiction to a written teshuvah. The fact is Rav Moshe maintained that an eruv cannot be erected in any part of an area of 12 mil by 12 mil containing a population of approximately 3 million. Therefore, it is irrelevant (based on Rav Moshe’s teshuvos) if an area encompassing such a population consisted of individual neighborhoods, since an eruv cannot be erected in any part of this area. Sorry, Rav Moshe could not have made such a distinction.
Joseph: “Once you start counting newly discovered Psaks, give it now time and you might discover even more psakim that change the majority back the other way. As stated, we don’t change what it considered the majority based on newly discovered psakim. There may be hundreds of Rishonim/Achronim who issued Psakim on the topic that is still lost.”
You don’t get it. It was the Mishnah Berurah following the Mishkenos Yaakov, who argued that the Bais Yosef did not mention all the Rishonim, and then they proceeded to list all the Rishonim known, including those that where just printed, such as the Ritva. The Aruch HaShulchan clearly states that the Mishkenos Yaakov argued that we now have more Rishonim unavailable to the previous poskim that state that we do not accept shishim ribo. So it was those who claim that we shouldn’t rely on shishim ribo who where making use of the newly published Rishonim in order to tabulate a majority.
Using their argument, we can demonstrate that we have Rishonim that they did not see.
Joseph: “Gaon: Are you arguing that Rav Moshe’s Psak against an Eruv in Manhattan or Brooklyn would be applied by Rav Moshe to Radun and Mir as well?”
First of all, lets establish that Rav Moshe accepted the tenai of shishim ribo lechatchila.
You missed his point. Once a road is 16 amos wide you either rely on the criterion of shishim ribo and you can establish an eruv, or you don’t rely on the criterion, and an eruv can’t be made (if there is no other heter) even if its a tiny shtetl.“YDS: Psak Halacha doesn’t work by counting (for majority or what not) seforim/sh”ut that were long lost but recently found, but were not considered by the corpus of responsa by the gedolei poskim of the intervening centuries.”
First of all, you are mistaken regarding recently found poskim. We accept their opinion as long as it does not overturn established halachah/minhag. In fact this is our argument, shishim ribo is the accepted minhag.
You missed the point. It was the MB/MY who argued that the majority of poskim opposed the criterion of shishim ribo. So by their own argument if we now know that the majority does uphold the criterion of course we can rely on it. But, if we follow the minhag then there is no doubt that we rely on shishim ribo.
Joseph: “The towns shtetlach’s main road was a dirt road traveled by a few horse and buggy’s each day.”
Sorry these arguments are made by those who don’t know the inyan. Once a road is 16 amos wide you either rely on the criterion of shishim ribo and you can establish an eruv, or you don’t rely on the criterion, and an eruv can’t be made (if there is no other heter).
GAON: “All I can say regarding his Gaonnas, I doubt anyone in the past 50 years comes close to his knowledge and gaaones…(with the exception of Rav Moshe)”
I know that this will bring some people out of their hole, but he was a greater posek than Rav Moshe. Definitely in the classic sense. He had it all, breadth and width.
Neville ChaimBerlin: “I’m not going any further with the baal gaavah argument. Clearly nobody in the real world holds that holding by Rabbeinu Tam’s tzeis or 16 amos reshus harabim is gaavah with the exception of a few CR posters.”
Baal gaavah argument? What? In any case, the argument regarding Rabbeinu Tam is if it was the accepted minhag. However, there is no doubt that shishim ribo was the accepted minhag, witness the eruvin in all shtetlach. Or as the Bais Ephraim argues, that all the Reshonim of Ashknaz accepted shishim ribo as a criterion.
Neville ChaimBerlin: “youdontsay: Why is that unfortunate? Would you rather live in a world where we can chose a “forgotten gaon of his time” over the Mishnah Berurah? No matter, you guys have shown that the shittah exists, so I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m still not convinced that it’s mainstream perse to hold the MB didn’t have all the information and made mistakes, and in your last comment you seem to also suggest that it is “unfortunately” not mainstream.”
He is not really a forgotten gaon. Many poskim refer to his teshuvos, including Rav Shlomo Zalman. Actually, in his first volume the Mishnah Berurah asked him at least one sheila.
I never said that the CC made a mistake c”v, only that his list (or actually the Mishkenos Yaakov’s list), has been superseded. This is not debatable, its a fact. The only question is how off is the MB’s list. There is no doubt that the MB did not see the Bais Ephraim’s list. There is no doubt that even the BE did not see the Rishonim that have been published after his time. If I made a list it would be over fifty who accepted shishim ribo as a criterion, and 14 who do not. I would just add that if the MB would have seen the BE maybe he would agree that this debate is not predicated on numbers but only on minhag, which is/was to accept the criterion.
GAON: “I think the reason is that he only mentioned the above topic as kind of “BTW” ‘agav’. He didn’t really conclude or elaborate anything on that topic.”
I agree. The MY would not have even mentioned asu rabbim if not of the fact that the BE argued the point. Hence, the second teshuvah of the MY rebutting.
GAON: “Agreed. However, as I see you are familiar with his works, you know why he is not so known?”
Possibly because of his machlokas with the Agudas Harabanim, which spilled over into the fiasco of chlitza al ydei shliach. However, considering his gadlus it should all be irrelevant. Then again most people today don’t know much about previous poskim.
GAON: “Thanks for the link! BTW I had a look at the Toldos Shmuel, in Ois Yud in regards to Shisim Ribo b’Chol Yom, he brings the Avnei Nezer b’shem haGoan m’Kutno’ that the Shishim Ribo does not have to be “Bokin” it is enough that is open to Shishim Ribo etc.
Actually, the above in his responsa Yeshuos Malko says the exact opposite.
It is the da’as Hashoel only, who happened to have written to all Poskim about his concern and no one agreed with him. He is mentioned in Shu”T Marsham, Divrei Chaim of Sanz and Bais Yitzchom of Levov. They all disagreed with him.”I believe that the Avnei Nezer did not see the Yeshuos Malko inside. It was only a shmuah in the name of Rav Yeshua M’Kutno.
No one agreed with this shoel’s arguments, which is proof that we don’t accept the Mishkenos Yaakov’s understanding of the Ritva in Rashi (and other Rishonim).
GAON:”That’s is exactly my point, that at the end of the day, Rav Ahron is NOT in accordance with the MB, (Despite the MB being machmir). And his understanding of the Rambam is certainly not like the Shu”A and the Magid Mishnah.”
Rav Aharon has many chiddusim in his teshuvah regarding eruivn, including his understanding of the Bais Ephraim and mefulash (in which case he is arguing against the Magen Avraham and many poskim).
“It is also worthy to note, that Mishkenos Yaakov himself acknowledges that his shitah is not the Minhag, even in Karlin (town where he was Rav) they did not abide to his shitahs (I recall a responsum in Zkan Aharon of Karlin permitting delosos like the Rambam in Shu”a, actually I think its components were based on relying on the most lenient shitos…):
There is also the fact that there was an eruv in Karlin in the time of Harav Dovid Friedman. I think the teshuvah is in Zkan Aharon 1:21.
Neville ChaimBerlin: ” Is what you’re saying actually mainstream? That the Mishnah Berurah was wrong about how most rishonim held and that were he alive today he would correct the “mistake”? Do you have a source that says this?”
Unfortunately, today one can’t make an argument, that the MB has been supersede, even with proofs. However, since you asked see the Bais Av (as cited by Gaon), and the following:
Even Yisroel:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=673&st=&pgnum=44
Toldos Shmuel:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=39121&st=&pgnum=337GAON: “Speaking about the Mishkenos Yaakov, I recall his understating on Mefulash (as per Rashi, he quotes a Yerushalmi i think that argues) is not like RM nor R”A .”
I agree the MY’s understanding of mefulash according to Rashi is not in accordance with Rav Moshe nor Rav Aharon. However, the MY ultimately is not clear regarding the criterion of mefulash umechavanim.
GAON: “BTW – I remembered there is a sefer of the Raavad on Hilchos Nidah named “בעלי הנפש”. He writes in his Hakdamah regarding a Baal Nefesh, as the following:
Do you really think every “machmir in Eruvin” fits that description?”See also Tanya regarding who is classified as a Baal Nefesh. When it comes to eruvin it seems that every Tom Dick, and Harry is a Baal Nefesh.
GAON “the Mishnah Berurah was wrong about how most rishonim held and that were he alive today he would correct the “mistake”? Do you have a source that says this?”
“”See the below link that states so in Anef Bais . Sefer Bais Av – He lived in the times of the MIshna Berurah:””See also Rav Yisroel Yaakov Fisher (Even Yisroel 8:36). The Bais Av is incomparable regarding the inyan of eruvin (in fact all of his teshuvos are phenomenal).
GAON: “However, he does agree that according to the MB’s understanding of the Rambam (as per Magid Mishnah etc) we would at least be “m’tzarif” the shitas ‘Rabanon’ of ‘Lo Asi Rabim um’Vatlin Mechtzos” to the shitos of Shishim Ribo. The only issue he has is with the GR”A, and on the same note, the Demasek Eliezer on the Biur haGr”a (364) is definitely NOT like R”A on the issue of mefulash.”
If you continue on in that same seif katan (10) you would see that Rav Aharon disagrees with the MB, and argues that even the Rambam would require delasos.
I agree the Demasek Eliezer is in opposition to Rav Aharon’s understanding of the Gra. Furthermore, the Gra always sources from a Gemara, so I really don’t understand Rav Ahraon’s proof regarding the mare makom that the Gra cites.
GAON: “The MB is not the only one – the Shulchan Aruch HaRav also agrees that a Baal Nefesh should be Machmir: I will quote his words (345:11):
“ויש אומרים שכל שאין ששים רבוא עוברים בו בכל יום כדגלי מדבר אינו רשות הרבים אלא כרמלית
ועל פי דבריהם נתפשט המנהג במדינות אלו להקל ולומר “שאין לנו עכשיו רשות הרבים גמורה” ואין למחות בידם שיש להם על מי שיסמכו (וכל ירא שמים יחמיר לעצמופו)”However I will quote Rav Avraham Chaim Naah בקונטרס השלחן (ע’ ל”ו הערה ס”ט) :
בדפוס קאפוסט תיבות “וכל יר”ש יחמיר לעצמו” נדפסו בחצאי עיגול במאמר מוסגר, וכן בדפוס טשערנאוויץ נדפס ממש כמו בקאפוסט ולפי”ז אפשר שהמאמר המוסגר הזה אינו מרבינו ז”ל אלא הוספה, ולכן אין עליו ציון במראה מקום בין כל המ”מ אלא ציון מיוחד בכוכב שהוסיפו אח”כ המאמר והציון, והנה מקור דברים אלו הם בט”ז ס”ק ו’ וז”ל וע”כ המחמיר יחמיר לעצמו ואין בידו למחות למה שנוהגין עכשיו כאותן הרבים שמקלילין עכ”ל, ולא כתב שכל יר”ש יחמיר לעצמו אלא המחמיר יחמיר, ובקונטרס אחרון ב’ בסי’ רנ”ב כתב רבינו בזה”ל “ואף מי שירצה להחמיר ברה”ר שלנו כהאומרים שיש לו דין רה”ר” ולא כתב ואף שיש ליר”ש להחמיר כו’, מכל זה נראה דמה שכתוב כאן וכל יר”ש יחמיר לעצמו, הוא מאמר מוסגר, כמו שנדפס בקאפוסט, והוא הוספת מהרי”ל כו’ עכ”ל.“However, We can argue that he is not speaking in a case where there is a Tzuras haPesach..”
I agree, but following the above, it’s irrelevant.“Also, the ones that are to be Machmir should be consistent with Baal Nefesh as above.”
I couldn’t agree with you more. When it comes to eruvin people are inconsistent, mainly because of am haaratzus.
Neville ChaimBerlin: “I don’t think the Mishnah Berurah is contradicted at all. He allowed the 600K shittah, and just said it’s a nice thing to hold by the stricter one. I don’t think anyone here has denied that if an individual wants to hold by the machmir shittah, it’s a good thing. Enforcing it on an entire town is a completely different story.”
While I agree with your basic premise, it is more nuanced than you are stating as fact. The Mishnah Berurah is following the Mishkenos Yaakov, who clearly maintained that one cannot rely on shishim ribo at all. The MB realized that the minhag is to rely on the criterion, thus he suggested that a baal nefesh should be stringent. My argument is that the main reason why the MB upheld one should be machmir was because of the MY’s argument that the overwhelming majority of Rishonim did not accept the criterion of shishim ribo. However, we now know that the opposite is true, and that all the Rishonim of Tzarfas and Ashkenaz upheld the criterion of shishim ribo. Therefore, even the MB should/would admit that a baal nefesh can rely on the criterion.
GAON: “I am aware that Rav Ahron accepted the Mishkenos Yaakov regarding Mechitzos in opposing the Bais Efraiyim (as per his responsum in Mishnas R”A) , but where does he pasken like the Mishkenos Yaakov regarding Shishim Ribo?
That is going against all previous poskim, like Magen Avrohom, T”Z, and even the MB leHalacha.”Rav Aharon states (MRA, 6:10) that that the MB maintains that the majority of Rishonim do not accept shishim ribo, and therefore, Rav Aharon argues the heter is mefulash umechavanim (but then he came up with a chiddush in how we apply this criterion). This is in opposition to the MA and Taz (he obviously understood that the MB was really machmir). However, since Rav Aharon is following the Mishkenos Yaakov, it is understandable.
“Especially if there is a Tzuras Hapesach involved, many poskim uphold that its in any case (even with 600K) not a Reshus haRabim M’Doraisa and is only D’Rabonon that a Tzuras Hapesach won’t suffice…(see Shulchan Aruch Harav 364, Avnei Nezer CM 107)”
Rav Aharon followed the MY who maintains that we require delasos even in a karmelis. However, you are correct, the majority of poskim upheld that a tzuras hapesach would be sufficient on a Doraysa level, and that we only require delasos if all criteria of a reshus hrabbim are met.
GAON: :True, as explained by the Aruch HaSulchan (345) who holds that only towns that have that particular structure of one main street are to be classified as a Reshus Harabim.”
Since some disagree with the AH i always cite the rayos from the Gemara.
“In fact, if you look into Rashi Eruvin (59b) he says as the following
אלא לאורכה – דרך עיירות להיות פתחי פילושיהן לאורכם ורה”ר עוברת מפתח לפתח וחלוקה לאורכה הלכך אין בני עבר הלז רשאין לערב לבדן ובני עבר הלז לבדן משום דהני והני דרסי בהך רה”ר ויוצאין ונכנסין דרך פתחים לכאן ולכאן ורה”ר זו מחברתם שכולם מעורבין בה ואסרי אהדדי
As you can see the typical structure explained by Rashi, in the times of the Talmud, was with one main street.”Correct, there are more proofs from the Rishonim that this is what they are referring to when the use the qualifier, “city.” (E.g. the Tosfos Rid and Semag.)
An eruv helps to increase our oneg Shabbos, e.g., families with young children, the elderly, and the infirm are no longer confined to their homes (Perishah, O.C. 395:1).
@Neville ChaimBerlin
“Gaon: There’s a shittah that the 600K only applies to cities and intra-city roads require fewer than 600K. I don’t know if this has anything to do with Rt. 9. I have absolutely no idea what the “Route 9” situation is that people are talking about, so I’m just guessing. ”This is argued by the Ramban (Eruvin 59a, and maybe the Tosfos Rid), however we do not paskin like this shita.
However, this can’t be the argument about Rav Aharon and RT 9. Rav Ahron followed the Mishkinos Yaakov who does not accept shishim ribo as a criterion of a reshus harabbim at all.
@GAON
“My point is, it seems to be kind of an Am Ha’aratzos regarding RT 9. As some are under the assumption that there is a concept of a Reshus haRabim as a real “busy” street ans then there is a R”H of 16 Amos.
In reality, it is either you need 600K and if its anything of the less – even with 550K passing – it won’t have a criteria of a Reshus haRabim , or any public (mefulash) street wider than 16 Amos is R”H no matter how quiet remote – So why again is “RT 9” any diff than any other neighborhood Streets..?”Well said.
@Joseph
“The Shulchan Aruch and Rambam pasken l’halacha that women shouldn’t be out of the home much. So the general concern (aside from an eruv) is certainly a valid one. (Unless the S”A doesn’t mean much to you.)”What does this have to do with Shabbos and eruvin?
“Most young women with children won’t be out in the streets on Shabbos if there’s no eruv.”
These arguments smack of apikorsis.
@Neville ChaimBerlin
“From my understanding the Mishnah Berurah says a Baal Nefesh holds by this definition. The Kitzur definitely advocates for the stricter definition in line with the Rif, Rambam, and Rashba.”There is no doubt that we accept the criterion of shishim ribo lechtchila. The fact is we know today, contrary to the Mishnah Beurah, that the overwhelming majority of Rishonim uphold shishim ribo. In other words the MB’s list has been superseded.
“I never really understood the 600K shittah (even though I rely on it). It’s always stated in books like, “in our times there are no reshus harabim” (books written before big cities like NYC). That just doesn’t really add up since it implies that in the past they DID have to worry about it, when back then it would have required more than half of klal Yisroel to casually walk down the road.”
The point being, that early walled cities required that all people enter and exit through a particular street. Consequentially, these streets where the reshus harrabim of the city. Rashi states (Eruvin, 6b) that the main roads of Yerushalayim and Mechuza were classified a s a reshus harabbim (read Rashi carefully).
@GAON
“”such reid would make them an eino modeh b’eruv””
“I don’t think that is exactly the definition of אינו מודה בעירוב which was originally for צדוקים who don’t believe at all about the very concept of Eruvin. It might be silly reason, given the above, but they do make Eruvei Chatzeros in their driveways etc – so how can they be labeled as “eino modeh b’eruv’?”Because their arguments would do away with driveway eruvin as well. There could be mingling in shared driveways, also. In any case, they are eino modeh bshtufei mavaos.
@Joseph
“The rabbonim of a city absolutely have the right to enact and enforce a takana above and beyond plain halachic permissiveness.”No they do not. It is either a gezeirah or a takanah and unless this is hora’as sha’ah, only a Sanhedrin has a right to implement a 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 (Igraos Moshe, 4:49).
@Takes2-2tango
“After speaking to a handful talmidim of reb ahron and rav shneur it would seem that lakewood does not have a city eruv for hashkofik reasons ie. mingling in the streets on shabbos etc.,and hardly anything to do with halacha.”Oy vey new minhagim. I guess these “talmidim” don’t realize that such reid would make them an eino modeh b’eruv. These arguments would do away with all eruvin, large or small. Moreover, I have never heard such reid from non Chasidim. This leads me to believe that these arguments are a modern day invention.
” The total negation of all Hotza’ah restrictions can lead to decreasing of the kedushas Shabbos atmosphere.”
Oy vey, new halachos.
“This is a unique issue relating to Route 9, which transverses most of the eastern seaboard of the US.”
This type of talk demonstrates ignorance. If we do not accept the criterion of shishim ribo, then all streets wider than 16 amos are a problem.
@midwesterner
” Aside from the halachic reasons to exclude a mavoi mefulash d’oraisa, as some would consider Route 9 – Madison/River,”
If RT 9 is a mavoi mefulash so are all streets. The issue is shishim ribo.“there are hashkafic and social reasons not to allow unfettered carrying anywhere and everywhere.”
C”v to believe such statements.
” Usually the larger the area the more difficult.”
If you are referring to technical issues I would say you are correct. If you are referring to halachic issues you are off the mark.“There are so many differences in halachas of making an eruv between the cities you mention it is beyond the scope of this answer to discuss them all.”
I would love to go beyond the scope of this thread. Lets see if you are up to the challenge.@Yserbius123
“When Rav Aharon Kotler ZT”L first established a Yeshiva in Lakewood, he was insistent on several things to make the city as much of a מקום קודש as possible. Some examples include … and no eruv.”
C”v to say such hevel.People say things in the name of Rav Aharon, that are simply untrue.
“Also the eruvs in Monsey (see the recent issue with the קרפוף ) and Boro Park (need I actually talk about this?) are far from ideal and rely on several קוּלות, meaning many people won’t carry there.”
Karfifos are not a new issue. All rabbanim had to deal with them, and nevertheless found a way do establish eruvin. Boro Park does not have the issue of karfifos at all. BP does not rely on kulos. You simply don’t know what you are talking about.Most of the people commenting here regarding the RT 9 simply have never gone thru the inyan and have no idea what they are talking about. According to Rav Aharon it is not just RT 9 that is an issue but all public streets that are 16 amos wide. Therefore, since many of the eruvin in Lakewood cross over streets that are wider than 16 amos these eruvin would be problematic. However, Rav Aharon’s shitos in eruvin are kneged the accepted minhag. Moreover, an eruv in Lakewood would be sanctioned according to Rav Moshe’s shitos.