Originally Posted 6-16-07, @ 10PM
Join our WhatsApp groupSubscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
New York, NY – Jews living in a large area of Manhattan who regularly observe the Sabbath will have a much easier time of it. An eruv, has been extended from Midtown to Houston Street.
“It is something that will serve the Jewish community in a very positive way,” said Rabbi Gideon Shloush, of Adereth El, an Orthodox synagogue in Murray Hill. “People who are concerned about these laws will be able to observe the Sabbath in a much more meaningful way.”
Most large American cities have eruvin, delineated by things like wires, walls and shorelines. In New York, Brooklyn has many. Manhattan got its first eruv on the Upper West Side in 1994, and it was later extended east to the East River and south to the 50s.
Bad weather can break a thread or construction can alter a building’s wall, so a rabbi needs to check the boundary every week.
“The eruv is presumed down, unless it is checked,” said Rabbi Yehuda Sarna, of the Edgar M. Bronfman Center for Jewish Student Life at New York University, who began the campaign about two years ago to extend the eruv farther south.
The change may be most significant for young congregants starting a family. Many are unwilling to push a stroller or carry a diaper bag outside their home on the Sabbath, except within an eruv. Until now, if young couples there wanted to observe Jewish law, the mother had little choice but to stay home with the children.
Rabbi Sarna, an Orthodox Jew, said when he was growing up in Montreal, his rabbi let people know if the eruv was operational with a traffic light outside the synagogue. Today, Rabbi Sarna is integrating the eruv with Google Maps, and organizing an e-mail list to spread the word. [nytimes]
We must follow the poskim of the last generation,since our great rabbonim and roshei yeshiva submitted these shailos to them and followed their p’sak. We have no right to go against them.Lo sosur !!And a novi who tells you to do something wrong,we don’t follow him. If it was assur,it stays ossur.No gedolim go on the internet.Who are we,plain people to go against the gedolai hador??
There is no such letter this guy was ‘MeSalef Divrei Tzadikim” he took the above letter and relayed and presented it the way he wanted it to be. As I’ve explained before the actual case of the letter there is no diff letter ; and so is the rest of that sefer kuntres, he takes, chooses, picks whatever is better for his agenda !!
Is it possible that he had a part in misleading Rav Moshe zt”l about the amount residing in BP ?!?
(read above statement) – he was the one it was written to, and the one that printed it first (rav moshes tshuvah vol 8)
i saw in a sefer (yetzios hashabos) quoting a letter from HaRAV HENKIN z”l that a tzuros hapesach has by no means of any-way to exist here in america
anon June 28, 2007 2:37 PM
I will post again what I’ve written before:
And on the issue of Rav Henkin zt’l – his opinion was –
First you have to know the facts – there were no intensions of erecting a full reg. tzuras h’pesch (they didn’t have the means etc. ?) they were only debating about closing-off the pirtzos “in- question”
on THAT rav Henkin said that IF it’s necessary, meaning; there will be tzuras hpes’ on every corner & side that has a pirtzah surrounding the entire [sea wall, gates, bridges, tunnels] island of Manhattan, than that’s a problem of maintaining and supervising it as anyone understands and so did others, see kovetz ‘H’amoer’, tikun eruvin (shatz), divrei menachem …
Which brings back to our case & situation where it only surrounds a particular neighborhood & constantly checked everyone is maskim that there’s is no grounds for ‘issur’ according to all the above and many more ….
You don’t know what you are talking about. Rav Henkin supported an eruv in Manhattan.
anon. 2:33 PM
sure! it is much ‘mehudar’ than there!! we have a tzuras hapesach and FOUR walls!
to all that mention reb henkin z’l, he was against the eruv then.
REB CHAIM OIZER ZT”L of Vilna allowed an eruv in Paris, his HETER” was based of the sea walls and water surounding it.
CAN ANYONE EXPLAIN WHY NY IS DIFFERENT!!
…”if the street is running along the length of the reshus harabbim only then would it be included in the shishim ribo”
what do you mean by these words ‘the street is running along the length of the reshus harbim” for e.g. if ocean pkwy would have 600,000 (which it does not) would you consider Avenues J,K,L etc. part of the reshus ha’rabim ? (meaning: whatever leads ‘directly’- straight through to O Pwky-but not East 5,6th etc..) to my humble opinion; according to the Ran, Ritvah, Meiri – yes
“The Tikvas Zechariah seems to consider a city as one interconnected street even if there is no shishim ribo on any of them (see shrig 1 the beginning of anaf 1). “
On the sefer Tikvas Zechariah, I think you misquoted his opinion (which
first seems confusing) he writes that you need on EVERY PART of the city sh”r not WITHIN the city + see right before that shrig; as he writes clearly: “but if the 600,000 don’t ever gather on “one area”, spot, – thus, nothing is considered a reshus ha’rabim” ….
But on the Achiezer we have to see, he brings proof from the streets of Jerusalem (Note: he certainly doesn’t mean R’ Moshe’s chidush; if so, he should’ve said – it so says in RASHI “ihr she’metzuyon”…. etc.)
In sefer Tirosh V’yitzhor regarding the Manhattan eruv of 5660 mentions Broadway being a potential problem of shishim ribo and so in Oznei Yehoshua (Rav Seigal; end of Ch 18) –
But on the main topic, I have to agree with you that the sefer Beth Av T’nyana clearly writes like you have claimed (see Ch 5)
By the way, on the main issue regarding R Moshe’s opinion on the Manhattan eruv “as of today” – according to his last Tshuvah (vol 8) he finally acknowledges the condition of “mefulash umechuvan” (Shu”a , Mogen Avraham: 345) whereby he claims it within a surrounding of a wall, if so; Manhattan does have a wall, why isn’t it leKatchilah to his opinion !?!??
I believe that you are not reading the Aishel Avraham correctly he maintains that if the street is running along the length of the reshus harabbim only then would it be included in the shishim ribo (the Achiezer could mean this as well). There is a distinction between the Tikvas Zechariah and the Ohel Avraham. The Tikvas Zechariah seems to consider a city as one interconnected street even if there is no shishim ribo on any of them (see shrig 1 the beginning of anaf 1). Since the Ohel Avraham does not offer a reason for his chiddush I would not add to it and say that the other streets can’t be demarcated with a tzuras hapesach. There is a lot to talk about regarding this issue but it is mostly hypothetical since we both agree that they would require at least one street that contains shishim ribo which we do not have. I don’t fully agree with you regarding the Rishonim, but this is for another time.
Thanks for the response,
I think, there is still a need of clarification, I will explain;
The issue isn’t about a reg. mavoi which does not have a rabim. The street in-question is – if it’s a mavu that DOES have a RABBIM it just doesn’t exceed the number of ‘diglei midbar’ of 600,000 leRashi, on THAT the above proclaim that once it leads [directly] into a street of shishim ribo the rabim of that particular street is enough to classify it as reshus harabim and even Rashi will agree that it doesn’t need physical 600,000 it has the same status as if the other Rishonim who don’t need 600,000 this does not classify it as a mavoe mefulash leReshus …. It has its own status of re’h within its own, it does not have to be ‘mefulash’ TO a r”h – it IS a r”h on its OWN!! ( see ashel avrahom Uses the terminology of ‘drachim hamispatzlim’ to 600,000 that the rabim on that St all becomes part of the shishim ribo ; PS I don’t have the Ohel Avrohom at hand but I think this is basically what he’s saying , by the way, the same argument is in sefer Tikvas Zichariyah (St. Louise) with proof n p’shat of a Raa’n
SOURCE: we find according to some rishonim ‘machnei yisroel’ maintained the status of a Reshus HaRabim (rashbam B/B see Mishknos Yaakov) even though it did not have shishim ribo within itsef (see Pnei yehoshua, Bais mayer ch’dushei shabbos daf 6a) we have to say that even rashi agrees – the fact that it was mefulash to machnei levi whch had shsihim ribo- was the reason
(NOTE: with this YESOID R’ moshe zt’l has no legitimate proof against the above who maintain that shishim ribo is St conditional – read through all the arguments in vol 1, 4,)
“These are two distinct issues: does a tzuras hapesach downgrade a reshus harabbim to a reshus hayachid min haTorah and if we can separate a mavoi mefulash with a tzuras hapesach. “
In most cases your’e right but on this case (and as mentioned above) there’s a twist to it, the Ashel Avrohom does mention that if there’s anything that prevents or separates the rabim to connect to the shi”r like grass ,reshus hyachid in-between thus it does not mingle with the shi”r and therefore not a Reshus harabim, as of our case if we claim tz’hp is ‘mechitzah like’ than it’s certainly enough to separate the rabim from the shishim ribo as if two separate bodies
(By the way, the above Aishel Avrohom is a basic source and sheds light to a lot of topics in the inyon especially after he mentions that there were eruvin in ‘Drachim of shishim ribo”)
There are many who don’t make the distinction between mavoi mefulash and a reshus harabbim itself needing a rabbim therein. The Shulchan Aruch haRav (364:1) and the Bais Ephraim (O.C. siman 27 p. 52a) clearly maintain that if there is no rabbim traversing therein a tzuras hapesach would suffice. Even those poskim who argue that the streets that are mefulash to a reshus harbbim are classified as a reshus harabbim themselves would have to agree that these streets are no different then a mavoi mefulash which would need to be open on both ends to a reshus harabbim for a tzuras hapesach not to be sufficient (even the Ohel Avraham uses the term mavoi mefulash regarding those streets). [Some poskim would allow a tzuras hapesach even in a situation of a mavoi mefulash which is open on both ends.] These are two distinct issues: does a tzuras hapesach downgrade a reshus harabbim to a reshus hayachid min haTorah and if we can separate a mavoi mefulash with a tzuras hapesach. Many of the issues you raised demonstrate to me that you learnt the inyan. Keep it up.
June 20, 2007 10:13 PM
“No, both ends would need to be mefulash to a reshus harabbim in order for the street to be considered a reshus harabbim itself.”
I see I have to explain, you are confusing the main case Reshus HaRabim of the shitah “15 amos” that we define that the streets that don’t have the status of r”h meaning there is no ‘rabim’ (what ever the number is) passing; both ends need to be mefulash to a reshus harabbim, correct. But in the case of the shitah of shishim ribo – on the streets that don’t have 600,000 BUT they have all the rest Tenayim of Reshus harabim including a actual rabim passing through its enough that its mefulash to a ST. of shishim ribo to give it the status of reshus harabim in itself (see Ra’n chidushim eruvin: 6) even though it does not have 600,000 see Ohel Avraham (ch; 80 ,Rav Avraham Shag zt”l talmid of Chasam Sofer)
learn the Aishel Avrohom thoroughly (he does mention that once the street bends or curves like a D’aled one end does not add up to the other end of the st to the amount of shishim ribo)
The reason of the diff. : because it actually does have a RABIM, but on the first case we have no rabim at all, therefore ,it needs to be me’fulash on both ends (NOTE: we find so in the ‘diglai midbar’ that some uphold that machnei yisrael was a R”H even though it did not have actual sh/r : for the above reason )
“There is no reason to believe that the Aishel Avraham would not allow a tzuras hapesach to separate the streets that are mefulash on one end to a reshus harabbim.”
I Agree, for the reason that he holds that a tzuras hapesach is truthfully a reshus hayachid ‘min hatorah’ as I’ve written .
”The situation was that the Achiezar couldn’t separate a street with a tzuras hapesach, he was using existing structures”
Correct, and he does mention that a tzuras hapesach would have been fine in that case. (but he also agrees that you don’t need shishim ribo on every street – meaning the above as the Daas Kedoshim )
No, both ends would need to be mefulash to a reshus harabbim in order for the street to be considered a reshus harabbim itself. There is no reason to believe that the Aishel Avraham would not allow a tzuras hapesach to separate the streets that are mefulash on one end to a reshus harabbim. The situation was that the Achiezar couldn’t separate a street with a tzuras hapesach, he was using existing structures.
• At June 19, 2007 7:00 PM , Anonymous said…
Rav Stief upholds that shishim ribo is conditional of the street. He would gain little from demarcating an area into parts less than shishim ribo since he maintains that it’s not a reshus harabbim anyway.
He just states that with a tzuras hapesach we can exclude streets that contain shishim ribo. “I believe all who maintain that shishim ribo is conditional of the street would agree with this.”
I’m not so sure about that, even tough it does make sense, there are 2 dif. opinions in those who maintain that shishim ribo is conditional of the street:
1) every street separately needs 600,000 meaning: that every street that does not contain 600,000 is not a r”h even though the next block does have ….see chazon ish o.c.;108 ,mishknos yaakov p 125
2) once you got a block that’s considered R”H of shishim ribo all streets (that a reshus leRabim) that lead to it are also included and considered as-if a r”h of shishim ribo (see Eshal Avrohom O.C.:345, Achiezar 4:3)
Now on the first shitah you’re surely rightly correct , but on the other you have to see if you hold asi rabim umevatlei the tzuraas hapesach than I’m not so sure; but on the other hand all poskim uphold that we do not pasken so (not like the mishknos yaakov and Rav Aaron zt’l) as quoted in shu’a haRav 2:364 that a tzh’p even in r”h maintains it’s status of ‘reshus hayachid ‘min hatorah’
Let me explain: Rav Bloch and Rav Moshe maintain that shishim ribo is conditional of the city, and they uphold that a tzuras hapesach can demarcate an area containing shishim ribo into parts including less than shishim ribo. On the other hand Rav Stief upholds that shishim ribo is conditional of the street. He would gain little from demarcating an area into parts less than shishim ribo since he maintains that it’s not a reshus harabbim anyway. He just states that with a tzuras hapesach we can exclude streets that contain shishim ribo. I believe all who maintain that shishim ribo is conditional of the street would agree with this.
“You are correct regarding Rav Bloch zt”l, but Rav Stief zt”l is another matter. Rav Stief is not referring to separating the shishim ribo, but only to separating the streets that contain shishim ribo from those that do not. “
June 19, 2007 2:54 PM
Correct, Rav Steif clearly didn’t agree with R Moshe on the matter of ‘shihim ribo’ his shitah was (as all poskim – before and after R’ moshe zt’l) that we need 600,000 on “one street” not the whole city as I’ve written before.
What I meant was; that you see the “concept” of this distinction of a tzh”p (that it splits the street and “al achas Kamah VeKamah of course’ the ’city’.)
“Not only that, if you really look closely
his distinction no 2 and read b/w the lines you would see that R’ Moshe was misguided (by some zealots’ clowns?) that BP (had) has within its boundaries more than 600,000 ppl….!!
He differentiates Warsaw and other big cities with 2 differences the first as above. #2 that within the surrounding of the eruv there were no 600,000 ppl living; then he finishes it off – “which is not so in our case in BP and Flatbush each on its own has population of >>more than 600,000<<<
Obviously, he held that even according to his ‘chiddush’ if “within the tzuras hapesach” – there is no 600,000 ; it’s not connected with the rest of the city (-the tz’hp ‘disconnect’ it from within the rest of the city)”
Rav Moshe zt”l repeats this in his Addendum to 4:89. Clearly someone mislead him.
“so was R’ shteif opinion and so was the opinion of the ‘Rosh yeshivah of Telz’ Rav Bloch – that a tzh’p disconnects it from the rest, and therefore, not a reshus harabim no matter how populated the rest is! –
Which is relevant in our case.
Whats your opinion?! “
You are correct regarding Rav Bloch zt”l, but Rav Stief zt”l is another matter. Rav Stief is not referring to separating the shishim ribo, but only to separating the streets that contain shishim ribo from those that do not.
to gaon:
his distinction no 2 and read b/w the lines you would see that R’ Moshe was misguided (by some zealots’ clowns?) that BP (had) has within its boundaries more than 600,000 ppl….!!”
“Not only that, if you really look closely
that may explain why he was matir Queens – there was no one there to fordrei him a kupp!!
the facts were the same as brooklyn
so anon June 18, 2007 3:21 PM
you got your answer!?
“This is correct. Rav Moshe makes a distinction to buttress his chidddush. But what’s important to note is that Rav Moshe is admitting that there was cities that contained shihsim ribo that had erected eruvin. I agree that clearly the reason that they carried in Warsaw was against Rav Moshe’s chiddushim.”
June 19, 2007 11:37 AM
Not only that, if you really look closely
his distinction no 2 and read b/w the lines you would see that R’ Moshe was misguided (by some zealots’ clowns?) that BP (had) has within its boundaries more than 600,000 ppl….!!
He differentiates Warsaw and other big cities with 2 differences the first as above. #2 that within the surrounding of the eruv there were no 600,000 ppl living; then he finishes it off – “which is not so in our case in BP and Flatbush each on its own has population of >>more than 600,000<<<” . Obviously, he held that even according to his ‘chiddush’ if “within the tzuras hapesach” – there is no 600,000 ; it’s not connected with the rest of the city (-the tz’hp ‘disconnect’ it from within the rest of the city) so was R’ shteif opinion and so was the opinion of the ‘Rosh yeshivah of Telz’ Rav Bloch – that a tzh’p disconnects it from the rest, and therefore, not a reshus harabim no matter how populated the rest is! – Which is relevant in our case. Whats your opinion?!
“I agree, that he did say that Brooklyn is superior over Manhattan; I don’t know if because of this issue? If my memory is correct he said cause of the highway’s can be used as ‘PI TIKRAH YORED etc”. which he held is better for some reasons than a mechitzah see Toras Chemad
Obviously I think you meant (or confused) Rav Y. Steif he DOES write like you said n for (one of) the reason n problem of Rav Henkin BUT he does emphasize that Brooklyn (Williamsburg) is also NOT a Reshus Harabim – it does not have a STREET of 600,000 passerby’s (for a clearer view – there’s a original tshuvah on the issue )”
Yes, he did make this distinction. He was referring to the fact that some tzuras hapesachim had to be erected in Brooklyn.
“PS who, what, and where can I see the sefer”
Try Biegeleisen I am sure they can get it.
“YES! There is a difference – IT WAS MUCH WORSE and had much more sheilos and kulohs than in Brooklyn see shu”t Chidushei Harim o.c. 4, me’oras natan (dayan in Warsaw)was no tzuras hapesach they used the actual water of the river (which was only kosher LeShitas ma’Rit – it was less than 10 te’fachim
it’s beg.)”
Agreed
“PS see Igros Moshe vol 8 where he does make a distinction b/w Warsaw n Brooklyn
Which was surely NOT the opinion of the Rabonnim than n there; they carried for different reasons as written by the famous Rav there Rav Kehaneh zt”l in Kovetz pardes 5720 , Divrei Menachem”
This is correct. Rav Moshe makes a distinction to buttress his chidddush. But what’s important to note is that Rav Moshe is admitting that there was cities that contained shihsim ribo that had erected eruvin. I agree that clearly the reason that they carried in Warsaw was against Rav Moshe’s chiddushim.
“P.S. The same goes for: Jerusalem, Lodz, Bnei Brak, Tel Aviv, Antwerp, Paris (R Chaim Ozer was mattir with Chazon Ish; see Achiazer vol 4) Toronto”
I agree.
anon June 18, 2007 4:00 PM
“Regarding the mechitzos I am not arguing. However, Rav Weismandle did make this distinction regarding Brooklyn being even superior to Manhattan because of this issue (see Chai Anochi LeOlam). “
I agree, that he did say that Brooklyn is superior over Manhattan; I don’t know if because of this issue? If my memory is correct he said cause of the highway’s can be used as ‘PI TIKRAH YORED etc”. which he held is better for some reasons than a mechitzah see Toras Chemad
Obviously I think you meant (or confused) Rav Y. Steif he DOES write like you said n for (one of) the reason n problem of Rav Henkin BUT he does emphasize that Brooklyn (Williamsburg) is also NOT a Reshus Harabim – it does not have a STREET of 600,000 passerby’s (for a clearer view – there’s a original tshuvah on the issue )
“(see Chai Anochi LeOlam”
PS who, what, and where can I see the sefer
———–
“Answer me why an eruv was allowed in Warsaw but not in Brooklyn? “
June 19, 2007 12:26 AM
YES! There is a difference – IT WAS MUCH WORSE and had much more sheilos and kulohs than in Brooklyn see shu”t Chidushei Harim o.c. 4, me’oras natan (dayan in Warsaw)was no tzuras hapesach they used the actual water of the river (which was only kosher LeShitas ma’Rit – it was less than 10 te’fachim
it’s beg.)
PS see Igros Moshe vol 8 where he does make a distinction b/w Warsaw n Brooklyn
Which was surely NOT the opinion of the Rabonnim than n there; they carried for different reasons as written by the famous Rav there Rav Kehaneh zt”l in Kovetz pardes 5720 , Divrei Menachem
P.S. The same goes for: Jerusalem, Lodz, Bnei Brak, Tel Aviv, Antwerp, Paris (R Chaim Ozer was mattir with Chazon Ish; see Achiazer vol 4) Toronto
>>>….an eruv ….. of a thousand years.>>>
“actually approx 2500 Years from SHLOMO HAMELECH”
I am reffering to enclosing a city with tzuras hapesachim.
“Until now you made sense…But now you are down right insulting. Why must this conversation devolve this way.”
You obviously do not know some of the people fighting eruvin in Brooklyn. These people are fighting eruvin the world over.
Answer me why an eruv was allowed in Warsaw but not in Brooklyn?
….an eruv ….. of a thousand years.
actually approx 2500 Years from SHLOMO HAMELECH
Yes there are people who threw out Meseches Eruvin. They fight eruvin the world over. There is no reason why they could have an eruv in Warsaw and we can’t have one in NY
Until now you made sense…But now you are down right insulting. Why must this conversation devolve this way.
Let us agree … to disagree respectfully. Have a good one!
“Really??
Nobody objects to an eruv
NOBODY TOSSED MESECHES ERUVIN
YOU JUST CANNOT HAVE ONR IN NYC
THAT ALL FOLKS!!”
Yes there are people who threw out Meseches Eruvin. They fight eruvin the world over. There is no reason why they could have an eruv in Warsaw and we can’t have one in NY.
Those who object to an eruv are going aginst a minhag of a thousand years. No one agreed to stop this minhag, and most still consider it a mitzvah to establish an eruv.
Really??
Nobody objects to an eruv
NOBODY TOSSED MESECHES ERUVIN
YOU JUST CANNOT HAVE ONR IN NYC
THAT ALL FOLKS!!
Those who object to an eruv are going aginst a minhag of a thousand years. No one agreed to stop this minhag, and most still consider it a mitzvah to establish an eruv.
I reiterate where does it say that if there is a machlokas you can’t make an eruv. Who is causing the pirud? Is anyone forcing you to carry? Or are those against the eruv trying to stop those who carry?
I guess you perfer to have machlokes and to have an eruv?? I hope not.
Over 150 years ago when electricity was invented there too were opinions that permitted its use (turning it on ) not only Yom Tov BUT SHABBOS ALSO
But it was decided by all to be machmir
When Jews starting arriving en masse who followed Rabbeinu Tam were driving cars 30 minutes after Shkiah while other Jews were making Kiddush it was decided to stop this too
NOT EVERYTHING YOU COULD DO DOESNT MEAN ITS GOOD POLICY OR THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW!!!
“I hear; but as I’ve said on the HALACHIC part of not being a “reshus harabim” everyone agreed that a sea-wall is superior
But one other thing, RAV Weismandle backed the eruv then fully as the response written in his sefer Toras chemed, you confused RAV SHWAB who’s written so in kovetz ‘pardes’ then but not so was rav weismandle & rav Y shteif opinion they were part of the vaad.”
Regarding the mechitzos I am not arguing. However, Rav Weismandle did make this distinction regarding Brooklyn being even superior to Manhattan because of this issue (see Chai Anochi LeOlam).
“And on the issue of Rav Henkin zt’l – his opinion was –
First you have to know the facts – there were no intensions of erecting a full reg. tzuras h’pesch (they didn’t have the means etc. ?) they were only debating about closing-off the pirtzos “in- question”
on THAT rav Henkin said that IF it’s necessary, meaning; there will be tzuras hpes’ on every corner & side that has a pirtzah surrounding the entire [sea wall, gates, bridges, tunnels] island of Manhattan, than that’s a problem of maintaining and supervising it as anyone understands and so did others, see kovetz ‘H’amoer’, tikun eruvin (shatz), divrei menachem …”
There were few pirtzos in Manhattan and they did close them with tzuras hapesachim. I agree with you regarding Rav Henkin. This was one of his points.
“Which brings back to our case & situation where it only surrounds a particular neighborhood & constantly checked everyone is maskim that there’s is no grounds for ‘issur’ according to all the above and many more ….”
Ditto.
“PS anon 10:18 I am sorry on the ‘Che’shad’; I did’t mean you bedavkeh “
It’s fine.
“Read all the above AND your OWN words “R’ MOSHE STILL OBJECTED TO NY ERUV IN NYC (EXCEPT THE QUEENS ERUV”
Can you explain the difference b/w Queens & Brooklyn !?
A: …..THERE IS NO !!!
ACTUALLY there is a big diiference
As his then Talmidim AND PRESENT DAY Poskim say that the only eruv in Queens R Moshe was matir is the KGH (& Hilcrest)eruv.
KGH is geographically surrounded by 4 massive boundaries which separate KGH from the rest of NYC (they are the Van Wyck, LIE, GCP and Cunningham Prk all are at leat 6-8 lane highways + a major State Park).”
This is hearsay. Rav Moshe never mentioned this distinction of mechitzos. In any case, if the mechitzos help regarding Queens it would help for Brooklyn as well.
“Actually he was not….
But I guess this conversation devolved yes it is or no it isnt….
Are you going to count how many by the numbers who agreed to R Moshe or disagreed?? Or whick Posek of yesteryear had more or less Talmidim who are TODAYS POSKIM and start counting the votes?
I dont think so”
Rav Moshe zt”l himself admitted that his arguments were chiddushim. So you know better than Rav Moshe.
“You go to your Moreh Horaah as I will go to mine ….BUT LET US NOT CHANGE HISTORY to fit the present. In the 1950s as well as the as in the 1970s and 1980s (I do not remember the 50s but I remember the 70s)NO ONE in the Charedi circles promoted the use of any eruv.Either the litveshe or chasideshe circles. (though privately they may have maintained otherwise)”
For starters, how about Rav Henkin and Rav Stief and the many many more who supported the Manhattan eruv.
“So what happened since? The purpose of Eruv is to enhance achdus not pirud.(That is what eruv or shitufie means – joining and mixing)
Before we do ANYTHING let us examine how it will effect the ACHDUS of KLAL YISROEL”
I reiterate where does it say that if there is a machlokas you can’t make an eruv. Who is causing the pirud? Is anyone forcing you to carry? Or are those against the eruv trying to stop those who carry?
To : June 18, 2007 11:30 AM
Read all the above AND your OWN words “R’ MOSHE STILL OBJECTED TO NY ERUV IN NYC (EXCEPT THE QUEENS ERUV”
Can you explain the difference b/w Queens & Brooklyn !?
A: …..THERE IS NO !!!
ACTUALLY there is a big diiference
As his then Talmidim AND PRESENT DAY Poskim say that the only eruv in Queens R Moshe was matir is the KGH (& Hilcrest)eruv.
KGH is geographically surrounded by 4 massive boundaries which separate KGH from the rest of NYC (they are the Van Wyck, LIE, GCP and Cunningham Prk all are at leat 6-8 lane highways + a major State Park)
June 18, 2007 10:18 AM
I hear; but as I’ve said on the HALACHIC part of not being a “reshus harabim” everyone agreed that a sea-wall is superior
But one other thing, RAV Weismandle backed the eruv then fully as the response written in his sefer Toras chemed, you confused RAV SHWAB who’s written so in kovetz ‘pardes’ then but not so was rav weismandle & rav Y shteif opinion they were part of the vaad.
And on the issue of Rav Henkin zt’l – his opinion was –
First you have to know the facts – there were no intensions of erecting a full reg. tzuras h’pesch (they didn’t have the means etc. ?) they were only debating about closing-off the pirtzos “in- question”
on THAT rav Henkin said that IF it’s necessary, meaning; there will be tzuras hpes’ on every corner & side that has a pirtzah surrounding the entire [sea wall, gates, bridges, tunnels] island of Manhattan, than that’s a problem of maintaining and supervising it as anyone understands and so did others, see kovetz ‘H’amoer’, tikun eruvin (shatz), divrei menachem …
Which brings back to our case & situation where it only surrounds a particular neighborhood & constantly checked everyone is maskim that there’s is no grounds for ‘issur’ according to all the above and many more ….
PS anon 10:18 I am sorry on the ‘Che’shad’; I did’t mean you bedavkeh
—–
To : June 18, 2007 11:30 AM
Read all the above AND your OWN words “R’ MOSHE STILL OBJECTED TO NY ERUV IN NYC (EXCEPT THE QUEENS ERUV”
Can you explain the difference b/w Queens & Brooklyn !?
A: …..THERE IS NO !!!
….Ve’hamaivon yaven
#2 the FACTS have certainly changed! as written above
Anonymous said…
Yes, and Rav Moshe zt”l was in the minority even between the poskim of yesteryear.
June 18, 2007 12:31 PM
Actually he was not….
But I guess this conversation devolved yes it is or no it isnt….
Are you going to count how many by the numbers who agreed to R Moshe or disagreed?? Or whick Posek of yesteryear had more or less Talmidim who are TODAYS POSKIM and start counting the votes?
I dont think so
You go to your Moreh Horaah as I will go to mine ….BUT LET US NOT CHANGE HISTORY to fit the present. In the 1950s as well as the as in the 1970s and 1980s (I do not remember the 50s but I remember the 70s)NO ONE in the Charedi circles promoted the use of any eruv.Either the litveshe or chasideshe circles. (though privately they may have maintained otherwise)
So what happened since? The purpose of Eruv is to enhance achdus not pirud.(That is what eruv or shitufie means – joining and mixing)
Before we do ANYTHING let us examine how it will effect the ACHDUS of KLAL YISROEL
Yes, and Rav Moshe zt”l was in the minority even between the poskim of yesteryear.
Anonymous – No. Everyone follows their rav and not the poskim of yesteryear.
June 18, 2007 11:53 AM
Of course YOU follow their poskim of TODAY
BUT who do the Poskim follow if not the Poskim of yesteryear????
That is what I said and meant!!!
Anonymous – No. Everyone follows their rav and not the poskim of yesteryear.
ANON 1033 &GAON
BUT R MOSHE STILL OBJECTED TO NY ERUV IN NYC (EXCEPT THE QUEENS ERUV) – as the Poskim today who were his talmidim then and continued to follow his approach and yes,AS THE MOREY HORAAH IN NY!!!
So ALL the lomdus is fine and nice but you got to follow the Poskim of yesteryear as long as NOTHING CHANGED ON THE GROUND
And please dont insult any opinions because this is not the forum for for the reasons why yes eruv why no eruv other than establishing that we should ALL follow the Torah.Nobody is paskening from a blog other than maybe get some news and history.
Thanks for reading
“R Moshe leaves the world and all of a sudden, the posek of NYC is relegated to be a minor opinion!”
June 18, 2007 7:37 AM
Imagine!?
Yes!!!
You’ve entered the wonderful world of TORAH & P’sak.
If you would’ve had a little more knowledge- this has been going on for over 1000 years!
The chutzpah?!
Yes!! According to all the poskim if a Rav which paske’nd like a certain opinion or had his own opinion which the city followed while he was alive the next rav is allowed to discontinue & be m’vatel his p’sak see Mh’rashdam yo”d, Pri Chadash ch. 494 ‘kunteras minhagim’ etc. (even le’kulah) no matter how big of a posek he’s and it has been happening all the years from the Nodeh Beyhudah to the Mishknos Yaakov.
Now eruvin and it’s sheilos are nothing new to klal yisrael it has been discussed & argued – written – done, for the past hundreds of years Now if R’ Moshe zt”l wants to argue with these Achronim – kol h’kovod! BUT you can’t be ‘koifeh’ and withhold (at least after his passing; ) every Rav to P’asken like all these Achronim !!(who were at least JUST as great poskim (or if not much greater) as R’ Moshe)
————
“The only Tzaad I heard in recent years if the sea walls prevent it NYC from being a Reshus hayachid…
If only this is the reality … Yet to be proven… “
June 18, 2007 7:37 AM
1] You mean to say – prevents …. reshus”Harabim”
2]Manhattan was known for all those yrs see above, this TZAAD you’ve heard is on “Brooklyn” which HAS been proven as written by Rav Y Roth shlit’a and not SEA WALLS, mainly GATES which I don’t think is a ‘tzaad’ “3 or 4 walls Oimed Me’rubah al h’apurets” is more than just a ‘tzad’ a reshus ha’yachid
3]And for the “reality” take out your city map and take a look – wherever there’s water you’ve got to have gates or something to prevent people from falling overboard ……….. It’s a no-brainer
“R Moshe leaves the world and all of a sudden, the posek of NYC is relegated to be a minor opinion!!!!
The only Tzaad I heard in recent years if the sea walls prevent it NYC from being a Reshus hayachid…
If only this is the reality … Yet to be proven…”
No, every posek has a right to his opinion. Clearly these rabbanim knew that Rav Moshe objected to an eruv and still supported one in Manhattan. Rav Moshe objected to an eruv in Manhattan even with the sea walls for other reasons. However, contrary to your uneducated opinion he did admit that they are sufficient.
Gaon – I am on your side. However, you missed my point. There was a fundamental difference between Rav Henkin and Rav Wiessmandel/Rav Schwab. Rav Henkin maintained that the Manhattan eruv was superior to other eruvin because it mostly consisted of mechitzos. On the other hand Rav Wiessmandel and Rav Schwab maintained that the fact that no tzuras hapesach was being established in Manhattan was a problem because people would not realize that the rabbanim made a tikkun to allow carrying.
I see….
R Moshe leaves the world and all of a sudden, the posek of NYC is relegated to be a minor opinion!!!!
The only Tzaad I heard in recent years if the sea walls prevent it NYC from being a Reshus hayachid…
If only this is the reality … Yet to be proven…
“In response to June 18, 12:06 AM
This is not in regard to Eruvim in general, but in regard to NYC – Manhattan. This is contrary to Reb Moshe and many others.
“
And the majority of poskim allowed an eruv in Manhattan contrary to Reb Moshe zt”l.
Rav Wiessmandel and Rav Schwab maintained that a tzuras hapesach is preferable to the sea walls contrary to Rav Henkin.
June 17, 2007 6:31 PM
I see you did not grasp the concept of the issue (and so have many other big-talkers) so I will try to explain a bit-
there are 2 main issues involved with the (halachic part) of eruv :
1) the sheilah of – is it a reshus h’rabim; and therefore a tzuras hapesach will not help. 2) even if it’s a ‘reshus hayachid’ it still needs specifications to allow it’s carrying like no pirtzos (or no pirtzos where a rabbim passes, etc.
Now in order for it NOT to be a Reshus H’rabim the sea-walls and the gates are certainly enough according to almost ALL the Poskim (sfardik, ashkenazyim you name them – EVEN R’ Moshe – according to the last t’shuvah written vol. 8; that the te’nei of “me’fulash ume’chuvan” is relevant
a surrounding of a wall!!)
now the sheilah mainly was about the “heter tiltul” where no reg. tzuras h’pesach was erected and only the walls of the entire city were used , – are there pirtzos ? is it mevatel ? etc. does it need a tikun ; so halachachly for part 1 a wall is surely better and for part 2 a tzuras hpesach is enough to close-off the pirtzos but then for the ‘practicality’ part Rav henkan said a tzu’h is not good if needed at the walls cause of the difficulties of controlling & observing the entire surrounding Of the city, which brings us to our case that it’s in fully control for the reason that it only encircles a particular neighborhood, therefore it’s certainly good enough – according to all the above, and many more Poskim……
And as I’ve said the MAHARSHAM was Ma’tir the East-side in a much worse scenario (see vol 9 ch 18) according to the facts written to him, (the 4th wall was the l train) and is surely mutter according to him (and many other gedolim then) !.
…..So far for the ‘the Mesorah of our Moray Horah of this generation and “last generation”.”
In response to June 17, 10:57 PM
He did go to Ner Israel.
In response to June 18, 12:06 AM
This is not in regard to Eruvim in general, but in regard to NYC – Manhattan. This is contrary to Reb Moshe and many others.
“It’s sad that these people are off the mainstream, and don’t understand the concept that they’re leading their congregations contrary to the Mesora of our Moray Horah of this generation and last generation.”
Actually, most rabbanim allowed an eruv. So who is leading people astray?
>>>And the eruv was established anyway, with the support of the majority of the poskim.>>>
“Actually the eruv split the community – The opposite what it should do since that is the concept behind eruvay chatzaros or shitufay mevuos”
Nowhere does it say that if it splits the community you can’t establish an eruv. Those erecting an eruv are following the mesorah of thousands of years. Therefore, those who fight against the eruv are causing the machlokas. Even though some believe otherwise most rabbanim allowed an eruv in Manhattan.
7:48-
R’ Shloush didn’t go to Ner Yisrael, and this Eruv was constructed and expanded with Gedoeli Torah.
In terms of Manhattan Eruvin, this has been an issue since long before the 1950’s.
There have been Shalos and Tsuvos about Manhattan Eruvin since around 1900.
It has always beem an issue and has been better resolved in more recent years since the city allowed real Mechitzos to be built, to alliviate quite a few issues.