http://eruvonline.blogspot.com/2006/03/history-of-city-eruvin-part-1-eruv-in.html
http://eruvonline.blogspot.com/2006/05/history-of-city-eruvin-part-2-eruv-in.html
http://eruvonline.blogspot.com/2006/06/history-of-city-eruvin-part-3-eruv-in.html
http://eruvonline.blogspot.com/2006/06/earliest-reference-to-carrying-on.html
http://eruvonline.blogspot.com/2005/12/hundredth-year-anniversary-of-first.html
Thanks for the link.
ReplyDeleteThe eruvonline blog contains some of the gravest distortions of halacha that I have ever encountered. The positions of Reb Moshe regarding NYC eruvin are prime examples, and the types of erroneous assumptions about the feasibility of eruvin that you warn against in your own sefer are rampant on this blog. This blog has an agenda of promoting eruvin the world over irrespective of mitigating factors (such as the violation of a preponderance of positions in Rishonim), while naive, well-meaning Jews are impressed with the many mekoros brought by the eruvoline blogger, not understanding that the facts are being twisted in the extreme.
ReplyDeleteIf only you or someone else who really knows eruvin could address it, Klal Yisrael would be spared from great michshol. Please take a careful look, Rabbi Bechhofer. It is not only the patently non-Orthodox who indulge in Ziyuf Ha-Torah.
Anonymous - Since you declare that my site contains great distortions of halachah, you must be well versed in the halachic intricacies yourself. Forget Rav Bechhofer, why don’t you debate me yourself? If you are not familiar enough with the material to do so, how can you be so sure that there are grave distortions of halachah therein?
ReplyDeleteI challenge you to show me one misrepresentation of Igros Moshe or one Rishon that I distorted (despite the fact that, regarding hilchos eruvin, we are clearly relying on the overwhelming majority of Achronim). There is a comment section to all my posts and you are welcome to debate any one of my points.
This is the method used by the anti-eruv group. They declare that those promoting an eruv are distorting the facts, but when pressed to substantiate this claim offer up nothing. I believe that the majority of my readers are far from naive.
Lineman: Why are you anonymous yourself?
ReplyDeleteThat having been said, you post that most Rishonim hold that Lo asu rabbim u-mevatlei mechitzta. The Rif, Rosh, Ritva, Mechaber and Remo disagree, and RA Kotler (Mishnas R Aharon) holds that the Rambam also disagrees. RA Soloveichik (Beis Yitzchak 28 p. 175) tries to show that all [major] Rishonim agree that Asu rabbim..., and the Biur Halacha [364:2] says that most Rishonim agree as well.
You also state that Reb Moshe would allow Brooklyn eruvin [even w/shishim ribo] and that no one has written anything to counter this. You cite R Menashe Klein as the only source on the topic. This is against what R Moshe writes repeatedly in Igros Moshe.
As R Bechhofer writes is his sefer, there is mitzvah to make eruvin WHERE HALACHA PERMITS. To make eruvin where a preponderance of shittos disagrees is to be condemned, as have most gedolim.
Lineman: I also realize that you play a numbers game. I predict that you will quote a dozen less-known Rishonim who hold that Lo asu rabbim..., and that you will read into the mekoros what you wish, as you have done with R Moshe. I therefore will likely not engage you further.
ReplyDeleteOne final point: It was related to me by several talmidim of RYBS that a group of Manhattan rabbis once came to meet with RYBS at his apartment in Washington Heights (on the YU campus) to attempt to persuade RYBS to reconsider his opposition to eruvin in Manhattan. These rabbis arrived armed with a list of arguments formulated by Rabbi M Kasher to demonstrate that Manhattan was not a reshus ha-rabbim d'Oraysa. Before the rabbis were able to finish their presentation to RYBS, he stopped them and indicated that he could not accede to their point of view, declaring that it seemed as if the rabbis felt that the eruv issue was on the same halachic level as a question of one forgetting to recite Ya'aleh V'yavo on Rosh Chodesh. The intent of RYBS was to indicate his surprise that these rabbis were willing to advocate reliance on lenient, highly debatable opinions in a question of an issur chamur me'od - a very grave prohibition (Chillul Shabbos) - whereas in other matters of far less gravity, everyone is extremely careful. RYBS felt that this was inconsistent and very wrong.
Kol tuv.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAt first, it is important to note that 99 percent of the Achronim clearly pasken lo asu rabbim. I therefore consider the number of Rishonim to be irrelevant. However, from your list I can discern that you don’t even know all the Rishonim who pasken asu rabbim. I recognize, as well, that you did not comprehend and did not read all my posts pertaining to this issue. I did not start the number game, the Mishkenos Yakkov did. If you compare my list of Rishonim who pasken asu rabbim to those Rishonim who pasken lo asu rabbim you will see that you are off the mark regarding the stature of the Rishonim whom pasken lo asu rabbim.
ReplyDeleteThe Bais Ephraim and the Chazon Ish disagree with Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l regarding the Rif and the Rambam so I have whom to rely on and I would debate you on all Rav Aharon’s proofs. The Mechaber and the Rema are referring to a situation of two mechitzos (a mavoi). The Bi’ur Halachah is referring to a tzuras hapeasach not mechitzos. In any case, all would agree, besides for the Ritva, that if there are mechitzos omed merubeh al haparutz and not just shem daled mechitzos that we pasken lo asu rabbim. I have read RAS zt”l’s teshuvah, and I am puzzled, particularly because it does not follow a standard halachic approach (such as mentioning the Shulchan Aruch).
I offer three reasons why Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l would allow an eruv in Brooklyn and Rav Menashe Klein shlita’s opinions are barely mentioned. It is obvious to me that you barely read what I have posted regarding Rav Moshe. I do not believe most stories of this nature since they portray the antagonist in a negative light. You as most people don’t realize that most rabbanim of Manhattan supported an eruv. I don’t believe that RYBS zt”l would think so little of rabbanim like Rav Yonasan Steif zt”l who supported an eruv.
The Chayei Adam and Biur Halacha hold that Asu rabbim. The fact that so many later gedolim hold that one should be choshesh for this is not to be overlooked.
ReplyDeleteI do not rate the stature of any Rishon, but if a significant number of teh most promiment ones hold that Asu rabbim, we cannot dismiss it lightly. To have "someone to rely on" in an issur chamur me'od is not enough for you to advise others to use and install such eruvin. You have the right to rely on a psak based on these shittos if that is how your moreh hora'ah guides you, but unless you are a posek of high stature, you cannot tell otehrs to conduct themselves as such. Even if most Achronim hold that Lo asu, the Mishnah Berurah, RYBS, RA Soloveichik, R Moshe Feinstein, RA Kotler and many more oppose such an approach, and to negate it requires "braite pleitzos".
The Mechaber and Remo refer to a case of a standard reshus ha-rabbim d'Oraysa - see 345:7. They hold like R Yochanan, requiring delasos for any reshus ha-rabbim. This is classical Asu rabbbim, cut and clear, for all cases.
RYBS was vehemently opposed to city eruvin. Ask his talmidim. He did not belittle those who held of these eruvin, but his opposition and the opposition of so many gedolim means that one cannot take a cavalier apporoach and say, "I hold that these eruvin are fine and will preach to the world that they shoudl be used, since rabbi X is mattir them."
I read what you wrote about Reb Moshe's approach to Brooklyn. It is incredulous that you were able to figure out Reb Moshe's opinion and knew the metzius better than Reb Moshe himself.
RA Soloveichik's piece is classical technical Brisk. If most Rishonim hold one way (and the Shulchan Aruch agrees here!), one musters his case from the Rishonim directly. I do not think that Reb Aharon failed in his learning and derech of analysis b/c he did not go to the poskim.
Sorry to be so sharp, but this is a sofek skilah, and we need to be VERY CAUTIOUS.
A gutten chodesh.
One more point: You are incorrect that all agree that Lo asu rabbim when there are mechitzos and omed merubah. This is precisely (one of) the main arguments against the Chazon Ish, as even though he uses real mechitzos, he needs Lo asu rabbim to sustain his apporach, as Asu rabbim allows the mechitzos to be breached and renders his approach unworkable.
ReplyDeleteThe Biur Halacha advises to go acc. to the opinion of Asu rabbim in reference to any city eruv. Again, I cannot advise you or anyone to follow any specific p'sak, but you cannot advise the tzibbur to be maikil in this.
For the reader’s edification, I will list the overwhelming majority of Achronim who pasken lo asu rabbim: Chacham Tzvi, siman 5, 37; Knesset Yechezkal, siman 2:3; Mayim Rabim, siman 34-36; Maharit Tzahalon, siman 251; Tosfos Shabbos, siman 363; Pri Megadim, Rosh Yoseph, Shabbos 6b; Even HaOzer, Eruvin 6b, 22a; Bais Ephraim, O.C. 26; Noda B’Yehudah, O.C. Mahadura Tinyana, 42 and Teshuvah M’Ahavah, siman 112; She’eilas Yaavetz, siman 7 and Mor U’Ketziyah, siman 363; Shulchan Aruch HaRav, O.C. 363:42, 364:4 and Kuntres Achron, O.C. 345:2; Keren Oreh, Eruvin 7a; Michtam L’David, siman 1; Tiferes Tzvi, siman 11; Chasam Sofer, O.C. 89; HaEleph Lecha Shlomo, siman 181; Aishel Avraham, siman 345; Chai Adam, klal 71:15; Gaon Yaakov, Eruvin 11a, 21a; Chesed L’Avraham, siman 39; Maharham Shick, O.C. 171, 181; Maharia HaLevi, siman 94; Bais Shlomo, siman 43, 51; Tzemach Tzedek, Shabbos 100a and Eruvin, the end of Perek 5; Nefesh Chayah, siman 25; Avnei Nezer, O.C. 273:16, 279:2, 289:2; Aruch HaShulchan, O.C. 364:1; Maharsham, 3:188, 9:18; Yeshuos Malko, siman 21; Harei B’samim, 5:73; Imrei Yosher, siman 102 and Minchas Pitim, siman 364; Kaf HaChaim, O.C. 364:12; Divrei Malkiel, 3:10, 14; Rav Chaim Berlin in Tikkun Shabbos Odessa, p. 28 and in Nishmas Chaim, siman 29; Achiezer, 4:8; Even Yikrah, siman 58, and Chazon Ish, O.C. 74:10, 107:4.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this list speaks for itself.
In light of the above, it is clear that the Achronim pasken lo asu rabbim. We follow our poskim and not the Rishonim. Every rav has a right to pasken as he sees fit, and regarding eruvin, it is no different. The only reason why I am debating you at all regarding the Rishonim is because you seem to think that you understand them better than the Gedolei Haposkim. I am sorry, but you do not know the Rishonim better than the Gedolei Haposkim.
Your overarching flaw, one that afflicts many yeshivalite (since they have no derech in halachah), is that you don’t realize that this is halachah pesuka. This issue has been rehashed not only by today’s gedolim, but by the gedolim of yesteryear, and it is clear that the overwhelming majority have paskened lo asu rabbim. Therefore, I don’t need, “breite pleitzos,” since I am following the accepted p’sak halachah.
The challenge to these poskim of yesteryear is relatively new since the Bais Ephraim settled this issue. As far as I am concerned, it is not a matter of debate; the Bais Ephraim’s list of Rishonim who he maintains pasken lo asu rabbim is clearly correct (but, if need be, I would debate you point by point).
Some claim that these poskim of yesteryear were not privy to some of the chiddushim of the Rishonim that have been printed in the last hundred years or so (such as the Ran and the Meiri). My rebuttal is that there are many Rishonim the challengers did not see who pasken lo asu rabbim, and they are the majority. Additionally, the challengers do not realize as well that even those Rishonim who they claim pasken asu rabbim would pasken lo asu rabbim in a situation of mechitzos that are omed merubeh. I repeat, you don’t seem to realize that all the Rishonim (besides for the Ritva) maintain that only in regards to shem daled mechitzos does Rav Yehudah pasken asu rabbim. However, in a situation of mechitzos that are omed merubeh, all Rishonim who pasken asu rabbim maintain that Rav Yehudah would pasken lo asu rabbim (Raved, as cited in the Rashba, Ran and Meiri; Rabeinu Yonasan, 22a; Rashba, 22b; Ran, 22a; Ramban, see Gaon Yaakov, Eruvin 6, and Meiri, 20, 22a).
You are incorrect; the Chayei Adam is referring to mechitzos hayam not b’y’dai adam. Besides for which, the Bi’ur Halachah did not see the Bais Ephraim nor did he see all the Rishonim that pasken lo asu rabbim. The fact that a few contemporary gedolim maintain asu rabbim does not change the fact that they are in the minority and that they cannot require that the world should follow their p’sak. I would add that some on your list are only accepted as poskim by their talmidim and not by the public. Therefore, only their talmidim are required to follow in their path. Which leads me to Rav Moshe zt”l. You have no proof that Rav Moshe maintains asu rabbim. On the contrary, since he did not inveigh it against the Chazon Ish (Igros Moshe, O.C. 5:28:3) nor against the Manhattan eruv, he most probably is of the opinion that we pasken lo asu rabbim.
ReplyDeleteYou are mistaken. The Mechaber and the Rema (345:7) are not referring to a city encompassed by walls, but only to a street that is bounded by two mechitzos (see Shulchan Aruch HaRav, ad loc). Therefore, you have no proof that they require delasos in a situation of three mechitzos (just like in siman 364:2). I trust the overwhelming majority of Achronim that the Mechaber and the Rema paskens lo asu rabbim.
I have a problem understanding one who is vehemently against any sort of eruv particularly if his teshuvah (and the Brisker style of teshuvos) does not conform to normative halachic standards. Additionally, RAS was clearly mistaken what he wrote regarding the Chazon Ish, and I believe many of his points are debatable. I stand by my statement that the story regarding RYBS is suspect. You don’t seem to realize who the, “rabbi x,” who supported the Manhattan eruv was. This story does not honor RYBS at all.
What is incredulous is that one can’t say that Rav Moshe was misled. The facts are otherwise. Do you believe that the individual population of Boro Park or Flatbush is greater then shishim ribo or that a million people commute to Brooklyn every day? There is no doubt that Rav Moshe was fooled by the anti-eruv camp. Stop this silliness.
The Bais Ephraim’s p’sak stands. He was the posek hador, and that is why the Mishkenos Yakkov sent him his sheila to begin with. Every rav has a right to pasken as he sees fit and eruvin is no different.
Finally, even you would have to admit that there are so many sfeikos regarding reshus harabbim. At most, it is a sfek sfek sfeka (shishim ribo, mefulash and mechitzos) and we are then meikil even regarding a d’Oraysa.
No; the Chayei Adam also holds of speaks of the general requirement of delasos nin'alos b'layla for a reshus ha-rabbim, not only for a case of mechitzos ha-yam as you state. The Shulchan Aruc Ha-Rav's interpretation of the Mechaber and Remo is not shared by the Biur Halacha and others, who explain (as is the pashtus of 345:7) that the Mechaber and Remo pose a general rule, not one so limited and specialized (street bounded w/2 mechitzos) as the Sh. Ar. Ha-Rav. The Mishkenos Yaakov opposed the Beis Ephraim on Asu rabbim as did many others. I did not write that Reb Moshe held that Asu rabbim; I just wrote that he paskened against eruvin in Manhattan and Brooklyn, which is a fact, and your accusation that Reb Moshe was misled by anti-eruv politics and was in error is hideous. (You wrote: "There is no doubt that Rav Moshe was fooled by the anti-eruv camp".) This is terrible of you!!!
ReplyDeleteYes, a real posek consults the Rishonim and goes by what they say. The Biur Halacha (364) writes that rov Rishonim hold that Asu rabbim and that it is best to go this way; do you accuse the Chofetz Chaim also of not having a derech in p'sak?
Ask Rabbi Menachem Genack or Rabbi Hershel Schachter about RYBS' positions on eruvin. They will provide you with all of the details of his opposition. We follow our gedolim, not just taking from the Achronim. Since so many major 20th century gedolim oppose or at least question the eruvin you promote, their view needs to be given high priority, unless you feel - as you imply - that they also had no derech in p'sak. You seem to feel that RA Kotler, RA Soloveichik, RYBS, Rav Bick, the Mishnah Berura and so many others had no derech in p'sak; I do not know what to say to such arrogance. The sefeikos regarding reshus ha-rabbim are not each a sofek ha-shakul and cannot create a clear kula. Many hold mefulash to not be required to make a reshus ha-rabbim d'Oraysa (Rif, Rambam and yesh omrim in Ritva), many require it only when the city is walled (Mechaber), and many hold it not be mean straight but merely not interrupted. Most do not require shishim ribo, and many of those that do measure it by city, not street. Each sofek relies on many factors that do not clearly create even a s'fek s'feika. RYBS did not refer to "Rabbi X". That was my wording.
Lineman: I did not have the time to address all of your points earlier. In truth, since you are making assumptions and statements that belittle and undermine the authenticity of p'sak (such as, "There is no doubt that Rav Moshe was fooled by the anti-eruv camp"), I am really uncomfortable keeping up this comminucation. However, for the sake of emes, I note a few points:
ReplyDelete1. The Rashba, Ritva and Chiddushei Ha-Ran on 22b state that we hold like R Yochanan (Asu rabbim...) for regular streets, with their machlokes limited to whether we apply it even to a mavui mefulash or only to a 16-amos wide reshus ha-rabbim d'Oraysa. There is no limitation to a shem dalet mechitzos in their p'sak. Take a look.
2. No one takes the Beis Ephrayim as superior to the Mishkenos Yaakov such that the Beis Ephraim's p'sak shut down the opinion of the Mishkenos Yaakov. See Mishnas R Aharon s. 6.
3. Ocean Pkwy. cuts through Flatbush and is a reshus ha-rabbim d'Orasya, acc. to R Moshe.
4. RA Soloveichik's contentions against the Chazon Ish are clear. RAS' final argument is technically hard to beat.
Again, I and all others realize that there are surely opinions to justify most eruvin. My issue is that we have no right to pasken on this most sensitive issue on our own, and that your statements about Reb Moshe being fooled (!!) and that you do not consider the positions of Rishonim as dispositive are very troublesome.
I think that we should end it here. We both know where the other one stands.
Again you are in error. The Chayei Adam in klal 71:15 clearly says that he is referring to mechitzos hayam. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav’s understanding of the Mechaber and the Rema (345:7) is supported by the overwhelming majority of Achronim who pasken lo asu rabbim. More so, it is pashtus since the Mechaber is referring to rechovos and shvakim that are walled and not a walled city. I consider the Shulchan Aruch HaRav the Posek Achron so he carries more weight by me than most poskim. We don’t pasken like the Mishkenos Yakkov, as can be attested to by my list of poskim.
ReplyDeleteAnyone analyzing Rav Moshe’s statements regarding Brooklyn would have to admit that he was misled. The question is why can’t you face the facts? You have not offered better explanations for these discrepancies. Stop pretending to be naïve. You know very well that Rav Moshe was surrounded by a cabal who were extremely against eruvin. In any case, Rav Moshe would admit that the mechitzos encompassing Brooklyn are sufficient.
You are rewriting what you stated regarding Rav Moshe and lo asu rabbim. This is what you declared, “Even if most Achronim hold that Lo asu, the Mishnah Berurah, RYBS, RA Soloveichik, R Moshe Feinstein, RA Kotler and many more oppose such an approach,” face it you misspoke about Rav Moshe and asu rabbim.
I never declared about any gadol that he did not have a derech in p’sak, only that yeshivalite have no inkling in halachah.
No, a real posek starts with a precedent and then, if needed, with the Rishonim. You have the approach of one who did not learn much halachah.
You mention RYBS zt”l; do you realize his talmid Rabbi Hershel Schachter shlita does not subscribe to his rebbe’s view regarding eruvin. Shouldn’t he have to follow his rebbe? RAK, RAS, RYBS and the Mishnah Berurah (since he clearly did not see the Bais Ephraim) are inclined to pasken like the Mishkenos Yakkov for self-explanatory reasons. I can’t figure out what Rav Moshe Bick zt”l’s issue with eruvin is and his teshuvos are all over the place. You don’t seem to appreciate which poskim disagree with the few poskim that you keep on referring to. To me this is mind boggling. I would prefer to rely on the Chacham Tzvi, Knesset Yechezkal, Mayim Rabim, Maharit Tzahalon, Tosfos Shabbos, Pri Megadim, Even HaOzer, Bais Ephraim, Noda B’Yehudah, She’eilas Yaavetz, Shulchan Aruch HaRav, and the Keren Oreh to name a few. If you believe otherwise, that is your prerogative, but don’t tell the world that they have to follow the few who dissent. In any case, there are many poskim alive who maintain that an eruv can be erected in Brooklyn so we definitely have on whom to rely.
You are mistaken. The overwhelming majority of Rishonim do require mefulash. We do not know what the Rif paskens regarding mefulash. The Kesef Mishneh states that the Rambam does require mefulash. The claim that the Mechaber maintains that mefulash is conditional of a walled city is a new concept and most Rishonim and Achronim I believe would not agree. Like many people you are incorrect. The overwhelming majority of Rishonim maintain that shishim ribo is a criterion of reshus harabbim. This is a sofek hashakul if there ever was one. In each case the majority of Rishonim would be mekil. Additionally, the Avnei Nezer and the Livush Mordechai do make a s’fek s’feika.
I will answer your second post tomorrow b”n.
The Chayei Adam there refers to mechitzos ha-yam, as to when we say Asu and when we say Lo asu rabbim. However, in 49:1, he paskens that for general streets, we say Asu rabbim.
ReplyDeleteThe Sh. Aruch Ha-Rav and some others understand the Mechaber as you state, but the Chayei Adam (ibid.) writes as I noted, which is the pashtus, and the Gra is also mashma like I wrote. Again, yesh omrim v'yesh omrim, but the fact that you state that, "I consider the Shulchan Aruch HaRav the Posek Achron so he carries more weight by me than most poskim" does not mean that others agree and that you can instruct them to follow suit just because YOUR PERSONAL hanhaga is like the Sh. Ar. Ha-Rav, whom many do not follow.
I meant to say that Reb Moshe disagrees with the Chaz. Ish, not that he held Asu rabbim.
In order to explain what seems to be a s'tirah in Reb Moshe's logic, you write that Reb Moshe was misled and fooled by the "anti-eruv" group and that Reb Moshe did not really hold of what he wrote. This is not the derech. If we cannot understand a godol's words, we must seek to do so, rather than undermining the integrity of what he wrote. Why don't you ask R Dovid Feinstein for a clarification of his father's p'sak, rather than dismiss the p'sak as based on Reb Moshe being fooled (chas v'sholom)? (THIS is not the derech of halacha, for sure!)
No, a real godol renders a p'sak by going to the basic mekoros, as Reb Moshe did each time he got a shailah, and as he did in IgM OC 1:139 re Manhattan, where he invokes Rishonim directly as the basis of his p'sak. Poskim are not data processors who spit back the latest accumulation of rulings of recent decisors. They evaluate and analyze all afresh from the beginning to render a p'sak.
I did not write why RHS acts as he does; I quoted him as a top source for what RYBS paskened, which was your query.
Again, those who oppose you are dismissed for unexplained reasons. (You wrote, "RAK, RAS, RYBS and the Mishnah Berurah (since he clearly did not see the Bais Ephraim) are inclined to pasken like the Mishkenos Yakkov for self-explanatory reasons.") You fail to accept that there is legitimate opposition to what you promote. Our discussion is not a Q as to who is correct. It is a Q as to whether or not you can instruct the masses to follow your opinion, in opposition to many legitimate sources who say contrary to you. I do not say, "Kablu da'ati", nor can you. You feel that there is an "anti-eruv camp". Do you think that top-tier gedolim have nothing better to do other than to make it hard on the masses for no reason? You seem to dismiss their opposition by undermining its legitimacy rather than accepting it as a valid point of view. Since we are dealing with a Q of chillul Shabbos b'farhesia, an issur s'kilah, there is room - to say the least - to be wary and machmir. You must accept that there is plenty of legitimate opposition to your view, and only a moreh hora'ah can instruct how to conduct oneself.
Shishim ribo is not required by the Rif, Rambam, Rab. Tam, Ramban, Rashba, Ritva, Rivash, Maggid Mish., Mordechai, Meiri, Ran, Rashbam, R E mi-Mitz, plus Mechaber and Remo in the pashtus. Of course, many do require shishim ribo, but there is plenty of room to be machmir, and that is the crux and force of the Biur Halacha's words there
Regarding mefulash, of course, a great many Rishonim require it (although some very prominent ones do not, and the Mechaber only requires it for a walled city, acc. to the pashtus, Chay. Ad. (49:1) and lech'orah the Gra, as against the Sh. Ar. Ha-Rav and others you quote).
ReplyDeleteAlso, many hold that mefulash does not mean straight (mechuvan mi-sha'ar l-sha'ar), as I noted. (See IgM OC 1:140, Mishnas RA 1:6, with diyyuk from Bi'ur Ha-Gra in both; RYBS also held this way.)
The idea that our streets are reshuyos ha-yachid min ha-Torah based on a s'fek s'feka has never been well-accepted, just as the Aruch Ha-Shulchan's approach to our streets also never gained much acceptance. Otherwise, all halachic literature since the 1800s addressing whether or not an area is a reshus ha-rabbim would have been totally unnecessary, of course.
There are other factors as well: The Rashba's position that a platya cannot be rectified even w/delasos, the Rambam and a few others who invalidate a tzuras ha-pesach of more than 10 amos where parutz merubah, and the chomer of chillul Shabbos are factors that prevent poskim from drawing general, excessively lenient conclusions.
Again, yesh omrim v'yesh omrim, and I accept this, but you must as well.
Why dont you approach Rabbi Belsky and argue with him.Instead you argue with a people on a blog. The people are not as well versed or qaulified.Argue with the people who made the psak.Do not tell me that he wont approach him in yeshiva,and im sure he has the answer to all your questions.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteLineman asked me to remove the last comment because it held a clue to his identity.
ReplyDeleteAll this reshus ho'rabbim shakla v'tarya amuses me - most eruvin are posul anyway, Rabbosai!
RYGB - You said it: "Most eruvin are posul anyway, Rabosai!" This is the point, based on the opinions of rov Rishonim. I wish that Lineman and his followers would understand this. Lineman says that he "goes by Achronim, not Rishonim", and he admits that his presentation of Reb Moshe to demonstrate that Reb Moshe "would be mattir Brooklyn and Manhattan eruvin" is based on Lineman's statements that Reb Moshe was "misled" and fooled into banning them (chas v'sholom!!). RYBS: Le-ma'an ha-emes, please don't promote Lineman's posts, and I thank you for your halachic input.
ReplyDeleteCorrection: I wrote: "RYBS: Le-ma'an ha-emes, please don't promote Lineman's posts...". I meant "RYGB", not "RYBS". I was too rushed!
ReplyDeleteYou misunderstood me. I meant they are mostly posul not because of reshus ho'rabbim issues - ahf dehm, sha'arei teirutzim lo nin'alu. However, most eruvin were either built pasul or have deteriorated into pesul. V'al da vadai ka'bachina.
ReplyDeleteWhile I know that I am repeating myself, it is the only way that I can answer numerous posts at one time in a linear fashion. I apologize, as well, for the strident tones of my posts. However, I am just mirroring Anonymous’ original comments regarding my blog.
ReplyDeleteIt’s interesting that although I have heard many times from rabbanim that Igros Moshe vol. 8 is questionable, I can’t state that Rav Moshe zt”l was mislead regarding certain Brooklyn facts. I suspect if the issue was not eruvin, you would not object.
You obviously did not peruse my sources regarding the Rishonim and lo asu rabbim. The Rashba, Ritva, and Ran (Eruvin 6a) all maintain that a tzuras hapesach serves as shem daled mechitzos. Therefore, they uphold that the sugya, can’t go according to the Chachamim only like Rav Yehudah (on the other hand the majority of Rishonim who pasken like the Chachamim maintain asu rabbim when employing a tzuras hapesach and the sugya, could then go according to the Chachamim). However, all Rishonim even those who pasken asu rabbim when utilizing shem daled mechitzos, maintain that Rav Yehudah would pasken lo asu rabbim in a situation of mechitzos that are omed merubeh (Raved, as cited in the Rashba, Ran and Meiri; Rabeinu Yonasan, 22a; Rashba, 22b; Ran, 22a; Ramban, see Gaon Yaakov, Eruvin 6, and Meiri, 20, 22a). Besides for which, your insistence and simplistic readings would create contradictions in these Rishonim. You probably would accept my elucidation if the matter was not eruvin. I will add that even the anti-eruv sefer Sharei Yerushalayim realized that the Raved (and those who refer to him, such as the Rashba, Ran and Meiri) maintain lo asu rabbim in a situation of mechitzos. To save time (because I believe you are not interested in the emes) I recommend, my friend’s sefer Mincha Areiva where he discuses this thoroughly. There is no doubt that he is correct since he is just buttressing the p’sak of the majority of the Gedolie Haposkim. You are having a hard time digesting this because the few poskim whom you mentioned did not identify these points. That is, the majority of Rishonim maintain lo asu rabbim, and that in a situation of mechitzos, all admit that we pasken lo asu rabbim. I suggest that it is incomprehensible for you to absorb that, in matters regarding Rishonim, your Roshei Yesihvos missed these points. I imagine that you are now saying to yourself that I have tremendous chutzpa. However, I would counter that your suggestion that we ignore the majority of the Gedolie Haposkim is a much greater chutzpah. I believe that yeshivaleit have a misplaced antipathy towards eruvin that stems from a meager knowledge of halachah and has cultural roots as well.
You do not know who the Bais Ephraim was. The Bais Ephraim’s p’sak was accepted the world over, even in the Lita. The fact is the Mishkenos Yaakov’s arguments would have abolished all city eruvin, and nevertheless, almost every town erected one including his own town (in fact, all those whom you quote would negate most city eruvin). Even in his times, the Mishkenos Yaakov’s style of p’sak was frowned upon by poskim (See Tuv Tam Vdaas, p. 60 in the addendum to siman 44 where he states that because the Mishkenos Yaakov selectively chooses from the Rishonim, don’t peruse his sefer. See also Ayin Yitzchok, O.C. siman 1:8 Y.D., siman 19:1; see also Meishiv Davar, 2:40; and Avnei Nezer, E.H. siman 170). In a later post, I will illuminate why I believe Rav Aharon zt”l was leaning towards the Mishkenos Yakkov. Additionally, I think Rav Aharon’s teshuvah is debatable (see my friend’s sefer Mincha Areiva). Rav Tuvia Goldstein zt”l mentioned to me (he said this publicly as well in a meeting regarding the Boro Park eruv on December, 15 1999) that Rav Moshe zt”l told him that at the meeting regarding the Manhattan eruv, Rav Aharon zt”l opened up a Mishkenos Yaakov and laid out why we must be machmir. Rav Moshe told Rav Tuvia that he cannot comprehend why Rav Aharon would utilize the Mishkenos Yaakov against an eruv; the Bais Ephraim and all the other poskim had known of his objections, and nevertheless did not pasken like him. It is noticeable that Rav Moshe did not agree with the Mishkenos Yaakov on any of the important issues regarding eruvin.
It is interesting to note that when the Mishkenos Yaakov responded to the Bais Ephraim concerning the shitos of the Rishonim, the Bais Ephraim answered that all of the Mishkenos Yaakov’s proofs about the Rishonim were debatable and that if he had the time he would answer them. When the Bais Ephraim stated that the Gedolie H’Achronim paskened like Rashi, it was countered by the Mishkenos Yaakov’s declaration that he was not going to get into a discourse about the Achronim since they do not elaborate on the issues. However, the Bais Ephraim’s main point – which was lost on the Mishkenos Yaakov – was that we pasken this way, and we don’t question a minhag at all. I think it would be illuminating for you to read between the lines of the Bais Ephraim’s teshuvos.
I am surprised that you would mention the oft repeated issue of Rav Moshe and Ocean Parkway since it does not figure in Rav Moshe’s teshuvos at all. The anti-eruv group gets away with this allegation because most people do not know Rav Moshe’s teshuvos. In any case, with mechitzos, Rav Moshe would allow an eruv in Brooklyn.
I would debate every issue that RAS’s has with the Chazon Ish. (You are tempting me to write something regarding his teshuvah on my blog.) Can you explain why RAS claims that the Chazon Ish retracted his chiddush? The Chazon Ish was the greatest posek of our generation, especially regarding eruvin, and he is the one who is technically hard to beat.
It is fascinating how at first you wrote that my blog promotes the, ”gravest distortions of halacha,” and that the blog’s agenda is in, “violation of a preponderance of positions in Rishonim,” and also that, “the facts are being twisted in the extreme,” and now you state that, “Again, I and all others realize that there are surely opinions to justify most eruvin. My issue is that we have no right to pasken on this most sensitive issue on our own.” So which one is it - that I twist the facts or that I can’t pasken on my own? As a matter of fact, I speak to many poskim regarding issues raised on my blog and they are constantly urging me to set the record straight. I am not doing this on my own.
In summation, the rabbanim that you are requiring us to follow are not alive today. We therefore are on an even playing field, since they are not paskening on the current eruvin. I enumerated the overwhelming majority of Rishonim and Achronim who pasken lo asu rabbim. You are not satisfied because a few rabbanim disagree with the majority’s ruling. Not only do these few poskim disagree with the majority, their rulings would have negated an eruv in almost all towns in Europe and would not allow an eruv in most contemporary cites as well. It is obvious that your rabbanim are going against the mesorah. It is therefore preposterous that you are demanding that we follow your rabbanim.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteIt is not just a great many Rishonim, it is the overwhelming majority of Rishonim who accept mefulash as a criterion of reshus harabbim. To suggest that the Mechaber is referring to a walled city is a recent phenomenon. None of the early Achronim make this distinction. Even the Mishnah Berurah (364:8) does not subscribe to this concept. Your suggestion regarding the Gra is Rav Aharon’s. Even Rav Aharon admits that he is going against the mesorah. In any case, we have a walled city so even your poskim would require mefulash u’mechuvanim m’shaar l’shaar.
ReplyDeleteRegarding mechuvanim, your suggestion regarding the Gra again is Rav Aharon’s. I don’t understand his proof since the Gra will always bring as a source a Gemara over a Rashi. The Mishnah Berurah also does not mention that the Gra maintained otherwise. Additionally, make up your mind; does the Gra maintain that mechuvanim is conditional of a walled city or that it is not a criterion at all? In any case, the majority of Rishonim consider mefulash and mechuvanim one and the same.
The Avnei Nezer and the Livush Mordechai did make a s’fek s’feika. Some poskim do use the Aruch HaShulchan as a snif l’heter (yes I know the matter is regarding chillul Shabbos and that is why I am stressing only as a snif l’heter). In most situations the poskim did not have to rely on a s’fek s’feika since they realized that for each criterion the majority maintained that we do not go l’chumra.
The Rashba's position regarding platya was not accepted l’halachah since all towns had eruvin and platya’s. Even Rav Moshe only used it in conjunction with his other chumras in eruvin (Igros Moshe, O.C. 1:139:6). I have a lot more to say on this matter, and a teshuvah will be published soon that will open up people’s eyes regarding the Rashba and platya. The Rambam’s shita was not accepted l’halachah since all towns erected tzuras hapesachim even in a situation of parutz merubeh. In any case, we do have a Rambam eruv since we are encompassed by mechitzos that are omed merubeh. There is no, “lenient,” conclusion because all issues are based on the greatest and the majority of poskim who are lenient, and the matter is definitely a s’fek s’feik as well.
There is no yesh omrim v'yesh omrim. There is the overwhelming majority who allows an eruv and then a small minority who collected every chumrah to negate eruvin. Regarding any other matter, no one would require the world to follow a minority, and I don’t see why eruvin should be any different. Don’t get me wrong, I am not suggesting that a posek who delves into the matter and believes that we should go l’chumra can not do so (and that his talmidim should not follow his p’sak), only that you can’t require the world to follow a minority opinion. Of course, ask your posek beforehand.
I would have no problem debating Rav Belsky shlita. However, he alleges thing in Rav Moshe zt”l’s and Rav Henkin zt”l’s name that they never said (such as Rav Moshe maintains pirtzos esser is a matter of a d’Oraysa and that Rav Henkin would not allow an eruv in Brooklyn). One can’t debate facts.
ReplyDeleteRav Bechhofer – Care to elaborate on, “most eruvin are posul.” I am sure that the Boro Park eruv is very fine indeed, and that the Flatbush and Williamsburg eruvin are mehudar as well. I trust the Rabbanim HaMachshar of these eruvin implicitly. I could arrange for a tour of the Boro Park eruv if you’d like. I am sure you would agree that it is a very fine eruv. It is interesting to note that one of the reasons given to establish the Boro Park eruv was because most private eruvin were posul. Therefore, they established one community eruv under one Rav HaMachshar. There is no excuse for an eruv that relies on kulos today. Most city governments would allow the construction of an eruv mehudar. I would venture to say that many of the eruvin established in Europe prior to WWII would not have met your standards as well.
ReplyDeleteYou beat me to it, Rav Bechhofer. This misconstruing of your words is typical of the anti-eruv camp.
ReplyDeleteRav Bechhofer clearly was not referring to our debate regarding the Rishonim and Achronim, only to the actual construction of these eruvin. It is fascinating how Rav Moshe zt”l is treated like Chassidim treat a rebbe. That is, even if he was clearly presented with unreliable facts, his rulings are not debatable. Rav Moshe was a posek and not a rebbe. No one has offered an explanation of Rav Moshe’s words that would actually explain why his particulars are different than the facts. To those who know about the anti-eruv cabal that surrounded Rav Moshe zt”l, the answer is clear.
No, the Chayei Adam in klal 71:15 mentions mechitzos hayam, but with mechitzos b’y’dai adam, he would uphold lo asu rabbim. In 49:1 he is referring to a street in a walled city that is 16 amos wide which has pirtzos through either end. That street would be classified as a reshus harabbim because of siluk hamechitzos. Otherwise, the Chayei Adam would be contradictory. I know that you are going to retort that siluk hamechitzos is not pashut p’shat; however, you probably don’t realize that the Meiri, Eruvin 20a (a Rishon!!) advocates this p’shat in the shitas HaRambam (see also Even HaOzer, Eruvin 22a). There is no reason to believe that the Shulchan Aruch is referring to a different situation. I would advocate that siluk hamechitzos is a metzius; that is how cities were built, and that is why it was taken as a pashtus by all the poskim who maintain lo asu rabbim. Never mind, that according to you, one would have to twist the words of the Risohnim such as the Rambam. You have no problem doing that! As a matter of fact, the Mishkenos Yaakov’s p’shat in the Rambam is even more tenuous, such as his chiddush in rabbim. (More so, the Maggid is one of the Rishonim of the mesorah, and he maintains that the Rambam paskens lo asu rabbim, so I can’t understand why the Rambam’s shita is even debatable.)
ReplyDeleteTo reiterate, the majority of Achronim must understand the Shulchan Aruch as the Bais Ephraim maintained since they pasken lo asu rabbim. You are then in the minority, and it is not just some poskim, it is the overwhelming majority. I disagree regarding the Chayei Adam, as I stated above. The Gra is Rav Aharon’s chiddush, and actually the Gra’s words (siman 364:2) are the same as the Maggid Mishnah’s (17:10). The Maggid derives from there that the Rambam paskens like the Chachamim, so I am greatly puzzled by Rav Aharon’s proof from the Gra. Regarding the Shulchan Aruch HaRav, you misunderstood me. I was just making a personal statement.
You’re changing your mind regarding what you wrote in reference to Rav Moshe.
I never said that Rav Moshe didn’t hold of what he wrote c”v, only that he was misled regarding certain facts. Rav Moshe’s words are very understandable, and I don’t need his son to clarify it for me. I can discern from the issues you repeat in Rav Moshe’s name that you are not that familiar with his teshuvos regarding eruvin (such as your statement regarding Ocean Parkway). Again, we are talking about the facts - he either had them right or not. The fact is he was misled.
It is interesting that your precedents (RAK, RYBS, and RAS) however do count, even though they did not see all the Rishonim. You have to admit that most Rishonim maintain lo asu rabbim (you just questioned their stature and I would debate this with you as well) and you did not realize this.
Your statement, “Poskim are not data processors who spit back the latest accumulation of rulings of recent decisors,” shows that you do not realize what you put on paper. You are only offering recent decisions against eruvin, but my list includes the greatest poskim from yesteryear who elaborated on the issues and they would support an eruv. I will add that no moreh hora’ah would agree with you in regards to the derech of halachah. Halachah is based on precedent. Rav Moshe is an exception to the rule. As a matter of fact, for this reason alone some poskim (Satmar and others) did not accept his rulings. (See what I mentioned about the Mishkenos Yaakov and the Tuv Tam Vdaas above.) On a personal note, I have the greatest respect for Rav Moshe as a posek, and it can be discerned from my blog that I studied his teshuvos intensely. Your mentality is of one who never learned halachah.
I never queried about a source for RYBS. I was trying to illustrate that even talmidim don’t always follow their rebbe. How much more so those who are not talmidim.
I will mention the reason why I believe that RAK, RYBS and RAS were against city eruvin, but you will not appreciate it. Rav Aharon told RYB that even though the minhag was not like the Mishkenos Yaakov he followed him because of Rav Aharon‘s lineage (Meoz U’MeKedem, p. 22). There is no other reason why a posek would collect all chumras to negate eruvin. It is a cultural thing which carried over to yeshivaleit (see for instance RYBS’s shiur on hilchos Shabbos Iyur, 1963 that I mentioned here
http://eruvonline.blogspot.com/2005/12/part-2-meoz-umekedem-exploring.html#_ftn27). Our discussion began because you claimed that I twisted the facts. You have not shown me one fact that I twisted. I am not advocating anything new since my view is supported by the overwhelming majority of Rishonim and Achronim. The opposition is a minority view, and the fact that most cities have established eruvin proves we do not pasken like them. There is no reason to be machmir since it is a minority view, and the matter is a s'fek s'fek s'feika if there ever was one. I do not believe that you would accept any contemporary moreh hora'ah’s opinion against your Roshei Yeshivos. The irony of this is that, according to your opinion, one can disagree with the greatest Gedolei HaPoskim although not against your Roshei Yeshivos. I always promote that one should follow his posek. However, the public must be educated because most poskim do not know hilchos eruvin at all, and just cavalierly dismiss the eruv because they believe that one should be machmir. This is unacceptable; a posek can’t just shoot from the hip. I wonder why you are afraid of the public being educated.
Some of the Rishonim on your list who maintain that shishim ribo is not a criterion of reshus harabbim are in contention with the Bais Ephraim and the Mishkenos Yaakov (Rif, Rabeinu Tam, Mordechai, Rashbam, and R E MiMitz, there is a lot to say regarding this matter). I don’t want to get into the nitty gritty, but the following list proves my point that the overwhelming majority of Rishonim pasken shishim ribo is a criterion of reshus harabbim. 1. Bahag, (Berlin edition) p. 131. 2. Rav Natronai Gaon, Sharei Teshuvah, siman 209. 3. Rav Amram Gaon, Halachos Pesukos, siman 70. 4. Sar Shalom Gaon, Chemdah Genuzah, siman 70. 5. Rav Hai Gaon, Otzar HaGaonim Shabbos 6a. 6. Rashi, Eruvin 6a, 6b, 26a, 59a, 47a. 7. Tosfos, Eruvin 6a, 26a, 59a, and Shabbos 6b, 64b. 8. HaEshkol, Hilchos Tzitzis ois 31 and Hilchos Eruvin ois 64. 9. Sefer HaTrumah, 64:214, 72:239. 10. Semag, Hilchos Shabbos p. 17. 11. Sefer Ha’itim, ois 92, 206, 209. 12. Ra’avan, Shabbos 349. 13. Piskei HaRid, Eruvin 6a, 59a, Pesachim 69a. 14. Rokeach, Hilchos Shabbos 175. 15. Ravyah, Hilchos Eruvin 379, 391. 16. Riaz, Eruvin Perek 1:5, 5:5. 17. HaAgudah, Perek 5:56. 18. Rivevan, Eruvin 6b, 59a. 19. HaAgur, siman 537. 20. Piskei Rabeinu Mendel Kloizner (Ramak), Shabbos 6a. 21. Rabeinu Yerucham, Toldot Adom V’Chavah 12:4, 12:17. 22. Or Zarua, Hilchos Shabbos siman 16, Eruvin 129. 23. Maharam MeRotenberg, siman 31, Eruvin ois 9, 10. 24. Smak, Mitzvos Hatluyos Ba’aretz p. 296, 299. 25. Tsedah LaDerech, Perek 42, 46. 26. Machzor Vitri, Perek B'mah Isha, ois 31, 32. 27. Haitur, Hilchos Tzitzis, Shaar 3 Shaar Adom Chelek 1. 28. Rosh, Beitzah 24a, Eruvin 6a (see also Kitzur Piskei HaRosh, Perek 1:8). 29. Hagahos Ashri, Eruvin 6a, 20b. 30. Sefer HaNeyar, Hilchos Eruvin p. 51. 31. Hagahos Maimonios, Eruvin Perek 5:2, 5:4. 32. Mordechai, Shabbos 64b, 100a. 33. Orchos Chaim, Hilchos Shabbos ois 284. 34. Tur, O.C. 345, 364, 392..
Regarding the Mechaber and the Rema, the Bais Ephraim maintains otherwise. Additionally, this is an example where, when it serves you right, you would go against the pashtus of the vyeish oimrim of the Shulchan Aruch (shishim ribo ovrim bo b’chol yom). Then again, the Shulchan Aruch would be fair game as well since you understand the Rishonim otherwise. The Toldos Shmuel (3:81:7, 3:86:8); Bais Av (2:5:2); Divrei Yatziv (2:173:1), and Even Yisroel (8:36) all mention that the Mishna Berura did not see the Bais Ephraim. This is supported by the Mishna Berura’s own words (Bi’ur Halachah, 208:9, s.v. Eino M’Vorech). It is interesting to note that the Chafetz Chaim established an eruv in Radin - which probably would have been frowned upon by the Mishkenos Yaakov - and it seems he may have even carried at times (Dugmah M’Darchei Avi, p. 31).
Lineman: I see that we are not operating with the same basic systems, and I therefore know that you will again try to counter me with an abundance of teirutzim. This will be my final post on the issue, and you will likely have the last word. I do not have the time to reply in detail or to keep this up.
ReplyDeleteB'kitzur: The Mishnah Berurah writes that rov Rishonim hold that Asu rabbim. You bring a list of many Rishonim/Geonim farkert, but these Rishonim are of far lesser prominence than the Rif, Rosh, Ramban, Rashba, Ritva and Ran who hold that Asu rabbim, as I quouted. This is probably why the MB says that rov Rishonim hold that Asu rabbim, as he referred to common, more known Rishonim by whom we formulate our p'sak.
You dismiss the MB and most American gedolim of the 20th century. The MB, RYBS, RAS and RAK knew how to learn, believe it or not. You very often resort to dismissing a p'sak that you do not agree with by undermining the basis for it. E.g. Reb Moshe did not have the facts and was misled, the Roshei Yeshiva did not know p'sak, RAK was biased like the Mishkenos Yaakov for family reasons...chas v'sholom to these ideas. You also make ukimtos that are not at all poshut peshat: The Rishonim must refer to shem dalet mechitzos b/c of R Yehuda, the Chayei Adam refers to a case of siluk mechitzos, etc. The truth is that the Rishonim I quoted on 22a all say that we hold like R Yochanan (Asu rabbim) with no qualifiers. So, too, the Chayei Adam does not say that his case refers only to siluk mechitzos. You make these assumptions in order to meyashev what you think they must hold, but the Biur Halacha and many others do not make your ukimtos (they argue with you), and the ukimtos you make are mechudash and not poshut peshat, just like your approach to the Mechaber. Even if some say it, it is not poshut peshat. (I also note that you cannot say that "Had the MB seen the Beis Ephraim, he would not have written what he did." This is not a derech in limud. Maybe a Rishon can say such a thing about another one, but we cannot make such assumptions about the greatest poskim of 100 years ago.)
I stand by what I wrote, and I end my session with you here.
I do ask your mechilah for any words that I used that may have been out of line. I get very heated about this topic, and I am persistent in my views on it.
Kol tuv.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteRYGB - why did you delete a whole important earlier post because you said it had a hint to lineman's identity ? If you had a problem, you could have just removed the piece you felt was problematic and left the rest of it.
ReplyDeleteYou are right. We are not operating with the same basic system. You believe that the world must follow the minority, your Roshei Yeshivos, and I believe that we follow the overwhelming majority of poskim who maintain lo asu rabbim. You know very well that I am just repeating the positions of the Gedolei HaPoskim, but you are trying to fault me because you do not want to appear to be ridiculing the Gedolei HaPoskim. It is ironic that you accuse me of dismissing the few poskim who disagree with the majority as not knowing how to learn, but you then have the temerity to call the words of the Gedolei HaPoskim an abundance of teirutzim. Don’t tell me to practice what I preach, because I am not ridiculing your Gedolim. I never said a word about your poskim not knowing how to learn, only that yeshivaleit don’t know halachah. On the contrary, I understand the position of the poskim you mention. They are entitled to their opinion, and they have a right to disagree with all the poskim (albeit I believe that we are entitled to question their conclusions since they are going against the mesorah). It is your requirement that the world should follow this minority’s opinion that I take issue with. I don’t buy that you don’t have the time to answer in detail as your posts until now indicated otherwise.
ReplyDeleteYou stated earlier, “I do not rate the stature of any Rishon, but if a significant number of the most prominent ones hold that Asu rabbim, we cannot dismiss it lightly.” Now you write, “You bring a list of many Rishonim/Geonim farkert, but these Rishonim are of far lesser prominence.” So do you rate Rishonim or not? (The fact that you mention Geonim indicates you didn’t read what I posted. I only mentioned Geonim in regards to the issue of shishim ribo not asu rabbim.) Your complaint against my blog is whether I have a right to claim that we pasken one-way if there are poskim who maintain otherwise. You must admit that the majority of the Rishonim and Achronim maintain lo asu rabbim but you advocate we disagree with them because your Rishonim are more significant (and your Achronim are more important). That is your biased opinion. The Rif and the Rosh are in contention between the Bais Ephraim and the Mishkenos Yaakov so I would not include them in either tally.
Some claim that the Bais Ephraim is incorrect when he states that the Rif could pasken like the Chachamim since some Rishonim state the Rif paskens like Rav Yehudah. However, the reason that some Rishonim (Rashba, Ramban, and Rivash) maintain that the Rif paskens like Rav Yehuda is not because the Rif quotes Rav Yochanan and therefore he must pasken like Rav Yehudah. These Rishonim maintain as such because they are of the opinion that according to the Chachamim a tzuras hapesach is considered shem daled mechitzos, and therefore they uphold that the sugya in Eruvin, 6a can’t be according to the Chachamim, but only like Rav Yehudah. Since when the Rif quotes the sugya he states that a tzuras hapesach isn’t sufficient for a reshus harabbim, these Rishonim state that he paskens like Rav Yehudah. However, the overwhelming majority of Rishonim who pasken like the Chachamim maintain that a tzuras hapesach is not considered shem daled mechitzos (see Tosfas, Eruvin 6a). Hence, the sugya according to the Rif can be in agreement with the Chachamim – as the Bais Ephraim elucidates – even though he quotes Rav Yochanan. Both the Ravyah (p. 270, 276) and Eshkol (siman 64-65) quote Rav Yochanan and pasken like the Chachamim, which buttresses what the Bais Ephraim states is the p’shat in the Rif.
For the reader’s edification I will list the Rishonim who maintain lo asu rabbim and let the reader judge their stature: 1. Tosfos 2. Rabeinu Chananel 3. Rambam 4. Maggid Mishnah 5. Hagaos Maimones 6. Ravyah 7. HaEshkol 8. Sefer HaBattim 9. Tosfas Ysheinim 10. Or Zarua 11. Mahrach Or Zarua 12. Ramak 13. Rabeinu Chananel Ben Shmuel 14. Rivevan 15. Tosfos Rid 16. Piskei Ri’az 17. Sefer HaMeoros.
No, the Mishnah Berurah is working with the Mishkenos Yaakov not with the stature of these Rishonim.
You clearly do not know Rav Moshe zt”l’s shitos regarding eruvin and should not be listing him together with the other poskim you mention. This though is the way of the anti-eruv group, to selectively choose disparate shitos. Your main issue is asu rabbim and Rav Moshe most probably would not agree with your poskim. Additionally, even if the facts as Rav Moshe wrote were accurate, he would still allow an eruv in Brooklyn since we are encompassed by mechitzos. I would add that we do not have a rabbim traversing the mechitzos encircling Brooklyn, and the Mishkenos Yaakov (and possibly those poskim you mention) would allow an eruv. (The Mishkenos Yaakov admits that when utilizing a tzuras hapesach to close a pirtzah, it is as though the pirtzah ceases to exist; Mishkenos Yaakov, O.C. 122 p. 144).
Show me where I wrote to you that the Roshei Yeshivos do not know halachah? Rav Aharon said that he was biased for family reasons, these are not my words. I mentioned previously that you would not like this story, but it is a fact.
According to your understanding of the Chayei Adam there is a contradiction, and you have not offered a better explanation. What you declare is ukimtos is not my suggestions, but the suggestions of the overwhelming majority of poskim. Again, this is not just, “some,” who say this; it is the majority who maintain as such. I reiterate, you are trying to fault me because you do not want to appear to be ridiculing the Gedolei HaPoskim. You were waiting for me to mention siluk mechitzos so that you can call them teirutzim. This issue is the baby of yeshivaleit who learnt a little eruvin, since they believe that the Bais Ephraim was twisting the pashtus and that the Mishkenos Yaakov was the greater lamdan (see RYBS’s shiur on hilchos Shabbos Iyur, 1963 p. 287). Since it has been established that the halachah goes according to the Bais Ephraim regarding shishim ribo (the poskim that you mention would not agree to this either) they begrudgingly accepted it as a criterion of a reshus harabbim. However, the other contentious issues between the Bais Ephraim and the Mishkenos Yaakov, such as asu rabbim, they maintain has not been settled yet, and of course they believe the Bais Ephraim is incorrect regarding this matter. Every one is entitled to their opinion; however, the overwhelming majority of Rishonim and Achronim pasken lo asu rabbim and all of them would have to support the Bais Ephraim’s derech. So you have no right to require that the world be stringent.
You state, “The truth is that the Rishonim I quoted on 22a all say that we hold like R Yochanan (Asu rabbim) with no qualifiers.” The only truth about the Rishonim is that you did not realize that what they quote from the Raved would change the situation. They admit that Rav Yehudah would pasken lo asu rabbim in a situation of mechitzos that are omed merubeh (I would suggest the Meiri, 17b, 20, 22a for the clearest explanation; see also Rabeinu Yonasan, 22a and sefer Mincha Areiva). You will not even entertain what I am suggesting because you are not interested in the emes.
You state, “You make these assumptions in order to meyashev what you think they must hold, but the Biur Halacha and many others do not make your ukimtos (they argue with you), and the ukimtos you make are mechudash and not poshut peshat, just like your approach to the Mechaber.” You keep on repeating that there are, “many others.” This is just false; there are only a few poskim who maintain asu rabbim. None of what I state is my chiddushim only of the Gedolie HaPoskim. So what counts is not that the Bi’ur Halachah is arguing with me, but only that he is arguing with 99 percent of the poskim. As I mentioned prior, this is an issue of the metzios, of the way cities were established, and not ukimtos (see Rabeinu Chananel, Yoma 11a). If the majority of poskim has accepted that this is the peshat (and it is mentioned in at least one Rishon as well) who are you to call it teirutzim?
The claim that had the Mishnah Berurah seen the Bais Ephraim he would have paskened like him is not my suggestion only the Toldos Shmuel, Bais Av, Divrei Yatziv, and Even Yisroel. You failed to understand the crux of the argument. The question is why didn’t the Mishnah Berurah at least mention the Bais Ephraim’s shitos in eruvin? We know that he utilized the Bais Ephraim’s other sefarim [Sharei Ephraim, Mateh Ephraim] extensively. The logical answer is that since the Mishnah Berurah stated that he didn’t have the Bais Ephraim (Bi’ur Halachah 208:9, s.v. Eino M’Vorech) he couldn’t peruse it. Consequentially, the Mishnah Berurah did not see a major component of this machlokas. The difference between the Mishnah Berurah and all the other poskim that you mention is that they did see the Bais Ephraim and nevertheless reached contrary conclusions.
You stand by what you wrote because you are not intrested in the emes. You are part of a trend in the yeshivah velt that seeks all chumras to negate eruvin because you judge your lomdus to be superior to the Gedolie Haposkim. You, ”get very heated about this topic,” because it is cultural and you have a superiority complex. The yeshivah velt believes that eruvin is their domain, and it is too major an issue for the lowly moreh hora’ah to pasken on. Eruvin requires a lamdan, one who knows the ins and outs of the Rishonim. In truth, eruvin is no different then any other issue. Every rav, big or small, has a right to pasken how he sees fit.
In summation, the debate began because you claimed that I twisted facts and then you changed tactics and declared that since there is a view that disagrees with my conclusions, I have no right to promote them. You have not shown that I twisted anything at all. Everything I stated is supported by the majority of Rishonim and Achronim. I admit that there is a minority view that would not allow an eruv, but you cannot come to terms with the fact that the overwhelming majority disagrees with their view and consequentially you cannot require the world to follow them. Additionally, I have rebutted many of your claims and you have not answered them (such as that the matter is a s’fek s’feika). You keep on changing tactics.
For illustrative proposes, I will list your poskim whom maintain asu rabbim and those who maintain lo asu rabbim. Rabbosai, you be the judge if Anonymous’ claim that we follow a minorities view is unreasonable or not, and if it is not biased towards his Roshei Yeshivos.
Those who maintain that we pasken asu rabbim: Bais Meir, Mishkenos Yaakov, Bi’ur Halachah, Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l, Rav Yosef Ber Soloveichik zt”l, and Rav Aharon Soloveichik zt”l.
Those who pasken lo asu rabbim: Chacham Tzvi, Knesset Yechezkal, Mayim Rabim, Maharit Tzahalon, Tosfos Shabbos, Pri Megadim, Even HaOzer, Chavas Daas, Pene Yehoshua, Bais Ephraim, Noda B’Yehudah, She’eilas Yaavetz, Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Keren Oreh, Michtam L’David, Tiferes Tzvi, Chasam Sofer, HaEleph Lecha Shlomo, Aishel Avraham, Gaon Yaakov, Chesed L’Avraham, Maharham Shick, Maharia HaLevi, Bais Shlomo, Tzemach Tzedek, Nefesh Chayah, Avnei Nezer, Aruch HaShulchan, Maharsham, Chazon Nuchem, Yeshuos Malko, Teshuvah MeAhavah, Machzeh Avraham, Harei B’samim, Imrei Yosher, Kaf HaChaim, Divrei Malkiel, Rav Chaim Berlin, Achiezer, Even Yikrah, Chavatzelet HaSharon, and Chazon Ish.
I believe that this list speaks for itself.
"I would have no problem debating Rav Belsky shlita"
ReplyDeleteI have a great idea, Rav belsky gives a daf yomi in camp agudah open to the public go to him and argue with him,tape if you want, post it online. This online battle of wits with the unarmed gains you nothing.Hey and if your hebrew is good enough Im sure HaRav Ovadia Yosef would Debate you too
Regarding debating Rav Belsky shlita, did you miss the rest of my comment? Facts are not debatable. You may be, “unarmed,” but the original Anonymous is very familiar with the inyan. You obviously have not seen Rav Ovadia Yosef shlita’s Yabi’a Omer, vol. 9.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous asked why I deleted an entire comment - the blog software does not allow for editing comments.
ReplyDeleteYou fail to realize laws of eruvin did not start with Reb Moshe Feinstein,obm, who states clearly, the Acronim did not accept his views (Igros Moshe 4:87)ibid. 88 he states the Shulchan Aurach also rejected his views and if one wants to he can follow their ruling.
ReplyDeleteThe Lomza Rov, Rav Malkeal Tannenbaum, author of Divrei Malkiel, states it's common custom to erect eruvin in all large cities because no city has 600,000 people going on one street in one day.
Sefer Tiv Yehoshuah states construction of houses in all large cities make them walled cities. His ruling was praised by Gedolei Hador living in the Holy City of Jerusalem 100 years ago, and by the great holy sage Rav Chiam Berlin.
All these works have been republished and are available.
See Flatbush Eruv Shiah Director for additional information.
Gedolei Haposkim, agree with the Chazon Ish who rules like the Tiv Yhosuah, which was out of print when he published his ruling.(It was reprinted in 1980).
ReplyDeleteTo name a few Rav Fisher from the Edea Hacharades, Rav Horowitz, member of same Bais Din. Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach. Rave Wozner and Rav Chiam Kenevsy. All rule like the Chazon Ish and unknown to them like the Tiv Yhoshuah. This has been the opinion of Gedolei Yisroel for 100 years. (With all due respect RYBS does not come into the picture)
You cannot ignore seven Gedolei Yisroel, who approved of the Manhattan eruv in 1905. They ruled rivers surrounding Manhattan are walls. Same ruling applies to Brooklyn surrounded by water on three sides.
ReplyDeleteTheir involed discussion of this matter was pblished and never refuted. In 1979 Sefer Eruv Vhotzah was republished for all to study.
The case is closed and not a matter for discussion in our generation
If Reb Aron Kotler,obm, would have seen tshuvos from Gedolei Hador from 100 years ago permitting the Manhattan Eruv, he never would have signed on a proclamation against eruvin there. He knew his place. He understood clearly he is no match for Gdolei Yisroel who lived a 100 years ago and were leaders of our people.
ReplyDeleteHowever, sefer Eruv Vhotzah, published in 1908, was out of print when he issued his ruling. It was republished in 1979, and is available by sending $5.00 to:P.O.B.786, Woodbourne,NY 12788.
It seems, anti-eruv people are unaware of this publication, or choose to ignore it. Had they studied this work they would understand the subject.
Another sefer, Bais Av, is a basic sefer on eruvin. If one did not learn this sefer he knows nothing about eruvin.It was republished in 5760.
Anti-eruv people did not study this subject. Those somewhat knowledgeable don't realize eruvin have existid for hundreds of years and is not a matter for discussion. More, so, in Brooklyn a city surrounded by walls
ReplyDeleteTo say Reb Moshe was misiformed, and fooled, disgraces a super genius, who had basic intellingence to verify facts told to him. He was not fooled about anything. He knew exactly what was going on.He also knew about walls around Brooklyn.
ReplyDeleteHowever, anything, on eruvin, published after his passing, was forged. It was never written by him.
Only thsuvos printed in Igros Moshe when he was alive can be relied on.
The "Rashi" on Eruvin 6a has NO MEKOR, not in the gemora, mishna, tosefta etc.
ReplyDeleteIf any Jew (great or small) wishes to follow this "ruling" (given as commentary) he will have to reconcile himself with Hashem.
I was shocked to read about the Hai Gaon supposedly ruling in favor of "Rashi"/ Tosaphot on the 600 thousand issue and did a simple search on his writings:
"Of Hai's poetical writings few have been preserved, and even of these the genuineness is doubted. The didactic poem "Musar Haskel" is generally regarded as authentic, though Dukes expressed some doubts as to its genuineness, as old Jewish authors like al-Harizi and ibn Tibbon do not mention it;[18] and Steinschneider also regarded it as of doubtful authenticity.[19] The first edition appeared about 1505 (see Fano); others were published in Constantinople (1531), in Paris (1559), and elsewhere.[20] The modern editions are as follows: Dukes, Ehrensäulen, p. 96; Grätz, Blumenlese, p. 27; Steinschneider, Musar Haskel, Berlin, 1860; Weiss, Liqquṭe Qadmonim, Warsaw, 1893; Philipp, Sämmtliche Gedichte des R. Hai Gaon, Lemberg, 1881; a Latin translation by Jean Mercier, Cantica Eruditionis Intellectus Auctore per Celebri R. Hai, Paris, 1561; another by Caspar Seidel, Carmen Morale ΣτροφορυΘμον Elegantissimum R. Chai, etc., Leiptzig, 1638. The "Musar Haskel" consists of 189 double verses in the Arabic meter "rajaz," and it is said to have therefore received the title of "Arjuzah." If it really belongs to Hai, he was, as far as is known, the first Eastern writer to use an Arabic meter in Hebrew poetry. Every strophe is complete in itself, and independent of the preceding strophe.
Some piyyutim are ascribed to him, as the piyyut beginning with the words "Shema' qoli," preserved in the Sephardic liturgy for the evening of Yom Kippur.[21]
Many spurious writings have been ascribed to Hai, especially by later kabalists. Among them are a Sefer kol ha-Shem ba-Koah";[22] Pitron Halomot, Ferrara, 1552; Sefer Refafot, ib.; Perush me-'Alenu; Teshubah, on the thirteen rules of R. Ishmael and on the Ten Sefirot; "A Letter to the Priests of Africa".[23] Some of the responsa attributed to him are mere forgeries. Others again were falsified or mutilated by later additions and interpolations, as, for instance, the one containing attacks upon Aristotle and his philosophy[24]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hai_Gaon
SADLY THE TZEDUKIM CONTINUE TO PLAGUE US, IN DIFFERENT FORMS...dis-honesty in Torah learning / sefarim is nothing new...
Rabbotai, please do not use these so called "eruvim" They are built on a foundation of sand, and walls that would make a pirate sing.
In our religion, Rashi is a mekor.
ReplyDeleteThis is so insane - to allow people to use the name anonymus. I now have to wrack my brain about which of the 5 anonymusi any given post is written by!
DeletePray tell, what is your religion?
ReplyDeleteDo you follow the 40 generations with true smicha from Moshe Rabenu until Rav Ashi?
Or do you make up your own Gemorah sources?
Unless you can find a source in TALMUD (NOT a commentary on it), Yerushalmi, Bavli, tosefta...even some minority (which would still not be halacha, if it was not the majority of the Talmidai Chahacmim Samuch...but it would be better than nothing!).
Secondly, even if such a Shomer Shabos Yid (sarcasim) such as you were to say Rashi commentary is equal to halacha, then you must know that the talmudic commentaries are not even as relaible as the earlier Rashi on the Chumash...
It is well known that Rashi (Shlomo Ben Yitzchaq) did not complete the whole text...and then you must factor in the editing, and re-editing...
"Some of the other printed commentaries which are attributed to Rashi were composed by others, primarily his students. In some commentaries, the text indicates that Rashi died before completing the tractate, and that it was completed by a student. This is true of the tractate Makkot, the concluding portions of which were composed by his son-in-law, Rabbi Judah ben Nathan, and of the tractate Bava Batra, finished (in a more detailed style) by his grandson, the Rashbam. There is a legend that his commentary on Nedarim, which is clearly not his, was actually composed by his daughters."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashi
And we wonder why we were punished time and time again in Europe! (I am Galiziana)
Hashem Yishmor w' Yirachem Al Kol Benai Yisrael!
Rabbi Yisrael Ben Mordochai Halewi
"In our religion, Rashi is a mekor."
ReplyDeleteCould not of said it better myself.
Rabbi Yisrael Ben Mordochai Halewi - I believe that you are one of the reasons why Chazal referred to one who does not believe in eruvin as a Sadducee. Your comments are absurd. There are other Gaonim who mention shishim ribo as well notably the Behag.
Of course I believe in Eruvim!...ones with real walls / barriers. Ones that have no churches (avodah Zarah) or (open) Shabbat breakers contained in them.
ReplyDeleteExamples : The eruv of Ramot Polin in Jerusalem, or possibly the entire town of Bietar ilit...
TELL ME WHY THERE WERE WAS NO ERUV IN JERUSALEM IN THE BAYIT SHENI!!!
YOU are a slandering swine with a golden ring in your snout. And that is assuming you are a Talmid Chacham.
Psuedographia is nothing new to Yahdut, in fact the REAL Tziduqim have been at it for a long time.
Don't make it worse.
"TELL ME WHY THERE WERE WAS NO ERUV IN JERUSALEM IN THE BAYIT SHENI!!!"
ReplyDeleteBecause of Tziduqim like you!!!!
NO. There was no eruv in Second Temple Jerusalem Because of Avodah Zara. There are no possibilities of having an eruv when OPEN Avodah Zarah is present.
ReplyDeletePeople like You and YGB are the real Tzeduqim. But, you are too wrapped up in your own FAKE PIETY to actualy look at the TALMUD itself. ( Exactly like the original Tziduqim...off to your own innovations....)
Refusal to honor the Gemorah. And following Questionable texts.
FAKE Eruvim on SO MANY LEVELS.
Shabbat, Kashruth (meat), and Sifrai Torah are all "endangered species" because of GENERATIONS
of influence by Tziduqim.
I am currently writing a book that will strip naked the LIES spread by many of the so called "Torah Leaders /Gedolim"
Everything will be sourced to the TALMUD! No exceptions. No Tziduqi/ Sabbatian rubbish.
You (and many others like you) bring destruction upon the Benai Yisrael.
May Hashem Help you do Teshuvah...or...
Rabbi Yisrael Halewi