Rabbi Bechhofer, nowhere does Rav Moshe zt”l state in his teshuvos that he is mocheh regarding the Brooklyn eruvin. On the contrary, he did not even issue a p’sak din barur in opposition to the eruv (Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:87). Additionally, Rav Moshe did not have an issue with the population of Manhattan because it was enclosed with mechitzos. However, he argued that its bridges could be a problem because of the population (since they were not encompassed by mechitzos).
Please, most poskim maintain that we do not include the passengers in vehicles in the tally. The main reason is because they are not holchei regel. I know of two Rishonim who would support this.
Rav Schwab zt”l in the two letters that he penned regarding the Manhattan eruv never made the argument that you mention regarding the need to have the ability to visualize an eruv. In any case, he clearly stated that he hopes that there will come a time when an eruv can be established in all cities. So I guess he changed his mind later with this additional objection. I wonder if he ever objected regarding any other English halachic sefer that was published.
Rav Moshe only mentioned his (Rav Aharon zt”l) chiddush in mefulash later when he wrote his teshuvah about Boro Park. In regards to Manhattan, he stated that he did not understand the criterion of mefulash mechuvanim. (On the contrary, Manhattan according to Rav Moshe’s later chiddush should be fine since its mukaf mechitzos so he would admit that it would need to be mechuvanim as well.)
In fact,there are more comments in this shiur which I believe are not mduyak. For example, that the big cities rely mainly on the Chazon Ish. This is not exact, for we don't have to come on to that, as the keen mind will cull from here: http://eruvonline.blogspot.com/2010/08/houses-as-mechitzos-exclusive-to-chazon.html
"On the contrary, he did not even issue a p’sak din barur in opposition to the eruv (Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:87)."
I suppose you never read Reb Moshe Zt"l's long tshuvah to R' Menashe Klein.
At this point, anyone who says Reb Moshe supported a Brooklyn eruv, is either an idiot or delusional...and based on your posts, it seems that you must be the latter.
You have a reading comprehension disorder. I never said that Rav Moshe zt”l, "supported a Brooklyn eruv." I stated that Rav Moshe was not mocheh, and I stand by my statement. Nothing changed from what Rav Moshe told the Flatbush rabbanim and what is written in the teshuvah regarding RMK. Rav Moshe did not issue a p’sak din (barur) when he was asked to by the Flatbush rabbanim as he states clearly in his teshuvah (O.C. 4:87) and so too regarding Boro Park (the typed teshuvah regarding RMK). Clearly, just as he was not mocheh in Flatbush, so too he would not be mocheh in Boro Park.
Moreover, I don’t believe Rav Moshe wrote the teshuva (5:28) as it has been published. There is only a typed copy extent.
Furthermore, Rav Moshe admitted that his objection to these eruvin were based on his own chiddushim so what right do we have to add to these chiddushim? Therefore, there is no reason to argue that Rav Moshe would object to Brooklyn eruvin if they were making use of mechitzos.
Oh, since you’re such an expert on Rav Moshe’s teshuvos, I am sure that you can explain why Rav Moshe allowed an eruv for KGH Queens but not in Brooklyn.
"I never said that Rav Moshe zt”l, "supported a Brooklyn eruv."
Yes you did.
You stated: "He did not even issue a p’sak din barur in opposition to the eruv."
That's not true. He stated clearly that he held that one who carries in Brooklyn is michalel Shabbos. In his tzidkus, he told people not to be mocheh on those who felt they knew better than the posek hador.
Apparently, Reb Moshe Zt"l would have told the masses not to be mocheh against you for violating his psak.
That must make you feel more confident as a bar plugta with Reb Moshe.
Lineman:
"Moreover, I don’t believe Rav Moshe wrote the teshuva (5:28) as it has been published. There is only a typed copy extent."
That's not true. The original ksav yad is available.
Lineman:
"Furthermore, Rav Moshe admitted that his objection to these eruvin were based on his own chiddushim so what right do we have to add to these chiddushim? Therefore, there is no reason to argue that Rav Moshe would object to Brooklyn eruvin if they were making use of mechitzos."
That's not true. As stated Reb Moshe was clear that he held it is not possible to establish an eruv in Brooklyn.
Lineman:
"Oh, since you’re such an expert on Rav Moshe’s teshuvos, I am sure that you can explain why Rav Moshe allowed an eruv for KGH Queens but not in Brooklyn."
You should stick to this mhalach. Instead of making up baseless foolish answers, you remain with a good question.
Rabbi Bechhofer, please explain to me what happened between the time Rav Moshe wrote to the rabbanim of Flatbush that he can’t issue a p’sak din barur because the Achronim and the Aruch HaShulchan would not agree with him and this so called hashmatah. All of a sudden, Rav Moshe maintained that one should be mocheh even though those supporting the eruv have on whom to rely -- the Achronim and the Aruch HaShulchan? Please, this hashmatah makes no sense. Moreover, maybe 4:87 was written after this hashmatah since this Addendum is not dated; hence Rav Moshe changed his mind and one can’t be mocheh. In any case, there is no difference between Manhattan and Brooklyn today since Brooklyn is also encompassed by mechitzos.
Lineman, you made four statements- all of which were false (when I pointed them out, you didn't even argue).
You want to carry in Brooklyn or Manhattan? Just understand that according to Reb Moshe Zt"l you are being michalel Shabbos. Period.
You are not living in reality if you think you understand the Eruv in Brooklyn better than the Posek Hador Ztl, who reviewed all the raw data/population figures. He said that an eruv could not be established in Brooklyn.
You want to rely on your "mechitzos"? You have to find another Posek to be somech on.
Or you could claim to understand Reb Moshe's psakim better than his own kisvei yad, and any talmid chacham that learned by him.
The notion Rav Bechofer entertains that Queens may be divided into tiny sections based on the fact of the neighborhood individuality address style, for e.g. Flushing, N.Y. is absolutely ridiculous to any Torah scholar of even one day; such a thing has no basis in Halacha whatsoever.
הנה בדבר העירוב אשר תיקן כתר"ה סביבות קיו גארדענס הילס והיה זה בהסכם כל הרבנים אשר בקיו גארדענס הילס ונעשה זה באופן שלא נכנס הדרך הכבושה לרבים הנקרא היי וויי וגם נעשה באופן שהחששות ליפסל ע"י איזה קלקול הם רחוקים מאד וגם העמידו משגיח שיראה בכל ערב שבת קדש, הנני רואה בזה תועלת גדולה והצלה ממכשול בשוגג ובמזיד, ואין דומה כלל לנוא יארק שלא היה זה ברצוננו ורצון הגאון ר' אהרן זצ"ל ועוד גדולי תורה מאגוד"ר כי נוא יארק עיר גדולה מאד וכדבארתי בתשובה בספרי א"מ אבל קיו גארדענס הילס היא קטנה לענינים אלו וליכא הטעמים שכתבתי שם דלכן הוא טובה גדולה ותועלת לשמירת שבת ואני אומר שיפה עשיתם
This is the pertinent parts of the Detroit teshuvah:
תיקון עירוב ליד דעטראיט, בע"ה ח' אלול תש"מ, מע"כ ידידי הנכבד מאד הרב הגאון כש"ת מוהר"ר יחזקאל הלוי גרובנער שליט"א
נתאחרתי במכתבי מחמת שנדמה לנו שכתר"ה עוד יכתוב לנו מביתו בזה, אבל כיוון שלא נתקבל יותר, אראה לכתוב רק במה שחתמו כל חברי ועד הרבנים, שהוא אם לעשות תיקון עירובין במקום שדרים רוב היהודים, שאין זה בדעטראיט שהיא העיר הגדולה שנחשבת בין הערים הגדולות, אלא בשני מקומות קטנים. ואף שבמכתב מיום ד' מנ"א שחתמו כולם לא הוזכר זה, אבל כתר"ה אמר לי זה אשר כמעט כל היהודים ובפרט שומרי תורה דרים כולם בשני מקומות הקטנים, שכל הציבור הוא פחות ממאה אלף …אבל עתה שהנידון הוא על שני מקומות שביחד יש שם פחות ממאה אלף תושבים, וגם עוברים ושבים ממקומות אחרים אין שם אלא מעט
Thank you for the post. Either I am right in my interpretation or Rabbi Gruber deliberately misled R' Moshe. Take your pick. The same is true of the KGH teshuva, only there it would have been Rabbi Steinberg misleading R' Moshe.
In the case of Queens there can be no other explanation. In the case of Detroit, it may be argued that the distinction in municipal entities is the point, but the thrust is the same. Neither teshuva can be based on geography.
I would suggest you go through Rav Yecheskel Grubner’s Kenesses Yecheskel (vol. 1, 2009) where he documents the proceedings of the Detroit eruv. In particular see the Debrecener rav's letter how he understood RMF's teshuvah regarding Detroit. People should stop making up excuses for the KGH eruv.
I accidentally deleted your last post in moderation. This is what you wrote in it:
Sorry but you just can't make up excuses when RMF never said it. More so, it simply does not follow RMF shita regarding twelve mil. Therefore, your suggestion is incorrect.
On the subject of misleading RMF (clearly Rabbi Grubner did not mislead, he was accurate in his description of the metzios), why is it not possible that RMF was mislead regarding Brooklyn. RMF wrote that both BP and Flatbush independently contain shishim ribo?
Regarding Reb Moshe Ztvk"l's shitah of "Machene Yisroel," is it possible that it's not a problem in Kew Gardens Hills?
ReplyDeleteI don't have the population data, but do you know if there are 3 million people in the 8.5 X 8.5 area around KGH?
Rabbi Bechhofer, nowhere does Rav Moshe zt”l state in his teshuvos that he is mocheh regarding the Brooklyn eruvin. On the contrary, he did not even issue a p’sak din barur in opposition to the eruv (Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:87). Additionally, Rav Moshe did not have an issue with the population of Manhattan because it was enclosed with mechitzos. However, he argued that its bridges could be a problem because of the population (since they were not encompassed by mechitzos).
ReplyDeletePlease, most poskim maintain that we do not include the passengers in vehicles in the tally. The main reason is because they are not holchei regel. I know of two Rishonim who would support this.
Rav Schwab zt”l in the two letters that he penned regarding the Manhattan eruv never made the argument that you mention regarding the need to have the ability to visualize an eruv. In any case, he clearly stated that he hopes that there will come a time when an eruv can be established in all cities. So I guess he changed his mind later with this additional objection. I wonder if he ever objected regarding any other English halachic sefer that was published.
Rav Moshe only mentioned his (Rav Aharon zt”l) chiddush in mefulash later when he wrote his teshuvah about Boro Park. In regards to Manhattan, he stated that he did not understand the criterion of mefulash mechuvanim. (On the contrary, Manhattan according to Rav Moshe’s later chiddush should be fine since its mukaf mechitzos so he would admit that it would need to be mechuvanim as well.)
Lubavitch does use eruvin - witness Kfar Chabad.
In fact,there are more comments in this shiur which I believe are not mduyak. For example, that the big cities rely mainly on the Chazon Ish. This is not exact, for we don't have to come on to that, as the keen mind will cull from here: http://eruvonline.blogspot.com/2010/08/houses-as-mechitzos-exclusive-to-chazon.html
Delete:-)
DeleteLineman:
ReplyDelete"On the contrary, he did not even issue a p’sak din barur in opposition to the eruv (Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:87)."
I suppose you never read Reb Moshe Zt"l's long tshuvah to R' Menashe Klein.
At this point, anyone who says Reb Moshe supported a Brooklyn eruv, is either an idiot or delusional...and based on your posts, it seems that you must be the latter.
You have a reading comprehension disorder. I never said that Rav Moshe zt”l, "supported a Brooklyn eruv." I stated that Rav Moshe was not mocheh, and I stand by my statement. Nothing changed from what Rav Moshe told the Flatbush rabbanim and what is written in the teshuvah regarding RMK. Rav Moshe did not issue a p’sak din (barur) when he was asked to by the Flatbush rabbanim as he states clearly in his teshuvah (O.C. 4:87) and so too regarding Boro Park (the typed teshuvah regarding RMK). Clearly, just as he was not mocheh in Flatbush, so too he would not be mocheh in Boro Park.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, I don’t believe Rav Moshe wrote the teshuva (5:28) as it has been published. There is only a typed copy extent.
Furthermore, Rav Moshe admitted that his objection to these eruvin were based on his own chiddushim so what right do we have to add to these chiddushim? Therefore, there is no reason to argue that Rav Moshe would object to Brooklyn eruvin if they were making use of mechitzos.
Oh, since you’re such an expert on Rav Moshe’s teshuvos, I am sure that you can explain why Rav Moshe allowed an eruv for KGH Queens but not in Brooklyn.
Lineman:
ReplyDelete"I never said that Rav Moshe zt”l, "supported a Brooklyn eruv."
Yes you did.
You stated:
"He did not even issue a p’sak din barur in opposition to the eruv."
That's not true. He stated clearly that he held that one who carries in Brooklyn is michalel Shabbos. In his tzidkus, he told people not to be mocheh on those who felt they knew better than the posek hador.
Apparently, Reb Moshe Zt"l would have told the masses not to be mocheh against you for violating his psak.
That must make you feel more confident as a bar plugta with Reb Moshe.
Lineman:
"Moreover, I don’t believe Rav Moshe wrote the teshuva (5:28) as it has been published. There is only a typed copy extent."
That's not true. The original ksav yad is available.
Lineman:
"Furthermore, Rav Moshe admitted that his objection to these eruvin were based on his own chiddushim so what right do we have to add to these chiddushim? Therefore, there is no reason to argue that Rav Moshe would object to Brooklyn eruvin if they were making use of mechitzos."
That's not true. As stated Reb Moshe was clear that he held it is not possible to establish an eruv in Brooklyn.
Lineman:
"Oh, since you’re such an expert on Rav Moshe’s teshuvos, I am sure that you can explain why Rav Moshe allowed an eruv for KGH Queens but not in Brooklyn."
You should stick to this mhalach. Instead of making up baseless foolish answers, you remain with a good question.
Rabbi Bechofer, please honor us with your position...
ReplyDeleteI was referring specifically to the hashmatah to OC 4:89, which appears at the of YD 3, p. 428, where Reb Moshe writes:
ReplyDeleteשכתבתי שאני אוסר [במאנהעטן]... אבל אין בידי למחות... אבל היה זה דוקא במאנהעטן ולא על ברוקלין...
to me he seems to be saying quite clearly that I could not be mocheh on Manhattan, but I am mocheh on Brooklyn.
Rabbi Bechhofer, please explain to me what happened between the time Rav Moshe wrote to the rabbanim of Flatbush that he can’t issue a p’sak din barur because the Achronim and the Aruch HaShulchan would not agree with him and this so called hashmatah. All of a sudden, Rav Moshe maintained that one should be mocheh even though those supporting the eruv have on whom to rely -- the Achronim and the Aruch HaShulchan? Please, this hashmatah makes no sense. Moreover, maybe 4:87 was written after this hashmatah since this Addendum is not dated; hence Rav Moshe changed his mind and one can’t be mocheh. In any case, there is no difference between Manhattan and Brooklyn today since Brooklyn is also encompassed by mechitzos.
ReplyDeleteSo now your censoring?
ReplyDeleteLineman, you made four statements- all of which were false (when I pointed them out, you didn't even argue).
ReplyDeleteYou want to carry in Brooklyn or Manhattan? Just understand that according to Reb Moshe Zt"l you are being michalel Shabbos. Period.
You are not living in reality if you think you understand the Eruv in Brooklyn better than the Posek Hador Ztl, who reviewed all the raw data/population figures. He said that an eruv could not be established in Brooklyn.
You want to rely on your "mechitzos"? You have to find another Posek to be somech on.
Or you could claim to understand Reb Moshe's psakim better than his own kisvei yad, and any talmid chacham that learned by him.
The notion Rav Bechofer entertains that Queens may be divided into tiny sections based on the fact of the neighborhood individuality address style, for e.g. Flushing, N.Y. is absolutely ridiculous to any Torah scholar of even one day; such a thing has no basis in Halacha whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteTell that to Rabbi Moshe Feinstein zt"l...
DeleteYou create a hnachah that this is Rav Moshe's zt"l opinion when he never said it.
ReplyDeleteHave you read his teshuva on Oak Park and Southfield vs. Detroit?
DeleteYes, and he never said that it has anything to do with addresses. You, and others made this up.
ReplyDeleteYelamdenu Rabbeinu. What does he say?
DeleteThis is the KGH teshuvah:
Deleteהכשר העירוב בקיו גארדענס הילס, ט' ניסן תשל"ד, מע"כ ידידי הרה"ג מוהר"ר פרץ שטיינבערג שליט"א
הנה בדבר העירוב אשר תיקן כתר"ה סביבות קיו גארדענס הילס והיה זה בהסכם כל הרבנים אשר בקיו גארדענס הילס ונעשה זה באופן שלא נכנס הדרך הכבושה לרבים הנקרא היי וויי וגם נעשה באופן שהחששות ליפסל ע"י איזה קלקול הם רחוקים מאד וגם העמידו משגיח שיראה בכל ערב שבת קדש, הנני רואה בזה תועלת גדולה והצלה ממכשול בשוגג ובמזיד, ואין דומה כלל לנוא יארק שלא היה זה ברצוננו ורצון הגאון ר' אהרן זצ"ל ועוד גדולי תורה מאגוד"ר כי נוא יארק עיר גדולה מאד וכדבארתי בתשובה בספרי א"מ אבל קיו גארדענס הילס היא קטנה לענינים אלו וליכא הטעמים שכתבתי שם דלכן הוא טובה גדולה ותועלת לשמירת שבת ואני אומר שיפה עשיתם
This is the pertinent parts of the Detroit teshuvah:
Deleteתיקון עירוב ליד דעטראיט, בע"ה ח' אלול תש"מ, מע"כ ידידי הנכבד מאד הרב הגאון כש"ת מוהר"ר יחזקאל הלוי גרובנער שליט"א
נתאחרתי במכתבי מחמת שנדמה לנו שכתר"ה עוד יכתוב לנו מביתו בזה, אבל כיוון שלא נתקבל יותר, אראה לכתוב רק במה שחתמו כל חברי ועד הרבנים, שהוא אם לעשות תיקון עירובין במקום שדרים רוב היהודים, שאין זה בדעטראיט שהיא העיר הגדולה שנחשבת בין הערים הגדולות, אלא בשני מקומות קטנים. ואף שבמכתב מיום ד' מנ"א שחתמו כולם לא הוזכר זה, אבל כתר"ה אמר לי זה אשר כמעט כל היהודים ובפרט שומרי תורה דרים כולם בשני מקומות הקטנים, שכל הציבור הוא פחות ממאה אלף …אבל עתה שהנידון הוא על שני מקומות שביחד יש שם פחות ממאה אלף תושבים, וגם עוברים ושבים ממקומות אחרים אין שם אלא מעט
So Yelamdenu Rabbeinu, do you see anything about how letters are addressed?
DeleteThank you for the post. Either I am right in my interpretation or Rabbi Gruber deliberately misled R' Moshe. Take your pick. The same is true of the KGH teshuva, only there it would have been Rabbi Steinberg misleading R' Moshe.
DeleteIn the case of Queens there can be no other explanation. In the case of Detroit, it may be argued that the distinction in municipal entities is the point, but the thrust is the same. Neither teshuva can be based on geography.
DeleteI would suggest you go through Rav Yecheskel Grubner’s Kenesses Yecheskel (vol. 1, 2009) where he documents the proceedings of the Detroit eruv. In particular see the Debrecener rav's letter how he understood RMF's teshuvah regarding Detroit. People should stop making up excuses for the KGH eruv.
DeleteI accidentally deleted your last post in moderation. This is what you wrote in it:
DeleteSorry but you just can't make up excuses when RMF never said it. More so, it simply does not follow RMF shita regarding twelve mil. Therefore, your suggestion is incorrect.
On the subject of misleading RMF (clearly Rabbi Grubner did not mislead, he was accurate in his description of the metzios), why is it not possible that RMF was mislead regarding Brooklyn. RMF wrote that both BP and Flatbush independently contain shishim ribo?