Continued from part VII
Rav Jaffe began his rebuttal, Teshuvah KaHalachah, which he said was an addendum to his Sho’el Ka’inyan and was written in response to a kuntres called Tikvas Zecharia, which advocated the carrying on Shabbos in St. Louis by relying on the telegraph lines.
What follows is, in Rav Jaffe’s words, a conclusive rebuttal of the Tikvas Zecharia:
What follows is, in Rav Jaffe’s words, a conclusive rebuttal of the Tikvas Zecharia:
1) Rav Jaffe derided Rav Rosenfeld in the harshest terms, asserting that from Rav Rosenfeld’s preface[156] we saw that he demeaned the Gedolei HaRabbanim of America. He proclaimed that anyone with Jewish blood coursing through his arteries would not be able to restrain himself because Rav Rosenfeld disparaged the current rabbanim who were not comfortable with his heter. He posited that it was discernable from Rav Rosenfeld’s preface that his only intention was to rule leniently in order to find favor in the eyes of the public.
2) Contrary to Rav Rosenfeld’s stance,[157] Rav Jaffe argued that the inhabitants of the mavoi could compel one to contribute regarding mechitzos but compelling one to join in the eruvei chatzeiros could only be enforced through Bais Din.
3) Rav Jaffe declared that Rav Rosenfeld, in his introduction, cited the Rosh[158] without realizing that it actually pertained to him. Rav Jaffe stated that in the era of the Rosh someone argued on the Talmud and the gedolim, without bringing supporting evidence, and did not allow tzuras hapesachim to be erected so the Rosh commanded that he establish an eruv. In our times, Rav Rosenfeld wanted to sanction a reshus harabbim, also without supporting evidence, arguing on the Talmud and the gedolim. Moreover, Rav Jaffe exclaimed, why didn’t Rav Rosenfeld read a little further on in the Rosh, where he stated that once one mavoi opens into a reshus harabbim, every mavoi that is mefulash into it requires a tzuras hapesach at every opening? This teshuvah from the Rosh, Rav Jaffe stated, would have superseded all of Rav Rosenfeld’s arguments.
4) Arguing that Tosfos does not accept shishim ribo as a criterion, Rav Jaffe cited support for the Masa'as Binyamin against Rav Rosenfeld’s opinion.[159]
5) He then asserted that Rav Rosenfeld’s citing of Rashi ― that the reason why Machane Levi'ah was a reshus harabbim was because that is where Klall Yisroel assembled to hear Torah from Moshe Rabbainu[160] ― is actually proof to the contrary. It was impossible, said Rav Jaffe, for shishim ribo to have congregated daily near Moshe Rabbainu. Consequently, Rashi could not have required that the shishim ribo mass in one area; thus it is sufficient to include the entire city’s population toward the tally of shishim ribo.
6) Rav Jaffe derided Rav Rosenfeld’s elucidation of various Gemaras.[161]
7) Additionally, Rav Jaffe brought evidence contrary to Rav Rosenfeld’s claim that a reshus harabbim bisected by a karmelis divided the area’s population from a unified total.[162] Rav Jaffe argued that we see from the Gemara[163] that even though the area beneath the kerashim of the Mishkan ― which intersected the roads of the diglei hamidbar ― were classified as a karmelis, the diglei hamidbar were nevertheless considered a reshus harabbim.
8) Furthermore, Rav Jaffe declared that Rav Rosenfeld[164] was inaccurate in his description of the construction of the telegraph lines in St. Louis and all cities in America. Rav Jaffe claimed that the telegraph poles, particularly in St. Louis, had a metal crossarm, approximately an amah wide, affixed to their tops upon which wires were fastened on both ends. The crossarms below the upper one were attached to the side of the telegraph poles and were wider than an amah. The telegraph wires, Rav Jaffe asserted, could not be utilized through the principle of lavud since, at the most, only two wires affixed to each end of the crossarm were close enough to each other. On the additional crossarms, the wires were much more than three tefachim apart, and the pair of wires on the opposite side of the crossarm were more than six tefachim apart from those flanking them.
Since this issue was so important, Rav Jaffe included a diagram of the telegraph poles to prove his point ― that the telegraph lines were min hatzad. Additionally, he asserted that the gaps between the telegraph poles and the houses were meant to be traversed by the masses.
9) Rav Jaffe argued that Rav Rosenfeld[165] was incorrect since the streets of St. Louis and most cities in America were open from all sides, they were unquestionably considered mefulash. Furthermore, Rav Jaffe declared that, contrary to Rav Rosenfeld’s opinion, the mechitzos are negated when the river freezes over and even more so, in St. Louis since these mechitzos are needed me’d’Oraysa. In any case, Rav Jaffe stated that the Mississippi River is more than 10 amos away from the nearest house in the city.
10) In contrast to Rav Rosenfeld’s opinion,[166] Rav Jaffe asserted that water did not halachically negate the riverbanks.[167] The riverbanks in other cities could possibly be used as mechitzos, but Rav Jaffe declared that the banks of the Mississippi River were not sufficient. Rav Jaffe argued that very few of the streets were bounded by the Mississippi River, and most of them were several parsos away. Not even a fifth of the streets of the city were encompassed by the river, and even those that were enclosed were more than 20 amos away from its banks. Moreover, he maintained that there was the concern that the river would freeze. Additionally, Rav Jaffe claimed that even if the river was close enough to the city, the banks of the Mississippi River tended to be eroded by the tremendous flow of the river and therefore were halachically insufficient.
11) Rav Jaffe declared that the telegraph lines, contrary to Rav Rosenfeld’s opinion,[168] cannot be used as a tzuras hapesach. In St. Louis, the construct of the telegraph lines and the fact that there are gaps between the telegraph poles and the houses that were made to be traversed by the masses made them halachically inferior to all others. Additionally, Rav Jaffe claimed that Rav Rosenfeld misrepresented the Shoel U’Maishiv’s position regarding the telegraph lines. He cited the glosses[169] that his friend Rav Grayewsky wrote on his sefer Sho’el Ka’inyan where he mentioned that even the Shoel U’Maishiv in Lvov did not solely rely on telegraph poles; he required that they affix small posts between the telegraph poles and the houses in order to prevent the masses from traversing between them. Rav Jaffe affirmed that since the poskim, particularly the Toras Chesed, maintained that the telegraph lines could not serve as a halachic tzuras hapesach, we could not make use of them. He added that, contrary to Rav Rosenfeld’s claim, the telegraph poles were purposefully placed in middle of the street, and those poles that were placed at the corners were at least six amos away from the houses in order to allow the rabbim to traverse between them. Moreover, he argued, since the telegraph poles had many wires running at different levels, they did not resemble a doorway, and he included a diagram of the poles to illustrate this point. Rav Jaffe mentioned that his friend Rav Grayewsky made a similar argument in his glosses on his sefer Sho’el Ka’inyan.[170]
12) In contrast to Rav Rosenfeld’s application of the principle of lavud and pi tikra yored v’sosem to the telegraph wires,[171] Rav Jaffe declared that the wires were not sufficiently close to each other to employ the principle of lavud; consequently, we could not make use of the principle of pi tikra.
13) Rav Jaffe continued that he had written further on[172] to the Av Bais Din of Yafa that most Yidden, rich and poor alike [in St. Louis], are mechalel Shabbos in public even regarding matters of d’Oraysa and do not acknowledge the principle of Shabbos. Therefore, Rav Jaffe claimed that the contracting of their reshus is problematic for any shared dwelling and even more so for the entire city. Moreover, he argued that Rav Rosenfeld[173] was incorrect and that no government official had the power to evict anyone even for the benefit of the public unless the occupant was compensated according to his demands. Additionally, Rav Jaffe declared that Rav Rosenfeld was mistaken, and a detective could only forcibly enter a house if there were grounds for suspicion of theft but not regarding other issues. Furthermore, we could not contract the reshus from the police officers since they were reassigned on a constant basis. In addition, each street had its own representative [so we would have needed to contract the reshus from each one of them]. All of this, Rav Jaffe argued, would only have been apparent to those who resided in America. In any case, he declared that there is no reshus to rent since we were dealing with an issue of reshus harabbim d’Oraysa in which case no renting would suffice.
Rav Jaffe then dissected Rav Rosenfeld’s heter to carry in St. Louis:
14) Even though Rav Rosenfeld wrote[174] an exact population figure for St. Louis, Rav Jaffe asserted it was not that Rav Rosenfeld was proficient in the statistics but only that he had seen it in some Yiddish book.[175] In fact, Rav Jaffe claimed he was informed by a lawyer and from some English books that the present population of St. Louis, including its suburbs, was greater than 700,000.[176] In any case, he argued that between the residents and the visitors and those passing through the city ― which has the largest train system in the region ― there was no doubt that the population was greater than shishim ribo. Moreover, Rav Jaffe alleged that when the World’s Fair[177] was in operation, all the newspapers stated that the population reached close to one million.
15) Rav Jaffe then lashed into Rav Rosenfeld[178] citing proof that beneath the electric or steam trolleys was a karmelis and not a reshus hayachid. Additionally, he claimed, many of these trolleys were more than four tefachim high so the ground beneath them was definitely not a reshus hayachid. Rav Jaffe exclaimed that no one would have thought to argue that we do not include the occupants of the trolleys in the tally when calculating the shishim ribo in order to determine if the street is classified as a reshus harabbim. Furthermore, he stated, the hundreds of thousands of people traveling in these trolleys came from the streets, so they would, in any case, had been included in the tally. Additionally, Rav Jaffe declared that Rav Rosenfeld was incorrect for not having included the sidewalks with the roads to comprise an area 16 amos wide since they were all connected as one. He then added that besides for the space that the trolley cars occupied, the remainder of the street where people traversed was wider than 16 amos. Rav Jaffe then asserted that there really was no need for proof because the occupants of the trolleys were included in the tally just like pedestrians were. Nevertheless, he cited some poskim, including the Magen Avraham,[179] who maintained that we include the occupants of the ships ― which are classified as a reshus hayachid ― in the tally; consequentially, the trolley passengers should have been included as well. Rav Jaffe continued that Rav Rosenfeld’s claim that the trolleys make it dangerous for pedestrians to traverse the street was totally false. The fact is that thousands of pedestrians traversed the streets before and after the trolleys passed and traversed on the sides of the streets when the trolleys chimed to warn of their presence. Moreover, Rav Jaffe deflected Rav Rosenfeld’s argument that the trolleys made it dangerous for pedestrians to traverse the street, thus the street cannot sustain the rabbim. There was no difference, he claimed, if the rabbim consisted of pedestrians or of the trolley passengers, and it is irrelevant that the pedestrians had to wait a few seconds until the trolleys passed.
16) He then declared that Rav Rosenfeld[180] was incorrect when he set forth how he was enclosing the section of the city of St. Louis where the Jews resided, and that he was using the Mississippi River for the eastern mechitzah. Rav Jaffe claimed that there was no exclusive section where the Jews resided; they lived together with the non-Jews.[181] He added that, unlike what Rav Rosenfeld claimed, the Mississippi River[182] did not bound the entire east side of the city since the river did not run in a straight line. Even the few streets that did run near the river were more than 20 amos away from the incline of the riverbanks. Rav Jaffe argued that since all the streets opened into each other, even if some of the streets were circumscribed by the river the next street which was not enclosed had a rabbim traversing it.
17) Rav Jaffe asserted that the River Des Peres that Rav Rosenfeld made use of on the south side of the city[183] was currently not like Rav Rosenfeld described it. It was nothing more than a crevice that usually was dry and had a few small bridges spanning it. Additionally, the river was several parsos away from the houses of the city. Rav Jaffe added that Rav Rosenfeld was inaccurate when he claimed that both rivers had banks which were more than 10 tefachim high above their respective waterlines. He argued that there were no riverbanks that were built up ten-tefachim over a four-amos area above the waterline and they were definitely not next to any of the houses of the city.
18) According to Rav Jaffe there were difficulties with Rav Rosenfeld’s mechitzos on the north side of the city, the Mississippi River; and closer to the city, the artificial embankments that the railroads ran along; and also one longer embankment that covered the pipelines that brought water into the city.[184] He asked what bearing the Mississippi River had on St. Louis if the artificial embankments separated it from the city. Moreover, Rav Jaffe queried, where was there in this city such an artificial embankment? On the contrary, in this country the approach was to level out all embankments. In St. Louis, Rav Jaffe pointed out, no ramparts were built. Furthermore, he questioned Rav Rosenfeld’s objective when he listed the longer artificial embankment as a mechitzah. Either it was long enough to enclose the entire north side of the city, which was fifteen or seventeen miles long, or if not, we would not have had a need to utilize the smaller embankments. Additionally, what pipes were these embankments covering? All the pipes ran from one source, where the water was collected and processed[185] from the Mississippi River, and these pipes were all underground. All of this was secondary, Rav Jaffe argued, since the river on the north side was a few miles from any point in the city and only bounded a small section of the city. Therefore, he claimed, Rav Rosenfeld had to rely on these very small embankments which were closer to the city. These small embankments on the outskirts of the city were quite some distance from any of the houses of the city and did not pertain to the city at all. Rav Jaffe added that all of the above was confirmed by his friend Rav Grayewsky who was in St. Louis.
19) Rav Jaffe then questioned Rav Rosenfeld’s mechitzos on the west side of the city, the artificial trench which had some bridges spanning it; the walls consisting of fences surrounding the cemeteries; and the numerous hills in the vicinity.[186] What function did this artificial trench serve? Rav Jaffe then exclaimed that it seemed that even Rav Rosenfeld did not know what their use was for. While there were some natural furrows over which they had constructed bridges in order to make them easy to cross, it would have been illogical, he proclaimed, to have dug an artificial trench for no reason other than to build some bridges over it. In any case, Rav Jaffe continued, these furrows were remote from the houses of the city. Additionally, Rav Jaffe claimed that the fences surrounding the cemeteries would not have been of much help since the cemeteries were not more than one block themselves, and they too were approximately eight miles from the city. Moreover, the break between the cemeteries and the hills that Rav Rosenfeld had mentioned were not just 10 amos wide as he claimed, but were as large as a few thousand amos.
20) Contrary to Rav Rosenfeld’s account,[187] Rav Jaffe declared that there was no exclusively Jewish section in St. Louis where only Jews resided, and there were no telegraph lines that partitioned the areas where the Jews resided from the areas inhabited by non-Jews.[188]
21-22) Rav Jaffe inserted his previously published Rishfei Eish into these numbers.[189]
In conclusion, Rav Jaffe wrote that the above was an accurate description of the telegraph lines which were all min hatzad, and that the gaps between the telegraph poles and the houses were meant to be traversed by the masses.[190] Therefore, he asked, would it be correct to place such obstacles before the masses for generations to come, relying solely on one rav’s hypothesis? He then signed this rebuttal as the Av Bais Din of St. Louis.
In the second part of Rav Jaffe’s kuntres, Divrei Shalom, he wrote[191] that after Sho’el Ka’inyan was published, he realized that some of the haskamos included comments on Sho’el Ka’inyan.[192] Rav Jaffe then responded to an argument in Rav Vaidenboim’s haskamah on his Sho’el Ka’inyan. Rav Vaidenboim declared that the mayor was an employee of the inhabitants of the city and renting from him was just as valid as renting the reshus through sechiro v’lekito of sechiro v’lekito. Rav Jaffe argued the situation in America was different since the mayor did not possess the power to evict anyone without his consent. Moreover, the mayor did not have the right to place an object inside of, to make use of, or enter anyone’s house without his consent. These rights, Rav Jaffe argued, were not superior to a situation of renting the reshus through sechiro v’lekito where they are only allowed the rights to a particular location on the renter’s property, in which case sechiras reshus was not sufficient. Rav Jaffe cited support that the power vested in the mayor in America would not even be sufficient for contracting the rights for the streets. He then brought proof that even in a situation where the contracting of the reshus from the mayor would be sufficient, it would not be adequate for a Tsdoki or a Yisroel Mummer who is not modeh b’eruv. This, Rav Jaffe declared, proved his point that sechiras reshus would not be sufficient in America.[193] Rav Jaffe then included additional letters of defense in Divrei Shalom that did not pertain to eruvin.
Rav Jaffe received haskamos on Teshuvah KaHalachah from:
Rav Shmuel Salant, Rav, Ravad of Yerushalayim and Rav Schneur Zalman Fradkin (1830-1902)[194] of Yerushalayim[195] dated June 28, 1896. Both of them declared that they do not permit carrying through the use of the telegraph lines since they are not halachically considered tzuras hapesachim.
Rav Naphtali Hertz HaLevi Vaidenboim, Ravad of Yafa. Rav Vaidenboim wrote that he had examined kuntres Divrei Shalom[196] where Rav Jaffe argued on his haskamah to Sho’el Ka’inyan. Rav Vaidenboim declared that, nevertheless, he still disagreed with Rav Jaffe, and that in America, it was definitely possible to contract the reshus from the city government since they were agents of the national government who could enact war. However, he affirmed that the eruv could not be relied on since it made use of telegraph lines. Rav Vaidenboim continued by defending his approbation against another halachic argument made by Rav Jaffe, this one, however, not relevant to eruvin.
Rav Shaul Chaim Hurowitz, of Yerushalayim. He wrote that Rav Eliezer Zalman Grayewsky showed him Rav Jaffe’s kuntres Divrei Shalom.[197] Rav Hurowitz then refuted halachic arguments made by Rav Jaffe, which were not relevant to eruvin. He continued that Rav Grayewsky had asked his opinion regarding the use of telegraph lines as a tzuras hapesach. Rav Hurowitz answered unequivocally that telegraph lines were classified as min hatzad. He then pointed out that even if the wires were attached to insulators affixed to the top of the poles and were not considered min hatzad, nevertheless, since the telegraph poles had finials that projected above the poles, the poles were classified as min hatzad. He then added that, regarding the issues of the distance between the telegraph poles and the houses and that only a structure meant to resemble a doorway could serve as a tzuras hapesach, he was uncertain that they were problematic.[198] However, because of the matter of tzuras hapesach min hatzad, there is no doubt that that we cannot rely on the telegraph lines. Therefore, the telegraph lines cannot be utilized to permit carrying and an alternative should be found.
Rav Eliezer Zalman Grayewsky of Yerushalayim dated Tammuz 5656 [June/July, 1896].[199] Rav Grayewsky stated that he could also testify that everything that Rav Jaffe wrote regarding the telegraph lines and the trolleys was accurate. He continued that he did not understand why Rav Rosenfeld would have introduced such a weak loophole to allow an issur skilah. Was Rav Rosenfeld doing so because of those who were mechalel Shabbos? Did these people require a heter? Or was it for the exceptional individuals who were Shomer Shabbos? For them, Rav Grayewsky declared it was an absolute offense to allow them to carry by relying on such weak arguments. To allow such a precedent could be detrimental for all of American Jewry. Everyone would then argue that surely it was permitted to carry all over the world since the world was encompassed by the sea. Furthermore, according to Rav Rosenfeld’s assumptions, carrying would be permitted from New York until San Francisco since the entire route was encompassed by the telegraph lines. Therefore, Rav Grayewsky asked that, for the sake of truth it would be fitting that Rav Rosenfeld recant his heter and acknowledge his error.
Rav Eliezer Zalman Grayewsky of Yerushalayim dated Tammuz 5656 [June/July, 1896].[199] Rav Grayewsky stated that he could also testify that everything that Rav Jaffe wrote regarding the telegraph lines and the trolleys was accurate. He continued that he did not understand why Rav Rosenfeld would have introduced such a weak loophole to allow an issur skilah. Was Rav Rosenfeld doing so because of those who were mechalel Shabbos? Did these people require a heter? Or was it for the exceptional individuals who were Shomer Shabbos? For them, Rav Grayewsky declared it was an absolute offense to allow them to carry by relying on such weak arguments. To allow such a precedent could be detrimental for all of American Jewry. Everyone would then argue that surely it was permitted to carry all over the world since the world was encompassed by the sea. Furthermore, according to Rav Rosenfeld’s assumptions, carrying would be permitted from New York until San Francisco since the entire route was encompassed by the telegraph lines. Therefore, Rav Grayewsky asked that, for the sake of truth it would be fitting that Rav Rosenfeld recant his heter and acknowledge his error.
Rav Jaffe included the following letter of praise[200] from Rav Refael Yaakov Dovid Willovsky (1845-1913)[201] Av Bais Din of Slutzk dated September 20 1894. Rav Willovsky declared that one was not allowed to carry in St. Louis, and he added that the Toras Chesed [on the subject of relying on telegraph lines] would also have prohibited it.[202]
Additionally, Rav Jaffe included letters of praise from the following rabbanim in America:
Rav Yehoshua Seigel (1846-1910)[203] Rav HaKollel D'Kehilas Yisroel in New York [204] dated October 29, 1895.[205] Rav Seigel stated that Rav Jaffe was the first rav to publish teshuvos regarding issues applicable to America. He continued that if the rationale [of Rav Rosenfeld] to allow an eruv was as Rav Jaffe stated in his teshuvos, it was incumbent on all upright people to take a stand against this heter.[206] In a footnote to Rav Seigel’s letter, Rav Jaffe stated that from the newly published kuntres Tikvas Zecharia, Rav Seigel would see that he, Rav Jaffe, had in fact listed all of Rav Rosenfeld’s heterim.
Avraham Yaakov Gershon Lesser (1834-1924)[207] of Chicago dated November 27, 1895. Rav Lesser thanked Rav Jaffe for fighting the war against the individual who was mekil regarding carrying on Shabbos.
Rav Chaim Yaakov Widerevits (1836-1911) of New York.[208] In his first letter dated October 1, 1895, he stated that he hoped to analyze Rav Jaffe’s sefer after Yom Tov. In the second letter dated November 7, 1895, he declared that the halachah in all instances was entirely like Rav Jaffe.
Rav Dov Ber Abramowitz (1860-1926)[209] Rav of Mishkan Yisroel Anshei Suvalk in New York dated November 14, 1895.[210] Rav Abramowitz lamented that he discerned from Rav Jaffe’s letters that this violator of our tenets [Rav Rosenfeld] had the impudence to do so even regarding issues that were an issur skilah. He added that he saw that the violator unfortunately was relying on the Chief Rabbi [Rav Yaakov Yosef Josef] who, as was well known, was unwell and was incapable of analyzing the situation properly. Rav Abramowitz continued that when he would meet Rav [Hillel] Klein he would consult with him as it would be fitting to do something to counter this violator of our faith.[211]
At a later date, Rav Jaffe inserted the letters from Rav Seigel and Rav Willovsky into some editions of his Sho’el Ka’inyan. Additionally, he inserted a letter that he received after the publication of his Teshuvah KaHalachah VeDivrei Shalom. This letter, dated October 28, 1896, was from Shalom Meir Mazal, Mendel Ministir, Yaakov Blumenthun, the manager and directors of the shelter for orphans that was under the auspices of Rav Moshe Yehoshua Yehudah Leib Diskin (1816–1898)[212] Ravad in Yerushalayim.[213] Rav Jaffe introduced the letter stating that the following was a letter from Rav Diskin regarding the issur of carrying in St. Louis in opposition to the well-known mechalel Shabbos, Rav Rosenfeld. The managers wrote that Rav Diskin agreed that according to the way Rav Jaffe had described that situation, there was no heter whatsoever to carry in St. Louis, and that Rav Diskin had total confidence in Rav Jaffe’s account. They continued that Rav Diskin suggested that Rav Jaffe not quarrel with these mechalelei Shabbos any more since he had done more than his share with his admonishment.[214]
_____________________________
[156] Tikvas Zecharia, preface p. {4}.
[157] Ibid., introduction, p. 2.
[158] Ibid., p. 5.
[159] Ibid., chapter 1, p. 7.
[160] Ibid., p. 8.
[161] Ibid., section 1, p. 10.
[162] Ibid.
[163] Shabbos, 98a and Eruvin, 6b.
[164] Tikvas Zecharia, chapter 1, section 2, page 10.
[165] Ibid., chapters 2-3, page 12-14.
[166] Ibid., chapters 3-4.
[167] While it does not seem that, when Rav Rosenfeld reworked chapter 3 of Tikvas Zecharia, vol. 2, (see note 101) he was addressing Rav Jaffe directly, nevertheless, the reworking of the chapter did answer some of Rav Jaffe’s arguments against him in Teshuvah KaHalachah VeDivrei Shalom.
[168] Tikvas Zecharia, chapter 5, page 25.
[169] Ois 5, 8.
[170] Ois 4.
[171] Tikvas Zecharia, chapter 5, page 36.
[172] Divrei Shalom, p. 31 {17}. See also the Av Bais Din of Yafa’s haskamah and note 193.
[173] Tikvas Zecharia, chapters 6-7.
[174] Ibid., page 40.
[157] Ibid., introduction, p. 2.
[158] Ibid., p. 5.
[159] Ibid., chapter 1, p. 7.
[160] Ibid., p. 8.
[161] Ibid., section 1, p. 10.
[162] Ibid.
[163] Shabbos, 98a and Eruvin, 6b.
[164] Tikvas Zecharia, chapter 1, section 2, page 10.
[165] Ibid., chapters 2-3, page 12-14.
[166] Ibid., chapters 3-4.
[167] While it does not seem that, when Rav Rosenfeld reworked chapter 3 of Tikvas Zecharia, vol. 2, (see note 101) he was addressing Rav Jaffe directly, nevertheless, the reworking of the chapter did answer some of Rav Jaffe’s arguments against him in Teshuvah KaHalachah VeDivrei Shalom.
[168] Tikvas Zecharia, chapter 5, page 25.
[169] Ois 5, 8.
[170] Ois 4.
[171] Tikvas Zecharia, chapter 5, page 36.
[172] Divrei Shalom, p. 31 {17}. See also the Av Bais Din of Yafa’s haskamah and note 193.
[173] Tikvas Zecharia, chapters 6-7.
[174] Ibid., page 40.
[175] While it is possible that Rav Rosenfeld saw these numbers in some Yiddish book, no doubt these numbers were gleaned from no less an authoritative source than the US Census (see note 57, 135).
[176] At this point, Rav Jaffe clearly states that he is including the suburbs in the tally. In Sho’el Ka’inyan (p. 2) he mentioned that the population of St. Louis was greater than shishim ribo, and as I noted there (see notes 64-65), he must have been including some of the suburbs in the tally, as well. Consequentially, I have no idea how three years later (1894-1896), even factoring in the population growth, Rav Jaffe came up with a population figure for the same area of even greater than 700,000. Therefore, it is possible that, at this point, Rav Jaffe included additional suburbs in order to push up the tally to eliminate any doubt that there was shishim ribo traversing therein daily, since previously (Sho’el Ka’inyan, p. 2, 6) Rav Jaffe had been unsure if this was the case (see also note 64).
[177] The St. Louis World Fair was first held in 1904, so I am not sure what Rav Jaffe is referring to. There was the long running St. Louis Fair, but that was on a much smaller scale and was, by this time, even on the decline.
[178] Tikvas Zecharia, page 40.
[179] Siman, 363:30. The Magen Avraham in 345:14 and 363:30 has been used many times as proof against those who argue that we do not included the occupants of the cars in the tally of the shishim ribo (see Mishnah Halachos, 7:61 for a response why the Magen Avraham in 345:14 is not applicable). I believe, though, that Rav Jaffe was the first to cite this Magen Avraham.
[180] Tikvas Zecharia, page 42.
[181] See note 118.
[182] This is where Rav Jaffe ridiculed the way Rav Rosenfeld spelled the Mississippi River in Hebrew; see note 55.
[183] Tikvas Zecharia, page 42.
[184] Ibid.
[185] Rav Jaffe is referring to Bissell’s Point Waterworks; see note 114.
[186] Tikvas Zecharia, page 42.
[187] Ibid.
[188] See note 118.
[189] See beginning of this chapter and note 52.
[178] Tikvas Zecharia, page 40.
[179] Siman, 363:30. The Magen Avraham in 345:14 and 363:30 has been used many times as proof against those who argue that we do not included the occupants of the cars in the tally of the shishim ribo (see Mishnah Halachos, 7:61 for a response why the Magen Avraham in 345:14 is not applicable). I believe, though, that Rav Jaffe was the first to cite this Magen Avraham.
[180] Tikvas Zecharia, page 42.
[181] See note 118.
[182] This is where Rav Jaffe ridiculed the way Rav Rosenfeld spelled the Mississippi River in Hebrew; see note 55.
[183] Tikvas Zecharia, page 42.
[184] Ibid.
[185] Rav Jaffe is referring to Bissell’s Point Waterworks; see note 114.
[186] Tikvas Zecharia, page 42.
[187] Ibid.
[188] See note 118.
[189] See beginning of this chapter and note 52.
[190] It is noticeable from this conclusion that Rav Jaffe recognize that the most viable argument that he had with Rav Rosenfeld was regarding the telegraph poles (see further Analysis of the Halachic Debate).
[191] Page, 31 {17}; see also Rav Jaffe’s rebuttal, number 13.
[191] Page, 31 {17}; see also Rav Jaffe’s rebuttal, number 13.
[192] Since Rav Jaffe’s friend Rav Grayewsky collected the haskamos and published Sho’el Ka’inyan in Yerushalayim (ibid., p. {23} 45) it is probable that Rav Jaffe did not see the haskamos prior to their publication in his Sho’el Ka’inyan.
[193] I should note that Rav Vaidenboim answered Rav Jaffe in his haskamah on Teshuvah KaHalachah VeDivrei Shalom (p. 4; see below).
[194] Author of Toras Chesed, vol. 1 (Warsaw, 1883), vol. 2 (Yerushalayim, 1909).
[195] Formally Av Bais Din of Lublin.
[196] It’s important to note that Rav Vaidenboim only referred to Rav Jaffe’s Divrei Shalom but did not mention Teshuvah KaHalachah. There is a possibility that Rav Grayewsky did not present Rav Vaidenboim with the rest of Rav Jaffe’s kuntres Teshuvah KaHalachah.
[197] It is also possible that Rav Grayewsky did not show Rav Hurowitz the section called Teshuvah KaHalachah; see preceding note.
[198] Rav Jaffe added a note that he had already discussed these issues in his Sho’el Ka’inyan.
[193] I should note that Rav Vaidenboim answered Rav Jaffe in his haskamah on Teshuvah KaHalachah VeDivrei Shalom (p. 4; see below).
[194] Author of Toras Chesed, vol. 1 (Warsaw, 1883), vol. 2 (Yerushalayim, 1909).
[195] Formally Av Bais Din of Lublin.
[196] It’s important to note that Rav Vaidenboim only referred to Rav Jaffe’s Divrei Shalom but did not mention Teshuvah KaHalachah. There is a possibility that Rav Grayewsky did not present Rav Vaidenboim with the rest of Rav Jaffe’s kuntres Teshuvah KaHalachah.
[197] It is also possible that Rav Grayewsky did not show Rav Hurowitz the section called Teshuvah KaHalachah; see preceding note.
[198] Rav Jaffe added a note that he had already discussed these issues in his Sho’el Ka’inyan.
[199] Teshuvah KaHalachah, p. 30.
[200] As can be discerned from the subsequent haskamos they were all issued for Sho’el Ka’inyan and not for Teshuvah KaHalachah VeDivrei Shalom (see also note 238).
[201] Author of Migdal David (Vilna, 1874); Chana David (Vilna, 1876); Teshuvos Ridvaz (Vilna, 1880); Chiddushi Ridvaz al HaYerushalmi (Pietrokov, 1898-1900); Nimukei Ridvaz (Chicago, 1904); Bais Ridvaz (Yerushalayim, 1908); Peas HaShulchan (Yerushalayim, 1912), and Kerem Ridvaz (Yerushalayim, 1995).
[202] Rav Willovsky also wrote in this letter that he agreed with Rav Jaffe regarding the Hebrew spelling for St. Louis and the Mississippi River; see note 55.
[203] Author of Eruv V’Hotzaah (New York, 1907) and Oznai Yehoshua (Yerushalayim, 1914).
[204] Formerly Rav of Sherps.
[205] It is fascinating that Rav Seigel gave a haskamah (of which he issued very few) on Rav Jaffe’s sefer considering the fact that Rav Seigel was the one who established the 1905 New York eruv (see also note 231).
[206] Rav Seigel added that he agreed that Rav Jaffe’s mikveh was kosher.
[207] Author of B’Achris HaYmim (Chicago, 1897) and Ohel Moed (Chicago, 1897).
[208] Formerly Rav of Moscow.
[209] Author of Daas Yisroel, 3 vols. (New York, 1899-1905); Ksav HaDas (New York, 1900), and Sefer Keshuba (New York, 1901).
[210] It is interesting to note that by 1906, Rav Abramowitz had become a rav in St. Louis (see also note 230).
[211] At a later date, I will write about where Rav Abramowitz could possibly have seen Rav Josef’s haskamah on Rav Rosenfeld’s kuntres, Tikvas Zecharia vol. 2, which was published after Rav Abramowitz’s penned his approbation on Rav Jaffe’s kuntres Teshuvah KaHalachah VeDivrei Shalom (Rav Rosenfeld’s kuntres was published at the earliest February 24, 1896; see the preface to Tikvas Zecharia, vol. 2, p. {6}).
[212] Author of Toras Ohel Moshe (Yerushalayim, 1902); Teshuvos Maharil Diskin (Yerushalayim, 1911), and Likut Amarim (Yerushalayim, 1922-1935).
[213] Formerly Rav of Brisk.
[214] See note 260.
[201] Author of Migdal David (Vilna, 1874); Chana David (Vilna, 1876); Teshuvos Ridvaz (Vilna, 1880); Chiddushi Ridvaz al HaYerushalmi (Pietrokov, 1898-1900); Nimukei Ridvaz (Chicago, 1904); Bais Ridvaz (Yerushalayim, 1908); Peas HaShulchan (Yerushalayim, 1912), and Kerem Ridvaz (Yerushalayim, 1995).
[202] Rav Willovsky also wrote in this letter that he agreed with Rav Jaffe regarding the Hebrew spelling for St. Louis and the Mississippi River; see note 55.
[203] Author of Eruv V’Hotzaah (New York, 1907) and Oznai Yehoshua (Yerushalayim, 1914).
[204] Formerly Rav of Sherps.
[205] It is fascinating that Rav Seigel gave a haskamah (of which he issued very few) on Rav Jaffe’s sefer considering the fact that Rav Seigel was the one who established the 1905 New York eruv (see also note 231).
[206] Rav Seigel added that he agreed that Rav Jaffe’s mikveh was kosher.
[207] Author of B’Achris HaYmim (Chicago, 1897) and Ohel Moed (Chicago, 1897).
[208] Formerly Rav of Moscow.
[209] Author of Daas Yisroel, 3 vols. (New York, 1899-1905); Ksav HaDas (New York, 1900), and Sefer Keshuba (New York, 1901).
[210] It is interesting to note that by 1906, Rav Abramowitz had become a rav in St. Louis (see also note 230).
[211] At a later date, I will write about where Rav Abramowitz could possibly have seen Rav Josef’s haskamah on Rav Rosenfeld’s kuntres, Tikvas Zecharia vol. 2, which was published after Rav Abramowitz’s penned his approbation on Rav Jaffe’s kuntres Teshuvah KaHalachah VeDivrei Shalom (Rav Rosenfeld’s kuntres was published at the earliest February 24, 1896; see the preface to Tikvas Zecharia, vol. 2, p. {6}).
[212] Author of Toras Ohel Moshe (Yerushalayim, 1902); Teshuvos Maharil Diskin (Yerushalayim, 1911), and Likut Amarim (Yerushalayim, 1922-1935).
[213] Formerly Rav of Brisk.
[214] See note 260.
