Wednesday, July 08, 2009

In Light of New Evidence: Revisiting Brooklyn’s Kol Koreis

The following letter that Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l wrote to Rav Shalom Yehuda Berman of the Lincoln Square Synagogue should put to rest the claim that kol koreis (especially those regarding eruvin) carry any weight at all. The fact that in this correspondence Rav Moshe declared that even in Manhattan ― where he signed the kol korei opposing the eruv[*] ― Rav Shimon Eider zt”l does not need to follow his opinion and can establish an eruv is proof that Rav Moshe never subscribed to the rhetoric of these kol koreis. How much more so regarding Brooklyn where Rav Moshe did not sign the kol koreis at all (see The 1979 Flatbush Kol Korei Exposed and The 1981 Boro Park Kol Korei Exposed) would Rav Moshe have allowed an eruv to be established. [I would add that if Rav Moshe would have known the facts on the ground, he would have even agreed to the eruvin in Brooklyn in their present construction.]

My apologies for the quality of the scan. As of yet, I have not been able to obtain a better copy of this letter.
[*] The only support that Rav Moshe signed this kol korei is the addendum to Igros Moshe, (vol. 6) O.C. 4:89. The fact that this is the only addendum in any volume of Igros Moshe makes it somewhat questionable.

Friday, July 03, 2009

Kol Koreis Versus Rav Moshe Feinstein Zt”l’s Teshuvos

I frequently hear Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l’s opinion regarding Brooklyn eruvin being cited by those who have, unfortunately, gleaned their information from the Boro Park (1981) and Flatbush (1979) kol koreis and not from Rav Moshe’s copious teshuvos. Therefore, I feel that there is a need for the following reposting of Rav Moshe’s opinion as articulated in his teshuvos. I hope that the public will concur that the teshuvos supersede any kol korei.

Interestingly, of all the instances where Rav Moshe was asked for a p’sak, eruvin is probably the only issue where he did not want to prohibit something solely on the basis of his own chiddush. The only actual p’sak regarding eruvin issued by Rav Moshe were those in favor of erecting an eruv, in communities such as Sea Gate, Kew Gardens Hills and Detroit (Igros Moshe, O.C. 2:89-90, 4:86, 5:29). Yet in instances when he personally was against the establishment of an eruv and he was asked for a p’sak on the matter such as in Flatbush, Rav Moshe not only avoided giving a p’sak he even declined to state his personal conviction (ibid., 4:87; see the teshuvah below). Rav Moshe declared, “I do not want to join you in this matter [of eruvin], because there are many opinions on this topic, as we see in the Shulchan Aruch.” It is along this same line of reasoning that Rav Moshe zt”l told Hagaon Rav Tuvia Goldstein zt”l ― even after the 1979 Flatbush kol korei was published ― that, not withstanding his opinion of the matter, if the rabbanim of Flatbush wanted to erect an eruv they could do as they saw fit.

However, at the time, there was a misunderstanding concerning Rav Moshe’s personal conviction, and some people mistakenly supposed that he was even in support of an eruv (see the teshuvah below); hence, Rav Moshe stated that he needed to clarify his opinion (ibid., 4:87-88). Even when illuminating his position, which he considered to be “l’dinah,” Rav Moshe did not want to issue a p’sak since, as he wrote, his chiddush was not mentioned in the Achronim, and moreover the Aruch HaShulchan would not agree with him. It is important to note that both these teshuvos (ibid.) were written to the same people, and the second one was just a clarification of the first and was not written as a p’sak to prohibit the eruv. In the first teshuvah (ibid., 4:87) Rav Moshe explained his chiddush that in order for there to be shishim ribo traversing the streets over a twelve mil by twelve mil area there would need to be approximately three million people living in the area (see Three Million: More or Less?). However, after Rav Moshe was told that there were fewer than three million people living in Brooklyn, he expounded on his chiddush in a second teshuvah adding that he would still not be in favor of an eruv in a large city since some might think that there was shishim ribo traversing its streets (ibid., 4:88). At the conclusion of this teshuvah, Rav Moshe declared that since he was now told that Brooklyn’s population was nearly three million and that there was almost a million people who come into Brooklyn to work daily, “me’dinah” an eruv cannot be established. In both teshuvos, “me'dinah” only refers to Rav Moshe’s personal opinion.

Regarding the Boro Park eruv, a similar sequence of events occurred when Rav Menashe Klein shlita asked Rav Moshe to issue a p’sak whether he could erect an eruv. Rav Moshe answered that he could do as he saw fit (Oim Ani Chomah, p. 266). Just as in Flatbush, this was misunderstood to mean that Rav Moshe would support an eruv. Therefore, Rav Moshe felt a need to clarify his personal opinion regarding this matter (Igros Moshe, O.C. 5:28:20). In both Boro Park and Flatbush, Rav Moshe’s teshuvos were written in reaction to the public’s misunderstanding of his personal opinion regarding eruvin and not as a p’sak. [Regarding Rav Moshe’s signature on the kol koreis which prohibited the Boro Park and Flatbush eruvin, see The 1979 Flatbush Kol Korei Exposed and The 1981 Boro Park Kol Korei Exposed.]

On the other hand, when Rav Tzvi Eisenstadt zt”l asked the rabbanim of Manhattan for their opinions ― as opposed to their p’sak ― regarding erecting an eruv, Rav Moshe answered that in his personal opinion they should not establish an eruv (see the beginning of Igros Moshe, O.C. 1:138 which is the introduction to the Manhattan teshuvah 1:139). When Rav Moshe was asked if the rabbanim of Manhattan have a right to erect an eruv, he answered that they could do as they saw fit (ibid., 4:89 and HaPardes, 33rd year, vol. 9). This follows what Rav Moshe told Rav Menachem M. Kasher zt”l, “even though I will not join you, you should finish what you started [and establish the eruv]” (Divrei Menachem, O.C. vol. 2, introduction). Only when Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l and other Roshei Yeshivos made a takanah not to erect an eruv in Manhattan did Rav Moshe join them and prohibit the eruv as well (Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:86 and Addendum to O.C. 4:89) ― this takanah was only about Manhattan and not Brooklyn; see The 1979 Flatbush Kol Korei Exposed. Even when Rav Moshe signed on the 1962 takanah with Rav Aharon Kotler, we see that he was not at ease with the language which stated that, “those who rely on the eruv in Manhattan are considered a mechalel Shabbos,” since after he quoted this takanah in his teshuvah, he omitted this last line (ibid., Addendum to O.C. 4:89).

Given that Rav Moshe, despite his personal convictions, never issued a p’sak for others against erecting eruvin, we can possibly understand why Rav Moshe stated (ibid., 3:94, 5:19, 5:24:10) that we rely on the heter of shishim ribo in all cities ― including Brooklyn and Manhattan ― since he did not want to employ his chiddush as a p’sak din barur (see also Rav Moshe zt"l and the Walking Stick).

Following the above, besides for the speciousness of the kol koreis, those who nonetheless want to follow the kol koreis have no right to impose their misguided personal opinions on others. [If there is a need for eruvin today according to Rav Moshe, see Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l: The Need For Eruvin]


The teshuvah above confirms that Rav Moshe never issued a p’sak opposing an eruv in Flatbush but only stated his personal opinion since he recognized that his chiddush was not mentioned in the Achronim and that the Aruch HaShulchan did not agree with him.

Finally! Stamford Hill Joins the Club

Mazel Tov to the Jewish residents of Stamford Hill upon the establishment of their  eruv . Finally, the last bastion of opposition to the ...