Kol Koreis as Evidence

Lately, I see that some are trying to prove that Chabad was opposed to eruvin in large cities by citing the fact that Lubavitcher Rabbonim signed onto the 1979 Flatbush kol korei. They imply that this kol korei was forgotten about and demonstrates the position of the undersigned Lubavitcher Rabbonim.

In fact, I should note that the kol korei was not overlooked. However, the reason why I would not cite it is simply because kol koreis are unreliable documents. Those who utilize kol koreis as evidence for anything are either naïve or are trying to pull the wool over someone’s eyes. In this case, I suspect the latter.

First of all, it is important to note that there was no meeting of rabbanim in 1979 when they issued the kol korei against the eruv. Some individuals went to each rav personally to collect signatures. This explains how these individuals produced this kol korei by later adding all the signatures to one text. Even if the signatories signed a kol korei, it is doubtful that they saw the text that was the final kol korei. Furthermore, those involved in eruvin know the individuals who collected the signatures for this kol korei and the tactics that were used to assemble it. Hence, it is doubtful that many of the signatories were willing participants.

The 1979 Flatbush kol korei in particular is demonstrably fabricated as I have posted previously; see here. In fact, I demonstrate that Rav Moshe Feinstein never signed onto this kol korei.

There is no doubt that most rabbanim did not sign on the text of the kol korei that is extant. In fact, rabbanim such as the Pupa rav, the Sharmesher rav, and the Debrecener rav who were added to the kol korei maintain that Brooklyn is not a reshus harabbim. Both the Pupa rav and the Sharmesher rav wrote letters of support for a Williamsburg eruv in 1973 (Otzros Yerushalayim, 298-300 and Al Mitzvas Eruv, pp. 162-163); clearly they maintained that there was no issue of reshus harabbim in Brooklyn. Furthermore, they both wrote teshuvos that demonstrated that they upheld that the criterion of shishim ribo is conditional of the street and not the city (Tiferes Naftali, siman 25:4, V’yaan Yoseph, 131:1, 155:1, 195:2). No doubt they maintained that an eruv can be established in Brooklyn (see V’yaan Yoseph ad loc. for additional reasons to allow eruvin in Brooklyn). The Debrecener rav clearly maintained that Brooklyn is a karmelis (Be’er Moshe, 1:40), proving that he did not sign on to the text of the 1979 Flatbush kol korei, which claimed that Brooklyn is a reshus harabbim. [Only a letter or a teshuvah can be relied on.]

As I have said previously, to argue that the Alter Rebbe would not allow an eruv in large cities because of reshus harabbim issues is simply am haraatzus. Following all of the above, why should anyone believe that the signatures from Lubavitcher Rabbonim are any more valid?

There is no doubt that those who are citing this kol korei are grasping at straws.