A Fabricate Shita

 

The article published in Anash (January 28, 2024) regarding an advertisement in Der Teglicher Herald, claims to have found something new regarding Chabad and its opposition to eruvin in New York. The absurdity is telling, as to the extent they will go to shlep Chabad into the anti-eruv camp.

The fact that Rav Chaim Yaakov Widerevitz, a Lubavitcher rav, opposed an eruv in New York is nothing new to me (I knew about this so-called new find 20 years ago). However, to derive a Chabad shita regarding eruvin from the fact that he signed against the Manhattan Eruv, is comical. Do they want to infer a Chabad shita from his argument in Kovetz Hamitspeh, Sivan, 1911 (p. 17), where he clarified his opposition to eruvin? Rav Widerevitz states there that he is opposed to establishing any eruv, even if it is halachically sound, because people will carry heavy loads on Shabbos, which is classified as uvdin d’chol, and is prohibited even on Yom Tov. I highly doubt that if they thought about it, they would want to attribute this to anyone beyond Rav Widerevitz’s personal opinion. Rav Widerevitz’s declaration in Hamitspeh would in essence negate the mitzvah of eruvin in its entirety. All eruvin, large or small, could be proscribed with Rav Widerevitz’s argument, and it is simply beyond comprehension how a rav could make such a statement without realizing its ramification. Are they willing to admit that the Kfar Chabad Eruv (which is accepted by all in Chabad), is in opposition to Rav Widerevitz’s opinion? Hence, Rav Widerevitz’s opposition to the 1905 Manhattan Eruv is his opinion, and his alone (and the entire argument regarding reshus rabbim is his as well; more about this issue in the future).

[Furthermore, Rav Widerevitz argued in this notice that one should not be confident that the Sherpser Rav allowed carrying. As a matter of fact, the Sherpser Rav’s teshuvah, permitting carrying in a section of Manhattan, was published a few months later. Therefore, not only was Rav Widerevitz incorrect regarding the Sherpser Rav’s support of the eruv, he obviously was not apprised of the Sherpser Rav’s hetter to carry. As Rav Widerevitz never published a rebuttal of the Sherpser Rav’s hetter to carry, we do not know his final opinion on the matter.]

In any case, what the above demonstrates is that we should only follow the halachah, as stated in the Shulchan Aruch, and not some advertisement in the newspapers.

I will have more to say about this matter when I write the history of the 1905 Manhattan Eruv.