The Jewish Tribune, page 4:
This [that it is sufficient if a road just services shishim ribo to be classified as a reshus harabbim] is the opinion of almost all the leading authorities of our time – Rav M Feinstein ztl, Rav A Kotler ztl, Rav S.Z. Auerbach ztl, Rav Kaminetsky, zl. Rav Y.Y. Weiss ztl and yibodel l’chaim Rav Y. S. Elyashev shlito – although their opinion in this regard seem to be ignored in the publication!The rebuttal:
Rav Moshe
zt”l’s opinion was (
Igros Moshe,
O.C. 1:139:5, 4:87, 5:28:16) that an intercity road [
sratya] would require 600,000 people traversing the same section of the road daily for it to be classified as a
reshus harabbim. Additionally, Rav Moshe stated (ibid., 5:28:5, 5:29) that the criterion of
shishim ribo when applied to a city would necessitate a population of at least 3,000,000 inhabitants. Only a city with such a sizable population could physically satisfy the condition of
shishim ribo ovrim bo, 600,000 people collectively traversing its streets at one time. Obviously, the author of this article does not know Rav Moshe’s opinion at all. Regarding Rav Aharon Kotler
zt”l’s view, I challenge the author of this article to cite one
teshuvah of Rav Aharon’s dealing with how to apply the criteria of
shishim ribo. Dear reader, there is no such
teshuvah. The opinions of Rav Auerbach
zt”l and Rav Kaminetsky
zt”l are pure hearsay from the cabal. Regarding Rav Weiss
zt”l, as cited above in regards to the
Bais Ephraim, he maintains that
shishim ribo needs to actually traverse the street but just not every day of the year (
Minchas Yitzchak, 8:32). That Rav Elyashiv
shlita subscribes to this opinion is hearsay from the cabal, as well. As a matter of fact, Rav Elyashiv’s opinion is clarified in his letter which was included in the
kuntres, and it is certainly not what this article claims it to be. What can be discerned from this letter is that Rav Elyashiv maintains that
shishim ribo is conditional of the city and is not applicable to a road at all. This is just another proof that the cabal states opinions that they make up out of thin air in the name of
gedolim. As I had mentioned prior in my post regarding the
kuntres, I am surprised that Rav Elyashiv maintains that
shishim ribo is conditional of a city, since the overwhelming majority of
poskim uphold that it is a qualification of a street (see
Part 2a: Why Brooklyn Is Not a Reshus HaRabbim). [In answer to those who argue that the
Achiezer maintains that
shishim ribo is conditional of a city, see my post
Part 1: The Achiezer Explained where I prove otherwise.]
The Jewish Tribune, page 4:
(Other eruvim in major cities do not encounter the same issues which for reasons of the limited scope of this article cannot be dealt with. They will be clarified in a kuntres to be published shortly.)The rebuttal:
There is no doubt that the NW London
eruv is as
mehudar or possibly even more
mehudar, as most city
eruvin past or present. I look forward to a clarification of the difference between the London
eruv and
eruvin in the rest of the world.
The Jewish Tribune, page 4:
The roads concerned, albeit interconnected and not absolutely straight, are still classified as r’shus horabim particularly as they are highways. (Confirmed by Rav S.Z. Auerbach and Rav YS Elyashev). It is true that the Chazon Ish ztl advanced a novel and more lenient view but his thesis is opposed by all the aforementioned authorities and earlier gedolim.The rebuttal:
The roads of London fail to meet at least two of the requirements of a
reshus harabbim: 1) They do not contain
shishim ribo. 2) They are not
mefulash u’mechuvanim m’shar l’shaar. Moreover, since the
eruv consists of
mechitzos habatim on all four sides that are
omed merubeh al haparutz (or at the minimum we can make use of the
Chazon Ish’s chiddush) the area enclosed is fundamentally a
reshus hayachid min haTorah. Even one of the above conditions would be sufficient ground to permit an
eruv of
tzuras hapesachim. Accordingly, as there are many reasons to allow an
eruv in London, even a
Baal Nefesh can utilize the
eruv with certainty. Additionally, there is no difference between a road and a highway that runs through a city as the article seems to suggest. Both would need to be
mefulash u’mechuvanim m’shar l’shaar. I reiterate, everything that the cabal mentions in the name of the
gedolim (Rav Auerbach
zt”l and Rav Elyashev
shlita) is hearsay. While Rav Kotler
zt”l and Rav Feinstein
zt”l disagreed with the
Chazon Ish, there is nothing in the writings from Rav Kaminetsky
zt”l, Rav Weiss
zt”l (see more regarding Rav Weiss and this matter further down), and Rav Elyashev
shlita that argues on the
Chazon Ish. [It is important to note that according to Rav Kotler, no city
eruv ─ large or small, past and present ─ could have been erected. It is therefore clear that the
minhag is not like him.] Additionally, Rav Auerbach
zt”l maintained that, in case of great need, one could possibly rely on the
chiddush of the
Chazon Ish (
Minchas Shlomo, 2:35:22; actually, in
Halichos Shlomo,
Hilchos Tefillin,
siman 31:95 they mention that Rav Auerbach stated that the halachah is probably like the
Chazon Ish). Moreover, there are
poskim who clearly utilize the
Chazon Ish’s chiddush (
Even Yisroel, 8:36;
Shevet HaLevi, 8:97;
Machazeh Eliyahu, 39:2;
Kinyan Torah, 4:40, and Rav Chaim Kanievsky
shlita in
Shoneh Halachos,
siman 363).
The Jewish Tribune, page 39:
In practice, even the Chazon Ish ruled that the K’vish Haschachor in Bnei Brak should not be included because of the possibility of it being a r’shus horabim min HaTorah (testimony of his nephew Rav N. Karelitz).The rebuttal:
As I posted lately (
Would the Chazon Ish Have Utilized His Chiddush to Allow an Eruv L’chatchilah?) this statement has been refuted by Rav Karelitz
shlita himself. Dear reader, there is not a word argued by the cabal that can be trusted.
The Jewish Tribune, page 39:
Another major obstacle is that of karfifos. This relates to sizeable areas within the eruv perimeter which are not designed for daily living purposes … Their existence can disqualify the validity of the eruv unless they are enclosed with proper halachic partitions – something not feasible. Any assertion that such karfifos do not exist within the eruv is incorrect. It should be noted that the Chazon Ish zl was very opposed to any eruv encircling, karfifos and for this reason alone, to portray the London eruv as being “valid according to the Chazon Ish” is manifestly untrue.The rebuttal:
As I mentioned above,
karpeifos are an issue to be dealt with but not a reason to negate an
eruv. Additionally, the experts wrote that the
Chazon Ish would allow these
karpeifos. Moreover, Rav Halpern, in his
teshuvah, wrote extensively regarding the London
karpeifos and categorically allowed them, so why has it only become an issue now? Additionally, I am told that there is an
eruv that was established by one of the main objectors to the NW London
eruv which included
karpeifos. So again, why has it become an issue only lately? The hypocrisy continues. [I hope to post in the near future a more detailed rebuttal regarding some of the arguments against the
teshuvah on
karpeifos published in the
kuntres.]
The Jewish Tribune, page 39:
A further problem which makes the word ‘mehudar’ ring hollow, is that of s’chiras r’shus within the eruv area. All non-Jewish residents must rent out their rights to the street for Eruv use – otherwise they will automatically invalidate the Eruv. This involves approaching all of them individually for this propose which is naturally not possible. Alternatively, one can go over their heads and rent the rights from someone who can enforce entry into their premises without their permission. In former times, such autocratic authority existed but not today in our democratic countries. The use of the Mayor of London for this purpose cannot really be taken seriously as even the police do not have these powers without reasonable cause for suspicion.The rebuttal:
To begin with, it’s important to note that this argument would call into question all city
eruvin large and small. Consequentially, there is no doubt that this matter has not been considered a difficulty by the majority of
poskim who allow city
eruvin l’chatchilah. Why should London be any different? Even though there are a few
rabbanim who mentioned to their
talmidim that they should not carry, no city
eruv was advertised as being only
b'dieved. This issue has only become a problem lately when a group formed in Eretz Yisroel with a goal to enact all
chumras possible in
eruvin, including establishing small neighborhood
eruvin so that the renting of the rights from each and every person included in the boundaries of the
eruv would be possible. However, as Rav Dovid Eisenstein mentioned in the
kuntres (p. 56) [regarding a neighborhood
eruv that was established in Golders Green] these
eruvin will eventually need to rely on the general
sechiras reshus from the city Mayor (and such), since those involved with these
eruvin are bound to lose track of new non-Jewish residents which would require a renewed
sechiras reshus from them. I am told this has actually happened regarding most of the neighborhood
eruvin set up by this group in Eretz Yisroel. This is a classic example of people creating
chumros that they ultimately cannot carry out. Instead of them plumbing the depths of the
inyan impartially ─ which according to all is only
d’rabbanan ─ and allowing themselves to realize that there are many
heterim, they are
machmir and seek to create difficulties. There are numerous reasons to allow our
sechiras reshus (see here
Part 1: Sechiras Reshus for Contemporary City Eruvin) such as the power of government to employ eminent domain (or as it is called in England, a compulsory purchase). I believe that the words of Rav Yisroel Yaakov Fisher
zt”l (
Even Yisroel, 8:36) succinctly sums up who these “
baalei chumras,” were when he basically told them that the large Yerushalayim
eruv is just fine, and he is not keen on the neighborhood
eruvin at all. [Sure there were
gedolim who joined these “
baalei chumras,” however, they clearly did not intend to negate large city
eruvin as is the agenda of these
askanim. I will add that I know for a fact that some of these
gedolim quietly support city
eruvin.]
The Jewish Tribune, page 39:
For this reason alone Rav S.Y. Elyashiv rules that where the “individual renting of rights” is not possible, no eruv should be constructed to allow people to carry who would not do so otherwise. He adds that only where people are already carrying and the purpose of the eruv is designed to limit the transgression, can s’chirus r’shus be carried out via the authorities.The rebuttal:
Rav Elayshiv said no such thing. Rav Elyashiv states in the letter published in the
kuntres (p. 37) that there are those who are
machmir and don’t use the city
eruv because they maintain that it is not adequate to rely on the
sechiras reshus from the city Mayor. However, Rav Elyashiv acknowledged that the
Ginas V’radin is lenient, and the
Bais Meir cites a reason to be lenient as well, but the
Bais Meir concludes that, Heaven forbid, that he should be lenient when other
poskim are not. Nevertheless, Rav Elyashiv declared the
Gedolie Yerushalayim constructed an
eruv of
tzuras hapesachim in order that people should not come to carry without an
eruv at all. Therefore, Rav Elyashiv concluded in this letter that it is a
mitzvah gedolah to erect and enhance the
eruv in Yerushalayim. Consequentially, the Jewish Tribune’s suggestion (which they obtained from one of the members of the anti-
eruv cabal’s
seforim) that Rav Elyashiv only allowed the reliance on
sechiras reshus, “to limit the transgression,” of people who had previously been carrying, but that he would not allow an
eruv to be constructed where people have not yet been carrying is now proven incorrect. Rav Elyashiv stated clearly in this letter that the
Gedolei Yerushalayim constructed an
eruv, and that it is even a
mitzvah gedolah to erect an
eruv. Clearly Rav Elyashiv is not just referring to a situation where people have been already carrying, as this article suggests, since he even mentions the construction of a new
eruv. [Additionally, the Yerushalayim
eruv has been expanded over the years to include new neighborhoods where people had not been carrying thus far, so apparently there have been new
eruvin constructed in Yerushalayim, as well.]
Moreover, if the
sechiras reshus was only allowed, “to limit the transgression,” of people who have previously been carrying, why haven’t we ever seen the
Gedolei Yerushalayim proclaim as such. Furthermore, why didn’t Rav Elyashiv state clearly in this letter that the Yerushalayim
eruv was not intended for people to carry therein, but that it was only established to save people from transgression? Instead, Rav Elyashiv just states that there are people who are
machmir and do not rely on their city’s
sechiras reshus, but nevertheless, the
Gedolei Yerushalayim allowed an
eruv. In fact, the overwhelming majority of residents of Yerushalayim rely on their
eruv. Even more so, this claim is offensive. Does anyone actually believe that the residents of Yerushalayim who make use of the
eruv would not listen to the
Gedolei Yerushalayim if they told them not to carry, as this article suggests? Dear readers, this argument is fiction, and Rav Elayshiv never said any such thing. Clearly Rav Elyashiv’s intent when he wrote, “the
Gedolie Yerushalayim constructed an
eruv of
tzuras hapesachim in order that people should not come to carry without an
eruv at all” was just as the
Chasam Sofer (
O.C. siman 99) declared, that it is impossible that people would not come to carry without an
eruv. Therefore, Rav Elayshiv concluded that it is a
mitzvah gedolah to erect an
eruv, without any further qualifications. Dear readers, why should London be any different?
Besides for which, as Rav Dovid Eisenstein mentioned in the
kuntres (Hebrew section p. 56), London’s situation regarding
sechiras reshus is possibly superior to Yerushalayim. In fact, I was told that Rav Elyashiv
shlita admitted so to Rav Moshe Berlin
shlita. In light of this letter from Rav Elyashiv, all arguments in his name regarding
sechiras reshus from the cabal and their
seforim should be discounted.
The Jewish Tribune, page 39:
Space does not permit discussion of other problems inherent in the construction of this eruv which lies largely within non-Jewish districts where no legal permission for necessary checking is possible.The rebuttal:
The fact is most city
eruvin prior to WWII were established in non-Jewish districts. Furthermore, there is no difference between the countless city
eruvin in America and city
eruvin all over the world which are mostly constructed within non-Jewish districts. Why should London be any different?
The Jewish Tribune, page 39:
The late Rav Eider zl – an expert of eruvim refused to become involved in this eruv which he asserted would only cause great dissention (contrary to the implication on page 551) – and how right he was. In a letter he writes – “A community eruv needs vigilance and constant repairs. We have communities in which almost every week the eruv needs repairs…because of vandalism, weather conditions and accidents affecting wires or posts”. How often over a five year period has this Eruv been declared out of bounds? It is worth remembering that it only needs one thin wire to snap or slip down on the side of dozens of “tzuros hapesach” posts anywhere along the eleven mile boundary and the entire Eruv is possel, with no means of informing the public! And that is called Mehudar?The rebuttal:
No one is being forced to carry so there is no need for dissention. If a
rav does not want his
kehilah to use the
eruv, he should just state his opinion loud and clear. Why is there the need to, “cause great dissention,” if not for political reasons? It may be that Rav Eider did not want to be involved with an
eruv in the face of controversy, and so he offered reasons not to erect an
eruv in light of such a situation (my suspicions have now been confirmed, Rav Eider was threatened by the cabal to stay out of the London
eruv). However, anyone familiar with Rav Eider’s immense contribution to the establishment of city
eruvin can attest that, notwithstanding these issues (vandalism etc.), he was involved in erecting city
eruvin all over the world. Additionally, there is no doubt that the
eruvin in Europe prior to WWII had these same issues, and no one argued that an
eruv should not be erected for these reasons. I have been informed that after the initial start up tribulations, there have been few if any issues with the
eruv’s status on Shabbos. Actually, since non-Jews were hired to check the
eruv and repair any breaks on Shabbos, there never is a need to inform the public. Moreover, there were
eruvin in the past and there are
eruvin today that are as large as the NW London
eruv, and none of them have a means of notifying the public (actually, many
poskim do not require that the public even be informed). Why should London be any different? Yes, if the Yerushalayim
eruv is considered
mehudar, notwithstanding all these so called issues, why shouldn’t the London
eruv, which is more
mehudar, be classified as such?
There is an interesting dichotomy that I would like to bring to light. When the Boro Park
eruv was established, there was an argument set forth by the cabal that Boro Park is unlike Europe prior to WWII, and even today since there is no official city
Bais Din that would be in charge of the upkeep of the
eruv. It is fascinating that the issue of upkeep is being inveighed against the NW London
eruv despite the fact that the city of London does maintain a
Bais Din, and thus regarding this matter, it is no different than any of the
eruvin established prior to WWII. Instead of lauding the London
Bais Din for bringing in these experts to upgrade the
eruv to a
mehudar status, they are harshly criticized. It is obvious that the cabal will use any argument that they can to negate an
eruv.
The Jewish Tribune, page 39:
The same renowned expert was a close talmid of Rav M. Feinstein zl, and has no hesitation in writing (about the proposed London Eruv) “I am reasonably certain that Rav Moshe would oppose the Eruv” and yet it is still considered ‘mehudar’ despite the opposition of the leading posek of our generation!The rebuttal:
Even if Rav Eider said what they claim he did, that he is, “reasonably certain that Rav Moshe would oppose the
Eruv,” how does this affect its
mehudar status? Nowhere in Rav Eider’s letter does he claim that Rav Moshe’s issues with the
eruv were of a halachic nature. Moreover, Rav Eider said no such thing. Anyone who would read Rav Eider’s letter would see that the cabal is inserting words into it. Rav Eider did not claim that Rav Moshe would object to the
eruv only that his
rebbe advised him not to be involved in establishing an
eruv in a city where there is opposition. Nowhere did Rav Moshe suggest that
rabbanim can’t establish an
eruv in their city in the face of opposition.
The Jewish Tribune, page 39:
In the publication great play is made of the fact that this Eruv “is like the Eruv of Yerushalayim”. Firstly acknowledge experts in the field – both here and in Eretz Yisroel – have written to refute this comparison and assert that in major respects London is halachially far worse.
The rebuttal:
The biggest experts in the field who happen to be involved with both the Yerushalayim and London
eruvin argue that the London
eruv is more mehudar than the Yerushalayim
eruv. Do these, “acknowledged experts in the field,” know both situations better than these experts from Yerushalayim? Moreover, it would be nice to see what these so called, “acknowledged experts in the field,” have to say.
The Jewish Tribune, page 39:
Secondly, Rav Y.S. Elyashiv has written explicitly that if official statistics will prove that Yerushalayim has 600,000 inhabitants, the entire Eruv is in jeopardy and will have to be reviewed. In London we have long passed that stage and yet is still ‘kosher’ and even ‘mehudar’?
The rebuttal:
It is fascinating how the cabal did not realize that this statement contradicts their claim a few paragraphs earlier regarding Rav Elyashiv’s
shita in
shishim ribo. Here they admit that from Rav Elyashiv’s letter we see that he maintains that the criterion of
shishim ribo is conditional of the city, but previously they argued that Rav Elyashiv upholds that the possibility of
shishim ribo to traverse a street is sufficient for the street to be classified as a
reshus harabbim. Clearly there is not a word that this cabal says in the name of the
gedolim that can be trusted, as they can’t even get their arguments straight.
Yerushalayim has reached the stage ─ of containing a population greater than
shishim ribo ─ quite a few years ago, and the
eruv has not been dismantled but is here to stay (the population of Yerushalayim is growing at about a rate of 10,000 residents a year). Moreover, Rav Elyashiv (who seems to be
machmir regarding
shishim ribo) was clearly being stringent because of the fact that the Yerushalayim
eruv consists of
tzuras hapesachim. However, the London
eruv consists of
mechitzos so there is no reason to think that Rav Elyashiv would be stringent in such a situation as well. Furthermore, just as Rav Elyashiv allowed an
eruv in Toronto consisting of
mechitzos, there is no doubt that he would allow this
eruv in London as well. I reiterate all statements in the name of Rav Elyashiv emanating from the cabal, even those written in their
seforim, should be discounted. This letter published from Rav Elyashiv in the
kuntres proves that they argue fictitious opinions in his name (including that Rav Elyashiv maintains that the possibility of
shishim ribo to traverse a street is sufficient for the street to be classified as a
reshus harabbim and their claims regarding Rav Elyashiv’s
shita in
sechiras reshus).
