Eruvin Does not Equal Loophole

When the issue of eruvin is in the news, there will invariably be some snide remarks from ignoramuses that the concept of eruvin is a loophole.  I think that it is important to set the record straight.

First let us define what is a loophole:

Merriam Webster: Loophole: A means of escape; especially: an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded.

Most areas where there is a proscription against carrying on the Shabbos are rabbinical in nature and not Biblical. To ensure that one does not mistakenly carry in a Biblically mandated domain, the rabbis prohibited carrying in similar domains, but included a provision that allows for carrying if an eruv is established.  Thus, it was the rabbis who prohibited carrying, and it was they who enacted the laws of eruvin to allow carrying.

Consequently, an eruv clearly does not meet the definition of loophole in light of the fact that it was created in conjunction with the proscription and is not an ambiguity being exploited to evade an obligation.

Please help disseminate this information.

Eruvin is not a "loophole," it is a natural extension of the prohibition itself.

Eruvin in the News: Queens 4

A Look Back at Our Borough’s Historic Role

Earlier this week, the Daf Yomi world made the siyum on Maseches Eiruvim. This is an opportunity to look back at the historic role Queens played in paving the way for the establishment of eiruvim throughout America and to remember the work of some of the people who made it possible. Read on...

____________

This article about eruvin in Queens is fascinating. As an epilogue, I would add that the Judge Aaron Goldstein mentioned in this article was in Maimonides Hospital in 1999 prior to his passing. A member of the nascent Boro Park Vaad HaEruv happened to be visiting someone at the hospital at the time and struck up a conversation with the neighboring patient. This patient mentioned that he was Judge Aaron Goldstein and that his proudest moment on the bench was when he issued his ruling in favor of eruvin. He added that he was very pleased that his ruling was being employed all over the world. 

Additionally, I would like to expound on what the article accepts as a simple matter namely that Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l allowed the Queens eruv (Kew Gardens Hills). In fact, there has been much spilled ink regarding the difference between Brooklyn where Rav Moshe objected to an eruv and Queens where he allowed one. There has been absolutely no rational reason that has been suggested to date. All the arguments submitted are clearly excuses after the fact.

There are people who attempt to rationalize why Rav Moshe allowed an eruv to be erected in Queens. For example, some allege that Queens was not incorporated into the city as a whole unit but rather as a set of disparate neighborhoods, which is evident by the fact that when one writes a letter he indicates the neighborhood not just the borough, e.g. Kew Garden Hills, Queens as opposed to the other boroughs. Therefore, they argue, the population of Queens is considered divided, and each neighborhood is independent of the other, which is why Rav Moshe allowed an eruv to be erected there. This argument is specious; Rav Moshe never claimed that Kew Gardens was a separate entity, only that it was a small neighborhood in Queens (Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:86 and Addendum to O.C. 4:89). Additionally, Kew Gardens Hills is part of Queens just as Boro Park and Flatbush are part of Brooklyn, as can be seen on any map of the area. Every neighborhood in Queens is built up to the adjoining neighborhood and forms one contiguous borough just as all neighborhoods do in Brooklyn. Why then did Rav Moshe allow an eruv in Queens and oppose one in Brooklyn?

Moreover, according to Rav Moshe, it makes no difference whether or not Queens is considered as one city since Rav Moshe’s main thesis is that we view an area of twelve mil by twelve mil and not how the boroughs are conceptualized. If the twelve mil by twelve mil area contains a population of 3 million, an eruv cannot be erected in any part of it (ibid., 1:139:5, 4:87-88). Kew Garden Hills is part of the twelve mil by twelve mil of Queens just as Boro Park and Flatbush are part of the twelve mil by twelve mil of Brooklyn. If the population of Queens doesn’t meet the requirement of Rav Moshe’s chiddush to be classified as a reshus harabbim, neither does the population of Brooklyn. Even more so, since both Brooklyn and Queens have similar populations of over 2 million, why did Rav Moshe not apply the same gezeirah that he implemented regarding Brooklyn and Detroit to negate an eruv in Kew Gardens Hills, Queens as well (see Three Million: More or Less?)?

Additionally, in a speech given a while ago about the eruv in Flatbush, there was a claim made that the reason Rav Moshe allowed an eruv in Kew Gardens Hills, Queens was that the area is encircled with mechitzos. This is a fabrication, as Rav Moshe never refers to mechitzos in any teshuvah concerning Kew Gardens Hills (ibid., 4:86 and Addendum to O.C. 4:89). Nor does anyone else mention mechitzos regarding Kew Gardens Hills (See Minchas Chein, siman 24 and Minchas Asher, 1:51-52, 2:56-57, 2:59). More so, since Brooklyn is encircled with mechitzos as well, why should it be any different than Kew Gardens Hills? If Brooklyn would require delasos at its pirtzos, Kew Gardens Hills would require delasos as well (Igros Moshe, O.C. 1:139:3).

Some even argue that those establishing the Kew Gardens Hills eruv did not apprise Rav Moshe of the pertinent statistics of Queens. First of all, this argument is motzei laz on those people whose only aveira was that they wanted to be mezakeh their neighborhood with an eruv. In any case, if this is so, why is it so difficult for these same people to believe that Rav Moshe was sold a pack of lies regarding Brooklyn (e.g. that the borough contains a population of greater than 3 million, including more than a million people commute into the borough to work, and that both Boro Park and Flatbush contain a population more than shishim ribo, and that Brooklyn is not encompassed by mechitzos)? I guess when the objective is to negate eruvin, we believe all tales, but when the goal is to establish an eruv, we don’t even believe the written word.      

See these posts for the underlying reasons why I believe Rav Moshe allowed the Kew Gardens Hills eruv: Part1, Part 2

Next on the Daf Yomi “Line”up

Congratulations to those of you who are about to start learning Meseches Eruvin. 

I hope you will peruse my blog (see the side bar for the archives) and find it a helpful resource.

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 establishment of a city eruv has fallen. May the zechus of their enhanced shmiras Shabbos bring brachah and shalom to all of Klal Yisrael. I will have more to say about this matter in the near future.

Punch “Lines” 5779:

Reprinted from a letter to the editor in the 7 Adar II 5779/March 13, 2019, issue of the Jewish Press. Truth is stranger than fiction. I couldn’t have made this up if I’d wanted to.

Lakewood Follows Daas Torah

Avraham Sharaby’s op-ed last week about Lakewood left out one major point: daas Torah. The members of the Vaad would not do anything against daas Torah.

For example: Non-yeshivish people who have settled in Lakewood are trying to push for an eruv around all of Lakewood. Daas Torah does not want this to happen. So to counteract this proposal, the Vaad is increasing Lakewood’s population so that it will come under the halachic ruling of Reb Moshe that forbids an eruv in mega population centers.

Bentzion ben Yisroel

L’Hachzir Atarah L'Yoshnah

Mazal Tov to the Jewish Community of Vienna on the reestablishment of their eruv. Finally, there is a contemporary eruv in a city with considerably more than shishim ribo that was built with very little contention.

The following article regarding the eruv was published in the October 10, 2012 edition of Ami Magazine.  

EV1f

Eruvin in the News: Los Angeles, CA 3

Massive 405 Freeway project respects the boundaries of a Jewish tradition

By Mitchell Landsberg

Carmageddon, schmarmageddon.

Like just about everybody else, Orthodox Jews in Los Angeles have their issues with the 405 Freeway widening project. Unlike most people, however, their primary concern is not necessarily the impending closure of a stretch of the freeway on the July 16-17 weekend. Read on...

Such is the “Matzav”

Part of an ongoing commentary on the bias against city eruvin.

This past Friday (April 29, 2011) Matzav.com the site that claims to be “The Jewish world @ your fingertips” included a post titled “Organization Encourages Children to Promote Controversial Boro Park Eiruv.” The audacity of this post is that it masquerades as a news article while being blatantly biased. The post is also full of inaccuracies some which clearly belittle Gedolei Olam. Furthermore, this site censors all posted comments giving the impression that most commenter’s agree with their biased opinion (however, in order to pretend that they are objective, they do allow a few tame comments in support of the eruv).

The following is a detailed rebuttal of the post:

“Back in the day, when the vast majority of our youth veered from Torah, Zeirei Agudath Yisroel and Young Israel was founded to help the young of Israel cling to the Torah. Thankfully, these organizations are not needed for that purpose today. A new organization has now cropped up, however. It is for children - perhaps only boys - between the ages of 8 and 12. Any child of said age who signs up to promote the Boro Park Eiruv was offered free rides this past Chol Hamoed. Additionally, they will be taken fishing on Fridays, free of charge. Other trips and perks are in the offing as well.”

In order to make this absurd analogy, they purposefully misconstrue the function of this organization. This eruv organization was not established to promote the eruv per se but only to raise money for the upkeep of possibly the most mehudar eruv in the world. This is no different than similar fundraising programs promoted by other organizations in the neighborhood.

“The organization is called Zierei Vaad Hoeirev, and young children are being persuaded to believe in the validity of the Boro Park Eiruv, which has been deemed halachically unacceptable by leading poskim of this and the previous generations.”

What? No young children are being persuaded to believe in anything. The concept behind the campaign is to offer the child an incentive to raise money for the organization. It is understood that this is with his parents’ consent. Why should this be any different than the other controversial organization that runs a similar program for children? Did Matzav express any reservations regarding the other organization’s campaign? Moreover, parents who oppose the Boro Park eruv would never allow their children to partake in this campaign. Consequentially, for children whose parents allow them to carry in the Boro Park eruv, this campaign is not controversial at all.

The author and Matzav know very well that there are rabbanim supporting the Boro Park eruv. Everyone has a right and a chiyuv to follow his rav. Is Matzav arguing that we should only follow whom they deem “leading poskim” and not our rabbanim? Who do they think approve of the Boro Park eruv, some katla kanya’s? Rav Fischel Herskowitz shlita and Rav Yechezkel Roth shlita are not “leading poskim?” Pray tell me then who are the leading poskim in our community (or even the entire America)? Clearly, this post is mevazeh some of the “leading poskim” of our generation.

“Among those who do not carry in the Boro Park Eiruv are Chassidim of Bobov, Satmar, Ger and Klausenburg, among others.”

This paragraph is mostly incorrect. Actually, many Bobover Chassidim from Rav Mordechai Dovid shlita’s kehilah do carry, as some of his most chushver Chassidim are strong supporters of the eruv. Many Satmarer do carry in Boro Park. Almost the entire Klausenburg carries in the Boro Park eruv. In any case, it’s irrelevant which group does or does not support the eruv. Every rav has a right and a chiyuv to establish an eruv if he deems it appropriate.

“The aforementioned “organization,” officially sponsored by the Vaad Ho’eirev of Boro Park, published brochures, signs and pamphlets and have had them placed all over Boro Park. The boys who participate will be taken to see how the eiruv “works” and the area that it ostensibly covers. Because of the strong opposition to the eiruv by leading poskim, many have expressed consternation at the idea of involving children in this endeavor.”

The Vaad HaEruv of Boro Park is under the aegises of some the foremost poskim in America. If these psokim deem it appropriate to establish an eruv, why shouldn’t children be allowed to join this worthy cause. Who is Matzav fooling when they claim that “many have expressed consternation?” It is only the author of this shameful post and maybe a few more people who are making a ruckus.

“Even if you carry in Boro Park, is this organization justified?” a Boro Park askan, expressed to Matzav.com. “Why raise children to get involved in such battles?”

Battles? Who is perpetuating a battle? Is it the person following his rav who allows him to carry or is it his children whom he allows to join this organization? Is he forcing you to carry or even to support the eruv? If the author of this post would have stopped to think about it, it is the people who harass passerbys whose rav allows them to carry who are perpetuating the machlokas. Oh, and by the way, does this so called Boro Park askan have any other worries or is this maybe his only askanus.

”And if this organization is altruistic, why is it limited to those who carry on Shabbos? If one chooses - as the majority do - not to rely on this eiruv on Shabbos, why should his son not get the free rides or free trips?”

How inane. If I don’t eat your hechsher, is it your problem that my kids cannot eat in your house? Tell me, if you do not support the eruv why would your kids want to be involved in this campaign? I am sure that those who vocally oppose the eruv have children who are on the same page as their parents. However, I can assure all of you that, notwithstanding one’s opinion regarding the validity of the eruv, if one would allow their children to partake in this tzadaka organization, he would be granted all incentives being offered.

“At this time, some are afraid that the vocal opposition to the eiruv is waning and the laxity it is causing is being ignored, with people being indifferent to the matter. At this time, it is not clear if this new effort has received any rabbinic backing.”

Finally they admit what is the underlying reason for this post, “the vocal opposition to the eruv is waning.” It is understandable that “some” people are afraid, because they lost the battle which they created. Of course they are worried that the future generation involved in this campaign would grow up supporting the eruv. Instead of these mecharchei riv being ostracized, they are supported by a mouth piece such as Matzav. Actually, this campaign does have rabbinic backing which is more than you can say for about this post.

Shame on the editors of Matzav for allowing such a thinly veiled biased article to be posted, an article that is, in essence, trying to negate the fact that some of the foremost poskim actively support the Boro Park eruv. Finally I think it’s high time that the truth is revealed about what happens when a Charedi community which Matzav claims to represent does not allow the establishment of a neighborhood eruv. Stay tuned. We shall see if the editors of Matzav will take a stand about the shameful practice of chillul Shabbos happening under their very own noses.

Rabbi Ruven Feinstein on His Father’s Shitos in Eruvin

In the Israeli chareidi newspaper HaMevaser (Parshos Tzav, 12 Adar II, Torani Gilyon 117) commemorating the twenty-fifth yarzeit of Hagaon Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l, there is a fascinating interview with his son Rav Ruven shlita.

When asked about his father’s opinion regarding establishing eruvin in a section of a large city in America, Rav Ruven answered that it was not his father who opposed the establishment of these eruvin but the Agudas Harabbanim, and that his father went along with their objection. Rav Ruven expounded on his father’s shitos that in a borough the size of Brooklyn whose area is 63 square miles and whose population is greater than four million, each twelve mil by twelve mil section would contain a population of more than shishim ribo. Consequently, an eruv cannot be established in any section of Brooklyn.

There are a few issues that I would like to clarify:
According to Rav Moshe, twelve mil by twelve mil is over 64 square miles (in regards to Shabbos, Rav Moshe maintained that an amah is 21.25 inches). Brooklyn covers an area of 71 square miles and not just 63 square miles as Rav Ruven stated (71 square miles is exclusive of inland waters, and I believe that, according to Rav Moshe’s shita, we should include inland water in the twelve mil by twelve mil area). Rav Moshe himself stated that Brooklyn is somewhat larger than twelve mil by twelve mil (Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:87-88). Consequently, the population of any twelve mil by twelve mil area in Brooklyn would be less than the entire population of Brooklyn.

Rav Moshe’s shita is that if the population of an area of twelve mil by twelve mil is roughly 3 million then any section of that area cannot erect an eruv (ibid., 5:28:5; 5:29). Brooklyn’s population is not greater than four million, as Rav Ruven declared, but is approximately 2.5 million. It is possible that Rav Ruven is repeating what was told to his father that the population of Brooklyn is approximately 3 million and that over a million people come into the borough to work daily (see the end of ibid., 4:88). However, this is simply incorrect. Brooklyn’s population is approximately 2.5 million, and around 235,000 people come into the borough to work daily (see Part 2: The Permissibility of a Brooklyn Eruv According to Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l). Consequently, according to Rav Moshe, there is no reason why an eruv cannot be established in Brooklyn. Furthermore, there are two additional reasons why an eruv can be established in Brooklyn (see Part 3: The Permissibility of a Brooklyn Eruv According to Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l, Part 4a: The Permissibility of a Brooklyn Eruv According to Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l).

The most illuminating statement by Rav Ruven is that the issur on all eruvin in large cities in America was from the Agudas HaRabbanim and not his father. In fact, the only issur from the Agudas HaRabbanim was for an eruv in Manhattan in 1962. It was this kol korei that Rav Moshe signed onto because, as he mentioned, Rav Aharon Kotler zt"l and other Roshei Yeshivos made a takanah not to erect a Manhattan eruv (ibid., 4:86 and Addendum to O.C. 4:89). The issur on eruvin for the rest of New York and America was an invention of the 1979 Flatbush kol korei and not the Agudas HaRabbanim (see The 1979 Flatbush Kol Korei Exposed, Part 2: The 1979 Flatbush Kol Korei Exposed). This statement by Rav Ruven’s demonstrates what I have been arguing all along that there was a lot of deception used by those who oppose eruvin.

Finally, the above proves my point ─ many people (even family members) may argue points in Rav Moshe’s name regarding eruvin, but they actually do not know his shitos very well.

Punch “Lines”: An Eruv Comedy

As much as I enjoyed the spectacle of this self-hating Jew making a fool of himself, this clip needs some corrections.

1) The word eruv most definitely does not translate as “loophole.” The meaning of the word is mixture, an amalgamation of courtyards.

2) Once and for all, I would like to put to rest the claim that an eruv is a loophole, a circumvention of Biblical law (not that it is anyone’s business if our rabbis maintain that they can create loopholes). In a Biblically proscribed domain, an eruv would not be effective (what is classified as a Biblically forbidden area is a matter of considerable debate). In order that one would not come to carry in a Biblically proscribed domain, the rabbis prohibited carrying in other domains, as well. However, the rabbis allowed one to carry in rabbinically proscribed domains if there was an eruv. In other words, it was the rabbis who proscribed carrying and it was the rabbis who permitted carrying in non-Biblical domains.

Eruvin in the News: Plano, TX

Council Approves Religious District in Plano

By Jessica Rush

The Plano City Council has agreed to allow Orthodox Jewish residents to create a symbolic sacred area within the city, which would allow them to honor their religious customs more easily.

The council unanimously approved a ceremonial lease agreement for the Plano Eruv District at Monday’s regular meeting. The established area will allow practitioners to carry, transport or push objects normally prohibited on the Sabbath and other Jewish holy days. Read on...

Eruvin in the News: St Ives, Australia 7

Eruv Pole-ing Day Looms

KU-RING-GAI Planning Panel will face perhaps its toughest test when it votes on the controversial Jewish northern eruv in St Ives in the coming weeks.

March 23 and April 6 have been pencilled-in as the two potential dates for when the three-member State Government-appointed panel will decide on 11 development applications associated with the eruv. Read on...

Eruvin in the News: Eretz Yisroel 3

Israel's Left Against the Eruv

הרבנות במודיעין נגד פעילי שמאל: "ניסו לחבל בעירוב"

עירוב שהוצב לאחרונה ביישוב מכבים רעות, עומד במרכזה של סערה מקומית. בסיור שערכה רבנות העיר מודיעין הסמוכה, התגלה כי יד אלמונית חיבלה בחוטי העירוב שהוצבו סביב היישוב.

ברבנות מודיעין מעריכים כי מי שעומד מאחורי ההתנכלות הוא פעיל שמאל מוכר. הלה החל לאחרונה במסע שכנוע מתושבי היישוב לדרוש מהעירייה לפרק את עמודי העירוב שהוקמו לאורך שדרות יאיר פרג.
המשיך

Eruvin in the News: Westhampton Beach, NY 26

Verizon Sues 3 Towns on Behalf of Jews

By Adam Klasfeld

Brooklyn (CN) - Verizon sued three Long Island towns on behalf of observant Jews. The villages prohibit the phone company from posting "lechis" on utility poles - little strips that create an "eruv," or zone where Orthodox Jews can carry objects or push baby carriages or wheelchairs to synagogue on the Sabbath and on Yom Kippur.

Verizon New York and co-plaintiff Long Island Lighting Co. say the towns must allow Orthodox Jews to tie the lechis to utility poles, to comply with religious observances. Read on...

Eruvin in the News: Westhampton Beach, NY 25

Eruv Suit In Hamptons Fueling New Tensions

Federal action by eruv supporters seeks to bypass towns; ‘the real Jewish
people in village oppose it.’

By Stewart Ain

There are observant Jews in the Village of Westhampton Beach who have had to hire gentiles to push their baby carriages, strollers and wheelchairs alongside them so they could attend synagogue on the Sabbath and Yom Kippur.

But a federal lawsuit filed last week — which is leading to renewed tensions between Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews in the East End resort area — is designed to put an end to that. If successful, it would allow congregants to erect an eruv, or symbolic boundary, that would permit them to perform such actions, as well as the carrying of such things as house keys, reading glasses, books and identification outside of the home without violating Jewish law. Read on...

Eruvin in the News: Westhampton Beach, NY 24

Lawsuit Filed in Hamptons Religious Symbol Fight

Garden City, N.Y. — A long-simmering controversy over whether Orthodox Jews can place a religious symbol on utility poles in a Hamptons community on eastern Long Island appears headed to court.

Attorneys for the East End Eruv Association have filed a federal civil rights lawsuit claiming officials in the town of Southampton and villages of Westhampton Beach and Quogue are intentionally infringing on their religious freedom by not allowing the placement of an "eruv." Read on...

Eruvin in the News: Westhampton Beach, NY 23

Hamptons Religious Fight Starts Up

By Jessica DiNapoli

The battle over a symbolic religious boundary in the Hamptons is heating up again.

The East End Eruv Association filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court Thursday claiming that local officials are infringing on their religious freedom by not allowing them to create an eruv encircling Quogue, Westhampton Beach and unincorporated areas of Southampton Town. An eruv is typically delineated by U-shaped PVC piping on utility poles and allows observant Jewish people to push and carry objects on the Sabbath, activities usually forbidden. Read on...

Eruvin in the News: Westhampton Beach, NY 22

East End Eruv Association Sues Local Municipalities

By Erica Jackson

The East End Eruv Association issued a press release Wednesday afternoon saying that it has filed lawsuits against the Village of Quogue, the Village of Westhampton Beach and the Town of Southampton. The association is arguing that their constitutional and civil rights have been violated in their effort to create a symbolic eruv boundary around the municipalities.

“Our efforts for rational discussion and fair treatment have been met with harsh words and obvious discrimination,” said Marvin Tenzer, president EEEA in the release. “These villages and town are violating our constitutional and civic rights by engaging in an active campaign to obstruct our ability to practice our religion.” Read on...

Eruvin in the News: Westhampton Beach, NY 21

Hamptons Eruv Dispute Heads to Court

By Sumathi Reddy

An Orthodox Jewish group trying to erect an eruv in the Hamptons filed a suit in federal court Thursday, alleging that local officials are discriminating against them and violating their constitutional right to freedom of religion.

The East End Eruv Association is suing officials in the villages of Westhampton Beach and Quogue, as well as Southampton town. Read on...

Eruvin in the News: Westhampton Beach, NY 20

Group Pushing For Religious Boundary Files Suit

By Michelle Trauring

Advocates looking to establish a largely symbolic religious boundary in western Southampton Town filed a civil rights lawsuit in federal court on Thursday, alleging that local elected officials are discriminating against Jewish people by blocking the boundary’s establishment, according to the litigation.

The East End Eruv Association, a not-profit group that has been pushing for the establishment of the boundary, called an eruv, since last year, and a handful of local residents are listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which, among other things, demands that the villages of Westhampton Beach and Quogue, as well as Southampton Town, drop all objections to the boundary’s establishment. Read on...