History of City Eruvin − Part 9: The Eruv in St. Louis

Continued from part VIII

The Underpinnings of the Controversy

A quick perusal of the invectives hurled by Rav Jaffe against Rav Rosenfeld would demonstrate that this was much more than just another halachic debate. One would be hard pressed to find other rabbinical writings in such vociferous tones.[215] Moreover, if one was to read the Tikvas Zecharia after reading Rav Jaffe’s harangues, the silence of Rav Rosenfeld would be almost palpable. Rav Jaffe’s Sho’el Ka’inyan was published approximately a year earlier than Rav Rosenfeld’s Tikvas Zecharia, vol. 2, but Rav Rosenfeld totally omitted any mention of the opposition.[216]

There is no doubt that Rav Jaffe’s persona played a major role in this quarrel, which is illuminated by his colorful past. Rav Jaffe’s strident manner was already noted prior to his coming to America[217] and was evident yet again when he came to St. Louis. Preceding Rav Rosenfeld’s arrival in St. Louis, Rav Jaffe had already had a number of squabbles with other rabbanim,[218] but Rav Rosenfeld’s arrival must have rankled Rav Jaffe even more so. After all, as Rav Jaffe expressed, he did not consider anyone in America his equal,[219] but Rav Rosenfeld was someone whom the populace considered more learned than many of those already in America[220] and maybe even Rav Jaffe’s equal.[221] Even more so, Rav Rosenfeld did not come quietly to town; his first orders of business were the major communal issues of eruvin and mikvaos. Straight away, Rav Rosenfeld invalidated Rav Jaffe’s mikveh and even published a kuntres elucidating his reasons for doing so. Additionally, Rav Rosenfeld set to work and established an eruv.

However, unlike the mikveh dispute where Rav Rosenfeld was on the offensive, this time it was Rav Jaffe who took the initiative and invalidated Rav Rosenfeld’s eruv. Rav Jaffe’s repeated refrain that a new rav had come to town and established an eruv[222] reveals the underlying motives for his antipathy towards Rav Rosenfeld’s eruv. How dare Rav Rosenfeld institute a public proposal that applied to the entire community when he was merely the new rabbinic face in town? Since eruvin, more than any other issue, vests a certain amount of centralized power to the baal ha’machsher, a city eruv is the most visible symbol of power that a rav can have. Towns people publicly carrying in Rav Rosenfeld’s eruv were indicative of his influence and support in the community, unlike other more private issues. Therefore, the establishment of the eruv by Rav Rosenfeld elicited a disproportionately hostile reaction from Rav Jaffe.[223]

Analysis of the Non-Halachic Debate

The most improbable, non-halachic complaint that Rav Jaffe leveled against Rav Rosenfeld was that it was discernable from Rav Rosenfeld’s kuntres that he had only established an eruv to find favor in the eyes of the public.[224] Even more so, Rav Jaffe alleged that Rav Rosenfeld, by suggesting a framework to establish eruvin, was seeking to curry favor not only with the local community but with all American Jewry.[225] In truth, these allegations could have been leveled against all the major poskim who wrote teshuvos utilizing many of Rav Rosenfeld’s leniencies to establish eruvin. These rabbanim also argued that we needed to find an approach to eliminate the severe transgression of people carrying without an eruv.[226] Yet no one ever accused these rabbanim of being disingenuous when they erected an eruv.

Additionally, it is worth noting that it is extremely difficult to comprehend how Rav Jaffe managed to procure a haskamah from Rav Salant and other rabbanim in Yerushalayim. Rav Jaffe had previously had a few major disputes with another rav in St. Louis which reached the shores of Yerushalayim. These disputes were also extremely vitriolic, similar to the eruv controversy. Rav Salant protested Rav Jaffe’s aggressive methods, and Rav Jaffe had to answer for it.[227] Consequentially, I find it incredible that Rav Salant would issue a haskamah on Rav Jaffe’s kuntres which contained some of the most contemptuous rabbinic writing that I have ever read. The only thing that comes to mind is the possibility that Rav Grayewsky, who lived in Yerushalayim, somehow managed to finagle these haskamos for his friend.[228]

Furthermore, Rav Abramowitz’s statement in his approbation on Rav Jaffe’s Teshuvah KaHalachah VeDivrei Shalom[229] should be further explored. Rav Abramowitz declared that Rav Josepf’s haskamah on Rav Rosenfeld’s Tikvas Zecharia should be discounted, as it was well known that Rav Joseph was unwell and was incapable of analyzing the situation properly. Clearly, the objective here was to eliminate the importance of the main haskamah that Rav Rosenfeld received, that is Rav Joseph’s.[230] This, however, was obviously political.[231] The fact is, there is documented proof that even a few years later, in 1898, Rav Joseph was still very coherent.[232]

Analysis of the Halachic Debate

Even a cursory analysis of the available material demonstrates that Rav Jaffe’s hostility towards Rav Rosenfeld’s eruv was on more of a personal level than a halachic one. The tone of the rhetoric leveled against Rav Rosenfeld by Rav Jaffe illustrates this point succinctly. However, since the halachic debate was principally regarding the facts on the ground in 1894, it is impossible at the present time to establish the veracity of the facts presented by each side of the debate. It is even possible that Rav Rosenfeld was purposefully vague about the boundaries that he was making use of because he did not want to have to debate all the particulars.[233] However, there are some important points that can be discerned from these teshuvos.

St. Louis was the first controversy regarding a city that had the qualities of a reshus harabbim. Therefore, it is important to note that notwithstanding Rav Jaffe’s continuous harping in his seforim about the issue of reshus harabbim, the matter is still glaringly missing from any of the approbations issued to Rav Jaffe. Moreover, in Rav Hurowitz’s haskamah to Rav Jaffe’s kuntres, not only did he fail to mention the issue of reshus harabbim, he declared that an alternative to the telegraph lines should be found.[234] Obviously, if Rav Hurowitz would have agreed that there was an issue of a reshus harabbim, no alternative would have sufficed.

Rav Jaffe only succeeded in eliciting a clear haskamah regarding the matter of the telegraph lines, which the rabbanim of Eretz Yisroel all agreed were not sufficient, the main reason being that it was classified as a tzuras hapesach min hatzad. However, it is suspect that all of these rabbanim did not address Rav Rosenfeld’s claim that he was using some telegraph lines that had wires directly over their poles.[235] Consequentially, the telegraph poles that Rav Rosenfeld was using should not have been classified as min hatzad.[236] Even Rav Hurowitz in his haskamah on Rav Jaffe’s kuntres admitted that the telegraph poles would not be classified as min hatzad if there was nothing projecting above the wires.[237] I would add that the fact that Rav Hurowitz did not mention that Rav Rosenfeld claimed that he was using some telegraph poles where the wires were directly over the pole proves that he did not even see the Tikvas Zecharia.[238]

Additionally, it is questionable why the rabbanim did not address Rav Rosenfeld’s statement that, at the minimum, he was making use of telegraph lines where the crossarms are attached to the top of the pole, and not those whose poles projected above their crossarms.[239] It is incredible that Rav Rosenfeld could bring proof regarding the construct of telegraph poles in St. Louis from none other than Rav Jaffe. Rav Jaffe, in his zeal to disprove Rav Rosenfeld, included in his kuntres diagrams of the telegraph poles in St. Louis, which proved that the poles did not project above the crossarms.[240] As a matter of fact, there are poskim who maintain that in such a situation the poles are not classified as min hatzad.[241] Furthermore, Rav Jaffe claimed that all the telegraph poles in St. Louis only had two wires affixed to each end of the crossarms so they could not be employed for the principle of lavud.[242] This is demonstrably false as there were many telegraph poles in St. Louis with wires running across the entire crossarm just as Rav Rosenfeld had claimed.[243]

Rav Rosenfeld addressed an additional halachic issue regarding the telegraph lines that should have been mentioned by the rabbanim of Eretz Yisroel. Rav Rosenfeld asserted that the telegraph lines that he was making use of joined the mechitzos from the north and south without interruption.[244] Accordingly, Rav Rosenfeld did away with the issue of the distance between the telegraph poles and the houses.[245] Consequentially, Rav Rosenfeld had sufficient grounds to rely on the telegraph lines even according to those poskim in Eretz Yisroel who were stringent regarding this matter. Moreover, there were poskim who disagreed with the rabbanim of Eretz Yisroel and maintained that telegraph poles were classified as tzuras hapesachim. As a matter of fact, there were towns prior to WWII that made use of telegraph lines that were not as ideally suited for eruvin as the ones that Rav Rosenfeld used.[246]

Additionally, since Rav Rosenfeld stated that he was using, as the northern mechitzah, the railroad embankment that covered the pipelines that brought water into the city, he must have been referring to the railroads that commenced at the Bissell’s Point Waterworks.[247] As a matter of fact, there is a panoramic map that includes illustrations of this artificial embankment which the railroad ran along, and they demonstrate that this artificial embankment would have been halachically sufficient as a mechitzah.[248] Clearly, Rav Jaffe was not being very honest by denying the possibility that this mechitzah existed at all.[249]

In closing, there is no doubt that while Rav Rosenfeld had some original heterim that he relied on, most of them had been mentioned previously and had been relied on by some of the greatest poskim in history and were not so novel after all. Rav Jaffe’s reluctance to admit the precedent for many of Rav Rosenfeld’s heterim,[250] shows this controversy up to be mostly political in nature.

Epilogue

As I mentioned in the introduction to this essay, most of St. Louis’s Jews up until the 1920’s lived in an area referred to as the Jewish Ghetto. I have been told that people carried in Rav Rosenfeld’s eruv at least until Grand Avenue, which was the western border of this so-called ghetto.[251] However, by the 1930’s, most Jews had already abandoned the Ghetto and were migrating westward so the eruv was rendered obsolete.[252]

In December of 1994, the current St. Louis Community Eruv was completed.[253] The contemporary eruv encompasses an area west of Rav Rosenfeld’s eruv, covering parts of University City and three other St. Louis suburbs. St. Louis, which had the first city eruv in North America, has an eruv once more.
______________

It is fascinating how the old St. Louis eruv controversy is still employed in regards to contemporary eruv arguments. In 1981, the anti-eruv kuntres Yetzios HaShabbos published Rav Diskin’s haskamah and included Rav Jaffe’s introduction where he called Rav Rosenfeld “the well known” mechalel Shabbos.[254] Once this letter and introduction are removed from Rav Jaffe’s kuntres, it loses all context.[255] Rav Diskin’s name carries much weight, and if Rav Jaffe’s vitriolic unsigned introduction is attached to the letter, it would seem to the uninitiated reader that it was Rav Diskin who called Rav Rosenfeld “the well known” mechalel Shabbos and that Rav Diskin knew that this spurious claim was a fact.[256]

Furthermore, in the second edition of Yetzios HaShabbos (2003), the author added to Rav Jaffe’s introduction that St. Louis was a reshus harabbim d’Oraysa,[257] and in the latest volume of Teshuvos V’Hanhagos,[258] Rav Diskin’s letter is also mentioned in regards to the issue of reshus harabbim. [259] However, it is more probable that Rav Diskin’s letter is only referring to the matter of the telegraph lines, about which the rabbanim in Eretz Yisroel all seemed to have been stringent. Most notably, as Rav Diskin did not write or sign this letter, it remains a dubious document.[260]

Additionally, the Yetzios HaShabbos mentions[261] that Rav Jaffe had already, in 1895, objected to all large city eruvin in America such as Baltimore, Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia. However, the author conveniently omits the fact that Rav Jaffe admitted that according to the Bais Ephraim it would be sufficient to erect tzuras hapesachim.[262]

In the anti-eruv Ḳuntres Arevcha Arva Tzarich[263] the author B. Halberstam mentioned the controversy between Rav Jaffe and Rav Rosenfeld.[264] He argued that someone[265] established an eruv in order to undermine the Av Bais Din of St. Louis, Rav Jaffe. This claim illuminates what this genre of writing is all about, constructing whole arguments without a shred of supporting evidence. It is obvious that the author did not bother to investigate; Rav Jaffe was no more the Av Bais Din of St. Louis than was Rav Rosenfeld. Additionally, he quotes[266] the above mentioned Yetzios HaShabbos that Rav Jaffe prohibited eruvin in all large cities in America, and that he received support from Rav Diskin regarding this matter. He went on to derive from this that there was a long standing issur on erecting large city eruvin in America. The absurdity of this argument is that Rav Jaffe obviously did not have the influence to negate the eruv even in his own town, St. Louis, never mind in the entire America.

Next: The Odessa eruv

_____________________________

[215] I omitted most of Rav Jaffe’s diatribes and invectives that he hurled at Rav Rosenfeld. To really get a sense of Rav Jaffe’s vociferous criticism of Rav Rosenfeld, one would need to examine both of Rav Jaffe’s seforim opposing Rav Rosenfeld.
[216] However, Rav Rosenfeld did quip privately regarding Rav Jaffe. Members of Rav Rosenfeld’s family mentioned that he declared that from, emes [truth] until, yaffa [beautiful], is a great distance. This is a play on the last word of Krias Shema ― emes, and the 15th word of Veyatziv ― yaffa [Jaffe]. There were other such sarcastic remarks regarding Rav Jaffe from Rav Gavriel Zev Margolis (Charuzei Margolios, vol. 2, p. {187} 373), and from Rav Chaim Yaakov Widerevits (see Mordachai Lipson, MiDor Dor, vol. 2 p. 196 number 1491) who it seems soured on Rav Jaffe after he wrote his haskamah.
[217] See note 10.
[218] See note 55.
[219] Ibid.
[220] Sho’el Ka’inyan, p. {1} 1.
[221] The outcome of the situation was that the populace accepted Rav Rosenfeld over Rav Jaffe as can be discerned by the fact that Rav Jaffe was the one to leave town. Additionally, it was Rav Rosenfeld’s faction of congregation She’eris Sfard that endured; see notes 20, 39.
[222] Ibid., pp. {1} 1, 44.
[223] Ephraim Deinard writes that the uncompromising rabbanim [Rav Jaffe] who opposed the eruv placed St. Louis in a great turmoil (Sifras Yisroel B’America, p. 109 number 564, and Koheles America, p. 147 number 975). I will cite more evidence in the future that the eruv was the most contentious issue between Rav Jaffe and Rav Rosenfeld.
[224] Sho’el Ka’inyan, p. {1} 1 and Teshuvah KaHalachah VeDivrei Shalom, pp. 10, 16.
[225] Sho’el Ka’inyan, pp. {1} 1, 14 and Teshuvah KaHalachah VeDivrei Shalom, p. 10; see also Rav Grayewsky’s haskamah where he makes the same argument (ibid., p. 30). Rav Rosenfeld never actually wrote this; see note 153.
[226] It is of interest to note that Rav Grayewsky argued that there was no benefit to establish an eruv based on heterim for those who were purposefully mechalel Shabbos when it would be detrimental to the few individuals who were Shomer Shabbos (Teshuvah KaHalachah VeDivrei Shalom, p. 30). In this situation, it was Rav Grayewsky who was the one fabricating new concepts. None of the previous poskim ever considered such an argument that we do not have the responsibility to save all Jews from transgression because of the possibility that relying on leniencies may affect the observant Jew, as well. On the contrary, all the poskim assert that an eruv needs to be established even if it would amount to relying on many leniencies just so that we can save the masses from sin (see e.g. Ohel Yaakov, siman 73; Chasam Sofer, O.C. 99; Zakan Aharon, 1:26; Nishmas Adam, klal 71:5; HaEleph Lecha Shlomo, O.C. 185; Nefesh Chayah, siman 25, and Livush Mordechai, 4:4). I know of two additional cities where a similar argument was made. All these cities share one underlying condition; they all had major controversies regarding the establishment of their eruv (more about this in the future). I would add that Rav Moshe Feinstein’s objection to the Manhattan and Brooklyn eruvin cannot be compared to our situation of St. Louis. There is no doubt that at the time St. Louis was no different than a large European city in which case Rav Moshe maintained that there was a need to establish an eruv (Igros Moshe, O.C. 5:29).
[227] See note 55.
[228] See also notes 196-197.
[229] Page, {8} 15.
[230] It is interesting to note that after Rav Abramowitz became a rav in St. Louis, he had cordial relations with Rav Rosenfeld (see St. Louis Jewish Voice, July 4, 1907, p. 3) and even eulogized Rav Rosenfeld after his passing (ibid., September 17, 1915, p. 3).
[231] It is of interest to note that after Rav Rosenfeld received a haskamah from Rav Joseph, whom Rav Jaffe must not have been very fond of (see end of note 55), Rav Jaffe then received an approbation from Rav Joseph’s nemesis Rav Seigel (much more regarding this rivalry when I write the history of the 1905 New York eruv). At a later date, I will demonstrate that Rav Jaffe knew about Rav Joseph’s haskamah on Tikvas Zecharia prior to Rav Seigel issuing him an approbation on his kuntres (see also note 211). Consequentially, it is possible that Rav Jaffe purposefully elicited a haskamah from Rav Joseph’s opponent. There is an additional rivalry that existed between the writers of the haskamos. Rav Wilovsky had a major conflict with Rav Phimer; the former issued a approbation on Rav Jaffe’s kuntres, and the latter granted a haskamah on Rav Rosenfeld’s kuntres (for more about the dispute between Rav Wilovsky and Rav Phimer see H. Lang, Fir Doyres, pp. 100, 105; Slutzk and Vicinity Memorial Book, pp. 39, 87, 130, and Ephraim E. Lisitzky, Eleh Toldos Adam, p. 53). However, because of the timeline of these kuntraisim, I don’t think that there is a direct correlation between these two approbations.
[232] In an 1898 interview conducted by Harris L. Selig with Rav Joseph and published in the New York periodical Der Yidisher Veg, (October, 1946, pp. 8-10), one can discern that, while Rav Joseph was obviously very frail and weak, he was extremely coherent and was very capable of understanding a situation such as the eruv issue.
It is ironic that Rav Abramowitz would mention that he would consult with Rav Klein about what to do regarding this issue. If Rav Abramowitz believed that Rav Joseph’s approbation should be discounted, then it would be Rav Klein who would be the one who was most affected. As is well known, it was Rav Klein who made use of Rav Joseph’s hechsher until Rav Joseph’s passing in 1902 (for the most biting critique of Rav Klein regarding this matter, see HaMelitz, February 24, 1897, p. 6). Obviously, Rav Klein was hardly the one to be consulted regarding Rav Joseph’s abilities. Even more so, because Rav Joseph’s faculties were affected by his illness, he definitely was not capable of being involved in the hechsher business, as opposed to giving a haskamah on a sefer.
[233] See note 113. For example, since Rav Rosenfeld was being vague, I am not sure how much of the River Des Peres he was making use of. Consequently, I cannot prove that the River Des Peres was more than just some little furrow in the ground as Rav Jaffe argued, since some of the river as it turned northward and ran west seems to have narrowed considerably (see note 112). However, it is fairly clear that Rav Jaffe was not being honest regarding his claim that currently the River Des Peres was not much of a river especially as it ran along the southern side of the city.
[234] Teshuvah KaHalachah VeDivrei Shalom, p. {4} 7. It should also be noted that Rav Vaidenboim disagreed with Rav Jaffe regarding the issue of sechirus reshus (ibid., p. 4).
[235] Tikvas Zecharia, pp. 26, 43, and Addendum.
[236] Either there were some telegraph poles that actually had wires running directly over the pole or Rav Rosenfeld was referring to those crossarms that had wires running across the entire width; consequentially, there was at least one wire that was directly over the pole (this is also apparent from the image below of the St. Louis telegraph poles).
[237] Teshuvah KaHalachah VeDivrei Shalom, p. 6; albeit Rav Hurowitz would not have allowed that the telegraph lines could be used because of the other issues mentioned in the Toras Chesed.
[238] It should be noted, as well, that it is evident from the dates on all the haskamos from the rabbanim of America that they did not actually see Rav Rosenfeld’s Tikvas Zecharia and were only relying on Rav Jaffe’s version of the particulars (see also note 200).
[239] Tikvas Zecharia, p. 43, and Addendum.
[240] Ibid., pp. 22, 24; see image below.
[241] See, for instance, Nefesh Chayah, siman 34.
[242] Teshuvah KaHalachah VeDivrei Shalom, p. 24.
[243] For an example, see image below.
[244] Tikvas Zecharia, p. 43.
[245] Rav Hurowitz even mentioned that, regarding this issue and the matter that only a structure meant to resemble a doorway could serve as a tzuras hapesach, he was uncertain that they were problematic (Teshuvah KaHalachah VeDivrei Shalom, p. {4} 7).
[246] See the beginning of the teshuvah from the Nefesh Chayah in the sefer Machshevos Yisroel (siman 2), and Rav Yisroel Yitzchak Yanovsky's, Kuntras HaTeshuvos. The use of the telegraph (and telephone) lines as tzuras hapesachim was discussed by many poskim and really requires its own in-depth study. I hope to write about this in the future.
[247] See notes 114, 124 and number 9 on the St. Louis eruv map in part six.
[248] See the panoramic map by Compton, and Dry, plate numbers 46-48, 80 (see image below of plate number 80).
[249] Teshuvah KaHalachah VeDivrei Shalom, p 28.
[250] For instance, Rav Jaffe mentioned the Bais Ephraim’s opinion countless times yet failed to reveal that Rav Rosenfeld’s argument that we do not include the occupants of the trolleys in the tally when calculating the shishim ribo was mentioned, as well, by the Bais Ephraim (O.C. 26).
[251] See note 119.
[252] Moreover, some of the mechitzos that Rav Rosenfeld was making use of were probably, at the time, not sufficient ― such as the River Des Peres, which was totally rebuilt.
[253] See http://www.stleruv.org/
[254] Page 64.
[255] Rav Diskin’s letter is quoted from kuntres Yetzios HaShabbos in an article in Mishmeres Chomosenu (Erev Shavuous, 2003), and in the reprint of this article in Der Yid (Thursday, June 5, 2003, section 2 pp. 50-51). I would add that this article is totally redacted and cannot be relied on.
[256] While in the text of the letter the manager and directors of the shelter for orphans claimed that Rav Diskin called Rav Rosenfeld a mechalel Shabbos, they did not use Rav Jaffe’s term, “the well known,” mechalel Shabbos, alluding to the specious claim that Rav Rosenfeld’s name preceded him as a mechalel Shabbos.
[257] Page 208. However, in this edition, Rav Jaffe’s words “the well known mechalel Shabbos” were omitted from the introduction.
[258] Volume 5, siman 102.
[259] This makes it obvious that Rav Sternbuch, the author of Teshuvos V’Hanhagos, did not see Rav Diskin’s letter in the original but only the citation of it in the second edition of the kuntres Yetzios HaShabbos. I would add that Rav Jaffe seems to have appended very few copies of this letter to his Sho’el Ka’inyan as I have come across very few of them.
[260] It is important to note that there was a great controversy regarding the use of Rav Diskin’s name. Even Rav Shmuel Salant argued that Rav Diskin’s good name was being used by mecharcherei riv. (see Rav Mordechai Gimpel Yafeh, Mivchar Kesavim, pp. 88-92, and HaZefirah, May 30, 1882, pp. 147-148). Following this and the fact that this letter was not signed by Rav Diskin but only by the manager and directors of the shelter for the orphans that was under his auspices, I would totally discount this letter.

[261] First edition p. 33, second edition p. 52.

[262] Sho’el Ka’inyan, p. {4} 7.

[263] Boro Park, 2001.

[264] Page 114.

[265] He could not even bring himself to spell out Rav Rosenfeld’s name; he just wrote it as an acronym.

[266] Page 106.

_________________________________________________

This diagram which Rav Jaffe included in his kuntres Teshuvah KaHalachah VeDivrei Shalom (p. 20) proves that the telegraph poles in St. Louis did not project above their crossarms.

This photo demonstrates that there were telegraph lines in St. Louis that had a thicket of wires running along the crossarms (St. Louis Graf Engraving Co., c1896).

This illustration demonstrates that Rav Rosenfeld’s possible northern mechitzah on which the railroads ran from Bissell’s Point Waterworks was a raised embankment (Compton, Richard J., and Dry, Camille N., Pictorial St. Louis, the Great Metropolis of the Mississippi Valley; A Topographical Survey Drawn in Perspective A.D. 1875; Plate 80).

History of City Eruvin − Part 8: The Eruv in St. Louis

Continued from part VII

Rav Jaffe began his rebuttal, Teshuvah KaHalachah, which he said was an addendum to his Sho’el Ka’inyan and was written in response to a kuntres called Tikvas Zecharia, which advocated the carrying on Shabbos in St. Louis by relying on the telegraph lines.

What follows is, in Rav Jaffe’s words, a conclusive rebuttal of the Tikvas Zecharia:

1) Rav Jaffe derided Rav Rosenfeld in the harshest terms, asserting that from Rav Rosenfeld’s preface[156] we saw that he demeaned the Gedolei HaRabbanim of America. He proclaimed that anyone with Jewish blood coursing through his arteries would not be able to restrain himself because Rav Rosenfeld disparaged the current rabbanim who were not comfortable with his heter. He posited that it was discernable from Rav Rosenfeld’s preface that his only intention was to rule leniently in order to find favor in the eyes of the public.

2) Contrary to Rav Rosenfeld’s stance,[157] Rav Jaffe argued that the inhabitants of the mavoi could compel one to contribute regarding mechitzos but compelling one to join in the eruvei chatzeiros could only be enforced through Bais Din.

3) Rav Jaffe declared that Rav Rosenfeld, in his introduction, cited the Rosh[158] without realizing that it actually pertained to him. Rav Jaffe stated that in the era of the Rosh someone argued on the Talmud and the gedolim, without bringing supporting evidence, and did not allow tzuras hapesachim to be erected so the Rosh commanded that he establish an eruv. In our times, Rav Rosenfeld wanted to sanction a reshus harabbim, also without supporting evidence, arguing on the Talmud and the gedolim. Moreover, Rav Jaffe exclaimed, why didn’t Rav Rosenfeld read a little further on in the Rosh, where he stated that once one mavoi opens into a reshus harabbim, every mavoi that is mefulash into it requires a tzuras hapesach at every opening? This teshuvah from the Rosh, Rav Jaffe stated, would have superseded all of Rav Rosenfeld’s arguments.

4) Arguing that Tosfos does not accept shishim ribo as a criterion, Rav Jaffe cited support for the Masa'as Binyamin against Rav Rosenfeld’s opinion.[159]

5) He then asserted that Rav Rosenfeld’s citing of Rashi ― that the reason why Machane Levi'ah was a reshus harabbim was because that is where Klall Yisroel assembled to hear Torah from Moshe Rabbainu[160] ― is actually proof to the contrary. It was impossible, said Rav Jaffe, for shishim ribo to have congregated daily near Moshe Rabbainu. Consequently, Rashi could not have required that the shishim ribo mass in one area; thus it is sufficient to include the entire city’s population toward the tally of shishim ribo.

6) Rav Jaffe derided Rav Rosenfeld’s elucidation of various Gemaras.[161]

7) Additionally, Rav Jaffe brought evidence contrary to Rav Rosenfeld’s claim that a reshus harabbim bisected by a karmelis divided the area’s population from a unified total.[162] Rav Jaffe argued that we see from the Gemara[163] that even though the area beneath the kerashim of the Mishkan ― which intersected the roads of the diglei hamidbar ― were classified as a karmelis, the diglei hamidbar were nevertheless considered a reshus harabbim.

8) Furthermore, Rav Jaffe declared that Rav Rosenfeld[164] was inaccurate in his description of the construction of the telegraph lines in St. Louis and all cities in America. Rav Jaffe claimed that the telegraph poles, particularly in St. Louis, had a metal crossarm, approximately an amah wide, affixed to their tops upon which wires were fastened on both ends. The crossarms below the upper one were attached to the side of the telegraph poles and were wider than an amah. The telegraph wires, Rav Jaffe asserted, could not be utilized through the principle of lavud since, at the most, only two wires affixed to each end of the crossarm were close enough to each other. On the additional crossarms, the wires were much more than three tefachim apart, and the pair of wires on the opposite side of the crossarm were more than six tefachim apart from those flanking them.

Since this issue was so important, Rav Jaffe included a diagram of the telegraph poles to prove his point ― that the telegraph lines were min hatzad. Additionally, he asserted that the gaps between the telegraph poles and the houses were meant to be traversed by the masses.

9) Rav Jaffe argued that Rav Rosenfeld[165] was incorrect since the streets of St. Louis and most cities in America were open from all sides, they were unquestionably considered mefulash. Furthermore, Rav Jaffe declared that, contrary to Rav Rosenfeld’s opinion, the mechitzos are negated when the river freezes over and even more so, in St. Louis since these mechitzos are needed me’d’Oraysa. In any case, Rav Jaffe stated that the Mississippi River is more than 10 amos away from the nearest house in the city.

10) In contrast to Rav Rosenfeld’s opinion,[166] Rav Jaffe asserted that water did not halachically negate the riverbanks.[167] The riverbanks in other cities could possibly be used as mechitzos, but Rav Jaffe declared that the banks of the Mississippi River were not sufficient. Rav Jaffe argued that very few of the streets were bounded by the Mississippi River, and most of them were several parsos away. Not even a fifth of the streets of the city were encompassed by the river, and even those that were enclosed were more than 20 amos away from its banks. Moreover, he maintained that there was the concern that the river would freeze. Additionally, Rav Jaffe claimed that even if the river was close enough to the city, the banks of the Mississippi River tended to be eroded by the tremendous flow of the river and therefore were halachically insufficient.

11) Rav Jaffe declared that the telegraph lines, contrary to Rav Rosenfeld’s opinion,[168] cannot be used as a tzuras hapesach. In St. Louis, the construct of the telegraph lines and the fact that there are gaps between the telegraph poles and the houses that were made to be traversed by the masses made them halachically inferior to all others. Additionally, Rav Jaffe claimed that Rav Rosenfeld misrepresented the Shoel U’Maishiv’s position regarding the telegraph lines. He cited the glosses[169] that his friend Rav Grayewsky wrote on his sefer Sho’el Ka’inyan where he mentioned that even the Shoel U’Maishiv in Lvov did not solely rely on telegraph poles; he required that they affix small posts between the telegraph poles and the houses in order to prevent the masses from traversing between them. Rav Jaffe affirmed that since the poskim, particularly the Toras Chesed, maintained that the telegraph lines could not serve as a halachic tzuras hapesach, we could not make use of them. He added that, contrary to Rav Rosenfeld’s claim, the telegraph poles were purposefully placed in middle of the street, and those poles that were placed at the corners were at least six amos away from the houses in order to allow the rabbim to traverse between them. Moreover, he argued, since the telegraph poles had many wires running at different levels, they did not resemble a doorway, and he included a diagram of the poles to illustrate this point. Rav Jaffe mentioned that his friend Rav Grayewsky made a similar argument in his glosses on his sefer Sho’el Ka’inyan.[170]

12) In contrast to Rav Rosenfeld’s application of the principle of lavud and pi tikra yored v’sosem to the telegraph wires,[171] Rav Jaffe declared that the wires were not sufficiently close to each other to employ the principle of lavud; consequently, we could not make use of the principle of pi tikra.

13) Rav Jaffe continued that he had written further on[172] to the Av Bais Din of Yafa that most Yidden, rich and poor alike [in St. Louis], are mechalel Shabbos in public even regarding matters of d’Oraysa and do not acknowledge the principle of Shabbos. Therefore, Rav Jaffe claimed that the contracting of their reshus is problematic for any shared dwelling and even more so for the entire city. Moreover, he argued that Rav Rosenfeld[173] was incorrect and that no government official had the power to evict anyone even for the benefit of the public unless the occupant was compensated according to his demands. Additionally, Rav Jaffe declared that Rav Rosenfeld was mistaken, and a detective could only forcibly enter a house if there were grounds for suspicion of theft but not regarding other issues. Furthermore, we could not contract the reshus from the police officers since they were reassigned on a constant basis. In addition, each street had its own representative [so we would have needed to contract the reshus from each one of them]. All of this, Rav Jaffe argued, would only have been apparent to those who resided in America. In any case, he declared that there is no reshus to rent since we were dealing with an issue of reshus harabbim d’Oraysa in which case no renting would suffice.

Rav Jaffe then dissected Rav Rosenfeld’s heter to carry in St. Louis:

14) Even though Rav Rosenfeld wrote[174] an exact population figure for St. Louis, Rav Jaffe asserted it was not that Rav Rosenfeld was proficient in the statistics but only that he had seen it in some Yiddish book.[175] In fact, Rav Jaffe claimed he was informed by a lawyer and from some English books that the present population of St. Louis, including its suburbs, was greater than 700,000.[176] In any case, he argued that between the residents and the visitors and those passing through the city ― which has the largest train system in the region ― there was no doubt that the population was greater than shishim ribo. Moreover, Rav Jaffe alleged that when the World’s Fair[177] was in operation, all the newspapers stated that the population reached close to one million.

15) Rav Jaffe then lashed into Rav Rosenfeld[178] citing proof that beneath the electric or steam trolleys was a karmelis and not a reshus hayachid. Additionally, he claimed, many of these trolleys were more than four tefachim high so the ground beneath them was definitely not a reshus hayachid. Rav Jaffe exclaimed that no one would have thought to argue that we do not include the occupants of the trolleys in the tally when calculating the shishim ribo in order to determine if the street is classified as a reshus harabbim. Furthermore, he stated, the hundreds of thousands of people traveling in these trolleys came from the streets, so they would, in any case, had been included in the tally. Additionally, Rav Jaffe declared that Rav Rosenfeld was incorrect for not having included the sidewalks with the roads to comprise an area 16 amos wide since they were all connected as one. He then added that besides for the space that the trolley cars occupied, the remainder of the street where people traversed was wider than 16 amos. Rav Jaffe then asserted that there really was no need for proof because the occupants of the trolleys were included in the tally just like pedestrians were. Nevertheless, he cited some poskim, including the Magen Avraham,[179] who maintained that we include the occupants of the ships ― which are classified as a reshus hayachid ― in the tally; consequentially, the trolley passengers should have been included as well. Rav Jaffe continued that Rav Rosenfeld’s claim that the trolleys make it dangerous for pedestrians to traverse the street was totally false. The fact is that thousands of pedestrians traversed the streets before and after the trolleys passed and traversed on the sides of the streets when the trolleys chimed to warn of their presence. Moreover, Rav Jaffe deflected Rav Rosenfeld’s argument that the trolleys made it dangerous for pedestrians to traverse the street, thus the street cannot sustain the rabbim. There was no difference, he claimed, if the rabbim consisted of pedestrians or of the trolley passengers, and it is irrelevant that the pedestrians had to wait a few seconds until the trolleys passed.

16) He then declared that Rav Rosenfeld[180] was incorrect when he set forth how he was enclosing the section of the city of St. Louis where the Jews resided, and that he was using the Mississippi River for the eastern mechitzah. Rav Jaffe claimed that there was no exclusive section where the Jews resided; they lived together with the non-Jews.[181] He added that, unlike what Rav Rosenfeld claimed, the Mississippi River[182] did not bound the entire east side of the city since the river did not run in a straight line. Even the few streets that did run near the river were more than 20 amos away from the incline of the riverbanks. Rav Jaffe argued that since all the streets opened into each other, even if some of the streets were circumscribed by the river the next street which was not enclosed had a rabbim traversing it.

17) Rav Jaffe asserted that the River Des Peres that Rav Rosenfeld made use of on the south side of the city[183] was currently not like Rav Rosenfeld described it. It was nothing more than a crevice that usually was dry and had a few small bridges spanning it. Additionally, the river was several parsos away from the houses of the city. Rav Jaffe added that Rav Rosenfeld was inaccurate when he claimed that both rivers had banks which were more than 10 tefachim high above their respective waterlines. He argued that there were no riverbanks that were built up ten-tefachim over a four-amos area above the waterline and they were definitely not next to any of the houses of the city.

18) According to Rav Jaffe there were difficulties with Rav Rosenfeld’s mechitzos on the north side of the city, the Mississippi River; and closer to the city, the artificial embankments that the railroads ran along; and also one longer embankment that covered the pipelines that brought water into the city.[184] He asked what bearing the Mississippi River had on St. Louis if the artificial embankments separated it from the city. Moreover, Rav Jaffe queried, where was there in this city such an artificial embankment? On the contrary, in this country the approach was to level out all embankments. In St. Louis, Rav Jaffe pointed out, no ramparts were built. Furthermore, he questioned Rav Rosenfeld’s objective when he listed the longer artificial embankment as a mechitzah. Either it was long enough to enclose the entire north side of the city, which was fifteen or seventeen miles long, or if not, we would not have had a need to utilize the smaller embankments. Additionally, what pipes were these embankments covering? All the pipes ran from one source, where the water was collected and processed[185] from the Mississippi River, and these pipes were all underground. All of this was secondary, Rav Jaffe argued, since the river on the north side was a few miles from any point in the city and only bounded a small section of the city. Therefore, he claimed, Rav Rosenfeld had to rely on these very small embankments which were closer to the city. These small embankments on the outskirts of the city were quite some distance from any of the houses of the city and did not pertain to the city at all. Rav Jaffe added that all of the above was confirmed by his friend Rav Grayewsky who was in St. Louis.

19) Rav Jaffe then questioned Rav Rosenfeld’s mechitzos on the west side of the city, the artificial trench which had some bridges spanning it; the walls consisting of fences surrounding the cemeteries; and the numerous hills in the vicinity.[186] What function did this artificial trench serve? Rav Jaffe then exclaimed that it seemed that even Rav Rosenfeld did not know what their use was for. While there were some natural furrows over which they had constructed bridges in order to make them easy to cross, it would have been illogical, he proclaimed, to have dug an artificial trench for no reason other than to build some bridges over it. In any case, Rav Jaffe continued, these furrows were remote from the houses of the city. Additionally, Rav Jaffe claimed that the fences surrounding the cemeteries would not have been of much help since the cemeteries were not more than one block themselves, and they too were approximately eight miles from the city. Moreover, the break between the cemeteries and the hills that Rav Rosenfeld had mentioned were not just 10 amos wide as he claimed, but were as large as a few thousand amos.

20) Contrary to Rav Rosenfeld’s account,[187] Rav Jaffe declared that there was no exclusively Jewish section in St. Louis where only Jews resided, and there were no telegraph lines that partitioned the areas where the Jews resided from the areas inhabited by non-Jews.[188]

21-22) Rav Jaffe inserted his previously published Rishfei Eish into these numbers.[189]

In conclusion, Rav Jaffe wrote that the above was an accurate description of the telegraph lines which were all min hatzad, and that the gaps between the telegraph poles and the houses were meant to be traversed by the masses.[190] Therefore, he asked, would it be correct to place such obstacles before the masses for generations to come, relying solely on one rav’s hypothesis? He then signed this rebuttal as the Av Bais Din of St. Louis.

In the second part of Rav Jaffe’s kuntres, Divrei Shalom, he wrote[191] that after Sho’el Ka’inyan was published, he realized that some of the haskamos included comments on Sho’el Ka’inyan.[192] Rav Jaffe then responded to an argument in Rav Vaidenboim’s haskamah on his Sho’el Ka’inyan. Rav Vaidenboim declared that the mayor was an employee of the inhabitants of the city and renting from him was just as valid as renting the reshus through sechiro v’lekito of sechiro v’lekito. Rav Jaffe argued the situation in America was different since the mayor did not possess the power to evict anyone without his consent. Moreover, the mayor did not have the right to place an object inside of, to make use of, or enter anyone’s house without his consent. These rights, Rav Jaffe argued, were not superior to a situation of renting the reshus through sechiro v’lekito where they are only allowed the rights to a particular location on the renter’s property, in which case sechiras reshus was not sufficient. Rav Jaffe cited support that the power vested in the mayor in America would not even be sufficient for contracting the rights for the streets. He then brought proof that even in a situation where the contracting of the reshus from the mayor would be sufficient, it would not be adequate for a Tsdoki or a Yisroel Mummer who is not modeh b’eruv. This, Rav Jaffe declared, proved his point that sechiras reshus would not be sufficient in America.[193] Rav Jaffe then included additional letters of defense in Divrei Shalom that did not pertain to eruvin.

Rav Jaffe received haskamos on Teshuvah KaHalachah from:

Rav Shmuel Salant, Rav, Ravad of Yerushalayim and Rav Schneur Zalman Fradkin (1830-1902)[194] of Yerushalayim[195] dated June 28, 1896. Both of them declared that they do not permit carrying through the use of the telegraph lines since they are not halachically considered tzuras hapesachim.

Rav Naphtali Hertz HaLevi Vaidenboim, Ravad of Yafa. Rav Vaidenboim wrote that he had examined kuntres Divrei Shalom[196] where Rav Jaffe argued on his haskamah to Sho’el Ka’inyan. Rav Vaidenboim declared that, nevertheless, he still disagreed with Rav Jaffe, and that in America, it was definitely possible to contract the reshus from the city government since they were agents of the national government who could enact war. However, he affirmed that the eruv could not be relied on since it made use of telegraph lines. Rav Vaidenboim continued by defending his approbation against another halachic argument made by Rav Jaffe, this one, however, not relevant to eruvin.

Rav Shaul Chaim Hurowitz, of Yerushalayim. He wrote that Rav Eliezer Zalman Grayewsky showed him Rav Jaffe’s kuntres Divrei Shalom.[197] Rav Hurowitz then refuted halachic arguments made by Rav Jaffe, which were not relevant to eruvin. He continued that Rav Grayewsky had asked his opinion regarding the use of telegraph lines as a tzuras hapesach. Rav Hurowitz answered unequivocally that telegraph lines were classified as min hatzad. He then pointed out that even if the wires were attached to insulators affixed to the top of the poles and were not considered min hatzad, nevertheless, since the telegraph poles had finials that projected above the poles, the poles were classified as min hatzad. He then added that, regarding the issues of the distance between the telegraph poles and the houses and that only a structure meant to resemble a doorway could serve as a tzuras hapesach, he was uncertain that they were problematic.[198] However, because of the matter of tzuras hapesach min hatzad, there is no doubt that that we cannot rely on the telegraph lines. Therefore, the telegraph lines cannot be utilized to permit carrying and an alternative should be found.
Rav Eliezer Zalman Grayewsky of Yerushalayim dated Tammuz 5656 [June/July, 1896].[199] Rav Grayewsky stated that he could also testify that everything that Rav Jaffe wrote regarding the telegraph lines and the trolleys was accurate. He continued that he did not understand why Rav Rosenfeld would have introduced such a weak loophole to allow an issur skilah. Was Rav Rosenfeld doing so because of those who were mechalel Shabbos? Did these people require a heter? Or was it for the exceptional individuals who were Shomer Shabbos? For them, Rav Grayewsky declared it was an absolute offense to allow them to carry by relying on such weak arguments. To allow such a precedent could be detrimental for all of American Jewry. Everyone would then argue that surely it was permitted to carry all over the world since the world was encompassed by the sea. Furthermore, according to Rav Rosenfeld’s assumptions, carrying would be permitted from New York until San Francisco since the entire route was encompassed by the telegraph lines. Therefore, Rav Grayewsky asked that, for the sake of truth it would be fitting that Rav Rosenfeld recant his heter and acknowledge his error.

Rav Jaffe included the following letter of praise[200] from Rav Refael Yaakov Dovid Willovsky (1845-1913)[201] Av Bais Din of Slutzk dated September 20 1894. Rav Willovsky declared that one was not allowed to carry in St. Louis, and he added that the Toras Chesed [on the subject of relying on telegraph lines] would also have prohibited it.[202]

Additionally, Rav Jaffe included letters of praise from the following rabbanim in America:

Rav Yehoshua Seigel (1846-1910)[203] Rav HaKollel D'Kehilas Yisroel in New York [204] dated October 29, 1895.[205] Rav Seigel stated that Rav Jaffe was the first rav to publish teshuvos regarding issues applicable to America. He continued that if the rationale [of Rav Rosenfeld] to allow an eruv was as Rav Jaffe stated in his teshuvos, it was incumbent on all upright people to take a stand against this heter.[206] In a footnote to Rav Seigel’s letter, Rav Jaffe stated that from the newly published kuntres Tikvas Zecharia, Rav Seigel would see that he, Rav Jaffe, had in fact listed all of Rav Rosenfeld’s heterim.

Avraham Yaakov Gershon Lesser (1834-1924)[207] of Chicago dated November 27, 1895. Rav Lesser thanked Rav Jaffe for fighting the war against the individual who was mekil regarding carrying on Shabbos.

Rav Chaim Yaakov Widerevits (1836-1911) of New York.[208] In his first letter dated October 1, 1895, he stated that he hoped to analyze Rav Jaffe’s sefer after Yom Tov. In the second letter dated November 7, 1895, he declared that the halachah in all instances was entirely like Rav Jaffe.

Rav Dov Ber Abramowitz (1860-1926)[209] Rav of Mishkan Yisroel Anshei Suvalk in New York dated November 14, 1895.[210] Rav Abramowitz lamented that he discerned from Rav Jaffe’s letters that this violator of our tenets [Rav Rosenfeld] had the impudence to do so even regarding issues that were an issur skilah. He added that he saw that the violator unfortunately was relying on the Chief Rabbi [Rav Yaakov Yosef Josef] who, as was well known, was unwell and was incapable of analyzing the situation properly. Rav Abramowitz continued that when he would meet Rav [Hillel] Klein he would consult with him as it would be fitting to do something to counter this violator of our faith.[211]

At a later date, Rav Jaffe inserted the letters from Rav Seigel and Rav Willovsky into some editions of his Sho’el Ka’inyan. Additionally, he inserted a letter that he received after the publication of his Teshuvah KaHalachah VeDivrei Shalom. This letter, dated October 28, 1896, was from Shalom Meir Mazal, Mendel Ministir, Yaakov Blumenthun, the manager and directors of the shelter for orphans that was under the auspices of Rav Moshe Yehoshua Yehudah Leib Diskin (1816–1898)[212] Ravad in Yerushalayim.[213] Rav Jaffe introduced the letter stating that the following was a letter from Rav Diskin regarding the issur of carrying in St. Louis in opposition to the well-known mechalel Shabbos, Rav Rosenfeld. The managers wrote that Rav Diskin agreed that according to the way Rav Jaffe had described that situation, there was no heter whatsoever to carry in St. Louis, and that Rav Diskin had total confidence in Rav Jaffe’s account. They continued that Rav Diskin suggested that Rav Jaffe not quarrel with these mechalelei Shabbos any more since he had done more than his share with his admonishment.[214]

Next: Analysis of the Controversy

_____________________________

[156] Tikvas Zecharia, preface p. {4}.
[157] Ibid., introduction, p. 2.
[158] Ibid., p. 5.
[159] Ibid., chapter 1, p. 7.
[160] Ibid., p. 8.
[161] Ibid., section 1, p. 10.
[162] Ibid.
[163] Shabbos, 98a and Eruvin, 6b.
[164] Tikvas Zecharia, chapter 1, section 2, page 10.
[165] Ibid., chapters 2-3, page 12-14.
[166] Ibid., chapters 3-4.
[167] While it does not seem that, when Rav Rosenfeld reworked chapter 3 of Tikvas Zecharia, vol. 2, (see note 101) he was addressing Rav Jaffe directly, nevertheless, the reworking of the chapter did answer some of Rav Jaffe’s arguments against him in Teshuvah KaHalachah VeDivrei Shalom.
[168] Tikvas Zecharia, chapter 5, page 25.
[169] Ois 5, 8.
[170] Ois 4.
[171] Tikvas Zecharia, chapter 5, page 36.
[172] Divrei Shalom, p. 31 {17}. See also the Av Bais Din of Yafa’s haskamah and note 193.
[173] Tikvas Zecharia, chapters 6-7.
[174] Ibid., page 40.

[175] While it is possible that Rav Rosenfeld saw these numbers in some Yiddish book, no doubt these numbers were gleaned from no less an authoritative source than the US Census (see note 57, 135).

[176] At this point, Rav Jaffe clearly states that he is including the suburbs in the tally. In Sho’el Ka’inyan (p. 2) he mentioned that the population of St. Louis was greater than shishim ribo, and as I noted there (see notes 64-65), he must have been including some of the suburbs in the tally, as well. Consequentially, I have no idea how three years later (1894-1896), even factoring in the population growth, Rav Jaffe came up with a population figure for the same area of even greater than 700,000. Therefore, it is possible that, at this point, Rav Jaffe included additional suburbs in order to push up the tally to eliminate any doubt that there was shishim ribo traversing therein daily, since previously (Sho’el Ka’inyan, p. 2, 6) Rav Jaffe had been unsure if this was the case (see also note 64).

[177] The St. Louis World Fair was first held in 1904, so I am not sure what Rav Jaffe is referring to. There was the long running St. Louis Fair, but that was on a much smaller scale and was, by this time, even on the decline.
[178] Tikvas Zecharia, page 40.
[179] Siman, 363:30. The Magen Avraham in 345:14 and 363:30 has been used many times as proof against those who argue that we do not included the occupants of the cars in the tally of the shishim ribo (see Mishnah Halachos, 7:61 for a response why the Magen Avraham in 345:14 is not applicable). I believe, though, that Rav Jaffe was the first to cite this Magen Avraham.
[180] Tikvas Zecharia, page 42.
[181] See note 118.
[182] This is where Rav Jaffe ridiculed the way Rav Rosenfeld spelled the Mississippi River in Hebrew; see note 55.
[183] Tikvas Zecharia, page 42.
[184] Ibid.
[185] Rav Jaffe is referring to Bissell’s Point Waterworks; see note 114.
[186] Tikvas Zecharia, page 42.
[187] Ibid.
[188] See note 118.
[189] See beginning of this chapter and note 52.

[190] It is noticeable from this conclusion that Rav Jaffe recognize that the most viable argument that he had with Rav Rosenfeld was regarding the telegraph poles (see further Analysis of the Halachic Debate).
[191] Page, 31 {17}; see also Rav Jaffe’s rebuttal, number 13.

[192] Since Rav Jaffe’s friend Rav Grayewsky collected the haskamos and published Sho’el Ka’inyan in Yerushalayim (ibid., p. {23} 45) it is probable that Rav Jaffe did not see the haskamos prior to their publication in his Sho’el Ka’inyan.
[193] I should note that Rav Vaidenboim answered Rav Jaffe in his haskamah on Teshuvah KaHalachah VeDivrei Shalom (p. 4; see below).
[194] Author of Toras Chesed, vol. 1 (Warsaw, 1883), vol. 2 (Yerushalayim, 1909).
[195] Formally Av Bais Din of Lublin.
[196] It’s important to note that Rav Vaidenboim only referred to Rav Jaffe’s Divrei Shalom but did not mention Teshuvah KaHalachah. There is a possibility that Rav Grayewsky did not present Rav Vaidenboim with the rest of Rav Jaffe’s kuntres Teshuvah KaHalachah.
[197] It is also possible that Rav Grayewsky did not show Rav Hurowitz the section called Teshuvah KaHalachah; see preceding note.
[198] Rav Jaffe added a note that he had already discussed these issues in his Sho’el Ka’inyan.

[199] Teshuvah KaHalachah, p. 30.

[200] As can be discerned from the subsequent haskamos they were all issued for Sho’el Ka’inyan and not for Teshuvah KaHalachah VeDivrei Shalom (see also note 238).
[201] Author of Migdal David (Vilna, 1874); Chana David (Vilna, 1876); Teshuvos Ridvaz (Vilna, 1880); Chiddushi Ridvaz al HaYerushalmi (Pietrokov, 1898-1900); Nimukei Ridvaz (Chicago, 1904); Bais Ridvaz (Yerushalayim, 1908); Peas HaShulchan (Yerushalayim, 1912), and Kerem Ridvaz (Yerushalayim, 1995).
[202] Rav Willovsky also wrote in this letter that he agreed with Rav Jaffe regarding the Hebrew spelling for St. Louis and the Mississippi River; see note 55.
[203] Author of Eruv V’Hotzaah (New York, 1907) and Oznai Yehoshua (Yerushalayim, 1914).
[204] Formerly Rav of Sherps.
[205] It is fascinating that Rav Seigel gave a haskamah (of which he issued very few) on Rav Jaffe’s sefer considering the fact that Rav Seigel was the one who established the 1905 New York eruv (see also note 231).
[206] Rav Seigel added that he agreed that Rav Jaffe’s mikveh was kosher.
[207] Author of B’Achris HaYmim (Chicago, 1897) and Ohel Moed (Chicago, 1897).
[208] Formerly Rav of Moscow.
[209] Author of Daas Yisroel, 3 vols. (New York, 1899-1905); Ksav HaDas (New York, 1900), and Sefer Keshuba (New York, 1901).
[210] It is interesting to note that by 1906, Rav Abramowitz had become a rav in St. Louis (see also note 230).
[211] At a later date, I will write about where Rav Abramowitz could possibly have seen Rav Josef’s haskamah on Rav Rosenfeld’s kuntres, Tikvas Zecharia vol. 2, which was published after Rav Abramowitz’s penned his approbation on Rav Jaffe’s kuntres Teshuvah KaHalachah VeDivrei Shalom (Rav Rosenfeld’s kuntres was published at the earliest February 24, 1896; see the preface to Tikvas Zecharia, vol. 2, p. {6}).
[212] Author of Toras Ohel Moshe (Yerushalayim, 1902); Teshuvos Maharil Diskin (Yerushalayim, 1911), and Likut Amarim (Yerushalayim, 1922-1935).
[213] Formerly Rav of Brisk.
[214] See note 260.