In the Mishpacha article “Book of Life” (issue 613 2
Sivan 5776 June 8, 2016) Eytan Kobre interviewed Rabbi Daniel Osher Kleinman (the
editor of Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin’s zt”l’s teshuvos Gevuros
Eliyahu)
regarding Rabbi Eitam Henkin Hy”d. In order to demonstrate Reb Eitam’s
quest for the truth and his ability to be mekabel, Reb Daniel cited an
incident when he unearthed an inconsistency and Reb Eitam reversed his long
held opinion. The issue was regarding the halachic feasibility of an eruv
in Manhattan according to the opinion of Reb Eitam’s grandfather Rav Yosef
Eliyahu Henkin.
Rav Henkin had written several
letters on the topic of the Manhattan eruv. In one undated letter, he
joined Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l in declining to publicly support an eruv,
while in another, seemingly his last on the matter, Rav Henkin ostensibly lent
his approval. The prevailing belief, with which Reb Eitam concurred, was that
in his final pronouncement on the matter, Rav Henkin had, indeed, endorsed the
construction of an eruv in the borough. However, Rabbi Kleinman discovered
that the address of Ezras Torah on the stationary that Rav Henkin used for this
undated letter was crossed out, and a new address was written in. According to
Rabbi Kleinman, when Ezras Torah moved in the summer of 5721/1961, Rav Henkin made
sure to cross out the previous address and write the new one on every letter
following 26 Tammuz 5721. Therefore, the undated letter of non-support for the eruv,
although previously thought to have been written years earlier, had actually
been penned sometime after late Tammuz 5721, making it veritably his last known
statement on the issue.
The prevailing belief on the topic of
Rav Henkin’s position regarding an eruv in Manhattan up until
Rabbi Kleinman unearthed this inconsistency had been set forth by Rav Menachem
Kasher zt”l and the Shatzer Rebbe zt”l. Because of Rav Henkin’s
stature as one of the preeminent poskim in America, the
significance of his position cannot be underestimated. It is for this reason that
Rabbi Kleinman’s discovery is of great importance. However, to those unfamiliar
with Rav Henkin’s writings on the subject, the article may leave some with the
mistaken impression that not only did Rav Henkin in his final opinion not lend his
support for the eruv, he was actually in opposition to the establishment
of an eruv for Manhattan [since he joined Rav Moshe Feinstein who, as is
well known, signed onto the 1962 kol korei in opposition to the
Manhattan eruv; more about this later on]. This is incorrect,
and as I will demonstrate further on, there are omissions in Rabbi Kleinman’s
arguments, as well.
To begin with, it is important to note
that the first Manhattan eruv, which was established by Rav Yehoshua
Seigel zt”l in 1905, used as its parameters the natural riverbanks [mechitzos
hayam] that only encompassed the Lower East Side up until the Third Avenue
El. As the Jewish community migrated out of the Lower East Side, there was a
growing need to enlarge the Manhattan eruv to encompass more
of the island. In 1949, the Amshinover Rebbe zt"l urged
Rav Tzvi Eisenstadt zt”l to establish an eruv that
included the entire Manhattan. Rav Eisenstadt spent days investigating the
Manhattan waterfront and concluded that it was bounded by man-made walls [mechitzos
b’y’dai adam] and, therefore, an eruv could be established
(Minchas Tzvi, siman 4). There were many meetings
and teshuvos written concerning this eruv, the
culmination being that most rabbanim allowed an eruv in
Manhattan. Along with Rav Eisenstadt and the Amshinover Rebbe, the list
included the Kapishnitzer Rebbe, Boyaner Rebbe, Novominsker Rebbe, Rav Michoel
Dov Weissmandel, Rav Yonasan Steif, Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank, Rav Menachem Kasher,
and the Shatzer Rebbe, zt”l. In Iyar of 1962, an eruv was
finally established under the supervision of the Shatzer Rebbe.
The following month on the 18th
of Sivan, a kol korei opposing the Manhattan eruv was issued by
the Agudas Harrabanim with the signatures of Rav Aharon Kotler, Rav Moshe Feinstein,
Rav Gedalia Schorr, Rav Chaim Bick, and Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky, zt”l.
No comments:
Post a Comment