Thursday, October 01, 2020

Part 27: REBUTTAL TO THE LAWS OF AN ERUV

The Sefer – Page 150 (continued):

Nevertheless, he did not always support the construction of citywide eruvin. Rav Moshe felt that each Rav should determine for his respective city (3) what the effect of an eruv would be as well as the likelihood that the eruv would remain properly supervised.

Rebuttal: It is fascinating how Rav Moshe’s opinion regarding the need for eruvin evolved.

The following is a synopsis of Rav Moshe shitos regarding the need for eruvin:

1) בכל תשובותיו מיירי רק לענין אם יש מצוה להשתדל לעשות עירוב.

2) בסימן כ"ח לא ברירא ליה שלא לעשות עירוב, דהא יש תיקון למחללי שבת "בשביל אלו שאין יודעין כלום", רק ד"נוטה יותר לומר שליכא חיוב למונעו מעבירה".

3) בסימן פ"ו כותב בברירות: "הנני רואה בזה תועלת גדולה והצלה ממכשול בשוגג ובמזיד וכו', דלכן הוא טובה גדולה ותועלת לשמירת שבת, ואני אומר שיפה עשיתם".

4) גם בסימן כ"ט כתב דכשאיכא הרבה תובעין נחשב לצורך, "ויש אולי מקומות ששייך להחשיב גם צורך גדול, ושייך להרב המקומי לידע זה, וא"כ וודאי לא שייך למחות, ואולי יש גם להשתדל בזה", וסיים: "שלכן אם רוב הרבנים יודעים מקהילותיהם שרוצים ותובעין שיתקנו עירובין, שנמצא שהוא צורך גדול, יש גם להשתדל לתקן עירובין". וידוע דרוב מורי ההוראה בשכונות בארא פארק חשבו זה לצורך גדול מחמת כמה וכמה טעמים.

5) וכל השקו"ט בתשובותיו הנ"ל הם רק לענין לכתחלה, אבל עירוב שכבר נעשה וכשר להלכה, לא כתב בשום מקום שלא יטלטלו בו משום ספיקותיו. ואדרבה לגבי דעטראיט וסיגעיט וקיו גארדענס כתב מפורש לעשות עירוב, ולא כתב בשום מקום שבעל נפש יחמיר שלא יטלטל בעירוב כשר.

From the above, it appears that Rav Moshe would agree that if the rabbanim uphold that there is a great need for an eruv, they should strive to establish one. More so, there is no doubt that Rav Moshe would concur that if a kosher eruv is established, one can carry therein, and (as stated above) he maintained that even a Baal Nefesh does not need to be stringent.

 

The Sefer – Footnote 3:

כך שמענו מכמה מקורות, וכן משמע מתשובותיו, ושמענו מהגר"מ היינעמאן כשהיה מסופק אם לעסוק בעשיית עירוב בעירו ששאל מהגר"ד פיינשטיין מהו דעת אביו בעשיית עירובין בעיירות שאין בהם חששש רה"ר, והשיב שדעת אביו שאי אפשר למחוק כל הענין של עירובין מהשו"ע.

Rebuttal: The authors did not quote the entire story. In the new kuntres on hilchos eruvin compiled and based on the shiruim of Rav Moshe Heineman shlita (which was reviewed and revised by him), there is the following story (p. 42):

“Q 6. What did Rav Moshe say about the Baltimore eruv?

A: Making an eruv was a local decision as we asked the Rosh Yeshiva first. When Rav Moshe Feinstein was in Baltimore, we asked him if we can make an eruv in Baltimore. After asking us some questions, he answered, “If you want to make an eruv, then you can make an eruv.” I asked him, “Should we make an eruv?’ He answered, “If you want to make an eruv, then you can make an eruv.” Then I asked him, “Should we not make an eruv?” He answered, “If you want to make an eruv, then you can make an eruv.” We didn’t know what that meant, so I asked Rav Dovid Feinstein shlita. He told me that his father Rav Moshe doesn’t want to get involved in eruvin because he has experience that if he says, “Make an eruv” then a delegation will come to him saying, that having an eruv in a city is a terrible kilkul. If he says, “Do not make an eruv,” then another delegation will come to him saying, “Not making an eruv is a terrible kilkul.” Therefore, Rav Moshe would just say you could make an eruv if you want to, but doesn’t say you should. I asked Rav Dovid, “What does your father really hold?” He answered, “My father holds if halachically you can make an eruv, you should make an eruv because you can’t just push an entire chelek of Shulchan Aruch to the side saying that hashkafos hatorah is not to have it.”  

The final words of the last sentence are very revealing. Rav Dovid shlita states that his father maintains that the hashkafos argument is simply incorrect because it would do away with an entire chelek of the Shulchan Aruch. I think that this should be repeated to the Chevrah Hilchos Issurei Eruvin who are more machmir than Rav Moshe in hilchos eruvin, and seek to negate every eruv possible.

 

The Sefer – Page 150 (continued):

Currently, many Poskim (4) maintain that since many cities already have existing eruvin, the focus should be on upholding the highest standards for eruvin as opposed to avoiding their creation.    

Footnote 4: כך שמענו מהרבה פוסקים מובהקים ומהתלמידים של הגדולים שהזכרנו בפנים.

Rebuttal: You could have fooled me. From the looks of it, I would say that the resistance to city eruvin continues even after they are established (no doubt the authors know something about this because this happened in their hometown of Chicago). 

No comments:

PART 3: THE TRUTH REGARDING THE STAMFORD HILL ERUV

Their argument: But the Mishnah Berurah argues that most poskim uphold asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta , so according to most poskim the...