Part 2: The Truth About Rav Chaim Michoel Dov Weissmandel Zt”l and a Eruv in New York City

Continued from part 1

In the books Yalkut Michtavim and Ish Chamudos, the anti-eruv group claims that Rav Michoel Dov withdrew his support for city eruvin because of the Satmar rebbe’s strong objection to eruvin. [Regarding the speciousness of the claim that the Satmar rebbe objected to eruvin, see Part 1: The Truth About the Satmar Rebbe and a Williamsburg Eruv.] Besides for the consequences of believing allegations that surface some fifty years after the fact ― if we were to believe these allegations, every teshuvah can then be questioned see Noda B’Yehudah, Tinyana, Y.D. 29-30 ― these claims do not follow chronologically. As is typical of their approach, the anti-eruv group gathered bits of information and created tall tales. The following will illustrate the fallacy of their allegations.

1. The allegation:
They claim (Di Tzeitung, November 26, 1999 p. 44 and Yalkut Michtavim, pp. 35-36) that when Rav Michoel Dov wrote (Toras Chemed, siman 2, dated August 19, 1951) that he was not issuing a p’sak and stated that from the time he wrote his first teshuvah, the issue has since been presented to the great poskim, Rav Michoel Dov was deferring to the Satmar rebbe’s wishes that an eruv cannot be established.
These are the facts:
• Even from Rav Michoel Dov’s first teshuvah (ibid., siman 1, dated April 13, 1949) we see that he was not issuing a p’sak. Therefore, when he wrote in the later teshuvah (ibid., siman 2, dated August 19, 1951) that he was not issuing a p’sak, Rav Michoel Dov was not indicating that he was deferring to anyone; he was only reiterating what he said from the beginning.
• From Rav Michoel Dov’s first teshuvah written on April 13, 1949, we see that he advocated that they enlist Rav Yonasan Stief to issue a p’sak regarding an eruv for Brooklyn because he considered Rav Yonasan the ideal posek. Consequentially, there can be no doubt that Rav Michoel Dov in his August 19, 1951 teshuvah was referring to Rav Yonasan when he stated that the issue has since [the time he wrote his first teshuvah on April 13, 1949] been presented to the great poskim because by now Rav Yonasan had become involved in the Brooklyn eruv (Mahari Stief, siman 68 was written on May 25, 1950).
• Way after Rav Michoel Dov wrote his last teshuvah, it was well known that he supported an eruv in New York. Even in 1956 and 1959, the Shatzer rebbe, published in his sefer Kuntres Tikkun Eruvin Manhattan that Rav Michoel Dov supported an eruv in New York.
• In 1960, the rabbanim who backed an eruv for Manhattan included Rav Michoel Dov on a kol korei of rabbanim who supported an eruv there. Clearly even after Rav Michoel Dov’s passing in late 1957, it was an accepted fact that he supported an eruv until the very end. (Isn’t it strange that until 1999 there is not one written word about Rav Michoel Dov withdrawing his support for eruvin in Brooklyn?)
• Even after Rav Michoel Dov wrote this letter stating that the issue has since been presented to the great poskim (Toras Chemed, siman 2, dated August 19, 1951) he penned an additional letter supporting an eruv in Brooklyn (ibid., siman 3, dated September 8, 1951). There can be no doubt that Rav Michoel Dov continued to support the establishment of a Brooklyn eruv to the very end.

2. The allegation:
They state (Yalkut Michtavim, pp. 34-35; see also Ish Chamudos p. 420) that many people claimed to have heard the following story from Rav Avraham Chaim Spitzer shlita. In the year 1949 or 1950, the Satmar rebbe was at a bris in the Yeshivah of Nitra in Mount Kisco, NY. Later the Satmar rebbe locked himself in the Yeshivah’s seforim room with Rav Michoel Dov and debated the merits of a (Williamsburg) eruv the entire night. Rav Spitzer relates that at approximately three o’clock he awoke and overheard the conversation. After some debate regarding a Tosfos in Eruvin, the Satmar rebbe declared that he would never permit an eruv here (Williamsburg) since roughly sixty years ago an eruv was established (in Manhattan by Rav Yehoshua Seigel zt”l) with approbations from Gedolei Yisroel that utilized bridges (elevated train tracks). These elevated tracks were later demolished, but nevertheless people continued to carry (in Manhattan). Following this, the Satmar rebbe repeated that he would never agree to an eruv here (Williamsburg). They add that Rav Spitzer claimed that he remembers the story as if it happened today. This tale in Yalkut Michtavim is cited as primary testimony that the Satmar rebbe was opposed to eruvin anywhere in New York.
These are the facts:
• This story is pure fiction. Rav Seigel utilized the natural riverbanks for three sides of the boundaries of the eruv and on the fourth side, the Third Avenue El. The only mechitzah that the Satmar rebbe could have been referring to that was later demolished was the Third Avenue El. However, the Third Avenue El was not demolished prior to 1950 as this story charges but actually August 3, 1955, as reported by the New York Times (see Part 1: The Truth About the Satmar Rebbe and a Williamsburg Eruv; see also The Subway, p. 249). Just as this fundamental tale regarding the Satmar rebbe in Yalkut Michtavim is a fabrication so too all stories contained therein should be treated as such.
• As stated above way after this supposed story happened it was well known that Rav Michoel Dov supported an eruv in New York. Even in 1956 and 1959 the Shatzer rebbe, published in his sefer Kuntres Tikkun Eruvin Manhattan that Rav Michoel Dov supported an eruv in New York.
• As mentioned above, even after this supposed story took place Rav Michoel Dov was included on a kol korei of rabbanim [1960] who supported a Manhattan eruv.
• Rav Michoel Dov wrote a letter (Toras Chemed, siman 3, dated September 8, 1951) in support of an eruv even after this supposed story happened. Clearly he continued to support an eruv after this imaginary story happened.

3. The allegation:
They state (Ish Chamudos, p. 420), without attribution, that at a conference of rabbanim regarding establishing an eruv in Williamsburg, the Satmar rebbe expressed his objection to an eruv. After hearing the Satmar rebbe’s opposition, Rav Michoel Dov, then and there, acceded to his wishes.
These are the facts:
• Even the Yalkut Michtavim, which has added many fictional rabbanim conferences regarding the Willamsburg eruv, never claimed that Rav Michoel Dov participated in any assembly regarding eruvin. The first fictional conference mentioned in Yalkut Michtavim (I will prove that this is a tall tale when I post Part 2: The Truth About the Satmar Rebbe and a Williamsburg Eruv) in which the Satmar rebbe participated was around late 1957 to 1958, and they did not mention that Rav Michoel Dov was present. (It’s important to remember, as well, that Rav Michoel Dov was no longer alive by late 1957.) Clearly this conference, as stated in Ish Chamudos, is fiction.
• As mentioned above, even after this supposed conference took place, Rav Michoel Dov was included on a kol korei of rabbanim [1960] who supported a Manhattan eruv.
• In allegation number 2, they claim that Rav Michoel Dov was apprised by the Satmar rebbe himself, somewhere between 1949 and 1950, that he objected to a Willamsburg eruv. Why would Rav Michoel Dov need to accede to the Satmar rebbe’s wishes at this later conference of rabbanim if he previously desisted from being involved with eruvin?

4. The allegation:
In Yalkut Michtavim (p. 188), there is a letter from one of the Gabbaim of the first Satmar rebbe. He claims that in the year 1950, he was present when Rav Michoel Dov came to the Satmar rebbe to discuss the matter of a New York and Brooklyn eruv, and the rebbe declared that he was fervently against eruvin in both New York and Brooklyn for many reasons.
These are the facts:
• This story never happened. From Rav Michoel Dov’s teshuvos, we can discern that he did not end his involvement with these eruvin in 1950 as this story would have us believe since he continued to write teshuvos regarding eruvin at least to the end of 1951.
• In allegation number 2, they claim that Rav Michoel Dov was apprised by the Satmar rebbe himself in the Nitra Yeshivah in Mount Kisco, NY, that he objected to a Willamsburg eruv. This does not jive with this argument that Rav Michoel Dov first acceded to the Satmar rebbe’s wishes when he came to the Satmar rebbe to discuss these eruvin.
• As mentioned above, well after this supposed story happened, it was well known that Rav Michoel Dov supported an eruv in New York. Even in 1956 and 1959, the Shatzer rebbe, published in his sefer Kuntres Tikkun Eruvin Manhattan that Rav Michoel Dov supported an eruv in New York.
• As stated above, even after this supposed meeting took place, Rav Michoel Dov was included on a kol korei of rabbanim [1960] who supported a Manhattan eruv.

5. The allegation:
In Yalkut Michtavim (p. 36), there is a letter from a rav stating that when Rav Michoel Dov initially wanted to establish an eruv, the Satmar rebbe told him that the harm would be greater than the gain. Rav Michoel Dov immediately desisted from his involvement with eruvin.
These are the facts:
• According to the dates on Rav Michoel Dov’s teshuvos, his involvement in the Brooklyn eruv spanned approximately a year and a half, from April 13, 1949, until September 8, 1951 (Toras Chemed, siman 1-3). Clearly, Rav Michoel Dov did not immediately cease to be involved with eruvin. There is no doubt that this story is a work of fiction.
• As stated above, well after this supposed story happened, it was well known that Rav Michoel Dov supported an eruv in New York. Even in 1956 and 1959, the Shatzer rebbe, published in his sefer Kuntres Tikkun Eruvin Manhattan that Rav Michoel Dov supported an eruv in New York.
• As mentioned above, even after this supposed story took place, Rav Michoel Dov was included on a kol korei of rabbanim [1960] who supported a Manhattan eruv.

6. The allegation:
They state (Ish Chamudos, p. 420), without attribution, that one of Rav Michoel Dov’s talmidim was driving his rebbe from Mount Kisco to New York, and in middle of the journey, Rav Michoel Dov saw that a bridge [elevated track] that could have been used for an eruv [through pi tikra] was being removed. At that time, Rav Michoel Dov acknowledged that the Satmar rebbe was correct when he declared that since in America they are constantly altering the infrastructure, we cannot use these structures for the boundaries of an eruv.
These are the facts:
• It is curious that the editor of Ish Chamudos left out the name of this talmid, and I think I know why. This story was originally published in Di Tzeitung (November 26, 1999 p. 45),[4] and the talmid’s name was given as Rav Libush Gottesman shlita. However, in Chai Anochi LeOlam (p. 72) Rav Libush was cited as declaring that this story never happened. What is even more telling is the fact that Rav Libush was quoted in Ish Chamudos ― that his rebbe gave him the responsibility to write a protocol of all the shitos that would allow an eruv to be established in Brooklyn ― on the same page where this tale is mentioned, but yet they failed to associate him with the story. Clearly the editor knew that this story is fictional, but nevertheless chose to mention it to further his own personal agenda against eruvin.
• As stated above, even after this supposed story took place, Rav Michoel Dov was included on a kol korei of rabbanim [1960] who supported a Manhattan eruv.

7. The allegation:
In Di Tzeitung (November 26, 1999 p. 44), there is a mention of a story from a rav in Williamsburg. He claimed that, in 1954, Rav Michoel Dov gave a public drasha stating that he had planned to establish an eruv in Manhattan and in Williamsburg, but that once he was apprised that the Satmar rebbe objected to an eruv, he retracted his ruling. In Yalkut Michtavim (p. 36), there is an additional allegation from this rav that, in 1955, he was at a shiur on Meseches Eruvin given by his rebbe Rav Michoel Dov who mentioned that he wanted to establish an eruv in New York but retracted after he heard that the Satmar rebbe objected. There is an additional story from this rav in his letter published in Yalkut Michtavim (p. 139) where he writes that, in 1956, his rebbe mentioned that he wanted to establish an eruv in Brooklyn, but the Satmar rebbe opposed it. Rav Michoel Dov added that one of the reasons why the Satmar rebbe refused to support an eruv was that people were carrying in California because of the Manhattan eruv without recognizing that there was any distinction between the two locales.
These are the facts:
• The Shatzer Rebbe ― the only person to mention something regarding the Satmar rebbe and eruvin in the Satmar rebbe’s lifetime ― wrote that, in 1955, he spoke to the Satmar rebbe (see Hamaor, Tishrei 1955) and discussed with him all of his concerns. The issue that people were carrying in California because of Manhattan was never mentioned.
• No other talmid of Rav Michoel Dov’s knows about this supposed drasha and shiur where Rav Michoel Dov retracted.
• Even after these supposed stories happened, it was a well known fact that Rav Michoel Dov was involved in establishing a New York eruv. Even in 1956 and 1959, the Shatzer rebbe published in his sefer Kuntres Tikkun Eruvin Manhattan that Rav Michoel Dov supported an eruv in New York.
• As mentioned above, even after this supposed drasha and shiur took place, Rav Michoel Dov was included on a kol korei of rabbanim [1960] who supported a Manhattan eruv.

While I realize that my debasing of all these allegations seems so fantastic considering that there are many people who claim to have heard that Rav Michoel Dov retracted his support for an eruv out of deference to the Satmar rebbe, I would suggest that one take into account that all these people are alleging something even more fantastic. These people are arguing that Rav Michoel Dov, Rav Yonasan Stief and all twelve rabbanim ― members of the Hisachdus Harabbanim who knew the Satmar rebbe’s opinion better than all the contemporary rabbanim and would not go against his wishes ― who wrote letters in support of the Ratzferder rav’s Williamsburg eruv (between the years of 1972-1981 Otzros Yerushalayim, 298-300 and Al Mitzvas Eruv, p. 159-194) retracted their opinion. This unprecedented claim, many years after the fact, with no written proof is indicative to the length the authors of Yalkut Michtavim and Ish Chamudos would go to support their personal agenda against eruvin. In light of this, my argument is not anywhere near as fantastic as their allegations are.

The biography Ish Chamudos (at least regarding the issue of eruvin) is a redaction of history and is an embarrassment to Rav Michoel Dov’s name. As can be discerned from the above, Rav Michoel Dov considered the establishment of a Brooklyn eruv of extreme importance and campaigned to bring his plan to fruition. Instead of embracing this fact, the writers of this book capitulated to the current trend to be anti-eruv and rewrote their ancestor’s true desires.

In summation, regarding the allegations set forth in Yalkut Michtavim, the shoddiness of their revisionism is beyond belief and should be discernable to all. There is no doubt that Rav Michoel Dov was one of the great proponents of eruvin for both Manhattan and Brooklyn. Unfortunately, since the issue is eruvin, it is not surprising that there are people who want to believe that this is anything but a work of fiction.

_____________________

[4] This allegation was made by the well known writer in Di Tzeitung who goes under the penname Yisroel M. Sofer. This writer is a notorious redactor of history and can’t be trusted regarding any matter and much more so when the issue is eruvin. His whole series regarding eruvin in New York, that ran from November 26, 1999 through December 31, 1999, was cut out of whole cloth as can be determined from the fact that they do not follow chronologically at all.

The Opinion of the Chacham Tzvi, the Bais Ephraim, and the Mahari Asad Regarding London

שיטת החכם צבי, הבית אפרים, והמהר"י אסאד – לענין לונדון

הנה בשו"ת בית אפרים או"ח סי' כ"ו כתב וז"ל: ולענ"ד דאף הפוסקים דתלו טעמייהו שאין רשות הרבים משום שאין רחב י"ו אמה ולא הזכירו ששים רבוא, לפי שהיו מצוי שם כמה עיירות גדולות במדינת אשכנז וצרפת ואינגלטירא (-ענגלאנד) שהיו בו ס' רבוא, כגון עיר הגדולה פאריז לונדון ווינא פפד"מ (-פרנקפורט דמיין) ועוד רבים כהנה כרכים גדולים אשר המה רוכלי העמים ומרובה באוכלוסין מאד, והיו גם ישראל הרבה דרין שם וכו', ואמנם עיירות שבמדינות אלו רחובותיהם קצרים ואין בהם רוחב י"ו אמה, וגם אין מכוונים משער לשער, ולכך נקטי טפי הנך שהם כוללים יותר אף לכרכים גדולים, עכ"ל.

והנה פשוט שכוונתו, שיש "מקומות" בעיירות ההם שבקעו בהם ששים רבוא, דהא הוא סובר דאין כל העיר מצטרף רק צריך ששים רבוא ברחוב אחד (עיין שם בדף מו סוף טור א בד"ה ונפלאתי, וע"ש בקטע הקדום ד"ה ומה שהאריך, שצריך ששים רבוא בקירוב הרחוב כדי שיהיה מצוי הששים רבוא "בדרך ההוא").

וכן הבין בשו"ת מנחת אלעזר ח"ג סימן ד' ד"ה עוד ראיתי, וז"ל: בעיירות הגדולות כמו לונדון פאריז ווין וברלין וכהנה, "ברחובות הגדולים מקום המסחר ביותר", דבודאי ששים רבוא בוקעין בו ביום, ועיין בתשו' בית אפרים סימן כ"ו אשר העמיק והרחיב בזה בארוכה, עכ"ל.

וכ"כ בשו"ת ישכיל עבדי (ח"ב קונטרס אחרון או"ח סימן ו' אות ח') וז"ל: ואף במקומות שיש רה"ר גמורה כמו לונדון פריז, ודאי דאין זה אלא ברחובות הגדולים מקום המסחר, לא במקומות הדיירים ומכל שכן בשכונות היהודים, שבודאי שרק שם נזהרין לעשות הכשר עירוב, ודאי דאין שם ס' רבוא בוקעים בכל יום ואינו אלא כרמלית, עכ"ל.

וממילא מובן שזהו כוונת המהר"י אסאד באו"ח סימן פ"ז ד"ה וראיה לזה, שהעתיק דברי הבית אפרים הנ"ל. [ואגב, מה שסיים שם: "ובתשו' בית אפרים האריך לברר דדעת רוב הפוסקים דבזה"ז איכא נמי רה"ר דאורייתא ולא צריך סמ"ך רבוא בוקעים בו", הוא תמוה, דזהו שיטת השואל שם (המשכנות יעקב), וכל אריכות הבית אפרים הוא לדחות דבריו.] וזה ג"כ כוונת המנחת יצחק שהעתיק מהבית אפרים דעיר לונדון הוי רשות הרבים, וכוונתו שיש "מקומות" בתוכו שהם רשה"ר, וממילא יש להזהר שם יותר לענין הוצאה ע"ש, (ועיין עוד שם ח"ח סימן ל"ב אות א' ד"ה והשאלה הב', שהעתיק דברי הבית אפרים הנ"ל שצריך ששים רבוא "בדרך ההוא", וא"כ מוכח שכוונתו כמהמנחת אלעזר והישכיל עבדי הנ"ל).

והנה סיים שם הבית אפרים, שלכך נקטי הראשונים טפי הטעם של אין בהם רוחב י"ו אמה וגם אין מכוונים משער לשער, "שהם כוללים יותר אף לכרכים גדולים", היינו שכוונת הראשונים לומר דאף במקומות שבוקעים בהם ששים רבוא אין להם דין רשות הרבים מטעם זה, ואם כן בשכונה שידוע שהרחובות אינם מכוונים משער לשער מותר לכו"ע.

ולענין החכם צבי, זה לשון השואל בשו"ת חכם צבי סימן ל"ז:

קשה בעיני ביותר, איך יתכן שארץ רחבת ידים (-אינגלטיר"ה, ענגלאנד) ויש עליה "כמה סרטיות ופלטיות" בתוכו דדרסי בה רבים ואולי ס' רבוא בלא עיכוב כלל, תיחשב לרשות היחיד בכח גוד אסיק לחודיה (-ממחיצות הים) בלא מחיצות (-בני אדם) כלל, ואם תאמר כך הוא בטלה תורת רשות הרבים מינה, עכ"ל.

וע"ז השיב החכם צבי וז"ל:

ואני אומר, אם התורה אמרה כך תיבטל, ומה בכך, ואלו היתה אינגלטיר"ה מוקפת מחיצות כל סביבה אז ישר בעיניך ביטול רשות הרבים ממנה, ולא יוקשה לך על "סרטיות ופלטיות שבתוכה", וכיון דמחיצות העומק והרום דין אחד להם מה לי מחיצה בגובה או בעומק. זהו לפי הודאת ההנחה. אמנם לפי האמת אומר אני... דאינגלטיר"א ואיסכוסי"א וכיוצא בהם שהים חומתן, חייבין עליהן משום רשות הרבים, דאתו רבים ומבטלי "מחיצה שאינה עשויה בידי אדם".

הרי דקאי על מה שכתב השואל שיש "כמה סרטיות ופלטיות" בתוכו דדרסי בה רבים "ואולי" ס' רבוא, ועל "מקומות ההם" השיב דמחיצת הים אין מבטלים דין רשות הרבים, דאתו רבים ומבטלי "מחיצה שאינה עשויה בידי אדם". [ומוכח מלשון השואל והחכם צבי שאין דנין על העיר, דא"כ הול"ל שיש בענגלאנד "עיירות" שיש בהם ששים רבוא, ולא "כמה סרטיות ופלטיות" ש"אולי" יש בהם ששים רבוא.] ונמצא, דרק מקומות מיוחדים יש שאולי בוקעים בו ששים רבוא. ואף שם מהני מחיצה ביד אדם.

היוצא לנו מכל זה, דבשכונת היהודים שעושים שם עירוב, אין בו שום שאלה של רשות הרבים לפי הגדולים הנ"ל, שאינם במקום "רחובות הגדולים מקום המסחר ביותר", ובודאי אין בוקעים בו ששים רבוא בכל יום. וגם שהרחובות בשכונה זו אינם מכוונים משער לשער.

ובאמת אפילו אם היה שם חשש רשות הרבים, הרי השכונה מוקף בשלש מחיצות עומד מרובה על הפרוץ (וגם בצד הרביעי כיון שהרחובות עקומים יש שם מחיצות הבתים), ועי"ז נפקע ממנו דין רשות הרבים לכו"ע.

ואין לדאוג ד"אם תאמר כך הוא בטלה תורת רשות הרבים", כלשון השואל בחכם צבי הנ"ל, דעל זה כבר השיב החכם צבי הנ"ל "אם התורה אמרה כך תיבטל ומה בכך"!

The Stamford Hill Eruv Imbroglio Continues

While at this point I won’t divulge all the information that I was made privy to, I feel that there is a need to expose at least some of the terroristic tactics being employed against those who support the establishment of an eruv. Additionally, I think there is a need for certain people to realize that the velt iz nisht hefker, and there is din v’chesbon. I was told by people who are documenting all the dirty tactics that are being practiced in this controversy that they will eventually expose all of them. I will just mention, without much commentary, a few incidents that just happened lately.

One rebbe in Eretz Yisroel is being pressured by a Kedassia rav from Golders Green to compel his dayanim in Stamford Hill not to support the eruv. This Chassidus is also being blackmailed that if they don’t sign against the eruv, their members who own stores in the neighborhood will be boycotted. They are also being enticed with offers that Kedassia will start using this kehilla’s hechsher if they join against the eruv. [Until now Kedassia claimed that the reason why they did not use this hechsher was that it was not mehadrin enough, but I guess once they sign against the eruv, the hechsher will automatically turn into a mehadrin one.]

The main rav opposing the eruv protested to a rebbe in Eretz Yisroel that one of his chashuva Chasidim, a resident of Stamford Hill, is the main supporter of the eruv and was bringing in outside rabbanim to give a hechsher on the eruv. This rav argued that the Chasid was undermining his rabbanus and that the rebbe should rein him in. Great pressure was imposed on this Chasid to desist in his actions.

As I predicted, the fight against the eruv in Stamford Hill will make all the other instances of machlokas there pale in comparison. The extent to which some are willing to go to be mevatel a mitzvah d’rabbanan is astounding. I will add that since they are impeding a mitzvah d’rabbanan there is no greater chillul Hashem, and b'mokom sheyeish chillul Hashem ein cholkim kovod l'rav (Shulchan Aruch, Y.D. siman 242:11).

Eruvin in the News: Eretz Yisroel 2

Meretz Activists Burn Poles Used for Sabbath Observance

(IsraelNN.com) Left-wing Meretz party activists were caught burning poles that are used for the establishment of the "Eruv" on the Sabbath, according to a Kol Chai radio report quoted by Yeshiva World News. Meretz is generally considered a secular party with anti-religious elements. Read on...

Part 1: The Truth About Rav Chaim Michoel Dov Weissmandel zt”l and a Eruv in New York City

Since the establishment of the current Boro Park and Williamsburg eruvin, there has been much debate regarding the opinion of the Nitra Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Chaim Michoel Dov Weissmandel zt”l (1903 - 1957). A great deal has been alleged in Rav Michoel Dov’s name regarding eruvin, much of which is clearly inaccurate and was concocted way after the fact, particularly in the book Yalkut Michtavim. Moreover, these fairy-tales have gained credibility since they are now cited in the newly published biography on Rav Weissmandel called Ish Chamudos (it is fascinating that the authors of this biography did not cite the source of these tall tales possibly because they realize that Yalkut Michtavim has little integrity). As usual, in their haste to prove that all the poskim were against establishing eruvin, the anti-eruv group concocts fictional stories that, upon closer examination, do not hold water. Therefore, I would like to set the record straight and present the facts chronologically.

In 1939, when Rav Michoel Dov was in London, he wrote a letter to his father-in-law stating that it would be easy to establish an eruv there, and it would only require twenty-one delasos reuyos l’hinael. He added that it would be ideal if he would be able to erect tzuras hapesachim, and that he hoped to write a kuntres regarding the matter (Toras Chemed, letter 53; see also Kovetz Toras Chemed, vol. 1 p. 18-19 and Alei Deshe, year 2 issue 1).

In the introduction to Rav Michoel Dov’s sefer, Toras Chemed, they write that one of the issues that he was involved with prior to his coming to America was eruvin. It is also well known that, after coming to America in 1946, Rav Michoel Dov gave many shiurim on Meseches Eruvin.

On April 13, 1949 at the behest of Rav Tzvi Eisenstadt zt”l, Rav Michoel Dov wrote a teshuvah, in support of an eruv for Brooklyn (Toras Chemed, siman 1). The issue was so important to Rav Michoel Dov that he commenced to write the teshuvah on Erev Pesach, and since he was concerned that he would not have time to conclude it after Yom Tov, he stated that it was a davar ha’aveid and that he was allowed to finish it even on Chol Hamoed.

Rav Michoel Dov supported Rav Eisenstadt’s drive to institute an eruv and stated:

ומאחר שלפע"ד הדבר נוגע במצוה רבה הנני כותב מכתב זה וכו', ואשרי חלקו דמר אם יעלה בידו להוציא הוראה לפועל בדבר הזה בהסכמת גדולי תורה המכוונים הוראה לשם שמים

Rav Michoel Dov ended this teshuvah by encouraging Rav Eisenstadt with the following words:

כשבאתי לכאן בגזירת עליון חשבתי תמיד מי יתן וזכיתי לכך וכו', נא במטותא מיני' דמר נ"י, בזכות אבותיו הקדושים, כיון שהתחיל במצוה זו אל יתרשל

At the outset, Rav Michoel Dov stated (ibid.,) that he did not write the teshuvah to establish the halachah; for this matter, he argued, Rav Yonasan Stief zt”l should be enlisted:

לא לברר הלכה אני כותב, כי מה מני יהלך, אלא לדבר דבור הנוגע למעשה, ובענין זה יש לי עצה טובה. ידענא בי' בגברא רבא, זקן ויושב בישיבה, ובעל הוראה מפורסם ע"פ דרכי הוראה של מרן הח"ס ותלמידיו זי"ע, הגאון האמתי וצדיק תמים, מוהר"ר יונתן שטייף נ"י שיש לו כח דהיתרא לשם שמים. טוב הדבר למעשה להכניסו בהוראה זו. גם אנכי אדבר עמו אי"ה, אמנם למעשה, טוב הדבר שגם מעכ"ת נ"י כה יעשה ... מלבד שהגאון הנזכר הוא בקי גדול ומצויין בהוראה גאון וצדיק וישיש, יש כאן טעם גדול אחר להטיל עליו זאת ההוראה לפי שהוא ענוותן שלא נמצא כמוהו בדור הזה לפע"ד, שפל ברך, שייף עייל שייף נפק, שלא יורה הוראה אלא בפלפול חברים ושאילת פה כל הגדולים וכל הקטנים בכל מיני כבוד והדור וזה עיקר גדול להוציא את ההוראה הזאת לפועל, ודי בזה למבין בשפלות הדור הזה בעקבתא דמשיחא, ומנהיג לפי הדור

In a later teshuvah (August 19, 1951), Rav Michoel Dov reiterated (ibid., siman 2) that he was not issuing a p’sak and added that from the time he wrote his first teshuvah, the issue had since been presented to the great poskim:

ועיקר הדבר מה שאני רוצה להגיד בדגש חזק הוא, כי כל מה שכתבתי אז כמו עתה, לא כתבתי אלא לפלפולא דאורייתא בעלמא ... וגם זה מעט שכתבתי אז, הי' זמן זמנים טרם שנתלה הדבר להלכה באשלי רברבי אשר מפיהם אנו חיים

From Rav Michoel Dov’s first teshuvah we discern that he planned an eruv that would encompass a large portion of Brooklyn:

והנה העיר ברוקלין הים והנהר חומתה מג' רוחות כו', ולא נשתייר אלא לדון על רוח צפונית כי מצפון תפתח העיר, אמנם לעומת זה כמעט על פני כל צד צפון משוך הגשר של העלעוועטעד ליינס, המתחלת מקרן צפונית מערבית, להתמשך מן גשר של וויליאמסבורג, כמעט עד צפונית מזרחית עד חוף הים. ואין כאן רק מעט פרצות, כמו שלושים רחובות.[1] ואלו אפשר לתקן בצורת הפתח מאחר שכבר יש כאן שלש מחיצות, או בדלתות הראויות לנעול. כי אולי מצד ממשלת העיר יותר יסכימו על דלתות הראויות לנעול משיסכימו על צורת הפתח

From the refutation of Rav Michoel Dov’s teshuvah, written by Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l, it is evident as well that Rav Michoel Dov was proposing an eruv for a large portion of Brooklyn (Igros Moshe, O.C. 1:138).[2] Rav Moshe stated:

והנה מה שרוצה הרב הגאון ר' [מיכאל] בער ווייסמאנדעל שליט"א והאריך בקונטרסו לדון על העלעוואטאר בדין פי תקרה יורד וסותם להחשיב חלק גדול מעיר ברוקלין כמוקף מחיצות משום שבג' רוחות כותב שמוקפת ים ונהר וגידודי הים והנהר נעשו בבנין ע"י אדם

However, in Rav Michoel Dov last teshuvah (Toras Chemed, siman 3, dated September 8, 1951) regarding eruvin, we can discern that he was only proposing an eruv that would have merely encompassed the Brooklyn neighborhood of Williamsburg:

נסעתי דרך ברוקלין כו', ודרך העברה ראיתי כי אותו הגשר שבא מקווינס אל
הוויליאמסבורג גשר,[3] קרוב להגשר ואינו חסר אלא מעט, כשיגמר זה הגשר יהי וויליאמסבורג מוקף מג' מחיצות שלימות, נעשות בידי אדם, ומחיצה הרביעית יהי' פי תקרה שיש בה משום כמה שמות של היתר. ואפילו עתה שלא נגמרה, לא חסר אלא להתיר איזה פרצות במקום שיש ג' מחיצות שלימות

The above demonstrates that Rav Michoel Dov followed Rav Yonasan Stief’s suggestion (in 1950) that it would be less difficult to erect an eruv for a single neighborhood (Mahari Stief, siman 68; see also Yeshiva University Archives, MS. 1300A for the original teshuvah written to Rav Eisenstadt). Rav Yonasan stated:

ביחוד העיר ברוקלין אפשר לתקן שכונות שכונות דהיינו אותם השווקים שדרים בהם לרוב מהיראים, בקל יש לתקן אותם בצוה"פ, כי אפשר להשגיח ולבדוק בכל ע"ש אם לא נתהווה איזה שינוי או פירצה

This corresponds with what is cited in the name of Rav Libush Gottesman shlita, a talmid of Rav Michoel Dov (Chai Anochi LeOlam, p. 72). Rav Libush states that his rebbe mentioned to him that the Satmar rebbe zt”l only objected to an eruv encompassing a whole city (borough) but not to an eruv enclosing just a single neighborhood such as Williamsburg. Moreover, Rav Michoel Dov added that the Satmar rebbe’s objection was more of a recommendation that it would be better to just include a neighborhood and that the rebbe’s objection was not regarding halachic issues at all. Additionally, there are three alternate maps from Rav Michoel Dov that were published in Chai Anochi LeOlam (p. 149-151; see below) depicting his plan for an eruv encompassing only the neighborhood of Williamsburg.

Moreover, Rav Libush Gottesman stated (ibid., p. 72) that the fact that, at the time, Rav Michoel Dov did not established an eruv in Williamsburg was not because the rabbanim withdraw their support only that they were not able to do so. It is discernable as well from Rav Michoel Dov’s teshuvos, that he attempted to minimize the need for tzuras hapesachim by making use of many existing structures for the boundaries of the eruv. In his first teshuvah, he even suggested that delasos reuyos l’hinael would possibly be more agreeable to the city government than tzuras hapesachim. This is a clear indication of how difficult it was until that time to establish an eruv and why the plans never materialized since they always required some modifications requiring tzuras hapesachim.

In a letter of Rav Michoel Dov’s published in Chai Anochi LeOlam (p. 148 dated May 20, 1949), he disagreed with Rav Eisenstadt arguing that it would be more logical to first establish an eruv in Brooklyn and then in Manhattan. A Brooklyn eruv, he declared, involves the erecting of some tzuras hapesachim. Consequentially, uninformed people would recognize that an action was needed to establish the eruv. On the other hand, the proposed Manhattan eruv did not involve any physical action such as erecting tzuras hapesachim but only required a p’sak that would allow the eruv to be established. Consequentially, uninformed people might question what concrete steps were taken by the rabbanim to alter the existing conditions that had precluded the establishment of an eruv earlier. However, Rav Michoel Dov did allow an eruv in Manhattan and was posthumously included on a list of rabbanim who supported an eruv there (Divrei Menachem, O.C. vol. 2, p. 10).

In 1956 and 1959, the Shatzer rebbe, Rav Yosef Dovid Moskowitz zt”l, published his sefer Kuntres Tikkun Eruvin Manhattan (Divrei Menachem, O.C. vol. 2, summary) and stated that Rav Michoel Dov supported an eruv in New York (Kuntres Tikkun Eruvin Manhattan, p. 169).
_____________________

[1] Rav Michoel Dov is possibly referring to the Broadway El which runs from the Williamsburg Bridge and connects via the Broadway Junction to the Canarsie Line (L) and then terminates at the Rockaway Parkway station.
[2] For a defense of Rav Michoel Dov’s position see Minchas Yitzchok, 7:24; Pri Temarim, 6:1 p. 27 and Sha’ashu’ie Oraisa, 1 p. 158.
[3] Rav Michoel Dov is probably referring to the Brooklyn Queens Expressway which was under construction at the time.

__________________________________________

The following maps were published in Chai Anochi LeOlam, p. 149-151 without the descriptive text that follows each image. Click on image to enlarge.

Part 2: Why is Eruvin Different From Any Other Issue that it Elicits Such a Visceral Response?

Continued from part 1.

While I am still convinced that the main reason why the issue of eruvin elicits such a visceral response is because of mi b’rosh, there is an additional and, at times shared, motivation as well. This rationale developed over time and became remarkably significant after the 1979 Flatbush eruv debacle (or maybe even from the time of the 1949-1962 Manhattan eruv saga).

Over the years, we have faced an argument from yeshivaleit that if we would learn through the sugyos and the Rishonim on Meseches Eruvin, particularly the inyanim of asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta and pirtzos esser, it would be apparent that one should be stringent in regards to city eruvin (even with those eruvin that make use of mechitzos). At first glance, it should be evident that these statements fly in the face of our halachic mesorah. No one is denying that there are some major poskim who would object to our city eruvin. However, the preponderance of poskim of yesteryear would surely have supported the eruvin that have been established in the last thirty years (particularly those eruvin making use of mechitzos). Do we know the sugyas and the Rishonim better than these poskim? Don’t those poskim who want to rely on the great decisors of the past have on whom to rely? While it is possible to argue that these yeshivaleit do not comprehend the halachic process, I believe that it is not as simple as that. Moreover, why is there a trend in the yeshivah velt to seek all chumros to negate most city eruvin?

I propose we chalk this all up to a phenomenon that I labeled The Lamdanim Factor. The sugyos in eruvin are extremely complex, involving many commentators, and run the gamut from reshuyos to sechiras reshus and from issues in Orach Chaim to Choshen Mishpat. Moreover, there are numerous Rishonim on Meseches Eruvin; it has more Rishonim than nearly all of the mesechtos in Shas. For this reason, the yeshivah velt believes that eruvin is their domain, and is too entailing an issue for the lowly moreh hora’ah to pasken on (albeit Eruvin is not traditionally considered a yeshivashe mesechta). Eruvin requires a lamdan, one who can plumb the depths of the sugyos and the Rishonim. Eruvin requires a lamdan who can seek out the sources without having to rely on any precedent, as do the local poskim. Eruvin requires a lamdan who can extrapolate from the Rishonim which some of the great poskim of the past did not understand or from the Rishonim who were not published until later (this argument has a basis in the great historical machlokas between the Bais Ephraim and the Mishkenos Yaakov; see Part 4: Meoz U’Mekedem – Exploring the Historical Roots of the Machlokas Regarding Eruvin).

In truth, eruvin is not unlike any other halachic issue. Every rav, big or small, has a right to pasken how he sees fit. Eruvin is comparable to all other issues in halachah where a posek recognizes his limitations and accepts the precedents of yesteryear. If only the lamdanim would realize their place as well.

(As evidence to the above, many lamdanim support their arguments against city eruvin by citing their Rosh Yeshivos, as opposed to deferring to the poskim. Moreover, I find it is futile to argue in support of the major poskim of yesteryear. Even demonstrating that it is the lamdanim and not the earlier poskim who misunderstood the sugyos and the Rishonim is ineffective since the lamdanim have already made up their minds. I have yet to see an argument from these lamdanim that cannot be explained away or one that is even correct. Additionally, on numerous occasions, I noticed that these lamdanim have tried to justify a ruling from a posek whom they agreed with when, in fact, it was apparent that these poskim would never have suggested the lamdan’s reasoning at all. In truth these arguments are only to validate their own understanding of the issues.)

A Question and Answer Shiur From HaRav HaGaon Rav Yisroel Belsky Shlita

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

On the third day of this past Chol Hamoed Pesach (April 24, 2008), Rav Yisroel Belsky shlita gave a shiur called Varied Questions and Answer Sessions in all of the Shulchan Aruch for Irgun Shiurei Torah (tape #22 part 1) where one of the issues he mentioned was his objection to the Brooklyn eruvin.

I was urged to post a critique because of Rav Belsky’s strong language against the Brooklyn eruvin which are supported by some of America's foremost poskim. What follows is a refutation of many of his arguments. For the reader’s edification, I have included an audio file of the relevant part of the shiur.



The shiur:
What kind of Shabbos is that with having ball teams and playing? … The Medrash says about the city that was חרוב, because they played כדור. People think they invented something that is פון היינטיגע צייטען, but part of it ― I’m not going to say anything ― part of it comes from this latest monstrosity that they were מחדש here with the eruv business, and that they were מתיר ממש an איסור דאורייתא לגמרי לחלוטין and someday, some people will grow up and they’ll do something brave and dangerous and they’ll take a Gemara in their hands and they will begin to learn the סוגיא and they’ll begin to learn the Rishonim and they’ll discover that the whole so called “היתר“ about the eruv, it’s a hoax from beginning to end לגמרי. It’s no more of a היתר than if they would be told that they ― I can’t think of a משל for it because I can’t think of anything worse. So they go out and say that they’ll play ball, שוין.The rebuttal:
I fail to comprehend the confidence behind this statement. After all, Rav Moshe zt”l didn’t want to issue a p’sak din barur because he realized that his objection to a Brooklyn eruv was a chiddush, and that the Achronim and the Aruch HaShulchan would not agree with him (see Hagaon Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l’s Reluctance to Pasken Against the Establishment of an Eruv). Consequentially, is it rachok min hasechel for others to maintain that there are solid grounds to allow an eruv in Brooklyn? Additionally, the Achronim have guided our understanding of the sugyas and the Rishonim. Do we comprehend the inyan better than them? (As a matter of fact, there are copious teshuvos dealing with the sugyas and the Rishonim in regards to the Brooklyn eruvin, and they failed to find a reason to object.) There is nothing so unusual about the Brooklyn eruvin that we would not be able to find a precedent for them in the Achronim. No doubt, if we were to delve into the Achronim with an open mind, we would realize that there are numerous reasons why the overwhelming majority of poskim would allow the Brooklyn eruvin.

The shiur:
Yerimayahu haNavi said בפירוש ― if anybody really wants to see it, I said it a number of times ― that Moshiach will come and the גאולה will come when they stop carrying in the streets on Shabbos. ולא תוציאו משא מבתיכם ביום השבת and then the Bais HaMikdash will be built and then there will be a גאולה and if not, the חורבן will last לעולם ועד ― it will never stop. If anybody really wants to do anything worthwhile ― to see to it to cut out these שטותים and there’s ממש not one solid bases of היתר for any of these things.
The rebuttal:
The analogy eludes me. Yerimayah haNavi (according to all meforshim) was not referring to carrying within an eruv. Of course, Rav Belsky’s argument is that the eruv is not kosher, so it is as if people are carrying in an area that is not encompassed by an eruv. However, no doubt Rav Belsky is aware of Rav Moshe zt”l’s teshuvah (Igros Moshe, O.C. 1:186) were he states that when one follows one’s rav on any issue, even on issurei chilul Shabbos, albeit the halachah is not like their rav’s interpretation, no aveirah is transgressed. Consequentially, since those utilizing the eruvin in Brooklyn are just following their rav’s opinion that the eruv is kosher, no issur was transgressed. Is Rav Belsky suggesting that one should not follow his rav? Moreover, there is no doubt that the Brooklyn eruvin are more kosher then much of what we put into our mouths today.

The shiur:
You look through all these kuntrasim. It makes you shudder. You have a picture on the front cover of the kuntres of Brooklyn כאילו Brooklyn has a wall around it. ממש משיגע אויף טויט. There’s a wall? There’s sections of fence separated by miles one from another and they say that they are מצטרף to each other because they create a איי ,רוב the biggest צירוף gives you about 30% no matter how you דריי it.
The rebuttal:
How can there be an argument about facts, whether or not there are mechitzos? Of course, we can debate the halachic viability of these mechitzos, but this is not Rav Belsky argument at all. His allegation that, “there’s sections of fence separated by miles one from another,” and that it amounts to no more than a build-up of, “about 30%,” is regarding the metziuos and is easy enough to verify. It is simple enough (though there is a lot of walking to do, and it is very time consuming) to confirm that most of Brooklyn’s waterfront is encompassed by commercial buildings and parks which are enclosed by gates and sea walls. The mechitzos at the waterfront are 95% to 99% built-up and not 30% as Rav Belsky argues. Anyone who denies this fact did not inspect the Brooklyn waterfront unlike the rabbanim hamatirim who did. [The Coney Island Beach is also not an issue. We are using the gates beneath the Boardwalk as the mechitzos which separates the beach from the rest of Brooklyn. As a matter of fact, some of the Brooklyn eruvin do not even need to make use of the mechitzos beneath the Boardwalk.]

The shiur:
But they’ll say no, you could draw a line across the middle of Brooklyn and say that all the houses, each house is a חלק of the חומה that runs straight through the middle of the city.
The rebuttal:
Rav Belsky is conflating the issues. The mechitzos that encompass Brooklyn on three sides consist mostly of gates and not of mechitzos habatim. The mechitzos habatim mentioned and depicted in the kuntres The Community Eruv (as a dotted line; see number 10 on this map of the Brooklyn mechitzos) or on the cover of the kuntres Questions and Answers Regarding the Flatbush Eruv (as a solid line) are only being used to satisfy a shita yechidaos that would require pasei bira’os. Thus, even according to those who want to be stringent in all matters pertaining to eruvin, our mechitzos would suffice, since the batim connect the pasim b’kav echad. In any case, as we will further demonstrate, mechitzos habatim are halachic mechitzos l’chol hadayos and can be used for an eruv as well.

The shiur:
For a person to be so קרום that he should look at the houses in the city as being a חומה in the city, that means every single city since ששת ימי בראשית automatically had a חומה in it. Why? Because the houses themselves were the חומה. A person should פאל אן such a משוגעת, such a טיפשות that the houses in the city should be a חומה. And people come over, and they show me the picture, lookטאקעה ער האט וואס צו זאגען. Take any city that ever was, they don’t have houses in those cities? וואס עפעס? The city in the ancient world, in the new world, the middle world didn’t have houses? The cities in א"י and בבל in שושן הבירה didn’t have houses? What do they do, these people, they lived in holes in the ground? And if you take all those houses, and you’re מצטרף them so you could say look it’s 99%. Houses aren’t שייך to say that there’s a wall around a רשות , because the walls of the house. עיר שגגותיה חומותיה, those are different סוגיות. They should be left for the professionals, for people that know which side of the Gemara to open. I’m sorry, I generally try to be a little bit more gentle and careful about this, but it pains me to no end, to see public חילול שבת.
The rebuttal:
To begin with, Rav Belsky omitted any halachic rationale why houses can’t be classified as mechitzos or why they should be any different halachically than the walls of a city. There are two halachic fundaments that the overwhelming majority of poskim rely on when they make use of mechitzos that are omed merubeh al haparutz ― that we pasken lo asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta and that we pasken pirtzos esser is d’rabbanan. Both of these criteria apply equally as well to mechitzos habatim. This can even be discerned by the very fact that many poskim make use of houses as mechitzos (see for instance: Magen Avraham 358:5 who cites the Mabit, 1:48; Ginas V'radin, klal 3:22; Mayim Rabim, siman 38; Bais Ephraim, O.C. siman 26; Bais Shlomo, siman 51; Avnei Nezer; O.C. 1:274:2, and the Chazon Ish, O.C. 107:5-7; see also Mahari Stief, siman 68). The simple reason why in earlier times we do not see that they used houses for mechitzos was because Yidden mostly lived in walled cities or on walled streets (Judengasse) and did not have a need to utilize the houses for their eruv. In cities that were not walled the houses were too spread out to be halachically joined as mechitzos (they were parutz merubeh al haomed). Even when the houses were close enough together to be used as mechitzos, the Chazon Ish states that at times they could not halachically be classified as a wall (because of siluk hamechitzos: see ibid., 107:5). There is no doubt that mechitzos habatim are halachic mechitzos l’chol hadayos and can be used for an eruv. Moreover, I am surprised that Rav Belsky did not realize that, at the minimum, he was belittling the Chazon Ish’s chiddush that primarily relies on mechitzos habatim for eruvin.

Sure, there are some poskim who objected to the Brooklyn eruvin, but the way the contemporary eruvin utilize mechitzos habatim and, even more so, the fact that Brooklyn is encompassed by mechitzos makes it doubtful that at this point they would still object. Moreover, at the minimum, there are many sfeikos so even if we would agree that the matter is a d’Oraysa, since it is a s’fek s'feika, we would go l’kula.

The Case of the Missing Missive

Some friends of mine asked me why I would position myself and Rav Kimchi shlita in a situation where the cabal could possibly place us in a bad light by conjuring up a letter which, to the ill informed (or to those who are looking for fodder to do away with my arguments), shows us to be not on the level. Indeed, I had recognized the possibility that this supposed letter existed even prior to their posting of it, and had suggested in an earlier comment that they had penned it themselves years ago. Despite the cabal’s insistence that they had a letter, the fact that Rav Kimchi never received this letter makes it worthless. Anyone can type a letter and then append a letterhead and signature to it. I don’t doubt for a second that the cabal would make use of such tactics. They did so with kol koreis in Brooklyn many times. This is the modus operandi of all anti-eruv campaigns to negate an eruv at all costs. I realize that one can make an argument that the pro-eruv group has an interest in suppressing this letter since it negates the eruv because it mentions the issue of reshus harabbim. However, I believe that the cabal has been dishonest regarding so many issues that they have no credibility whatsoever. Even regarding Rav Eider zt"l's letter to Rav Chaim Halpern shlita (parts of which were conveniently translated in this disreputable letter), they lied and claimed that Rav Eider argued that according to Rav Moshe zt”l no eruv could be established in the face of opposition. In fact, Rav Eider only said that Rav Moshe recommended to him that he should only explore the possibility of establishing an eruv if the rabbanim are all in agreement. However, Rav Moshe never said that a rav can’t establish an eruv in his own city in the face of opposition as the cabal would have you believe. With these sorts of shenanigans, why would anyone believe the cabal at all? Furthermore, if the letter never reached Rav Kimchi, maybe it was because Rav Eider regretted what was stated therein and, therefore, never sent it. Moreover, does anyone truly believe that Rav Kimchi imagined that the letter would not somehow leak out since the eruv is such a contentious issue? If Rav Kimchi was willing to go out on the limb and publicly declare that he never received this letter, it’s simply more plausible that he never obtained it at all.

To begin with, I guessed that Rav Eider was terrorized because when I sent a friend of mine to speak to him regarding the NW London eruv he seemed very agitated and did not want to speak about it at all. [Later, I was supposed to have a meeting with him regarding the state of eruvin in the USA, and one of the issues I was going to ask him about was the matter of the NW London eruv. However, this meeting never materialized as he was unfortunately nifter prior to it.] Moreover I know for a fact that he was constantly pursued whenever he was involved with establishing eruvin. Lately, I have confirmed that this was the case regarding the Golders Green eruv as well; after Rav Eider left London he was terrorized by the cabal to stay out of the London eruv matter.

There are a few possible scenarios of how this letter came to be:
1) Rav Eider did write the letter - He wrote this letter under great duress from the cabal. This could possibly answer why he never sent a copy of it to Rav Kimchi since Rav Eider would have been very uncomfortable with its contents. However, this possibility does not explain the many inconsistencies in this letter that I will discuss in number three.

2) Rav Eider did write the letter – He wrote the letter under his own free will. Even if we could discount all of the difficulties that I mention in number three and the fact that somehow the letter never reached Rav Kimchi, I don’t understand why the cabal is so pleased with this letter. To begin with, this letter (and the letter to Rav Chaim Halpern plus I know of two other letters) confirm that Rav Padwa zt”l had no halachic objection to the eruv. Therefore, all other arguments such as reshus harabbim, karpeifos and sechiras reshus (which Rav Padwa allowed for Amsterdam; see Noam, 11 1979) should be discounted for they were only added afterwards by people whose ulterior motives were to negate the eruv at all cost. (I would add that the fact the reshus harabbim matter was not mentioned by Rav Eider until this much later second letter is proof that it was either not Rav Eider’s letter or he only wrote it under pressure.)

Furthermore, one of the most vociferous members of the cabal constantly mentioned this letter and quoted from it without starting from the beginning of the pertinent quote. The full [relevant] passage of Rav Eider is, “At the time of my visit, I did not personally determine whether there was any problem of shishim ribo because I was there to determine feasibility and present this to the Bais Din. Therefore, initially I relied upon information supplied by yourself [Rav Kimchi]. I recently received statistical information which seems to indicate that the area of the Eruv meets the specification of a reshus harabbim d’Oraysa according to Maron Hagaon Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l.” This member of the cabal started the quote from,”the area of the Eruv meets the specification of a reshus harabbim d’Oraysa according to Maron Hagaon Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l,” opportunely leaving out that Rav Eider’s objection was dependent on statistics supplied by members of the cabal which of course are debatable and would have influenced Rav Eider’s opinion. Additionally, the shishim ribo issue is a non-starter. Rav Eider is either referring to the cabal’s quoted statistics that the population of the twelve mil by twelve mil area which includes the eruv is greater than Rav Moshe’s requirement of 3,000,000 people or that the eruv encompasses roads that contain shishim ribo traversing them. In essence, as stated above, Rav Eider’s information is only as good as the people who are giving it to him. Each one of these suppositions can be debated, and no doubt, the LBD could argue otherwise so it is not a definitive statement from Rav Eider regarding Rav Moshe’s opinion.

Moreover, it is more likely that Rav Eider was only interested in the area enclosed by the eruv than the issue of the twelve mil by twelve mil area. Rav Kimchi mentioned to me that when Rav Eider originally came to London to inspect the feasibility of an eruv, Rav Eider called his office to obtain a copy of Rav Moshe’s teshuvah regarding the Detroit eruvin. At the time, this teshuvah was only available as a ksav yad since Igros Moshe volume eight where this teshuvah is presently published was first printed in 1996. After the ksav yad was faxed to Rav Eider in London, he joyfully stated that the circumstance in Detroit where Rav Moshe allowed an eruv is analogous to the situation in Golders Green. I too have argued (and baruch sh’kevanti) that similar to the circumstances of Golders Green, the Detroit neighborhoods are built-up to the city of Detroit proper, and nevertheless, Rav Moshe considered them as distinct neighborhoods and did not reckon with the matter of the twelve mil by twelve mil area at all. Consequently, Rav Eider declared that Rav Moshe would allow an eruv in Golders Green. It is therefore improbable that Rav Eider would even consider the statistics of the twelve mil by twelve mil area pertinent to the efficacy of the eruv. So, we are only left with the issue of roads containing shishim ribo, and regarding this statistic, it is easy to verify that the cabal is totally incorrect.

Furthermore, this letter contradicts another tenet of the anti-eruv cabal. In this supposed letter Rav Eider mentions that he went to Rav Elyashiv shlita regarding some questions he had with the Sydney eruv, and Rav Eider states that, “Before [Rav Elyashiv] responded to these questions, he wanted to know whether Sydney meets the criteria of Maran Hagaon Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l. Only after determining that there was no problem of a reshus harabbim according to these criteria, did I agree to visit.” However, the Chevrah Hilchos Issurei Eruvin declared that Rav Elyashiv is more stringent and disagrees with Rav Moshe regarding the application of shishim ribo. Rav Elayshiv, they argue, either (they can’t even get their arguments straight) upholds that the criterion of shishim ribo is conditional of a city or that the possibility that shishim ribo traversing a street would suffice to classify the road as a reshus harabbim. However, from this letter it would seem that Rav Elyashiv does accept Rav Moshe shitos in eruvin l’halachah. Clearly something is wrong with this letter or what the Chevrah Hilchos Issurei Eruvin alleges in the name of Rav Elyashiv.

3) Rav Eider did not write the letter – Members of the cabal told Rav Eider after Rav Kimchi published The Foundation of the North West London Eruv which stated that, “All this has been done according to a map drawn by Rav Shimon Eider shlita of Lakewood,” that he has to publicly declare that he had nothing to do with the eruv. Rav Eider complied, and a notice was published in The Jewish Tribune at the time. Moreover, they insisted that Rav Eider pen a public letter of rebuke to Rav Kimchi. At this point, Rav Eider said that they should write a letter, and that he would sign it.

This possibility would clarify why the letter is, except for the addition of a paragraph regarding reshus harabbim and the Sydney eruv, mostly a translation of the original Hebrew letter sent to Rav Chaim Halpern in 1995 (the last paragraph is a word for word translation from a letter written eight years prior). As Rav Eider never wrote this letter, the cabal did the typical thing and based their letter on Rav Eider’s original missive but updated the issues (reshus harabbim) to suit their needs. This scenario can also explain why Rav Kimchi never received this letter; it served the purpose of the cabal to be in possession of such a letter and be able to use it when they desired.

Moreover, that Rav Eider did not write this letter would explain why there is a fundamental mistake in this letter regarding the understanding of Rav Moshe zt”l’s shitos in eruvin. Rav Eider states in this purported letter that, “I recently received statistical information which seems to indicate that the area of the Eruv meets the specification of a reshus harabbim d’Oraysa according to Maron Hagaon Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l and requires delasos in many areas, tzuras hapesach would not be sufficient.” Anyone familiar as Rav Eider would be with Rav Moshe’s teshuvos would not argue that delasos would be needed in many areas but that delasos would be necessary to close every single area requiring a tzuras hapesach. Once Rav Moshe labeled a city a reshus harabbim, a tzuras hapesach would never suffice. Sure, some would try to excuse this damming evidence that this letter was not penned by Rav Eider because there is a possibility that a cul-de-sac was included in the perimeter of the eruv, and then, even according to Rav Moshe, delasos would not be required. However, this is clearly incorrect and an excuse after the fact. Rav Eider was cognizant of the boundaries of the eruv as he was the one who established them, and he would have recognized that there was no cul-de-sac involved in the limits of the eruv. In any case, according to Rav Moshe, a cul-de-sac in an area classified as a reshus harabbim would suffice with a tzuras hapesach since it is encompassed by three mechitzos. However, if a cul-de-sac was part of the boundaries of the eruv, it would, in essence, not be part of the eruv since it opens to the outside of the eruv boundaries; hence, Rav Eider would not be referring to such a situation. In the end, we will never know if Rav Eider actually signed this letter or not.

In summation, there are many inconsistencies in this letter, and since Rav Kimchi never received the original for us to examine its veracity, there is no reason to rely on this letter at all. I should add that, notwithstanding this supposed letter stating Rav Eider’s opinion that Rav Moshe would not allow an eruv in Golders Green, the LBD does not have to agree with Rav Eider’s interpretation of Rav Moshe’s teshuvos as they are available for all to analyze. Of course, the cabal would argue that Rav Eider was a talmid so he knows Rav Moshe’s shitos in eruvin better than all. However, this is similar to the situation that I mentioned regarding Rav Dovid Feinstein shlita allowing an eruv to be established in Chicago according to his father, but the ossrim there argued that his was not the last word regarding his father. However, when those supporting an eruv in Brooklyn argued that Rav Moshe would allow an eruv, those opposing the eruv argued that Rav Dovid was the biggest expert in his father’s shitos, and he maintained that his father would not allow an eruv in Brooklyn even in its present construction. I guess that when the issue is eruvin, the leading experts are always those who are against eruvin. What is particularly galling is that there are people out there who, after reading these arguments, will recognize that what I presented rings true but will never concede that these arguments undermine the validity of the letter.

Eruvin in the News: Westhampton Beach, NY 7

Orthodox Jews’ Request Divides a Resort Village

By Joseph Berger

WESTHAMPTON BEACH - “Is Westhampton Beach an Orthodox Jewish Community?” the full-page newspaper advertisement asked in boldface type. Then it answered: “No it’s a secular, open Village with a proud history of welcoming All faiths. The erection of an eruv will proclaim us as an Orthodox Jewish community for all time. Don’t let it happen.”

Just a few months ago, the response to such an advertisement might have included not just outrage or applause but also a question: “What is an eruv?” Read on...

Eruvin in the News: Westhampton Beach, NY 6

Glass Ceiling for Eruvs?

By Shlomo Shamir

While the number of U.S. urban eruvs grow, the Westhampton eruv effort is meeting fierce local resistance.

New York - Belonging to a synagogue, observing the laws of kashrut, even holding a Pesach Seder have lost their pride of place as the outright signs of religious affiliation in the American Jewish community. Lately, what typifies the ultra-Orthodox population, particularly the substrata of young couples who moved in recent years to small towns and suburbs, is the worrying and effort being put into establishing an eruv.

Yes, eruv chatzerot, that ancient ruling by King Solomon and his court which turns private property and public property into one entity so that small items may be carried and baby carriages pushed on the Sabbath. Read on...

Eruvin in the News: Westhampton Beach, NY 5

Eruv Ad Again Stirs Debate in Westhampton Beach

By Mitchell Freedman

Earlier this year, the Westhampton Beach Village Board wrestled with whether to approve an eruv, a symbolically fenced area where many Orthodox Jews feel free to perform tasks otherwise proscribed on the Sabbath, such as pushing a baby carriage or even carrying house keys.

Several heated village board meetings later, Rabbi Marc Schneier of the Hampton Synagogue suspended the request until the fall. Read on...

An Open Letter From HaRav Kimchi Shlita

On the numerous occasions when I debated members of the anti-eruv cabal, they mentioned two letters from Rav Shimon Eider zt”l regarding the NW London Eruv. One of the letters was addressed to Rav Chaim Halpern shlita, and according to the cabal, it stated that Rav Eider had asserted that his rebbe Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l would have objected to the NW London Eruv because of the machlokas that ensued. I argued that Rav Moshe would not have objected to the eruv because of machlokas since he allowed the rabbanim to erect an eruv in Manhattan and in Brooklyn in the face of opposition. I stated then that if Rav Moshe had mentioned anything to Rav Eider regarding machlokas and eruvin, it was only a suggestion that Rav Eider should not involve himself in the internal politics of eruvin if there is no consensus from the local rabbanim. After I received a copy of this letter, I was proven correct. According to this letter, if some of the local rabbanim want to establish an eruv, Rav Moshe would not object even if there is opposition.

The cabal alleged that the second letter from Rav Eider was addressed to Rav Avrohom Kimchi shlita. The cabal asserted that Rav Eider argued in this letter that his rebbe Rav Moshe would object to the NW London Eruv for halachic reasons. However, as we will now see from the following letter, Rav Kimchi never received such a missive which also explains why it was never disseminated. The following open letter from Rav Kimchi should hopefully put to rest this rumor circulated by the anti-eruv cabal. Subsequently, there is no doubt that Rav Moshe would not have objected to the NW London Eruv for halachic reasons.

RABBI ALAN AVROHOM KIMCHE
42 PRINCES PARK AVENUE. LONDON NW11 0JT
THE NER YISRAEL COMMUNITY. LONDON

18th June 2008

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

It has been brought to my attention that in the debate surrounding the NW London Eruv a claim has been made which is entirely without any foundation or truth whatsoever.

It is well known that approximately 20 years ago, at the initial planning stage of the eruv, the late R. Shimeon Eider ztzal came to London for several days on our request. He spent many days with me together with our team, during which he carefully considered many possible maps for the eruv, and finally decided on the one which was eventually built. He took great care with all measurements, traffic flow figures and maintenance strategies, as was fitting for an expert and a professional in his field. From the outset he was enthusiastic and encouraged us all in this venture, and the intention was that he would return to supervise its actual construction. However, when he realized the extent of the opposition from other local rabbonim he apologized to me on the phone and said that he was not able to suffer the aggravation of machlokes.

At no point did he indicate in any way that he had changed his mind about the validity and kashrus of the eruv itself, and when it was built he simply let it be known that he had not in fact supervised its construction, which is absolutely correct.

It is now being claimed that a letter was written to me in which he allegedly cites his halakhic reservations or problems with the eruv as the reason for his withdrawal, and that I have allegedly suppressed this letter.

I would like to make it absolutely clear that I have never received such a letter myself, or anything similar to it, nor have I ever heard of its alleged existence. In fact anyone who had been at any of the many meetings and phone calls we had together would be amazed at this claim, since it was with great certainty and enthusiasm that he led us in the initial stages of this project citing all the reasons why London did not have the problems of Manhattan, and that clearly the rulings of HaGaon R. Chaim Ozer ztzal for Paris and the rulings of HaGaon the Chazon Ish zatzal were directly applicable here.

Yehi Ratzon she'nizkeh le'harbos be'divrei sholom ve'emess

Eruvin in the News: Westmount, Quebec

Westmount Eruv Okayed

By Dan Delmar

Westmount’s council unanimously passed a resolution last month allowing a local synagogue to put up a thin fishing line on utility poles circling most of the city, an installation deemed necessary by conservative and Orthodox Jews.

The line, called an Eruv, symbolically joins private domains to public ones, allowing for the carrying of small items outside one’s home permissible on Shabbat. Read on...

Eruvin in the News: Westhampton Beach, NY 4

Eruv Plan Roils Tony Town In Hamptons

Nasty E-mail Campaign in Westhampton Beach Says Schneier Wants ‘To Create Another Lawrence.’

By Stewart Ain

The negative e-mails started soon after word spread that the Hampton Synagogue was asking the tony Village of Westhampton Beach for a proclamation permitting it to erect an eruv, or symbolic boundary, around the synagogue.

It would, one e-mail said, “allow the Jewish people to pass through people’s property on their way to temple. ... It is the beginning of a ‘push’ by the rabbi to create another Tenafly or Lawrence [both have large concentrations of Orthodox Jews]. Shopkeepers have already been asked rather strongly to please close their stores on Saturday.” Read on...

{Ed. note - The prize for the most glaringly obvious statement goes to the Mayor of Tenafly NJ: "Teller, who is seeking re-election as mayor ... pointed out that he called the mayor of Tenafly, N.J., which lost a six-year battle to prevent the erection of an eruv. Teller said the mayor told him, “It is invisible and has made no change [in the community] in the three years it has been up.” Had they asked me I could have spared them the six-year battle.}

Part 3: The Jewish Tribune’s Argument Against the NW London Eruv

Continued from part II

The Jewish Tribune, page 4, Public Notice:
In view of a brochure and rumours recently circulating in connection with the Eruv in Nort West London, we wish to reaffirm our opinion that it remains problematic and of doubtful validity.
In particular, renowned past and present Poskim – including Rav M. Feinstein, Dayan I. J. Weiss and others have ruled that London is considered a public domain Min-Hatorah, automatically invalidates any such Eruv. According to the Chazon Ish it has other faults.
The rebuttal:
To begin with, regarding Rav Moshe zt”l, it is important to note there is a fundamental flaw in the anti-eruv cabal’s way of thinking regarding his chiddushim in eruvin. Rav Moshe was only against an eruv in Manhattan and Brooklyn. His objections were based on self-admitted major chiddushim in hilchos eruvin and therefore Rav Moshe did not want to even issue a p’sak din barur (see Hagaon Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l’s Reluctance to Pasken Against the Establishment of an Eruv). We, therefore, do not have a right to negate an eruv by adding to his chiddushim.

There are two reasons why Rav Moshe would allow the London eruv:
1) Despite the fact that Golders Green is developed with houses all the way up to the inner city of London, Rav Moshe would allow that the neighborhood is distinct from its surroundings. This can be discerned from the fact that Rav Moshe allowed the establishment of eruvin in neighborhoods with comparable conditions to Golders Green. Rav Moshe allowed an eruv in the Detroit neighborhoods of Oak Park and Southfield despite the fact that these two neighborhoods are well developed with houses right up to the Detroit city line. Additionally, Rav Moshe allowed an eruv for the neighborhood of Kew Gardens Hills, Queens even though all of Queens’s neighborhoods adjoin each other. In both situations, Rav Moshe maintained that these neighborhoods are distinct despite the fact that they were part of a larger built up area. There is no doubt that Golders Green is a distinct neighborhood and is not part of the inner city of London. Why should Golders Green be any different then Queens and Detroit where Rav Moshe allowed an eruv? [I would add that even if we were to apply Rav Moshe’s chiddush that he used in Brooklyn, that a city is an area of twelve mil by twelve mil, to the city of London, we probably would not have a population of 3,000,000 people contained therein. However, in light of the above, we do not have to involve ourselves with this issue at all.]
2) Alternatively, the area is classified as a reshus hayachid since it is enclosed by mechitzos habatim. Those who assert that Rav Moshe would not allow mechitzos habatim are totally incorrect. Mechitzos habatim are mechitzos l’chol hadayos. There are two fundaments required to allow mechitzos habatim (or for that matter any mechitzos), and Rav Moshe agrees to both of them: 1. That we pasken lo asu rabbim. 2. That we pasken pirtzos esser is d’rabbanan. Rav Moshe only took issue with the chiddush of the Chazon Ish that the omed of a reshus hayachid formed a mechitzah but not with the above two fundaments.

Regarding the Chazon Ish shitos, the eruv has no other faults. He would allow the eruv l’chatchilah (as mentioned above on the subject of the K’vish Haschachor and the karpeifos).

Regarding Rav Weiss zt”l, it is important to mention that he never articulated a word about erecting an eruv in London. He only declared that based on the Bais Ephraim’s (and the Chacham Tzvi’s) statement, London is a reshus harabbim regarding shishim ribo. Therefore, he argues, we would not be able to include shishim ribo as one of the heterim to allow, for example, pushing a wheelchair on Shabbos without an eruv (Minchas Yitzchak, 2:114:9; see also 2:98:17; 2:112:4; 3:26:4; 3:36:3; 5:40; and his haskamah on Birchas HaShabbos, 1987). From this statement, the cabal wants to convince us that the Minchas Yitzchak was opposed to an eruv in London. This is totally preposterous since there are several reasons why Rav Weiss could have called London a reshus harabbim but nevertheless would have allowed an eruv. To begin with, it should be noted that the Minchas Yitzchak, in his teshuvos, oscillated between calling London a reshus harabbim and stating that the matter still requires consideration (tzaruch iyun).

As I just mentioned, Rav Weiss primarily cites the Bais Ephraim as the source for his statement that London is a reshus harabbim of shishim ribo; thus it would be judicious to examine what the Bais Ephraim assumed regarding London. The Bais Ephraim (O.C. siman 26 p. 45) states that the reason why some Rishonim only mention, as the criteria of a reshus harabbim, that a street would need to be sixteen amos wide and mefulash u’mechuvanim m’shaar l’shaar and not shishim ribo is because there were cities such as Paris, London, Vienna, Frankfort-on-Main and others that did contain shishim ribo. Therefore, the Bais Ephraim postulates, these Rishonim only mentioned the criteria that pertained to large cities (and would allow an eruv). As proof that there were such cities, the Bais Ephraim quotes the question posed to the Chacham Tzvi (siman 37) regarding the possibility that there were several sratyas [thoroughfares] and platyas [marketplaces] in England that contained shishim ribo traversing them. Some want to argue that since the Bais Ephraim states that the cities of Paris, London, Vienna and Frankfort-on-Main contain shishim ribo, he upholds that the criterion of shishim ribo is conditional of a city and not a street. This is incorrect. As can be discerned regarding his discussion of cities containing shishim ribo, it is clear from the Bais Ephraim that he maintains that the criterion is conditional of a street since he quotes the query posed to the Chacham Tzvi which was referring to thoroughfares and marketplaces in England containing shishim ribo and not about the cities themselves (there are many instances when the Bais Ephraim actually discusses the criterion of shishim ribo and clearly indicates that it refers to a street; see The Overwhelming Majority of Achronim Maintain That the Shishim Ribo Has to Traverse the Street Itself and Part 4: Birur HaShitos ─ Regarding Shishim Ribo). Moreover, the Minchas Yitzchak himself, when he explores the criterion of shishim ribo (8:32:1), upholds that the Bais Ephraim is of the opinion that the shishim ribo must traverse the street itself (albeit not daily). Consequentially, when the Bais Ephraim discusses cities containing shishim ribo, he must be referring to streets of a city that contain shishim ribo.

In light of the above, let us explore the opinion of the Minchas Yitzchak regarding shishim ribo, and what he would possibly maintain regarding eruvin. When Rav Weiss posits that the circumstances in London would not allow us to include shishim ribo for any heter since the city contains shishim ribo, it was not because he made a survey of London and consequentially came to this conclusion, but rather he was just quoting the Bais Ephraim. However, the Bais Ephraim assumed that there were streets and marketplaces that possibly contained shishim ribo, and therefore, he referred to London as a reshus harabbim of shishim ribo. Additionally, the Minchas Yitzchak himself understood the Bais Ephraim’s shita in shishim ribo as applying to a street. Consequently, if we now know that there is no street in London that ever has shishim ribo traversing it, even Rav Weiss would admit that no reshus harabbim exists therein, and an eruv of tzuras hapesachim can be erected. Clearly there is no street in Golders Green that has anywhere close to shishim ribo traversing it. Moreover, if the Minchas Yitzchak was asked about establishing an eruv in London, it is possible that he would argue that we follow the Shulchan Aruch HaRav that a tzuras hapesach reclassifies a reshus harabbim into a reshus hayachid, and only me’d’rabbanan, do we require delasos. Since the requirement is only me’d’rabbanan, we can be lenient and apply any additional heter to remove the obligation of delasos. Additionally, Rav Weiss could allow an eruv based on the Chazon Ish’s chiddush. Furthermore, since Rav Weiss followed the Bais Ephraim ─ who maintains lo asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta, and that pirtzos esser is me’d’rabbanan ─ there is no doubt that he would allow the eruv since it consists of mechitzos. The reason why the Minchas Yitzchak did not rely on the Chazon Ish or mechitzos (habattim) to downgrade London to a reshus hayachid in his teshuvos was simply because he was not erecting an eruv, so he did not evaluate the possibility of using mechitzos.

The above illuminates an overarching flaw in many of the anti-eruv group’s arguments. They purposely conflate a statement from a posek regarding another issue as if it would negate an eruv. If a posek was actually establishing an eruv, he would truly plumb the depths of hilchos eruvin to seek a means to establish one. This can be discerned from the Minchas Yitzchok himself. When he refers to issues such as pushing wheelchairs on Shabbos (without an eruv), he accepted the Bais Ephraim’s assumption that there are streets in London that have shishim ribo traversing them. However, when the matter was eruvin, he states clearly that the Bais Ephraim maintains that the shishim ribo must traverse the street itself as opposed to a city, which in fact would allow an eruv for London.

[I would add, it is remarkable and telling that Rav Weiss cites in some of his teshuvos the Bais Ephraim’s argument that there were cities which contained shishim ribo and yet were not classified as a reshus harabbim since the streets were not sixteen amos wide and were not mefulash mechuvanim m’shaar l’shaar. The Minchas Yitzchak then posits that it is obvious that the streets of London are sixteen amos wide so they possibly are a reshus harabbim, but he then fails to mention anything regarding the criterion of mefulash u’mechuvanim m’shaar l’shaar. (Of course, the cabal would proclaim that evidently Rav Weiss considered the streets of London mefulash u’mechuvanim m’shaar l’shaar since he never utilized this criterion. However, this begs the question of why did he mention the criterion that the streets today are sixteen amos wide and did not just append to this that the streets of London are mechuvanim m’shaar l’shaar, as well.) The most likely explanation for this omission is that since the Minchas Yitzchak was not referring to establishing an eruv and was not seeking a heter to erect one, he did not utilize the criterion of mefulash u’mechuvanim m’shaar l’shaar since it would require that he evaluate each and every street separately to observe if they meet this criterion or not. However, regarding shishim ribo, Rav Weiss accepted the Bais Ephraim’s assumption (and did not evaluate the streets to discern if they actually contain shishim ribo or not) that there were streets that met this criterion; hence, London was classified as a reshus harabbim, and as a result, we would not be able to use it as a heter at all. Consequently, if Rav Weiss was involved with the construction of an eruv in London, there is no doubt that he would follow the Bais Ephraim and assess each street separately to distinguish if it meets the requirement of being mefulash u’mechuvanim m’shaar l’shaar, as well.]

Finally, I think that it is important to note that the greatest posek that lived in England in the past hundred years, Rav Avroham Ahron Yudelovitz zt”l, the Bais Av, wrote an entire volume regarding an eruv in Manchester and in all major cities. He argued that the criterion of shishim ribo is conditional of a street, and that the streets would need to be mefulash u’mechuvanim m’shaar l’shaar in order to be classified as a reshus harbbim. There is no doubt that he would be more than satisfied with the new eruv consisting of mechitzos in London.

In summation, the article in The Jewish Tribune contains the following fabrications:
1) Rav Eider zt”l claimed that Rav Moshe zt”l would not allow the eruv in Golders Green. Some members of the cabal even go so far to claim that Rav Eider alleged that his rebbe would not allow the eruv in Golders Green because he would classify it as a reshus harabbim. There is not a shred of evidence to back up these allegations.
2) The London Bais Din or the Rosh Bais Din shlita originally asserted that the eruv was mehudar. In fact never was the word mehudar used.
3) Rav Elyashiv shlita understood the criterion of shishim ribo as being conditional of a street servicing shishim ribo. In fact, Rav Elyashiv stated in his letter that shishim ribo is conditional of the city. [Of course the cabal would argue that what Rav Elyashiv meant when he said that a city containing shishim ribo is classified as a reshus harabbim was that there could now be a street in the city that services shishim ribo. Besides for the fact that they would need to add words to Rav Elyashiv’s letter for this argument to be true, it is erroneous as well. Rav Elyashiv stated that it is a concern if Yerushalayim contains shishim ribo since we would not be able to rely on shitas Rashi. If Rav Elyashiv maintained that the criterion of shishim ribo is conditional of a street servicing 600,000 people, he would not have mentioned the issue of Yerushalayim containing shishim ribo. For even if the city did not contain shishim ribo, the roads could nevertheless be classified as servicing 600,000 people since additional commuters use the roads coming into the city as well. Consequently, if Rav Elayshiv understood the criterion of shishim ribo as being conditional of a street servicing 600,000 people, this would have been his emphasis and not the city of Yerushalayim itself.]
4) Rav Elayshiv upheld that only in an area where people were previously carrying can we rely on sechirus reshus of the city mayor. In fact, Rav Elayshiv’s maintained that eruvin can be established in areas that did not have one prior, and that we can rely on today’s sechirus reshus.
5) Rav Karelitz claimed that the Chazon Ish did not rely on his chiddush in practice, and therefore, the K’vish Haschachor was not included in the Bnai Brak eruv because it was possibly a reshus harabbim. In fact, it was not included by the Chazon Ish in the Bnai Brak eruv because it failed to meet the criterion of his chiddush.

In summation the following rationales would allow an eruv in Golders Green:
1) There is no street that has shishim ribo traversing it. Given that there is no street included in the eruv that ever comes close to having shishim ribo traversing it, even those who argue that just the possibility alone would classify it as a reshus harabbim would allow an eruv. Moreover, most poskim maintain that we do not include vehicular traffic in the tally.
2) The streets of the community are not mefulash u’mechuvanim m’shaar l’shaar.
3) We can rely on the chiddush of the Chazon Ish.
4) The area is fundamentally a reshus hayachid since it is encompassed by mechitzos.
Even one of the above conditions would be sufficient ground to allow an eruv of tzuras hepesachim l’chatchilah. Additionally, as there are many reasons to allow an eruv in London, even a Baal Nefesh can rely on the eruv with certainty. Furthermore, since the Golders Green eruv consist of mechitzos habatim, the eruv is considered a Rambam eruv.

All the other halachic arguments ─ such as sechiras reshus or karpeifos ─ are issues that affect all city eruvin today, but nevertheless, have not negated any eruv yet. Why should Golders Green be any different? Moreover, all the arguments set forth to date have been that the Gedolei Haposkim would have objected to an eruv in London, but the issue of sechiras reshus and karpeifos have never been part of the Gedolei Haposkim’s arguments at all. Why do we have to follow those who want to collect every chumrah in hilchos eruvin? Dear readers, there are few poskim who, if we would follow all their rulings in regards to eruvin, would not allow us to establish an eruv l’chatchilah.

We are left with the hashkafic issues. One who claims that an eruv negatively impacts the sanctity of the Shabbos by encouraging unbecoming behavior, such as ball playing or socializing, is in fact making a blanket statement against all eruvin ─ since these issues can be problematic with eruvin in both large and small cities and even a private eruv between adjacent houses ─ and he can be considered an einoh modeh b’eruv. Eruvin, according to the poskim, was always a matter of halachah and not hashkafah. Let us remember that an eruv is a tikun and not a michshol, and it serves to improve the spiritual quality of a community’s Shabbos observance.

Eruvin in the News: Owings Mills, MD

Eruv For Owings Mills

Eruv in Owings Mills Enables Residents to Leave Their Homes on Shabbat

By Barbara Pash

Rabbi Aaron Tendler talks about building community. He talks about outreach to the Jewish community in Owings Mills. He also talks about what it takes to install an eruv because four years ago, Rabbi Tendler, who works at Ner Israel Rabbinical College and is the rabbi of the Etz Chaim Center for Jewish Living and Learning’s Valley Village Center, did just that.

Now, every Thursday morning, he tours the eruv in Northwest Baltimore County to make sure it is intact. “It gives me time to make a repair,” he said. Read on...