Continued from part
1In 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.
