youdontsay

Neville Chaim Berlin, n0mesorah,
The two of you are jokesters. You pontificate on every issue as if you are betoch hadvarim, but when you are called out, instead of admitting that you have no shychus to the inyan, you continue to argue. The joke is that you claim to have the poskim on your side, when in fact the overwhelming majority of poskim disagree. The only posek that I argue was mislead was Rav Moshe, and this demolishes your house of cards. Since the majority of those opposing the eruv were just following his lead (and do not know the inyan). The fact that these rabbanim would argue against an eruv consisting of mechitzos demonstrates that they either do not know the inyan or are not interested in the emes.
You are the one that is frustrated, because regarding every issue that you debate you try to argue with lists, but regarding this issue the list of authority would not be on your side (you simply did not realize). The two of you have made many statements that are clearly incorrect. I am not trying to demonstrate my knowledge of the inyan. It is only that you make statements as if you know what you are talking about. I feel bad for you as you are not capable of being modeh al haemes, that you are out of your league and should stay out of the matter.

Typical. You pick one point to argue. If I were to go back and collect all the arguments that I set forth that you did not address it would be illuminating how weak your arguments truly are.
At the minimum Rav Elyashiv did not hear from the pro side, so his statement is not complete. If Rav Belsky is any proof, there is no doubt that these rabbanim did not know, or did not follow Rav Moshe’s shitos. Hence, their arguments are not relevant to our debate. In any case, you cannot answer Rav Dovid’s inconstancies, and are throwing up smokescreens. You are not throwing half sources, you have no sources.

“5) Rav Tuvya’s story clearly shows that there were meetings about eruvin in the 50’s. This is what I was posting about the eruv vaad. Rav Aaron and Rav Moshe were trying to avoid specific pitfalls. You had enough chances to call out eruvin that aren’t properly constructed or maintained. It is all the same issue and issur. Whatever the reason that an eruv becomes passul, it’s the same problem. You want to throw around that one has to know all the halachah to be part of the conversation, but somehow can’t imagine why real life eruvin would be problematic.”
Rav Tuvia’s story does not demonstrate anything. Fiction. There was no vaad, only a pro eruv vaad. There were some meetings in the Agudas Harrabanim. No Rav Aharon and Rav Moshe’s arguments where regarding reshus harabbim, not regarding the possibility that an eruv would become passul. Stop making arguments that you can’t support. The claim that an eruv would become passul, is as good an argument as we should stop eating food because the hechsherim can become lax and allow treifos. You wouldn’t know a kosher eruv from a passul eruv if I hit on the head with it.

“3) Included in the talmidim of Rav Moshe that I know are two that actively build eruvin. They both would never carry in Brooklyn. Rav Moshe was clear his whole life not to build eruvin in Brooklyn. The teshuva opens up with that he doesn’t agree. Rav Belsky spoke about it many times. It is silly to claim more knowledge from his teshuvos than the many people who heard it directly from him. This was common knowledge when the eruv was put up twenty years ago.”
You entire argument is irrelevant, and demonstrates that you do not begin to understand the issue. No one disagrees that Rav Moshe did not personally agree to an eruv in Brooklyn. However, his teshuvos demonstrate that he was mislead about the facts on the ground. Rav Belsky’s opinion is not relevant to this debate. He clearly did not agree with Rav Moshe’s shitos. He maintained that shishim ribo is conditional on a city. Rav Moshe stated emphatically that the minhag was not so. Rav Belsky argued that pirtzos esser is d’Oraysa, Rav Moshe upheld otherwise.

n0mesorah,
“I was offline for most of the last month and did not have the headsapce for this thread. You posted some really out there stuff recently, and I won’t bother calling you out. I don’t know meseches eruvin but that won’t be a problem here. I now see that you don’t have a clue about the original sources and what they actually say. That is why you are so convinced of your side of the argument.
You do not know meseches Eruvin nor do you know hilchos eruvin. You throw around arguments as a smokescreen in order to cover your am haratzus.

Neville Chaim Berlin,
“Yes, I’m aware of what you’re referring to because we’ve had others* come here and make the same argument before, and it’s not only me that shoots them down.”
No you did not realize that I am not the one making the tally claim. This is again proof that you can’t be modeh al haemes. You simply do not know the inyan, but have no problem making sweeping statements.

“Unless you live in some obscure state with no Jews, you obviously interact with other yidden enough to know that your shittos are extremely out of the ordinary.”
I interact enough to know that they do not know the inyan. If my shitos, which are totally not my own, are considered out of the ordinary, it is proof that you simply do not know the inyan. It is not as if I am quoting shitos yechidaos. It is you who is relying one singular opinions, but do not realize it.

“You could say that at this point I’m just bullying you for being different rather than making real arguments, and that might be a fair criticism, but given how much you changed the tone of this thread for the worse, I don’t really care.”
It is not that you don’t care, but only that you do not know what to answer. It is for the worse because you have no real arguments. Why is it that when it comes to the inyan of eruvin people make up their mind prior to studying the sugya.

“The thing you quoted me seems to be a quote within a quote, and it seems like Rav Shlomo Kluger’s quote ends before it gets to the conclusion about places like Paris and London. What sefer is the whole thing actually from?”
Huh? Please reread the beginning of the Hebrew. Paris and London are not part of his quotes, but my observation.

“So, me telling him to follow his own rav is trying to convert him to my way, but you straight up telling him what to do is giving him options? Are you actually insane?”
First of all you did not read between the brackets. Second, all the CR threads are dispensing halachic arguments, and no one argues that you have to ask your rav, and so stop the debate. Why should eruvin be any different. This is a forum of ideas, which does not translate as final p’sak. Third, most people have been dispensing anti-eruv arguments, so it is the side that is pro that is under represented. Fourth, the overwhelming majority of poskim would be supportive, and the world should follow them. Fifth, an educated consumer is the best customer, and rabbanim need to step up to the plate, and learn hilchos eruvin, prior to just following what others say. I am insane because you disagree. This again demonstrates that when the inyan is eruvin people lose their mind.

Neville Chaim Berlin,
“With all due respect, I’m going to trust their counts over your’s. Obviously it isn’t purely quantitative.”
Your just shooting from the hip, and have no idea what I am referring to. The Mishkenos Yaakov (and the Mishnah Beruarh, who followed him), was the one who argued that it is quantitative, because in his times there were more Rishonim published. It was the Bais Ephraim who insisted it is minhag. [However, the Bais Ephraim did argue that in fact the Mishkenos Yaakov is incorrect regarding numbers as well.] Hence, either one follows the Bais Ephraim who argues that it is the minhag, or one follows the Mishkenos Yaakov and seeks out all the Rishonim that have been published to date. In fact today we know that the Mishkenos Yaakov’s tally has been greatly superseded.

“Unless they were time travelers, they didn’t say anything about reshusei harabim “today.”
This is a made up argument by people who never learnt the inyan, and don’t realize that the Rishonim and Achronim meant not just in their times, but forever. I will just quote Rav Shlomo Kluger:
זה לשון “ספר החיים” לגאון ישראל הגר”ש קלוגער ז”ל (סי’ שמ”ה סעי’ ז) שהשיב לחכם אחד שהקשהו מיבמות (קי”ג ע”ב) דר’ יצחק אתאביד לי’ מפתחי ברה”ר, הרי מוכח דאף בזה”ז יש רה”ר, והשיב: “אבל הבל יפצה, דאטו לא משכחת לה בימי הש”ס לאחר החורבן שהיה מקום שעוברין בו ס’ רבוא… והרי דעת רש”י הוא זה דאין בזה”ז רה”ר, אלא ודאי דבימי חכמי הש”ס היה שכיח מקומות שיהיה נחשב רה”ר שהיה בו ס’ רבוא, וזה פשוט”. דברי קדשו אלו נאמרו בזמן שעדיין היו עיירות גדולות כמו לונדון ופאריז שהיו בהם יותר מס”ר אוכלוסין ואעפ”כ כתב דבזה”ז אין רה”ר

“You can’t confidently say “we” when you have no idea what the questioner is. Hence why I told him he needs to go by his mesora/rav. You did the same thing with n0mesora regarding the OP; why can’t this discussion just be theoretical for you? Why do you insist on trying to convince people to be more meikel in actuality?”
You are obfuscating. You clearly meant that the issue is cut and dried, and that is why one should ask his rav. I argued that there are many reasons to allow, and hence there are really no reasons to be machmir. [However, I do not disagree that one should follow his rav.] Regarding shihsim ribo, unless he is Sfardei, we follow the Rema. I am pretty sure that the OP, you and n0mesora are Ashkenazim. Even for Sefardim it is not that simple what is the opinion of the Mechaber. Many poskim maintain the Shulchan Aruch accepts shishim ribo lechatchilah.
The question is not why I try to convince people to be mekil, but only why are people trying to argue that one should be machmir. From the get go, people make statements that a reshus harabbim cannot be encompassed by a tzuras hapesach, and that the only heter for cities is shishim ribo. All these declarations demonstrate that people simply do not know the inyan, and are seeking chumros. Why?

“Call it what you must.”
Sorry you are witness number one. It is comical that so many people shoot their mouth off regarding eruvin without admitting that they simply do not know the inyan.

Neville Chaim Berlin,
“OK, I’ll concede. I was wrong in my wording of this statement. I though I was clear enough that they aren’t considered machallel shabbos, but if not I apologize.”
I accept the apology.

“You’re using “rov,” or most way too loosely. The statement “there are no reshus harabim today” was generally made way before Brooklyn or Manhattan were a reality. If there aren’t reshusei harabim today, then there never can be.”
It is a modern day argument that shishim ribo applies to a city, as Rav Moshe himself exclaimed. Warsaw, Lodz, Odessa and Paris, all demonstrate that I am correct. Hence, all the poskim who maintain that there is no reshus harabbim today are even referring to cities such as Brooklyn and Manhattan. Only according to Rav Moshe’s chiddushim are Brooklyn and Manhattan unique. The few poskim who argue that shishim ribo applies to a city are going against the mesorah and the minhag, as stated by the Divrei Malkeil.
There is no such argument that otherwise there can never be a reshus harabbim. In fact that is exactly what those Rishonim and Acronim are arguing, there is no more a reshus harabbim at all.

n0mesorah,
“I will post how I understand Rav Moshe’s opinion when you answer the question.”
No you will not. You do not know the inyan.

“Is your perspective helping the OP with his dilemma? Do you think that your posts here would help respond to his detractors? [Do you even understand what I am getting at with these questions?]”
Irrelevant. Most threads do not stick to the OP’s exact questions or arguments, and many times take a turn. You are putting up smoke screens. Answer exactly how you understand Rav Moshe’s shitos otherwise. Be honest you made up your mind prior to knowing the inayn, and at this point are trying to protect your ill informed opinion.

“PS Of all the talmidim of Rav Moshe that I met that are okay with using wipes on Shabbos, cholov hacompanies, and turning off gas burners on Yom Tov, none are okay with the Brooklyn eiruv. This includes some serious talmidei chachamim that are renowned for paskening sheilos.”
Irrelevant. Do they know hilchos eruvin?

Always_Ask_Questions,
“This learnt discussion is well above my head, but it convinced me to avoid Brooklyn on shabbos!”
Please do not feel that way, most of the people arguing here do no not know much more than you. Why would you avoid Brooklyn on Shabbos, you do not need to carry?

“My question – given the subtlety of the issue and, in some cases, lack of clear psak – is it all 1/0? That is, if we have some allowing, others – not, would carrying be always considered hillul shabbos by those who do not allow, or it maybe something like “ok b’dieved” or “ok when going for a mitzva” or “ok when not observed by public”?”
As the issue is possibly a matter of a d’Oraysa, there would be no heter. However, there are so many reasons to allow, and each reason would allow lchatchilah, hence, the argument to abstain from carrying is very weak.

n0mesorah,
You never knew about Rav Moshe being mislead, and now you read it differently. Please, stop your revisionisms.

n0mesorahת
“So it boils down to that the mattirim feel that they are not in full dispute with Rav Moshe. And perhaps in the current day, Rav Moshe would agree to permit it.
I understand that they are not lying in their assessment. still, it’s all conjecture that Rav Moshe would permit it. Maybe the opposite.”
Everyone should follow their rav. Rav Moshe possibly would allow. Most poskim would allow. So there is no reason to object. And its conjecture to argue that he would forbid. So who gives anyone a right to osser in the name of Rav Moshe.

“Today, Rav Moshe would absolutely forbid it. It’s basically saying that the mattirim feel ready to move on from Rav Moshe.”
No. Who said that he would absolutely forbid it. He would need to add to his chiddusin to do so. We have most poskim on the side of allowing, and we would rather not (although he is very mechudash and we are not required to follow him) go against Rav Moshe.

n0mesorah,
“I don’t understand what you gain by repeating that Rav Moshe was mechudash. You were trying to argue that the Brooklyn Eruv is valid even according to Rav Moshe’s opinion. Then it doesn’t come in to play if he or you termed his opinion mechudash.”
The argument is follows: 1) Rav Moshe would allow for three reasons. 2) Rav Moshe never issued a psak din barrur. 3) It is unfair to add to Rav Moshe’s chiddushim to negate an eruv, since to begin with he is mechudash, and so only Rav Moshe can add additional reasons.

n0mesorah,
““Rav Moshe never offered reasons to allow””
“Black on white, a large part of his teshuva. Otherwise he would have felt compelled to stop them. And he would have considered the eruv to be Chillul Shabbos.”
No, Rav Moshe only admitted that the Aruch Hashulchan and the poskim would not agree with him. That is why he did not issue a psak din barrur.

n0mesorah,
“I don’t know how you lump everyone who disagrees with you on eiruvin in one group. Those that are inclined to assur all eruvin are obviously not coming from Rav Moshe. Are you implying that Rav Moshe was the only yeshivishe gadol that knew eruvin?”
Never said that. There are people who make meta halachic arguments without realizing that these arguments would do away with all eruvin (such as tznius inyanim). This is apikorses. Those Yeshivalite who make arguments that would do away with city eruvin are going against minhag and the mitzvah of shtufei mavaos. I am not lumping them together. Sure there were RY who new eruvin, but not many knew hilchos eruvin. Rav Moshe knew kol haTorah, and was very unique. However, he really was very mechudash in eruvin, but the Yeshivah velt in their ignoramity believed his shitos to be normative halacaha.

n0mesorah,
“This post of yours is what confuses me.
YOU ““Rav Moshe disagreed regarding their halachic concerns, because there were city’s that established eruvin whose population was greater than 600,000 (but he had his own reason to oppose).””
ME “And therefore? Rav Moshe’s teshuvos lay out his reasoning. I don’t know what is missing here.”
YOU I am referring to the fact that these gedolim on the Manhattan kk could not have opposed the eruv for the same reason as Rav Moshe. His opposition was almost exclusive to Manhattan (and later on Brooklyn). However, the others signors seemed to be opposing any eruv in a city containing shishim ribo. Or according to Rav Aharon all city eruvin past a present.
End of your post, Now me again.
So I am left very befuddled how you just do away Rav Moshe with a claim of misinformation. (Which nobody managed to get Reb Dovid to recant.) Rav Moshe goes through all the reasons why Manhattan as a reshus harrabim would be problematic. He offers alternatives why it could be permitted. His result is not to rely on these permissions. And that leaves us – very clearly – that Rav Moshe held the eiruv is not good enough. You can disagree with Rav Moshe. But what do you mean that it is permitted according to Rav Moshe, when he himself concluded not to use these permissions?
Are you claiming that Rav Moshe does not agree with his own interpretation of reshus harrabim according to the SA? Because the entire teshuva is a straight line. Nowhere does Rav Moshe write that we should count the exact population. Just because Rav Moshe disagreed with the machmirim, it doesn’t mean that he disagreed with Rav Moshe.””
You are truly befuddled. I never spoke about Rav Moshe allowing in Manhattan (even though there is what to talk about). When I say that he would allow in Brooklyn I am referring to if he had the correct information. [Again, I only wrote that he would allow according to his teshuvos. I can’t say that he would have actually agreed, prior to him making some additional clarifications to his chiddushim.]
Rav Moshe never offered reasons to allow, he only declared that the rabbanim do not have to follow his chiddushim in Manhattan. Stop making statements that are simply incorrect.
No the population is integral to his chiddushim in Brooklyn. In Manhattan the population was ancillary (because of the mechitzos), and hence, he never gave an exact figure that would be required according to his chiddushim. You did not even know that he mentioned 3 million. Otherwise it is a gezeira (and obviously not a matter of d’Oraysa). Rav Moshe’s chiddushim were a work in progress. I don’t need anyone’s interpretation of Rav Moshe’s teshuvos, they are very explicit.

“Other than the misinformation claim, which I think is the wrong way to read Rav Moshe’s teshuvos – there doesn’t seem to be any way to claim that Rav Moshe permitted an eiruv in Brooklyn.”
As can be discerned from the entire back and forth, you simply do not know his teshuvos. So please do not pontificate if this is the correct way to read Rav Moshe’s teshuvos. I gave three examples where I prove that Rav Moshe was mislead, and you just disagree without providing any substantial arguments. Just stop this am haraatzus nariskeit.

n0mesorah,
““Because to argue on the SA and NK is frowned upon, as they were accepted by all.””
“So it’s about what was universally accepted. That is why I was referencing Conservative Judaism before.”
Huh. The more I debate you the more I realize that your just throwing a bunch of chaff..

n0mesorah,”””…after an Agudas Harabbnim meeting, which Rav Moshe did not attend, he asked Rav Tuvia what occurred at the meeting.””

“Rav Tuvia was there. Why? Rav Moshe was not. It’s news to me that Rav Tuvia was a member of Hisachdus in the 1950s.”
Not Hisachdus, but Agudas Harabbanim. 1962. I don’t know if he was a member. Who says that he would have to be a member to attend. I don’t know why Rav Moshe could not make it.

n0mesorah,
““It is less questionable””

“It depends what the “it” refers to. “Questionable” refers to the doubts Rav Moshe had about those eiruvin.”

Besides for Rav Moshe objection it is less questionable. Rav Moshe is mechudash, and is in opposition to most poskim (e.g. the criterion of mefulash, which case he is disagreeing with the Magen Avraham). Regarding Brooklyn he never issued a psak din barrur.

n0mesorah,
“The mitziyus (That we went back and forth on.) is irrelevant to Rav Moshe’s psak on Brooklyn. I don’t know what you see here. Why would 2.5M be different than almost 3M? And my point was that Rav Dovid knew this claim and wasn’t fazed by it. He thought 2.5M to be accurate. Why didn’t anyone convince Rav Dovid of this?”
It is very relevant. Anything less than 3 million would only fall into Rav Moshe’s prohibition because of his geziera. Rav Moshe basically said so in this same teshuvah. Rav Dovid said 3 million is the number in Chicago and in Los Angeles. What Rav Dovid meant by, “there are over 2.5 million people living in Flatbush and its environs.” is extremely unclear. The fact is, Flatbush and its environs, does not follow any shita of Rav Moshe (unless he meant that the tzuras hapesach is encompassing 2.5 million, which is incorrect), and so I do not understand Rav Dovid’s statements at all.

“I expect that in a number of years the claim will be that Rav Dovid was also mislead. I know personally that he knew that Rv Moshe wasn’t misled.”
And I know personally that he was being vague.

n0mesorah,
““Rav Moshe disagreed regarding their halachic concerns, because there were city’s that established eruvin whose population was greater than 600,000 (but he had his own reason to oppose).””
“And therefore? Rav Moshe’s teshuvos lay out his reasoning. I don’t know what is missing here.”
I am referring to the fact that these gedolim on the Manhattan kk could not have opposed the eruv for the same reason as Rav Moshe. His opposition was almost exclusive to Manhattan (and later on Brooklyn). However, the others signors seemed to be opposing any eruv in a city containing shishim ribo. Or according to Rav Aharon all city eruvin past a present.

n0mesorah,
“To make the 16 supporters of the Manhattan Eiruv into rov against the 5, they would have to be disagreeing on one specific reason (besides for other factors). Rov poskim is still a din of rov.”
Oh, but they are disagreeing regarding a particular issue. That is they believe that there is no issue of reshu harabbim, hence an eruv can be established.

“I’m not really interested in debating what rov poskim is or isn’t. There have been hundreds of dissertations on this topic. And I don’t know why you mentioned the Manhattan Eiruv from sixty years ago. It’s not up anymore.”
This why I mentioned it. As you will see you introduce the word rov.
“”n0mesorah,
As I have posted above, other rabbonim are entitled to their opinion and may disagree with Rav Moshe’s psak. Yet even the mattirim didn’t think that applied to a rav that didn’t even kn ow mishnayos eruvin. Even if he had photographic memory of the teshuvos.””
“RMMK knew more than just teshuvos, stop this silliness. In fact he was supported by most rabbanim in Manhattan. You simply do not know what you are talking about.”
“”Chas v’shalom that any Rav would not want to associate with RMMK! Where did you get that from?””
“As Rav Tuvia used to say, there were more rabbanim who supported an eruv in Manhattan then not.”

n0mesorah,
“Eiruvin had to be reassessed in North America. Modern Cities and suburbs was a new concept in Halacha. Besides, every city and county has it’s own logistical challenges.”
Fiction. Our cities are no different than the large metropolises that doted pre-was Europe. Those who made these arguments are actually the ones who are changing the minhag.

n0mesorah,
“Kashrus is in constant flux. Zmanim have been reimagined. Commercial Arba Minim has exploded. Brochos on food have undergone intense reinvestigations. The halachic concept of Khal is nearing extinction. Where have you been? Halacha in the Modern World is constantly in motion.”
The point is that people are inconsistent in their chumros (I am not referring hidur). It is extremely noticeable with khashrus.

n0mesorah,
“I was there for a shabbos when the eiruv was new and people had no idea how vast it was. I returned recently, and most of the new people don’t know the large eiruv exists, and only use the smaller neighborhood ones.”
Please share with us the information. I am sure that I know what you are referring to, and that you are making things up.

“It’s weird that you will kahser an eiruv that you only heard an online poster mention.”
I am sure that I know as much about it as you do.

“That was the thrust of this post.’
No it was regarding the Brooklyn Eruv, and later about the local Brooklyn eruvin.

“And it is what irks the YV.”
No. It is that they have a superiority complex, and believe that the lowly others have no right to an opinion. However, they are out of their league regarding halachic issues.