In response to Rabbi Shmuel Pultman's counter-response, and not-withstanding his animadversions, the points were quite clear. There seems to be a deft attempt here at some revisionism in the form of, "had both Rav Moshe and the Mishna Brurah known what I know, they too would have agreed with those that support the Boro Park Eruv." This may not, however, be quite the case.
There is an incident with the Chozeh miLublin and the Ktzos HaChoshain that may be informative here. There was once a chassid who disparaged the famed Ktzos. When he went to the Chozeh, the Chozeh chastized him severely. He quoted to him the words of Rashi on the posuk that Klal Yisroel believed in Hashem and in Moshe, His servant. Rashi comments that they believed in Moshe because he was Moshe and because he was Hashem's servant. The Chozeh MiLublin said, even though the Ktzos is not Oved Hashem in the same manner that we do, he is still the Ktzos. You should have been fearful of being disrespectful because of the stature of the man, just as Rashi says that Klal Yisroel believed in Moshe both because of who he was and because he was an Oved Hashem. Rav Moshe Feinstein was the pre-eminent Posaik HaDor. His rulings and works will endure the test of time. While the authorities that stand behind the Eruvin put up in Brooklyn are certainly Torah scholars, I am not quite certain that their Teshuvos, their chiddushim on Shas, and their name in the Torah world will withstand the test of time. If Rav Moshe felt their was a distinction between Kew Garden Hills and Borough Park, and explained this distinction orally to a number of Rabbonim, my money would be on Rav Moshe Feinstein zatzal.
I was once privileged to play a series of chess games against Samuel Reshevsky, the great Grandmaster of Chess. As the chess games progressed, he played without a knight, without a bishop, and without a rook. Nonetheless, he won thoroughly and completely. One got the feeling that they were throwing fists at a brick wall. When discussing Gedolim of such stature as Rav Moshe, one has to have that same feeling. It is humbly suggested that among those who argue against his positions - that sense of trepidation, of humility, may perhaps be ever so slightly deficient.
In response to Rabbi Hoffman’s rebuttal of my arguments, I would like to offer your readers a more detailed explanation of my previous letter. Rabbi Hoffman did not succeed in refuting any of the points I raised, perhaps because of my brevity. I think that the discerning reader clearly understood the underlying points of the previous response.
1) Rabbi Hoffman wrote: It is unclear what the respondent means by saying “there is no difference between Brooklyn and Queens.” Rabbi Feinstein’s position was well known, is recorded in his Igros Moshe, and was the subject of conversation between Rabbi Feinstein himself and many, many local rabbanim.
I am not questioning whether or not Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l was under the impression that Kew Garden Hills was unlike a neighborhood in Brooklyn. My point is that according to Rav Moshe’s chiddushim in eruvin — that shishim ribo is dependent on an area of twelve mil by twelve mil and not a street — there actually is no distinction between neighborhoods in Brooklyn or in Queens. If an eruv can be erected in Kew Garden Hills, an eruv can be established in any neighborhood in Brooklyn, as well. The only reason offered in writing by Rav Moshe as to why he allowed an eruv in Kew Garden Hills was because it was a small neighborhood in Queens (Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:86 and Addendum to O.C. 4:89). This should not negate an eruv in a small neighborhood in Brooklyn, as well. So we are in agreement that Rav Moshe himself would not have agreed with Rabbi Pultman. Rav Moshe explained to many that he believes that there is no small neighborhood in Brooklyn, it is all one entity. Queens is not conceptualized as one, but many different communities. Rabbi Pultman stands firm, however, saying, "But he did not write that!" Rabbi Pultman refuses to acknowlege any statement that was not in writing, but merely transmitted orally to reputable and responsible Rabbis. Let it simply be said that it is not in our tradition to reject oral explanations handed down by reputable and reliable individuals.
Rabbi Hoffman wrote: Rav Moshe never used the figure of 3 million. See Igros Moshe O.C., Vol. IV, No. 88, where he uses the figure of close to 3 million. He also wrote in the previous teshuvah, No. 87, that it varies according to the city, giving a ratio of 4 to 1 or 5 to 1. The first figure used is 2.4 million–Queens. According to current U.S. Census Bureau estimates, the population of Queens is 2.255 million.
Rabbi Hoffman is incorrect; Rav Moshe did use the figure of 3 million. What follows is an overview of Rav Moshe’s chiddushim in regards to shishim ribo. Rav Moshe’s chiddushim in shishim ribo were a work in progress. Like most poskim, Rav Moshe originally maintained (Igros Moshe, O.C. 1:109) that the criterion of shishim ribo was conditional of the street having shishim ribo traversing it. However, later (ibid., 1:139:5) he formulated his chiddush in which shishim ribo, when applied to a city, was not dependent on a street but over a twelve mil by twelve mil area. Rav Moshe added that the criterion of shishim ribo ovrim bo would require a sizable population living and commuting into the twelve mil by twelve mil area so that it could physically satisfy the condition of 600,000 people collectively traversing its streets. When these criteria are met, the area would be classified as a reshus harabbim, and a tzuras hapesach would not be adequate; delasos at the pirtzos would be needed. However, at this time Rav Moshe did not enumerate how many people would be required to live in this twelve mil by twelve mil area.
In the first teshuvah quantifying how many people would be required to live in this twelve mil by twelve mil area, Rav Moshe stated (ibid., 4:87) that since in the past, eruvin had been erected in cities with populations exceeding shishim ribo, one could not classify a city as a reshus harabbim solely on the basis of the existence of a population of 600,000. He then added that although the actual number of inhabitants could possibly vary according to the city, in Brooklyn, it would most likely require four to five times shishim ribo. In the final two teshuvos which followed, regarding Brooklyn, we see that Rav Moshe codified his chiddush that the requirement is, "just about 3 million people," (ibid., 5:28:5) or, "at least five times shishim ribo," (ibid., 5:29) which could amount to even more than 3 million people. Consequently, in the Chicago eruv pamphlet (West Rogers Park Eruv, 1993 p. 23) it is stated that Rav Dovid Feinstein shlita was in agreement that according to his father's shitah there must be a minimum of 3 million people in order for the city to be defined as a reshus harabbim. Therefore, I stated that, according to Rav Moshe, there really is no difference between Brooklyn and Queens because both boroughs’ populations are under 3 million. The point that Rabbi Pultman is missing is that Rav Moshe did not give the 3,000,000 figure to be hard and fast. He used it roughly to estimate that there were 600,000 people outside at any given time. The discerning reader will understand it to be a rough estimation. It may perhaps be combined with the notion that Brooklyn people may be outdoors more than Queens.
Rabbi Hoffman wrote: It is rather fascinating to think that Rav Moshe would have ruled on such an important issue for K’lal Yisrael without having looked at a map. Apparently the author, and others attempting to redefine Rav Moshe’s position, seem to think that Rav Moshe either (a) was unaware of these “mechitzos” surrounding Brooklyn or (b) was unaware of the halachic status of these mechitzos. The fact is that Rav Moshe subscribed to the position that the breaks in these mechitzos being larger than either 10 amos or 16 amos is a halachic problem.
It is a specious argument to claim that Rav Moshe would have noticed mechitzos by studying Brooklyn’s maps. To investigate the mechitzos requires many hours of physically inspecting Brooklyn’s waterfront. Rav Moshe was only following what he was informed were the facts on the ground regarding mechitzos encompassing Brooklyn. Rav Moshe stated (ibid., 5:28:5) regarding Brooklyn’s mechitzos, “Until now they [the mechitzos] did not exist but that one can investigate” (see also ibid., Addendum to O.C. 4:89). Consequently, it is not those promoting an eruv who claim that Rav Moshe was not informed of the mechitzos encompassing Brooklyn, it was Rav Moshe himself who stated that the issue needs to be investigated. Only after having stated that until now they did not exist as is known. The rabbanim who investigated the waterfront — members of Rav Yechezkel Roth shlita’s Bais Din (see Emek HaTeshuvah, 5:19), Rav Shlomo Gross shlita, Belzer Dayan of Boro Park, and Rav Tuvia Goldstein zt”l sent a select group from his kollel Emek Halacha — declared that Brooklyn is encompassed by mechitzos and they are valid according to Rav Moshe. Does one really think that Rav Moshe would have summarily rejected an Eruv in Brooklyn as he did without having looked at it? His statement of "vezehu efshar levarais" is more of an admonition to those that claim that it exists, since he clearly stated up until now it did not.
I challenge Rabbi Hoffman to cite one teshuvah of Rav Moshe’s were he posits that a break of ten amos negates a mechitzah me’d’Oraysa. Dear readers, do you know why I am so sure that there is no such Igros Moshe? It’s because, on the contrary, Rav Moshe maintains that a gap of ten amos is only a d’rabbanan which can be rectified with a tzuras hapesach (Igros Moshe 2: 90). True, but there he is discussing a complete and full wall - around Seagate. Rav Aharon Kotler clearly held that it is DeOraisah, and in Orech Chaim 2:89 Rav Moshe does not clearly state categorically either way, but he does say that it is Mashma that it is derabanan. Indeed, the fact that Rav Moshe needed to rely on the walls around Seagate indicate that the other "walls" toward the water were not sufficient. I don’t fault anyone for not realizing this fact since recently, when the new Brooklyn eruvin were established, the fact that Brooklyn is encompassed by mechitzos, was discounted by the anti-eruv group with this false claim — that Rav Moshe maintains that the mechitzos are not sufficient because of gaps of ten amos. Unfortunately for them, they didn’t realize the above mentioned teshuvah where Rav Moshe stated that gaps of ten amos only negate me’d’rabbanan. Again, this is a mischaracterization. He writes that it is Mashma that way. This is not a categorical declaration that he rules like the Achronim that say it is Derabanan and not DeOraisa.
2) Rabbi Hoffman wrote: Rabbi Pultman writes, “The fact is that the overwhelming majority of Rishonim do maintain that we can rely on shishim ribbo.” Actually, the Mishnah Berurah in the Biur Halachah (O.C. 345) lines up the opinions: Those that would hold our streets would not be a reshus ha’rabbim are the Bahag, Rashi, SmaG, SMaK, Sefer HaTerumah, Rabbeinu Meir, Rokeach, Tosefos, Rarash, Rosh, Or Zarua, and Tur. The opinions add up to 12. His list of the Rishonim that would hold our streets to be a reshus ha’rabbim are the Rambam, Rabbeinu Tam, Ramban, Rashba, Ritva, Raham, Ran, Mordechai, Rashbam, Rabbi Eliezer MiMitz, Rivash, Meiri, and the Beis Yosef. These add up to 13. This is not an “overwhelming majority,” but a 12–13 minority according to the Mishnah Berurah.
This argument regarding the tally of Rishonim on either side of the aisle did not start with the Mishnah Berurah, but with the Mishkenos Yaakov whom the Mishnah Berurah is citing. There was a famous debate between the Mishkenos Yaakov (O.C. 120) and the Bais Ephraim (O.C. 26) regarding the tally of Rishonim who pasken whether or not shishim ribo is a fundament of a reshus harabbim. The Mishkenos Yaakov sent a lengthy teshuvah to the Bais Ephraim arguing that the Taz (345:6) and Magen Avraham (345:7) were incorrect in their assumption that most Rishonim maintain that shishim ribo is a criterion of reshus harabbim since most Rishonim actually upheld otherwise. The Bais Ephraim replied that one cannot argue against the accepted minhag established by the Chachmei Tzarfas and Ashkenaz and that he disagrees with the Mishkenos Yaakov’s tally of Rishonim. The Bais Ephraim went on to argue his case and proved that the Taz and Magen Avraham were correct. The Aruch HaShulchan (345:17) added that some of the Rishonim whom the Mishkenos Yaakov cited were not yet published in the times of the Taz and Magen Avraham, and therefore, they didn’t have the actual count of Rishonim who paskened against the criterion of shishim ribo.
With this in mind, the reckoning of all the newly published Rishonim proves that the overwhelming majority of Gaonim and Rishonim maintain that shishim ribo is a fundament of a reshus harabbim: 1) Bahag, (Berlin edition) p. 131. 2) Rav Natronai Gaon, Sharei Teshuvah, siman 209. 3) Rav Amram Gaon, Halachos Pesukos, siman 70. 4) Sar Shalom Gaon, Chemdah Genuzah, siman 70. 5) Rav Hai Gaon, Otzar HaGaonim Shabbos 6a. 6) Rashi, Eruvin 6a, 6b, 26a, 59a, 47a. 7) Tosfos, Eruvin 6a, 26a, 59a, and Shabbos 6b, 64b. 8) HaEshkol, Hilchos Tzitzis ois 31 and Hilchos Eruvin ois 64. 9) Sefer HaTrumah, 64:214, 72:239. 10) Semag, Hilchos Shabbos p. 17. 11) Sefer Ha’itim, ois 92, 206, 209. 12) Ra’avan, Shabbos 349. 13) Piskei HaRid, Eruvin 6a, 59a, Pesachim 69a. 14) Rokeach, Hilchos Shabbos 175. 15) Ravyah, Hilchos Eruvin 379, 391. 16) Riaz, Eruvin Perek 1:5, 5:5. 17) HaAgudah, Perek 5:56. 18) Rivevan, Eruvin 6b, 59a. 19) HaAgur, siman 537. 20) Piskei Rabeinu Mendel Kloizner (Ramak), Shabbos 6a. 21) Rabeinu Yerucham, Toldot Adom V’Chavah 12:4, 12:17. 22) Or Zarua, Hilchos Shabbos siman 16, Eruvin 129. 23) Maharam MeRotenberg, siman 31, Eruvin ois 9, 10. 24) Smak, Mitzvos Hatluyos Ba’aretz p. 296, 299. 25) Tsedah LaDerech, Perek 42, 46. 26) Machzor Vitri, Perek B'mah Isha, ois 31, 32. 27) Haitur, Hilchos Tzitzis, Shaar 3 Shaar Adom Chelek 1. 28) Rosh, Beitzah 24a, Eruvin 6a (see also Kitzur Piskei HaRosh, Perek 1:8). 29) Hagahos Ashri, Eruvin 6a, 20b. 30) Sefer HaNeyar, Hilchos Eruvin p. 51. 31) Hagahos Maimonios, Eruvin Perek 5:2, 5:4. 32) Mordechai, Shabbos 64b, 100a. 33) Orchos Chaim, Hilchos Shabbos ois 284. 34) Tur, O.C. 345, 364, 392. Additionally, the Bais Ephraim would disagree with some of the Rishonim (Rabbeinu Tam, Rashbam, Mordechai, Rabbi Eliezer MiMitz, and Beis Yosef) on the Mishnah Berurah’s list as provided by Rabbi Hoffman since he believes that they do maintain shishim ribo is a criterion. The reader should know that Rav Ovadiah Yoseph shlita only disagrees with the Mishna Brurah tally on one Rishon, and therefore has 12-13 to permit. The reader and Rabbi Pultman should be aware that Rav Yoseph Karo himself in his Avkas Rochal rules clearly and unequivocally like the Rambam that reshus harabbims exist with 16 amos streets alone.
Consequentially, by the Mishnah Berurah’s own reckoning — to tally the number of Rishonim on either side of the argument – there is no doubt that he would admit that even a baal nefesh would be able to rely on shishim ribo, since those Rishonim who accept shishim ribo are the overwhelming majority. Here we go again with that "the Mishna Brurah would admit" form of revisionism. The Mishna Brurah knew the TaZ and Magain Avrohom and chose to go with the other authorities. It is presumptuous to assume that had he seem the Bais Ephraim he would have changed his mind. Also, like it or not, the Mishna Brurah's rulings have been accepted by Klal Yisroel as authoritative. It is a negation of the halachic process to undermine his rulings with these revisionistic reassessments. Also, many of these Rishonim are the same ones that the Mishna Brurah read as assuring. It is my feeling that most Poskim would prefer the Mishna Brurah's tally to the Bais Ephraim's tally. More so, the fact that almost all shtetlach had eruvin demonstrates that the minhag has been to rely on shishim ribo as a fundament of a reshus harbbim, and we do not follow the Mishkenos Yaakov/Mishnah Berurah regarding this matter but the Bais Ephraim. The Mishna Brurah did not say that everyone should be machmir. The Mishna Brurah never meant that no eruv should ever be put up. He just said that a Baal nefesh and Yareh Shamayim should be Machmir. As Rav Moshe once said (regarding kosher Eruvs), men should avoid using them, but when it is letzorech such as for women, then they should be used.
3) Rabbi Hoffman wrote: Again, as stated before, the 3 million figure is not accurate per se.
As mentioned above, the 3 million figure is correct and has been attested to by Rav Dovid Feinstein shlita. I have yet to see or hear Reb Dovid Feinstein permit the Brooklyn Eruvin. 3,000,000 is a rough means of estimating 600,000 on the street at any given time. In cold weather it is more in warmer weatehr it is less.
4) Rabbi Hoffman wrote: “Almost all poskim, up until lately, disagreed with Rav Moshe regarding this point” is an extreme statement, and is far from true. As one poseik recently put it: In the Midbar itself, do you think that the shishim ribbo was on one street when they encamped? Obviously they were throughout the encampment.
There were few poskim who maintained that shishim ribo is conditional of a city, that is up until lately. The term "few" may be true, but only because they bothered to fully explicate their understanding of the wording. There could have been many many Achronim that learned this way too, but did not bother to explain their position because that is how they naturally read the wording of the Shulchan Aruch. These Poskim all of course preceded Rav Moshe. I also challenge Rabbi Pultman to point to one street in old Yerushalayim that could have contained 600,000 people travelling at one time. A compelling case can be made for Rav Moshe's reading. The Divrei Malkiel (4:3) stated when writing to the people erecting an eruv in the city of Odessa, which had approximately shishim ribo, that, “the minhag is to erect eruvin even in the largest cities, and it does not concern us that they have shishim ribo since the shishim ribo is dispersed over all the streets.” New York’s population in 1905 was much more than shishim ribo, and the rabbanim who were involved with the eruv then relied on the fact that there was no street that had shishim ribo traversing it (Oznei Yehoshua, 1:18 and Tirosh VaYitzhar, siman 73). Rabbi Pultman forgets that Rav moshe's point is that they had to be outside at the same time. This is one of the reasons why, in Eretz Yisroel, eruvin are maintained in Yerushalayim and in the Gush Dan [Bnei Brak with all the interconnected neighborhoods] even though these regions have shishim ribo, as well (Rav Yisroel Yaakov Fisher zt”l in Even Yisroel, 8:36 and Kinyan Torah, 4:40). These are some of the additional poskim who maintain that shishim ribo is dependent on the street: Pnei Yehoshua, Shabbos 5b; Bais Meir, Shabbos 5b; Bais Yaakov, Eruvin 6a; Yad Dovid, Eruvin 55a; Bais Ephraim, p. 46; Mishkenos Yaakov, p. 126; Chiddushi Harim, siman 4; Yeshuos Malko, siman 27; Mishnah Berurah, Shaar HaTzion, 345:25 [the Mishnah Berurah indicates this by the usage of the phrase, “derech hamavoi hamefulash,” — it is important to note, the Mishnah Berurah’s (345:24) primary issue is whether the shishim ribo are required to traverse the street every day of the year or whether occasional use of the street by 600,000 people would be sufficient; see also Toldos Shmuel, 3:86:10]; Minchas Elazar, 3:4; Bais Av, 2:5:2; Maharshag, siman 26; Chazon Ish, 107:6; Mahari Stief, siman 68; V’yaan Yoseph, 131:1, 155:1, 195:2; Divrei Yatziv, 173:4; Rav Shmuel Wosner shlita in Shevet HaLevi, 6:41; Rav Elyashuv shlita, as cited in the sefer Yashiv Moshe p. 58; Rav Yechezkel Roth shlita, in Emek HaTeshuvah 5:19; (See also the sheilah to the Chacham Tzvi in siman 37).
More so, the source of the criterion of shishim ribo is the Behag (Baal Halachos Gedolos, Berlin edition p. 131), and he clearly mentions the criterion of shishim ribo as 600,000 people traversing the road itself, and most Rishonim follow suit. Why should we understand the criterion of shishim ribo otherwise, especially when the Shulchan Aruch maintains that the requirement is conditional on the street (shishim ribo ovrim bo)? Additionally, according to those who argue that shishim ribo is conditional on the amount of people residing in the city, shouldn’t the Shulchan Aruch have stated that the criterion is that 600,000 people need to live in the city? Instead, the Shulchan Aruch wrote that the criterion is that 600,000 people traverse the street. Shouldn’t the Shulchan Aruch have elucidated how we classify the area of a city? Instead, the Shulchan Aruch refers to a street. Rabbi Pultman has not understood Rav Moshe. Rav Moshe read the word "street" in that Shulchan Aruch as a reference to all the streets in the city as in, "He grew up on the street" and not to one particular street.
The fact that Rabbi Hoffman cites a contemporary posek’s claim that it makes more sense to include the entire diglei hamidbar does not prove anything. I am not referring to the most recent poskim, but only to the poskim of yesteryear. After the Manhattan eruv saga there are those who have set forth this posek’s argument to buttress Rav Moshe’s chiddush. No Rishon or Achron ever suggested Rav Moshe’s chiddushim of 3 million over a twelve mil by twelve mil area, and Rav Moshe admitted that these are chiddushim that are not mentioned in any of the poskim. It’s ironic that some, in their zeal to defend Rav Moshe’s chiddush, argue that the criterion of shishim ribo applies to any city whose population is greater than 600,000, when in fact Rav Moshe himself states that this can’t be the case, because there were cities prior to WWII with populations greater than 600,000 that nevertheless erected eruvin (Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:87). Hence Rav Moshe formulated his chiddush of 3 million. Additionally, the posek’s arguments are incorrect. Sure, there were people throughout the encampment, but we only derive the criterion of shishim ribo from Machaneh Levia where all the Yidden congregated to hear Torah from Moshe Rabeinu. Where did this come from? The whole requirement of Shishim Ribo is not even found anywhere in Shas, and yet Rabbi Pultman states categorically that it is learned out from where they gathered at Machaneh Levi. Rashi makes no mention of this. Therefore, it’s a chiddush to argue that the whole domain of the diglei hamidbar should be included in the tally. More so, most Rishonim clearly state that only Machnah Levia was a reshus harabbim.
5) Rabbi Hoffman wrote: Rabbi Pultman writes, “What’s possible is that when the Yiddin were oleh regel, there were 600,000 people traversing the main artery of Yerushalayim.” But if you calculate the figures, you will see that this is impossible; it would require that 416 people walk by during every minute of every hour for 24 hours. The inference from the Midrash that “there were many more people than shishim ribbo in Yerushalayim” actually backs up the contention that it refers to people in all of Yerushalayim, and not on a particular street.
Most Rishonim clearly maintain that the shishim ribo is conditional of the street. This is not necessarily the case. Just because they do not explicate things fully does not mean that they learn that way. Do I have to answer for these Rishonim because some deem it technically impossible? The Shulchan Aruch (345:7) states explicitly that the shishim ribo has to traverse the street itself (shishim ribo ovrim bo). Again, Rav Moshe understood bo to mean the streets of the city as a unit. One cannot argue with someone by quoting the very source that one is interpreting. Do I have to answer for the Shulcahn Aruch because some deem it technically impossible? This argument has never been set forth by any posek in writing. It is obviously a specious argument made to buttress Rav Moshe’s chiddushim, which Rav Moshe never argued himself and would not agree to. Rav Moshe admits that the Shulchan Aruch is referring to an intercity road (sratya) which would require the shishim ribo to traverse the street itself in order to be classified as a reshus harabbim (Igros Moshe, 1:139:5, 4:87, 5:28:16). Consequently, Rav Moshe accepted as a given that it’s possible for 600,000 people to traverse a road itself. In truth, it’s possible that a street such as Times Square would have shishim ribo traversing it daily. Yes, but there was no Times Sqaure in Yerushalayim.
I referred to the Midrash only to illustrate that Yerushalayim contained an enormous number of people. Consequently, there is a possibility that such a large number of people can possibly have supplied a street with shishim ribo. But it didn't. Find the street.
Rabbi Hoffman wrote: “…the Shulchan Aruch and the Behag and those Rishonim who clearly state that the requirement of shishim ribbo is 600,000 people traversing the street itself.” This is a misconstruction.
I would recommend that Rabbi Hoffman peruse all my sources prior to making such a vacuous statement. Again, if someone puts on blinders and chooses to read these sources only in one's own way, then the statement is vacuous. If one is open to the possibility that Rav Moshe read these sources to indicate his position, and one takes in mind that Times Square in old Yerushalayim simply did not exist, then the statement quoted is right on target.
6) Rabbi Hoffman wrote: “In the Rishonim’s days, there were few, if any, cities containing a population of 600,000, and many Rishonim declared that there was no reshus ha’rabbim. Would Rabbi Hoffman say the same about these Rishonim that isn’t it ‘rather strange to state a halachah that has no practical consequence?’” No, because it may have a practical consequence when the city does have a larger number. Fifteenth-century Moscow had over a quarter of a million people, and was growing steadily.
Most Rishonim clearly maintain that there is no reshus harabbim because, as I mentioned above, they require that the shishim ribo traverse the street itself. Consequently, can’t you ask this question on these Rishonim as well? Actually, only after the Seventeenth-century did Moscow first have a population of over a quarter of a million people. However, there were cities that had populations of over 600,000 even in the times of the Gemara, and there were cities that had over a million inhabitants in the times of the Rishonim (see Tertius Chandler, Four Thousand Years of Urban Growth, p. 523-27 passim). Thank you for this source. But unless I missed something, Chandler writes that the first city to exceed 600,000 did not occur until 400 years after the Gemorah in China.
7) Rabbi Hoffman wrote: Rav Moshe clearly distinguished between Queens and Brooklyn and did so to many people who are still alive. Another factor that he gave was in the way Queens communities were incorporated into New York City, one at a time. Quite often Rav Moshe would leave out certain ideas in his Igros Moshe. For example, he has a chidush regarding bishul on Yom Tov that he only alludes to but does not explicity write. Nonetheless, he explained this chidush to my brother-in-law. To categorically state that “it is not possible that Rav Moshe made this statement” does not address a subject matter head-on. Arguing against the existence of quotes that were stated in meetings and that are still remembered by numerous people in many different venues and relying on this to permit a possible issur d’Oraisah does not bode well for supporting these eiruvs. Both Rav Aharon Kotler in his kuntrus and Rav Moshe deal with the idea of a break in a mechitzah invalidating it if it is more than 10 or 16 amos wide, which refutes the statement that “Brooklyn is superior to Queens, since it is encompassed by three mechitzos omed merubeh al ha’parutz.”
I reiterate, Rabbi Hoffman missed my point. There is no doubt that Rav Moshe was under the impression that Kew Garden Hills, a neighborhood in Queens, was unlike a neighborhood in Brooklyn. However, my point was that according to Rav Moshe’s chiddushim in eruvin, there actually is no distinction between a neighborhood in Brooklyn or Queens, and if an eruv can be erected in Kew Garden Hills, an eruv can be established in any neighborhood in Brooklyn. Okay. But according to Rav Moshe himself, it cannot. In other words, if one does not take the totality of a Posaiks thought one can equate the two areas. The fact that according to Rav Moshe’s chiddushim in eruvin there should not be any difference between Brooklyn and Queens has not been lost on those who vociferously oppose an eruv in Brooklyn. Therefore, they have, after the fact, injected these new criteria that Rabbi Hoffman cites into Rav Moshe’s chiddushim. No. People just as smart as the Rabbis behind the Eruv asked Rav Moshe these questions when he was alive. He answered with these explanations. You are choosing to reject them and to say that peopel are injecting them into the Igros Moshe. I, personally, heard these explanations - before the Borough Park Eruv was erected. However, these additional approaches contradict Rav Moshe’s chiddush of twelve mil, and it is therefore impossible that he subscribed to them. Even though he said them and they further explain his position. There is no such precedent for accepting verbal arguments in favor of an explicit teshuvah. Rav Moshe clearly set forth his chiddushim in eruvin in his teshuvos. To argue that we should accept what someone claims Rav Moshe verbally expressed when it would contradict what he had clearly written is a dangerous thing to advocate. If so, maybe Rav Moshe verbally discounted all of his teshuvos and none of them are reliable, chas v’shalom. No, these points back up his position, your points are an attempt to undermine his position, yet you are labelling those that are supporting Rav Moshe as saying that his Teshuvos are unreliable.
Rabbi Hoffman is correct regarding Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l who maintained that a gap of ten amos negates a mechitzah me’d’Oraysa. However, Rabbi Hoffman is clearly incorrect regarding Rav Moshe since he maintains that a gap of ten amos is only d’rabbanan (Igros Moshe 2: 90). What I must emphasize is that if we were to follow Rav Aharon regarding eruvin, no city eruv, big or small, could be erected. According to Rav Aharon, all the eruvin established prior to WWII would not have been halachically feasible. Therefore, it’s clear that we do not follow Rav Aharon regarding eruvin. So we follow neuther the Mishna Brurah nor Rav Moshe nor Rav Aharon, but we do say that had they known what we know they would have agreed with me. More so, because Brooklyn’s mechitzos are situated along the waterfront, it’s possible that an eruv can be established in Brooklyn (but not Queens) even according to Rav Aharon. And again that same revisionism.
Shmuel Pultman
What is most disturbing here is not the halachic positions taken. If one wishes to argue with the Mishna Brurah- one may. If you wish to argue with Rav Moshe then you can. But please, do not engage in this form of revisionism, claiming that they all would have agreed. Intellectual honesty and Kavod for Rabbonim demands that we state their positions accurately. I think everyone knows in their heart of hearts that the Mishna Brurah would still have been Machmir in hilchos Shabbos like the Rambam, regardless of the new sefer that you may have fopund and that if Rav Moshe were alive today, he wopuld not have advocated using the Borough Park Eruv.
One last thought: In recent years there has been a huge surge in r"l youth who have gone off the derech. This did not exist in these communities a mere few years ago. The almost complete absence of "noshrim" in the seventies and eighties and early nineties was even noted by professional sociologists. The situation has now, unfortunately changed. The Chofetz Chaim was once asked by a person who had similar issues on a micro scale within his own family. The Chofetz Chaim opened up a siddur to the Lecha Dodi and pointed to the words, "Ki Hi Mekor HaBracha" - for she is the source of blessing - referring to the Shabbos. Why shouldn't the men at least be stringent in regard to Shabbos and follow the Rambam's position as opposed to Rashi? Why shouldn't they follow the Mishna Brurah's recommendation? If they do, I am sure that Rav Shlomo Alkabetz's words will soon be proven and shefa bracha will once again bless the streets of Borough Park.
