Last night, Mt. Sinai hosted an evening with R. Ben-Zion Wosner, the “rabbinic advisor” of the new Washington Heights Eruv. On the whole the evening was light on the halakhic details of eruvin, but focused more on addressing and mitigating the communal disagreements with the Eruv. The Breuer’s community has long been opposed to the Eruv and there are authorities such as R. Moshe Feinstein who hold that there cannot be an Eruv at all in Manhattan.
R. Wosner was extremely cordial and concilliatory and basically said that the Eruv follows “rov poskim,” and no one has to use the eruv if they don’t want to. R. Wosner continued to appeal to the amorphous “rov poskim” in the question and answer session, but given the circumstances I’m not sure he could have done more. Considering the communal tensions and the diverse educational background of those in attendance, a detailed shiur in Eruvin would not have been well received or appreciated and not entirely appropriate.
In terms of what halakhic content I did hear, I was not always in agreement, but again, his intent was more to quell communal tensions. For example, one woman asked why/how he could rule on the community’s Eruv when other Rabbis in the community would not. R. Wosner responded that like being asked a question in tzitzit, as a rabbinic advisor he could give halakhic advice which is not bound by geography. Although the question raised a serious issue of mara de’atra and local authority, R. Wosner would not have had the time to give a more detailed answer.
All things considered, the shiur went over very well and was extremely well attended for a Monday night. I also think R. Wosner and R. Schnaidman should team up more often, but that’s a different story.
Personally, I will not be using the eruv for reasons which apply to just about every eruv I’ve seen. I did ask R. Wosner one question, but was not impressed with the truncated answer he was forced to give. There is one more Rabbi I wish to consult before I post in detail my thoughts on Eruvin.
(כִּי לֹא מַחְשְׁבוֹתַי מַחְשְׁבוֹתֵיכֶם וְלֹא דַרְכֵיכֶם דְּרָכָי (ישעיהו נה:ח
Recap Of Rabbi Wosner
July 25, 2006 Jewish Law / Halakha
He could have said which Poskim he included in “Rov Ha-Poskim” like he did when quoting the 600,000 position.
He selectively choose when to drop names and when to be vague.
Would you agree the he came across as a smooth operator?
Did anyone question R’ Wosner on this point? If yes, what was his answer?
Can you please elaborate on who is considered the Moreh D?Asra of Washington Heights today?
Meredith – that would have been a followup to my followup, but he was too abrupt to pursue further. Also you’d need to consider that “rov poskim” on one issue could include a different set of “rov poskim” on another.
Lineman – To my knowledge, there is no mara d’atra of Washington Heights. There are Rabbis of shuls whose authority extends only to their membership. Of course, people could consider R. Geli or R. Schachter, but I do not see how either would have such sweeping halkhaic authority in the area.
?Also you’d need to consider that “rov poskim” on one issue could include a different set of “rov poskim” on another.?
Yes, but that is what makes the laws of reshus harbbim unique. Even if one criterion is not met an eruv can be erected l?chtchilah.
It was the mesorah through the ages that shishim ribo is dependent on a single street. 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 biggest of 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). 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).
Lineman – I hope to address some of those issues when I get to posting about eruvin.
I think that there are a great number of poskim who hold like the yesh omrim – to require 600,000. RHS frequently says that he does not understand RMF’s position, nor does he understand the sources RMF draws upon.
KAJ does not hold of RMF’s position with regard to eiruvin. They have some intermediate position that is somewhat hard to ascertain and even harder to get somebody to explain.
I think that R. Wozner’s main point was that many poskim believe that an eiruv can be built. He is confident that they are correct and therefore, it does not bother him that others disagree.
Josh: I’d actually _assume_ that “rov poskim” one one issue is a different set of poskim than the “rov poskim” on a diferent issue. But I don’t think it’s too far a stretch for someone to ask R’ Wosner which “rov poskim” he is relying on for the validity of the WH eiruv, particularly in light of the fact that he must have done extensive research on the “rov” while developing his pesaq.
David: If I remember correctly, KAJ did not hold of eiruvin in Frankfurt, so it makes sense that R’ Feinstein zt”l’s pesaq would not have any impact on their stance (as the Frankfurt community should pre-dates R’ Feinstein’s pesaq).
I don’t recall a woman asking how he could rule on an eiruv when others would not. I believe she asked if he had consulted rabbis from the community such as Rav Gelly and Rav Shechter. His answer was puzzling. As you said his answer was something to the effect that he could give a p’sak din in tzitiz…. I don’t understand why he didn’t simply answer that he did consult with a local athority, R. Schneidman, who is the Rav of Mt. Sinai. It would have made the point that Rabbi Schneidman has just as much a right to take a stand in this community as say Rav Shechter or Rav Gelly or Rabbi Bloch.
It also would have been more direct to her point. I beleive that she was trying to make the point that he is not from the community and that it is therefore inappropriate for him to issue any piskei dinim for an eiruv in this community. By pointing out that he was brought into this whole matter by R. Schneidman both answers her question and undermines the fundamental assumption of her question.
Just my 2 cents.
Comment deleted by request of commenter.
Meredith – The rov poskim whom Rav Wosner shlita is relying on is in actuality the overwhelming majority of Achronim.
The Frankfort eruv controversy had very little to do with halachah. Hence, the lack of clarity today.
Meredith notes one of the frequently-repeated lines about the Breuer’s eruv that since “KAJ did not hold of eiruvin in Frankfurt,” they would not approve of one in Washington Heights.
The reality is, however, that there WAS an eruv in Frankfurt, about which EruvOnline will (hopefully) be posting shortly.
In fact, as Professor Matthias Morgenstern notes in his “From Frankfurt to Jerusalem. Isaac Breuer and the History of the Secession Dispute in Modern Jewish Orthodoxy” (p.223)
“On August 13, 1914, an eruv was applied to the Jews of Frankfurt.”
Lineman: If this is indeed the case, then why would R’ Wosner fumble on the answer? It seems straight forward enough. (Not to be read w/ sarcasm. I wasn’t at the meeting, have yet to listen to the online shiur, and am just curious as to what transpired.)
Menachem: … was the Frankfurt eiruv erected/sanctioned by KAJ? Your cite from Prof. Morgenstern doesn’t clarify KAJ’s stance on the Frankfurt eiruv (although I imagine that it’s covered in the applicable footnote/following sentence).
It’s hard to imagine that the 1914 eiruv was a staple of the Frankfurt community that transplanted itself to WH, since Breuer’s (as a collective) often mentions that there was no eiruv in Frankfurt.
Also, where does 1914 fit in vis-a-vis when the Breuer’s families in WH made their escape from Germany?
Thanks for clarifying.
DELETED – Since you mentioned Ashkenazi sources, I believe that you are referring to that the Sefardim do not accept shishim ribo as a criterion of a reshus harabbim at all. You are not disagreeing with my premise that the Achronim I mention are just expounding on that the mesorah was regarding shishim ribo being conditional of the street.
Actually, the overwhelming majority of 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.
Menachem ? ?The reality is, however, that there WAS an eruv in Frankfurt, about which EruvOnline will (hopefully) be posting shortly.?
Hopefully? I thought that you had more faith in me that. :)
Meredith ? I don?t think this shiur was the venue to get into details.
KAJ of course did not accept the eruv to the extent that they claimed that it didn?t exist.
Just funny – it seems appropriate to have an eiruv in WH that KAJ doesn’t hold like – Mt. Sinai has provided them with the service of being able to pretend that their kehillah is EXACTLY like it was in Frankfort.
R. Wozner doesn’t really recognize local rabbis’ authority. He checked passulled the eiruv in Lower Merion (near Philly). Most Rabbis in that field (such as R Shimon Eider) wouldn’t be willing to come in from out of town and do such a thing.
I’m not sure how much this is a question of local authority. When constructing an eiruv, it is not uncommon to turn to a Rabbi who is a bukki in eiruvin for counsel, regardless of his home base.
Also, so far as “local authority” goes, there is no single morah d’asrah of WH that could (or should) have been asked for reshus to construct an eiruv. The community has a divided demographic, with each demographic having their Rov/Rebbeim.
KAJ allows certain eiruvin in WH: 50 Overlook, 10 Overlook, 121 Bennett, 44 Bennett, etc. All of these would be passul according to RMF.
Rav Moshe must also agree with the criterion of shishim ribo, since he uses it as a basis for saying Manhattan is a reshut harabbim deorayta. He just has a creative twist on it.
Ben – Rav Moshe did maintain that shishim ribo is a criterion of reshus harabbim, but he had a twist on how to apply it. However, he did not classify Manhattan as a reshus harabbim because of shishim ribo since it was encompassed by mechitzos. He had ancillary reasons for objecting to the Manhattan eruv.