Say what you will, no one can argue “legal fiction” for this one:


Reposted from last year with better redaction on the image.

Last Saturday night I gave a class as part of the Jewish LES discussion series on the very topic of “Halakhic Ramifications of Eruv Disputes.” Most of the class was an abbreviation of my earlier three part series on eruvin in general.

The issue of eruv on the Lower East Side is particularly contentious. R. Moshe Feinstein, a preeminent decisor of Jewish Law, used to live on the Lower East Side and his son and many students of his still do so. R. Feinstein was particularly strict in prohibiting the construction on any eruv in Manhattan for reasons too complicated to discuss here, and it is allegedly out of allegiance to R. Feinstein’s position on eruv which has precluded its construction to this day.

However, R. Moshe Feinstein has another fascinating responsa regarding the opposition of eruvin in Manhattan, though in conversation it is rarely quoted by his most ardent followers. In response to the question if one ought to protest constructing eruvin in Manhattan, R. Feinstein states that while he personally cannot endorse it, one should not oppose it either since the positions allowing its construction are still legitimate. By all accounts this ought to be considered a very reasonable, respectful position and were it stated 30 years later might even be classified as “pluralistic.”

Here is the responsa in the original with my translation, for which I assume responsibility for errors.

Regarding the “Kol Korei” issue see this wonderful post form Eruv Online.

Since I moved down to the Lower East Side I have received more questions on Eiruvin than anything else. From conversations with many Jewish residents in the area – both members and non-members of my congregation – there is a great deal of interest and desire to have an eiruv erected on the Lower East Side. Setting aside the economic and political obstacles of putting up and eiruv down here, I decided that the best thing to do is simply to teach the basics of eiruvin in terms of how they work in halakha.
The intent of these shiurim is not to get people to the level of pesak and as such we did not explore the vast teshuva literature on the subject. Rather the goal was to provide working definitions and explain the laws and principles underlying the various halakhic disputes. Most sources are from the Talmud, Rambam, and Shulhan Aruch.
I decided to split this shiur into three parts:

1. Part 1 introduces the reshuyot and the basic definitions of eiruvin, and demonstrates that halakha views eiruvin positively and that putting one up is considered to be a Good Thing.
2. Part 2 covers the physical construction of the eiruv – the lehi, korah, and mostly the tzurat hapetach, explaining their halakhic function.
3. Part 3 discusses the conceptual requirement of getting all residents in an area to join an eiruv, as well as several solutions to the problem of getting Jews to agree on anything.

All three shiurim have been added to YUTOPIA’s Source Sheet Archive.
As always, comments and corrections/suggestions are welcome!

I’ve been getting some requests to respond to some comments made by my teacher, R. Moshe Tendler as reported in today’s NYPost. For this latest YU controversy, the Post reports that one of YU’s faculty members recently underwent a sex-change operation:

Last Sunday was the Jewish fast day of Shiva Assar B’Tammuz – the 17th day of the month of Tammuz. In addition to being a fast day, the 17th of Tammuz also marks the beginning of The Three Weeks of mourning leading up to the fast of Tish’a B’av. For these three weeks and the final nine days Jews generally accept some practices of mourning. However, there is much confusion as to what actions are prohibited when.¹ Every year around this time I get a slew of questions as to what is permitted and prohibited during the three weeks and nine days and for some reason I never got around to posting my responses. To correct this oversight, here is my understanding of the laws and customs of the three weeks and nine days.

One of the highlights of being in R. Moshe Tendler’s shiur is his annual pre-pesach shiur in which R. Tendler discusses haggadah and some of the halakhot of pesach. I was able to pop in on the first day of the shiur, in which R. Tendler discussed his critiques of how mechirat hametz is often conducted as well as his own alternatives.

The Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) and the Bet Din of America (BDA) recently announced an overhaul in its policies regarding Jewish conversions by drafting the Geirus Policies and Standards (GPS). This move was largely to placate the Israeli Rabbinate (Rabbanut) which last year openly challenged the halakhic validity of RCA/BDA conversions. These new guidelines were developed in conjunction with the Rabbanut, presumably with the understanding that any conversion which follows the RCA/BDA polices will be readily accepted in Israel as well.

Though instigated by the Israeli Rabbinate, the GPS will drastically reshape how conversions are processed in America. In addition to some guidelines for the conversions themselves, the most significant innovation of the RCA/BDA is the organizational consolidation of regional Batei Din with the intent of establishing objective standards throughout the nation. But as is the case with many “solutions,” the new RCA/BDA policies solve some problems while creating others.