Community Eruv: Key Points

,”havzgc C THE

OMMUNITYE RUV

A Discussion of the Halachic Issues Regarding Eruvin in Brooklyn Including Hagaon Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l’s Approach to Eruvin

PUBLISHED BY: Vaad L’Tikkun Eruvin of Greater Flatbush Brooklyn, NY Shevat 5765 ȱ 28ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ SECTIONȱIȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ T HE C OMMUNITY E RUV A Discussion of the Halachic Issues Regarding Eruvin in Brooklyn

Preface ...... 3 Letter of Approbation and Supervision for the Eruv...... 4 Boundary Map of the Flatbush Eruv...... 6 Introduction ...... 7

SECTION I / Hilchos Eruvin According to Most Poskim Where We May Carry on Shabbos ...... 11 What Is a Reshus HaYachid ...... 13 What Is a Tzuras HaPesach...... 14 What Is a Reshus HaRabbim...... 16 Why Brooklyn Is Not a Reshus HaRabbim ...... 21 A Summary of the Halachic Issues According to Most Poskim ...... 26

SECTION II / Hilchos Eruvin According to Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l Hagaon Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l’s Approach to Eruvin...... 29 Are There Three Million People in Brooklyn...... 34 Does the Eruv Encompass Shishim Ribuy ...... 37 Is Brooklyn Enclosed by Mechitzos ...... 39 A Summary of the Halachic Issues According to Rav Moshe Feinstein zt"l ...... 43

SECTION III / Other Issues Regarding Eruvin Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l Respected the Halachic Opinions of Other Poskim...... 47 Comparing Eruvin With Other D’Oraysas...... 52 Shalom and Machlokes ...... 53 The Mitzvah and Obligation of Eruvin...... 53 A Summary of Various Issues Concerning Eruvin...... 57

SECTION IV / The Mechitzos Encircling Brooklyn Kuntres HaMechitzos ...... 61

Appendices...... 67 The Community Eruv: Key Points ...... 90 Hebrew Approbations Asȱaȱcommunityȱeruv,ȱweȱwelcome yourȱparticipationȱandȱsupport.ȱȱ Pleaseȱdirectȱallȱinquiriesȱto:ȱȱȱ ȱ VaadȱL’TikkunȱEruvinȱȱ ofȱGreaterȱFaltbushȱ 1080ȱMcDonaldȱAvenueȱ Unitȱ226ȱ Brooklyn,ȱNYȱ11230ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ PREFACEȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ3ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Prefaceȱ PREFACEȱ Inȱ honorȱ ofȱ theȱ establishmentȱ ofȱ theȱ newȱ Flatbushȱ eruv,ȱ weȱ areȱ pleasedȱ toȱ presentȱ thisȱ overviewȱ ofȱ theȱ pertinentȱ halachicȱ issuesȱ regardingȱ eruvinȱ inȱ Brooklyn.ȱȱFlatbushȱhasȱnowȱjoinedȱtheȱlistȱofȱcommunities,ȱpastȱandȱpresent,ȱ whichȱhaveȱsoughtȱtoȱenhanceȱtheȱsanctityȱofȱtheȱShabbosȱandȱincreaseȱtheȱ onegȱShabbosȱofȱtheȱcommunityȱwithȱtheȱconstructionȱofȱanȱeruv.ȱȱȱ ȱ TheȱworldȬrenownedȱhalachicȱauthoritiesȱRavȱFischelȱHershkowitsȱshlitaȱandȱ RavȱYechezkelȱRothȱshlita,ȱtogetherȱwithȱmanyȱGedoleiȱHaPoskimȱinȱAmericaȱ andȱ acrossȱ theȱ globe,ȱ haveȱ paskenedȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ bothȱ permissibleȱ andȱ aȱ greatȱ mitzvahȱtoȱerectȱanȱeruvȱinȱBrooklyn.ȱȱInȱlightȱofȱthisȱandȱinȱrecognitionȱofȱtheȱ vitalȱ roleȱ anȱ eruvȱ wouldȱ playȱ inȱ eliminatingȱ inadvertentȱ chilulȱ Shabbos,ȱ aȱ numberȱofȱrabbanimȱfromȱtheȱcommunityȱconvenedȱtoȱdiscussȱtheȱpossibilityȱ ofȱconstructingȱanȱeruvȱinȱFlatbush.ȱȱAtȱthatȱtime,ȱtheyȱresolvedȱtoȱestablishȱ anȱeruvȱandȱtoȱbringȱinȱaȱworldȬrenownedȱexpertȱinȱhilchosȱeruvin,ȱRavȱBenȱ TzionȱWoznerȱshlita,ȱtoȱoverseeȱtheȱkashrusȱofȱtheȱeruv.ȱ ȱ Weȱhaveȱgoneȱtoȱgreatȱlengthsȱtoȱensureȱthatȱourȱeruvȱmaintainsȱtheȱhighestȱ halachicȱstandardsȱandȱthatȱitȱbeȱacceptableȱl’mehadrinȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱvastȱ majorityȱofȱposkimȱincludingȱHaGaonȱRavȱMosheȱFeinsteinȱzt”l.ȱȱȱ ȱ

Inȱthisȱoverviewȱweȱintendȱtoȱanalyzeȱtheȱpertinentȱhalachicȱissuesȱ ȱinȱaȱconciseȱ andȱaccessibleȱmannerȱinȱorderȱtoȱclarifyȱanyȱmisinformationȱandȱconfusionȱyouȱ mayȱhaveȱaboutȱtheȱeruv.ȱȱWeȱhopeȱthatȱafterȱreadingȱthisȱoverviewȱwithȱanȱopenȱ mind,ȱyouȱwillȱrecognizeȱthatȱthereȱisȱaȱstrongȱhalachicȱfoundationȱuponȱwhichȱtoȱ baseȱanȱeruvȱinȱBrooklyn.ȱȱAtȱtheȱoutset,ȱhowever,ȱweȱwouldȱlikeȱtoȱclarifyȱthatȱ thisȱintroductionȱtoȱeruvinȱshouldȱnotȱbeȱusedȱasȱtheȱfinalȱwordȱonȱtheȱmatterȱasȱ weȱstronglyȱadvocateȱthatȱyouȱfollowȱtheȱp’sakȱofȱyourȱownȱrav.ȱ

ȱ InȱHalichosȱShlomoȱ (Hilchosȱ Tefillin,ȱ simanȱ 31:95),ȱRavȱShlomoȱZalmanȱAuerbachȱzt”lȱisȱ citedȱasȱstatingȱthatȱif,ȱafterȱlearningȱaȱtopicȱwell,ȱanȱindividualȱstillȱfeelsȱthereȱisȱ reasonȱ toȱ beȱ stringent,ȱ atȱ thatȱ pointȱ heȱ hasȱ aȱ rightȱ toȱ beȱ stringent.ȱȱHowever,ȱ ifȱ someoneȱ hasȱ aȱ propensityȱ toȱ beȱ stringentȱ withoutȱ understandingȱ theȱ reasoningȱ behindȱ theȱ issue,ȱ heȱ willȱ endȱ upȱ beingȱ stringentȱ inȱ trivialȱ issuesȱ andȱ lenientȱ inȱ importantȱ ones.ȱȱThisȱ isȱ illustratedȱ byȱ theȱ followingȱ story.ȱȱOneȱ Shabbos,ȱ Ravȱ ShlomoȱZalmanȱsawȱaȱfatherȱandȱsonȱinȱtheȱstreet.ȱȱTheȱfatherȱwasȱcarryingȱaȱchairȱ butȱtheȱsonȱwasȱemptyȬhanded.ȱȱThisȱbotheredȱRavȱShlomoȱZalmanȱaȱgreatȱdealȱ andȱheȱcommentedȱonȱhowȱsomeoneȱwhoȱwasȱobviouslyȱbeingȱstringentȱinȱhilchosȱ eruvinȱbyȱnotȱcarryingȱwasȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱdiminishingȱtheȱmitzvahȱofȱkibbudȱav.ȱ ȱ 4ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ APPROBATIONȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Rabbi Benzion Y. Wosner xpf`e ield awri oeiv oa Rosh Beis Din Shevet Halevi ÈÂÏ‰ Ë·˘ ‰‡¯Â‰ ˙È·Â ı"„·„ „"·‡ Monsey - Beit Shemesh ˘Ó˘ ˙È· - ÈÒ‡Ó .°"¥ "ª²³ "È˙¯Ó˘Ó ˙‡ Ì˙¯Ó˘Â" 'ª¥ °"²« ³"¢«

LetterȱofȱSupervisionȱ ȱ ȱ Iȱ wasȱ askedȱ byȱ Rabbisȱ ofȱ Flatbush,ȱ BrooklynȱȰȱincludedȱ inȱ thisȱ groupȱ wereȱ leadersȱ ofȱ shuls,ȱ headsȱ ofȱ yeshivosȱ andȱ knowledgeableȱ andȱ prominentȱ RabbanimȱȰȱtoȱ expressȱ myȱ opinionȱ onȱ theȱ eruvȱ theyȱ areȱ erectingȱinȱtheirȱneighborhoodȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱcustomȱofȱourȱforefathersȱ andȱRabbisȱfromȱtimeȱimmemorialȱallȱoverȱtheȱworld.ȱȱAfterȱrepeated,ȱinȱ depth,ȱ andȱ allȱ encompassingȱ investigations,ȱ Iȱ findȱ thatȱ theyȱ haveȱ successfullyȱ accomplishedȱ Hashem’sȱ wishȱ toȱ erectȱ anȱ eruvȱ ofȱ veryȱ highȱ standards,ȱthatȱisȱprimarilyȱreliantȱonȱrealȱmechitzosȱ[actualȱdividers]ȱandȱ mechitzosȱwithinȱmechitzosȱthatȱsurroundȱtheȱareaȱonȱfourȱsides.ȱȱBecauseȱ ofȱthisȱandȱotherȱreasons,ȱasȱweȱexplainȱinȱourȱresponsum,ȱtheȱareaȱwhichȱ alsoȱ includesȱ Oceanȱ Parkwayȱ doesȱ notȱ comeȱ closeȱ toȱ satisfyingȱ theȱ requirementsȱ ofȱ aȱ reshusȱ harabbim.ȱȱInȱ thoseȱ fewȱ placesȱ whereȱ thereȱ areȱ openingsȱinȱtheȱsurroundingȱmechitzos,ȱtheyȱareȱclosedȱbyȱtheȱuseȱofȱwellȬ designedȱ tzurasȱ hapesachimȱ suchȱ thatȱ inȱ conjunctionȱ withȱ everythingȱ previouslyȱ saidȱ thisȱ eruvȱ isȱ kosherȱ accordingȱ toȱ theȱ viewȱ ofȱ allȱ halachicȱ authorities,ȱ includingȱ theȱ Rambam,ȱ Baisȱ Yosefȱ andȱ allȱ theȱ mastersȱ ofȱ theȱ Shulchanȱ Aruch.ȱȱThisȱ eruvȱ isȱ basedȱ onȱ theȱ sameȱfundamentalȱprinciplesȱ weȱ usedȱ toȱ constructȱ anȱ eruvȱ inȱ Chicago,ȱ Denver,ȱ Caracas,ȱ andȱ otherȱ places.ȱȱTheȱdetailsȱandȱtheȱattributesȱofȱthoseȱeruvinȱcanȱbeȱfoundȱinȱtheȱ ShevetȱHaLeviȱ(8:97,ȱ8:177).ȱ ȱ Now,ȱ afterȱ theȱ appointmentȱ ofȱ aȱ qualifiedȱ mashgiachȱ whoȱ isȱ aȱ talmudȱ chachamȱ andȱ yireiȱ shamayimȱ toȱ beȱ theȱ regularȱ overseerȱ ofȱ theȱ eruv;ȱ theȱ rentingȱofȱtheȱareaȱfromȱtheȱauthorities;ȱandȱtheȱhanachasȱhapas,ȱIȱwouldȱ likeȱ toȱ publiclyȱ announceȱ thatȱ theȱ Flatbushȱ eruvȱ isȱ kosherȱ forȱ allȱ withoutȱ question.ȱȱIȱ happilyȱ joinȱ theȱ leadersȱ ofȱ theȱ cityȱ toȱ praiseȱ andȱ assistȱthemȱinȱtheirȱhalachicȱobligationȱofȱconstructingȱanȱeruv.ȱȱBasedȱonȱ theȱGemaraȱEruvinȱ(68a),ȱtheȱsagesȱofȱallȱgenerationsȱestablishedȱthatȱonlyȱ throughȱ aȱ cityȱ eruvȱ willȱ theȱ publicȱ ceaseȱ theȱ desecrationȱ ofȱ carryingȱ onȱ Shabbosȱ(ChasamȱSofer,ȱO.C.ȱ99).ȱȱInȱaddition,ȱtheȱeruvȱaffordsȱtheȱopportunityȱ toȱ fulfillȱ theȱ mitzvahȱ ofȱ onegȱ Shabbosȱ becauseȱ theȱ publicȱ isȱ nowȱ ableȱ toȱ

ȱ ȱ APPROBATIONȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ5ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ strollȱ onȱ Shabbosȱ andȱ bringȱ neededȱ itemsȱ throughȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ eruvȱ (Perishah,ȱ395).ȱȱȱ ȱ Toȱthoseȱwhoȱhaveȱerectedȱthisȱpreciousȱeruv,ȱIȱsayȱbeȱstrongȱandȱdoȱnotȱ beȱfrightened.ȱȱWeȱhaveȱonȱourȱsideȱtheȱliteralȱmeaningȱofȱtheȱShulchanȱ Aruchȱandȱmostȱposkim.ȱȱIfȱsomeȱdecideȱtoȱchallengeȱtheȱeruv,ȱifȱtheyȱargueȱ aboutȱ theȱ fundamentalȱ kashrusȱ ofȱ theȱ eruvȱ basedȱ onȱ acceptedȱ halachah,ȱ considerȱ theirȱ arguments.ȱȱButȱ ifȱ theyȱ comeȱ withȱ new,ȱ nonȬhalachic,ȱ objectionsȱ thatȱ wereȱ notȱ raisedȱ byȱ previousȱ poskimȱ basedȱ onȱ whatȱ theyȱ perceiveȱareȱdetrimentalȱconsequencesȱofȱmakingȱanȱeruv,ȱdoȱnotȱlistenȱtoȱ them.ȱȱTheȱsalvationȱofȱtensȱofȱthousandsȱofȱJewsȱfromȱtheȱprohibitionȱofȱ carryingȱ everyȱ Shabbosȱ outweighsȱ anythingȱ thatȱ mayȱ causeȱ themȱ concern.ȱȱInȱ general,ȱ peopleȱ cannotȱ suddenlyȱ riseȱ upȱ andȱ challengeȱ theȱ greatȱ mitzvahȱ ofȱ eruvȱ forȱ whichȱ ourȱ forefathersȱ andȱ Rabbisȱ riskedȱ theirȱ lives.ȱȱWeȱseeȱthisȱfromȱtheȱflamingȱwordsȱspokenȱbyȱtheȱRoshȱ (kellalȱ 21:8)ȱ againstȱaȱlearnedȱpersonȱwhoȱopposedȱmakingȱanȱeruvȱinȱcities.ȱȱWeȱfindȱ similarȱreactionsȱfromȱtheȱTashbetzȱ(2:37)ȱandȱtheȱChasamȱSoferȱ(O.C.ȱ99).ȱ ȱ “Forȱ theȱ sakeȱ ofȱ myȱbrothersȱandȱcompanionsȱIȱwillȱsay:ȱPeaceȱbeȱwithȱ you.”ȱȱMayȱHashemȱgrantȱallȱtheȱrespectedȱresidentsȱandȱleadersȱofȱtheȱ area,ȱalongȱwithȱthoseȱresponsibleȱforȱestablishingȱandȱbuildingȱtheȱeruv,ȱ theȱ meritȱ toȱ increaseȱ peaceȱ inȱ theȱ world.ȱȱAsȱ Chazalȱ says,ȱ ”Doȱ notȱ pronounceȱ[theȱwordȱas]ȱbanayichȱ[children],ȱbutȱ[pronounceȱit]ȱbonayichȱ [builders].”ȱȱ“Letȱ thereȱ beȱ peaceȱ withinȱ yourȱ ramparts,ȱ serenityȱ withinȱ yourȱ palaces.”ȱȱAsȱ itȱ isȱ statedȱ inȱ theȱ Yerushalmiȱ (Eruvin,ȱ 3:2),ȱ theȱ establishmentȱofȱeruvinȱincreasesȱpeaceȱinȱtheȱworldȱ²"£¥.ȱȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ OtherȱapprobationsȱareȱinȱtheȱHebrewȱsection.ȱȱSeeȱalsoȱAppendixȱ12ȱ (pageȱ 83)ȱ forȱ aȱ listȱ ofȱ moreȱ thanȱ 100ȱ rabbanimȱ whoȱ maintainedȱ thatȱ Brooklynȱisȱnotȱaȱreshusȱharabbimȱandȱconsequentlyȱanȱeruvȱcouldȱbeȱ erected.ȱ ȱ 6ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ MAPȱOFȱTHEȱERUVȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ INTRODUCTIONȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ7ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Introductionȱ INTRODUCTIONȱ ȱ Sinceȱ theȱ timesȱ ofȱ Shlomoȱ HaMelech,ȱ citiesȱ wereȱ fortifiedȱ withȱ wallsȱ thatȱqualifiedȱasȱeruvin.ȱȱAlthoughȱtheseȱwallsȱatȱtimesȱhadȱbreaches,ȱtheȱ breaksȱwereȱsmallȱandȱrectifiable.ȱȱRelyingȱonȱcityȱwallsȱforȱtheȱpurposeȱ ofȱ eruvinȱ (seeȱ forȱ instanceȱ Chachamȱ Tzvi,ȱ simanȱ 5)ȱ wasȱ aȱ practiceȱ thatȱ continuedȱ wellȱ intoȱ theȱ 17thȱ centuryȱ atȱ whichȱ timeȱ practicallyȱ allȱ theȱ Jewishȱ citizenryȱlivedȱonȱtheȱJudengasse.ȱȱTheȱJudengasseȱusuallyȱconsistedȱofȱaȱ fewȱ streetsȱ thatȱ wereȱ sealedȱ withȱ doors,ȱ whichȱ unintentionallyȱ eliminatedȱtheȱneedȱtoȱrectifyȱanyȱbreaksȱinȱtheȱcity’sȱwallsȱbecauseȱtheȱ boundariesȱofȱtheȱJewishȱneighborhoodȱwereȱnowȱintact.ȱ ȱ Duringȱtheȱlatterȱpartȱofȱtheȱ17thȱcentury,ȱwhenȱJewsȱwereȱallowedȱtoȱ moveȱoutsideȱthoseȱstreets,ȱcitiesȱhadȱoutgrownȱtheirȱwallsȱandȱnewerȱ citiesȱwereȱbuiltȱwithoutȱwallsȱaltogether.ȱȱForȱtheȱpurposeȱofȱeruvinȱitȱ wasȱnoȱlongerȱaȱgivenȱthatȱcitiesȱwereȱclosedȱandȱthereforeȱmechitzosȱ hadȱtoȱbeȱconstructed.ȱȱItȱwasȱobviouslyȱeasierȱtoȱuseȱnaturalȱwallsȱthatȱ circumscribedȱentireȱcities,ȱsuchȱasȱriverbanksȱandȱcanals,ȱthanȱtoȱerectȱ tzurasȱ hapesachim,ȱ whichȱ wouldȱ haveȱ requiredȱ permissionȱ fromȱ theȱ civilȱ authorities.ȱȱTeshuvosȱ writtenȱ atȱ thatȱ timeȱ addressedȱ theȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ utilizingȱ canalsȱ andȱ riversȱ asȱ theȱ necessaryȱ wallsȱ toȱ encloseȱcitiesȱsuchȱasȱTheȱHagueȱ(ChachamȱTzvi,ȱsimanȱ5ȱandȱOhelȱYaakov,ȱsimanȱ73)ȱ andȱRotterdamȱ (Shevȱ Yaakov,ȱ simanȱ 17ȱ andȱ Shvusȱ Yaakov,ȱ 3:28).ȱȱDuringȱtheȱlatterȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ 19thȱ century,ȱ asȱ telegraph,ȱ telephone,ȱ andȱ electricȱ wiresȱ sprungȱ upȱ allȱ overȱ theȱ countryside,ȱ theyȱ wereȱ incorporatedȱ intoȱ theȱ communityȱeruvȱasȱwellȱ(EitzȱHaChaim,ȱsimanȱ246Ȭ249;ȱMaamerȱMordechai,ȱsimanȱ31,ȱandȱ NefeshȱChayah,ȱsimanȱ34).ȱ ȱ Priorȱ toȱ Worldȱ Warȱ IIȱ almostȱ allȱ citiesȱ withȱ Jewishȱ populationsȱ establishedȱ eruvinȱ includingȱ Vilnaȱ (Mishmeresȱ Sholom,ȱ 24:10)ȱ andȱ Radinȱ (DugmahȱM’DarcheiȱAvi,ȱp.ȱ31).ȱȱInȱtheȱtimesȱofȱRavȱShmuelȱSalantȱzt”lȱtensȱofȱ thousandsȱofȱpeopleȱutilizedȱtheȱeruvȱandȱcarriedȱinȱYerushalayimȱonȱ ȱ 8ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ INTRODUCTIONȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Shabbosȱ (Chazonȱ Ishȱ O.C.ȱ 39:5).ȱȱEvenȱ theȱ followingȱ largeȱ citiesȱ withȱ populationsȱofȱ600,000ȱerectedȱeruvin:ȱWarsawȱ(MishmeresȱSholom,ȱ24:10;ȱDivreiȱ Menachem,ȱ O.C.ȱ vol.ȱ 2,ȱ pp.ȱ 42Ȭ43,ȱ andȱ Rocznikȱ StatystycznyȱWarszawyȱ1921ȱiȱ1922,ȱ1924ȱp.ȱ14),ȱ Lodzȱ(MishmeresȱSholom,ȱ24:10ȱandȱEncyclopediaȱJudaica,ȱ1996ȱvol.ȱ11ȱp.ȱ426),ȱOdessaȱ(Divreiȱ Malkiel,ȱ3:14Ȭ18,ȱ4:3;ȱTikkunȱShabbos,ȱandȱTuvȱYehoshua),ȱManchesterȱ(introductionȱBaisȱAvȱ vol.ȱ 2ȱ andȱ Encyclopediaȱ Britannica,ȱ 1911ȱ vol.ȱ 17ȱ p.ȱ 547),ȱ St.ȱ Louisȱ (Tikvasȱ Zechariahȱ andȱ EncyclopediaȱBritannica,ȱ1911ȱvol.ȱ24ȱp.ȱ24),ȱandȱNewȱYorkȱinȱ1905ȱ(OzneiȱYehoshua,ȱ1:18;ȱ TiroshȱVaYitzhar,ȱsimanȱ73;ȱEruvȱV’Hotzaah,ȱandȱUSȱCensus,ȱ1900).ȱȱȱ ȱ Inȱorderȱtoȱsatisfyȱtheȱcivilȱauthoritiesȱandȱremainȱinconspicuous,ȱtheȱ eruvinȱofȱourȱgrandparents’ȱtimeȱreliedȱonȱexistingȱenclosuresȱsuchȱasȱ riverbanksȱ andȱ telegraphȱ wires.ȱȱAsȱ aȱ resultȱ ofȱ theȱ circumstancesȱ underȱ whichȱ theseȱ eruvinȱ wereȱ constructed,ȱ theȱ poskimȱ usuallyȱ permittedȱmajorȱleniencies.ȱȱAsȱisȱevidentȱfromȱnearlyȱallȱtheȱteshuvosȱ writtenȱaboutȱeruvinȱpriorȱtoȱWorldȱWarȱII,ȱtheȱquestionȱthenȱwasȱnotȱ whetherȱanȱeruvȱwasȱpermissible,ȱonlyȱhowȱtoȱconstructȱone.ȱȱJustȱasȱitȱ wasȱ theȱ responsibilityȱ ofȱ eachȱ ravȱ toȱ insureȱ thatȱ thereȱ beȱ aȱ kosherȱ mikvehȱinȱhisȱcommunityȱitȱwasȱincumbentȱonȱeachȱravȱ ȱtoȱerectȱanȱ eruvȱasȱwellȱ(TeshuvosȱV’Hanhagos,ȱ1:844;ȱseeȱalsoȱChasamȱSofer,ȱO.C.ȱ99).ȱȱIfȱtheȱravȱofȱ theȱcityȱdidȱnotȱerectȱanȱeruv,ȱitȱwasȱnotȱforȱtheȱlackȱofȱeffort;ȱtheȱcivilȱ authoritiesȱdidȱnotȱpermitȱtheȱconstructionȱofȱone.ȱȱȱ ȱ Todayȱ weȱ areȱ fortunateȱ thatȱ weȱ canȱ erectȱ ourȱ ownȱ tzurasȱ hapesachimȱ andȱ toȱ constructȱ eruvinȱ thatȱ areȱ farȱ superiorȱ toȱ theȱ onesȱ thatȱ wereȱ erectedȱinȱtheȱprecedingȱera.ȱȱTheȱnewȱFlatbushȱeruvȱisȱnotȱbasedȱonȱ halachicȱlenienciesȱandȱwouldȱnoȱdoubtȱhaveȱmetȱwithȱtheȱapprovalȱofȱ theȱposkimȱfromȱtheȱpreviousȱgenerations.ȱȱ ȱ Inȱ theȱ meritȱ ofȱ thisȱ greatȱ mitzvahȱmayȱweȱbeȱfoundȱdeservingȱofȱtheȱ specialȱbrachahȱofȱshalomȱthatȱeruvinȱbringsȱ(Yerushalmi,ȱEruvinȱ3:2).ȱ ȱ

ȱ Evenȱ moreȱ so,ȱ theȱ Chemdasȱ Shlomoȱ (p.ȱ 203)ȱ statesȱ thatȱ membersȱ ofȱ theȱ communityȱshouldȱestablishȱanȱeruv.ȱȱTheȱobligationȱisȱtheirsȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱ rav’s.ȱȱȱ ȱ

SECTION I

Hilchos Eruvin According to Most Poskim

ȱ 10ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ INTRODUCTIONȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ SECTIONȱIȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ11ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ SECTIONȱIȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ WhereȱWeȱMayȱCarryȱonȱShabbosȱ ȱ ȱ MinȱhaTorahȱtheȱprohibitionȱagainstȱcarryingȱisȱfromȱaȱreshusȱhayachidȱ [privateȱdomain]ȱtoȱaȱreshusȱharabbimȱ[publicȱdomain]ȱandȱviceȱversaȱ orȱtheȱmovingȱofȱanȱobjectȱfourȱamosȱinȱaȱreshusȱharabbim.ȱ ȱ Chazalȱaddedȱaȱprohibitionȱagainstȱcarryingȱinȱaȱdomainȱknownȱasȱaȱ karmelisȱ[anȱareaȱthatȱcannotȱbeȱclassifiedȱasȱaȱreshusȱhayachid,ȱbecauseȱ itȱdoesȱnotȱhaveȱtheȱrequiredȱmechitzosȱorȱasȱaȱreshusȱharabbim,ȱbecauseȱ itȱ doesȱ notȱ meetȱ theȱ necessaryȱ criteria].ȱȱSinceȱ thereȱ areȱ similaritiesȱ betweenȱ aȱ reshusȱ harabbimȱ andȱ aȱ karmelis,ȱ Chazalȱ prohibitedȱ carryingȱ betweenȱanyȱtwoȱdomainsȱasȱwellȱasȱwithinȱanyȱdomainȱotherȱthenȱaȱ reshusȱhayachidȱitselfȱ1ȱinȱorderȱtoȱpreventȱanyȱinadvertentȱtransgressionȱ

1ȱ Me’d’rabbanan,ȱ evenȱ afterȱ determiningȱ thatȱ aȱ halachicallyȱ enclosedȱ areaȱ isȱ aȱ reshusȱ hayachid,ȱ theȱ abilityȱ toȱ carryȱ thereinȱ isȱ contingentȱ onȱ theȱ residentsȱ formingȱ aȱ unifiedȱ entityȱ orȱ eruveiȱ chatzeiros.ȱ ȱ Sinceȱ thisȱ requirementȱ isȱ me’d’rabbanan,ȱChazalȱwereȱlenientȱandȱonlyȱnecessitatedȱaȱsymbolicȱunifiedȱ ownership.ȱȱDependingȱonȱwhoȱjoinsȱthisȱsymbolicȱpartnership,ȱoneȱorȱtwoȱ methodsȱmustȱbeȱemployed:ȱeruveiȱchatzeirosȱorȱsechirasȱreshus.ȱȱ ȱ Eruveiȱ chatzeiros,ȱ theȱ mergingȱ ofȱ twoȱ orȱ moreȱ courtyardsȱ orȱ apartmentsȱȰȱȱ usedȱwhenȱdealingȱwithȱShomerȱShabbosȱresidentsȱȰȱworksȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱ manner:ȱ Piecesȱ ofȱ breadȱ orȱ matzohȱ thatȱ wereȱ contributedȱ byȱ allȱ thoseȱ residingȱ withinȱ theȱ eruvȱ areȱ placedȱ inȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ enclosedȱ houses,ȱ orȱ alternativelyȱ oneȱ residentȱ mayȱ takeȱ hisȱ ownȱ matzohȱ andȱ grantȱ theȱ otherȱ residentsȱownershipȱofȱitȱ[zechiah].ȱȱTheseȱmethodsȱenableȱusȱtoȱsymbolicallyȱ viewȱallȱtheȱresidentsȱwhoȱresideȱwithinȱthisȱeruvȱasȱhavingȱunitedȱtoȱdwellȱ inȱtheȱhouseȱinȱwhichȱtheȱmatzohȱisȱkeptȱ(TurȱandȱShulchanȱAruch,ȱO.C.ȱ366:1,ȱ7).ȱȱȱ ȱ 12ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ SECTIONȱIȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

Sechirasȱ reshus,ȱ theȱ rentalȱ ofȱ aȱ domainȱȰȱusuallyȱ usedȱ whenȱ dealingȱ withȱ neighborsȱwhoȱareȱnotȱShomreiȱShabbos,ȱeitherȱbecauseȱtheyȱareȱnotȱobservantȱ orȱnotȱJewish.ȱȱThroughȱtheȱsymbolicȱrentalȱfromȱtheȱownersȱofȱdwellingsȱinȱ anȱenclosedȱarea,ȱoneȱcanȱacquireȱtheȱrightȱtoȱcarryȱtherein.ȱȱSoȱtoo,ȱinȱpublicȱ areasȱȰȱsuchȱasȱwhenȱenclosingȱaȱcityȱthatȱhasȱnumerousȱprivateȱresidencesȱ andȱpublicȱstreetsȱȰȱoneȱcanȱacquireȱtheȱrightȱtoȱcarryȱthroughȱtheȱrentalȱofȱ theseȱprivilegesȱfromȱcityȱofficialsȱ(ibid.,ȱ382:1,ȱ391:1).ȱȱ ȱ Relatedȱtoȱtheȱformingȱofȱeruveiȱchatzeirosȱisȱtheȱissueȱofȱbeingȱmocheh.ȱȱSomeȱ claimȱthatȱwhenȱaȱfrumȱyidȱisȱmochehȱitȱdisruptsȱtheȱunityȱneededȱforȱeruveiȱ chatzeiros.ȱȱHoweverȱmostȱposkimȱmaintainȱthatȱthisȱdoesȱnotȱcreateȱaȱproblemȱ (U’Bachartaȱ B’Chaim,ȱ simanȱ 123;ȱ Taanugeiȱ Yisroel,ȱ 2:42:7;iTzitzȱ Eliezer,ȱ 19:17;ȱ Emekȱ HaTeshuvah,ȱ 4:21Ȭ23,ȱandȱKovetzȱOhrȱYisroel,ȱvol.ȱ18,ȱ21).ȱȱAdditionally,ȱsinceȱweȱcontractedȱsechirasȱ reshusȱ fromȱ theȱ cityȱ andȱ stateȱ governments,ȱ evenȱ thoseȱ poskimȱ whoȱ haveȱ aȱ problemȱwithȱsechirasȱreshusȱwhenȱaȱfrumȱyidȱisȱmochehȱwouldȱallowȱcarryingȱ basedȱ onȱ theȱ powerȱ ofȱ eminentȱ domainȱ (Kovetzȱ Ohrȱ Yisroelȱ vol.ȱ 32Ȭ33;ȱ andȱ readȱ carefullyȱDivreiȱYatzivȱ2:173:6).ȱȱ ȱ Besidesȱ forȱ which,ȱ allȱ areȱ inȱ agreementȱ thatȱ regardingȱ eruveiȱ chatzeirosȱ weȱ maintainȱ halachahȱ k’divreiȱ hameikilȱ (Eruvin,ȱ 46a,ȱ 80a).ȱ ȱ Therefore,ȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ reasonȱtoȱacknowledgeȱsomeoneȱwhoȱisȱmochehȱsinceȱthereȱareȱmanyȱreasonsȱ toȱbeȱlenient.ȱȱ[Actually,ȱthereȱareȱmanyȱposkimȱwhoȱpositedȱthatȱweȱpaskenȱ halachahȱ k’divreiȱ hameikilȱ evenȱ inȱ issuesȱ regardingȱ mechitzosȱ (Mordechai,ȱ Eruvinȱ 1:482;ȱ Rosh,ȱ Eruvinȱ 2:4iseeȱ theȱ Gra,ȱ O.C.ȱ 358:5ȱ andȱ theȱ Baisȱ Shlomo,ȱ simanȱ 42;ȱ Maharashȱ Elgazi,ȱ HalichosȱEli,ȱKlaliȱ5ȱOisȱ251icitesȱtheȱRabbeinuȱChananel,ȱRambamȱandȱTosfos;ȱMayimȱRabbim,ȱsimanȱ 36,ȱ38;ȱChachamȱTzvi,isimanȱ59;ȱBachȱHaChadash,ȱKuntrusȱAchronȱsimanȱ3;ȱYeshuasȱYaakov,ȱ363:5;ȱ ChasamȱSofer,ȱ6:82,ȱandȱMaharsham,ȱ4:105,ȱ8:58:5,ȱ9:18).]ȱ ȱ ToȱincludeȱsechirasȱreshusȱamongȱRavȱMosheȱFeinsteinȱzt”l’sȱissuesȱwithȱreshusȱ harabbimȱ isȱ disingenuousȱ becauseȱ theȱ Klausenbergȱ Rebbeȱ zt”lȱ (Divreiȱ Yatziv,ȱ 2:173:5),ȱwhoȱisȱtheȱoneȱwhoȱtookȱissueȱwithȱsechirasȱreshusȱȰȱwhenȱaȱfrumȱyidȱisȱ mochehȱȰȱstatedȱclearlyȱthatȱtodayȱthereȱisȱnoȱreshusȱharabbim.ȱȱSoȱofȱcourseȱhisȱ positionȱonȱtheȱissueȱofȱreshusȱharabbimȱwouldȱbeȱthatȱthereȱisȱnoȱreasonȱtoȱbeȱ mocheh.ȱȱTheseȱ detractorsȱ ofȱ eruvin,ȱ however,ȱ claimȱ thatȱ theyȱ areȱ mochehȱ becauseȱ accordingȱ toȱ theȱ wayȱ theyȱ understandȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ reshusȱ harabbimȱ today;ȱ butȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ neverȱ hadȱ aȱ problemȱ withȱ sechirasȱ reshus.ȱȱ Whenȱ theȱ Manhattanȱ eruvȱ wasȱ establishedȱ aȱ frumȱ yidȱ wasȱ mochehȱ (Divreiȱ Menachem,ȱO.C.ȱvol.ȱ2,ȱp.ȱ95),ȱandȱneitherȱRavȱMosheȱnorȱanyoneȱelseȱhadȱaȱproblemȱ withȱsechirasȱreshusȱinȱthatȱsituation.ȱȱForȱthatȱmatterȱRavȱMosheȱneverȱhadȱaȱ problemȱwithȱsechirasȱreshusȱwhenȱaȱfrumȱyidȱisȱmochehȱ(seeȱalsoȱnoteȱ34ȱandȱ35).ȱ

ȱ ȱ SECTIONȱIȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ13ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ofȱtheȱlawsȱofȱcarryingȱinȱaȱreshusȱharabbimȱ (Shabbos,ȱ 6aȱ seeȱ Rashiȱ adȱ loc.ȱ andȱ ShulchanȱAruch,ȱOrachȱChaimȱ346:1).ȱȱȱ ȱ Sinceȱ theȱ onlyȱ domainȱ inȱ whichȱ carryingȱ remainsȱ permissibleȱ isȱ aȱ reshusȱhayachid,ȱourȱprimaryȱconcernȱwhenȱplanningȱtheȱconstructionȱ ofȱanȱeruvȱisȱthatȱweȱbeȱableȱtoȱclassifyȱtheȱareaȱunderȱconsiderationȱasȱ aȱreshusȱhayachid.ȱȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ WhatȱIsȱaȱReshusȱHaYachidȱ ȱ ȱ TheȱShulchanȱAruchȱ(O.C.ȱ345:2)ȱdefinesȱaȱreshusȱhayachidȱasȱanȱareaȱthatȱisȱ enclosedȱ byȱ wallsȱ [mechitzos]ȱ thatȱ areȱ atȱ leastȱ tenȱ tefachimȱ highȱ andȱ encompassȱ anȱ areaȱ thatȱ isȱ atȱ theȱ minimumȱ fourȱ tefachimȱ byȱ fourȱ tefachim.ȱȱTheseȱmechitzosȱcanȱalsoȱencircleȱanȱareaȱthatȱisȱtenȱtefachimȱ deepȱorȱanȱelevatedȱareaȱthatȱisȱtenȱtefachimȱhigh.ȱȱȱ ȱ Me’d’oraysa,ȱifȱtheȱmechitzosȱonlyȱencloseȱanȱareaȱonȱthreeȱsidesȱtheȱareaȱ isȱstillȱclassifiedȱasȱaȱreshusȱhayachidȱ(TurȱandȱShulchanȱAruch,ȱO.C.ȱ363:1).ȱȱAtȱ theȱminimum,ȱeachȱofȱtheȱthreeȱsidesȱmustȱbeȱomedȱmerubehȱalȱhaparutzȱ [thatȱis,ȱmoreȱthanȱ50ȱpercentȱofȱtheȱlengthȱofȱeachȱsideȱmustȱactuallyȱ consistȱ ofȱ aȱ wall]ȱ forȱ itȱ toȱ beȱ consideredȱ wholeȱ forȱ halachicȱ purposesȱ (ibid.,ȱ362:9Ȭ10,ȱ363:1).2ȱȱȱ

2ȱ Onceȱtheȱwallsȱareȱomedȱmerubehȱalȱhaparutzȱonȱthreeȱsides,ȱnearlyȱallȱposkimȱ maintainȱ thatȱ theȱ multitudesȱ [rabbim]ȱ doȱ notȱ negateȱ theȱ enclosure,ȱ loȱ asuȱ rabbimȱu’mevatleiȱmechitztaȱ(ChachamȱTzvi,ȱsimanȱ5,ȱ37;ȱKnessetȱYechezkal,ȱsimanȱ2:3;ȱMayimȱ Rabim,ȱ simanȱ 34Ȭ36;iTosfosȱ Shabbos,ȱ simanȱ 363;ȱ Nodaȱ B’Yehudah,ȱ O.C.ȱ Mahaduraȱ Tinyana,ȱ 42ȱ andȱ TeshuvahȱM’Ahavah,ȱsimanȱ112;iShe’eilasȱYaavetz,ȱsimanȱ7ȱandȱMorȱU’Ketziyah,ȱsimanȱ363;ȱShulchanȱ Aruchȱ HaRav,ȱ O.C.ȱ 363:42,ȱ 364:4iandȱ Kuntresȱ Achron,ȱ O.C.ȱ 345:2;ȱ Baisȱ Ephraim,ȱ O.C.ȱ 26;ȱ Kerenȱ Oreh,ȱ Eruvinȱ 7a;ȱ Michtamȱ L’David,ȱ simanȱ 1;iChasamȱ Sofer,ȱ O.C.ȱ 89;ȱ HaElephȱ Lechaȱ Shlomo,ȱ simanȱ 181;ȱ Aishelȱ Avraham,ȱ simanȱ 345;ȱ Chaiȱ Adam,ȱ klalȱ 71:15;iChesedȱ L’Avraham,ȱ simanȱ 39;ȱ Maharhamȱ Shick,ȱO.C.ȱ171,ȱ181;ȱMahariaȱHaLevi,ȱsimanȱ94;ȱBaisȱShlomo,ȱsimanȱ43,ȱ51;iTzemachȱTzedek,ȱShabbosȱ 100aȱ andȱ Eruvin,ȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ Perekȱ 5;ȱ Nefeshȱ Chayah,ȱ simanȱ 25;iAvneiȱ Nezer,ȱ O.C.ȱ 273:16,ȱ 279:2,ȱ ȱ 14ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ SECTIONȱIȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ However,ȱ me’d’rabbanan,ȱ untilȱ theȱ areaȱ isȱ entirelyȱ enclosedȱ itȱ isȱ classifiedȱasȱaȱkarmelis.ȱȱTherefore,ȱinȱorderȱthatȱtheȱareaȱbeȱreclassified,ȱ me’d’rabbanan,ȱasȱaȱreshusȱhayachidȱweȱareȱrequiredȱtoȱrectifyȱtheȱfourthȱ sideȱofȱtheȱenclosureȱȰȱandȱtheȱpirtzosȱinȱtheȱthreeȱsidesȱȰȱwith,ȱatȱtheȱ minimum,ȱ aȱ tzurasȱ hapesach.3ȱȱOnlyȱ thenȱ wouldȱ itȱ beȱ permissibleȱ toȱ carryȱtherein.ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ WhatȱIsȱaȱTzurasȱHaPesachȱ ȱ ȱ Givenȱthatȱaȱhouseȱcanȱhaveȱmoreȱthanȱoneȱdoorȱandȱstillȱbeȱclassifiedȱ asȱ aȱ reshusȱ hayachid,ȱ anȱ areaȱ totallyȱ enclosedȱ byȱ doorwaysȱ wouldȱ beȱ

289:2;ȱ Aruchȱ HaShulchan,ȱ O.C.ȱ 364:1;ȱ Maharsham,ȱ 3:188,ȱ 9:18;iYeshuosȱ Malko,ȱ simanȱ 21;ȱ Hareiȱ B’samim,ȱ 5:73;ȱ Imreiȱ Yosher,ȱ simanȱ 102ȱ andȱ Minchasȱ Pitim,ȱ simanȱ 364;iKafȱ HaChaim,ȱ O.C.ȱ 364:12;ȱ DivreiȱMalkiel,ȱ3:10,ȱ14;iRavȱChaimȱBerlinȱinȱTikkunȱShabbosȱOdessa,ȱp.ȱ28ȱandȱinȱNishmasȱChaim,ȱ simanȱ 29;ȱ Achiezer,ȱ 4:8;ȱ Evenȱ Yikrah,ȱ simanȱ 58,ȱ andȱ Chazonȱ Ish,ȱ O.C.ȱ 74:10,ȱ 107:4).ȱȱSeeȱ alsoȱ notesȱ32ȱandȱ45ȱthatȱnearlyȱallȱposkimȱmaintainȱthatȱpirtzosȱofȱtenȱamosȱandȱ sixteenȱamosȱisȱme’d’rabbanan.ȱ ȱ Itȱ shouldȱ beȱ notedȱ thatȱ hadȱ theȱ Mishnahȱ Berurahȱ whoȱ paskensȱ asuȱ rabbimȱ u’mevatleiȱ mechitztaȱ (Bi’urȱ Halachahȱ 364:2)ȱ seenȱ theȱ Baisȱ Ephraimȱ (O.C.ȱ 26)ȱ inȱ conjunctionȱwithȱtheȱMishkenosȱYaakovȱ (O.C.ȱ 120Ȭ122),ȱthereȱisȱaȱpossibilityȱheȱ wouldȱ haveȱ agreedȱ withȱ theȱ Baisȱ Ephraimȱ thatȱ loȱ asuȱ rabbimȱ u’mevatleiȱ mechitzta.ȱȱSeeȱBi’urȱHalachahȱ (208:9,ȱ s.v.ȱ Einoȱ M’Vorech),ȱwhereȱheȱstatesȱthatȱheȱ doesȱnotȱhaveȱtheȱseferȱBaisȱEphraimȱ(seeȱalsoȱToldosȱShmuel,ȱ3:81:7,ȱ3:86:8;ȱBaisȱAv,ȱ2:5:2,ȱ andȱEvenȱYisroel,ȱ8:36).ȱȱȱ ȱ 3ȱ TheȱpirtzosȱinȱtheȱmechitzosȱwhichȱareȱusuallyȱtenȱamosȱwideȱȰȱsuchȱasȱtheȱ streetsȱ runningȱ throughȱ theȱ mechitzosȱ (seeȱ noteȱ 18)ȱȰȱwouldȱ requireȱ atȱ theȱ minimumȱaȱtzurasȱhapesach;ȱmerelyȱaȱpostȱ[lechi]ȱwouldȱnotȱsufficeȱ (Shulchanȱ Aruch,ȱ O.C.ȱ 363:26).ȱȱItȱ isȱ importantȱ toȱ noteȱ thatȱ theȱ tzurasȱ hapesachȱ canȱ beȱ utilized,ȱme’d’rabbanan,ȱtoȱencircleȱaȱsmallerȱpartȱofȱtheȱareaȱenclosedȱbyȱtheȱ mechitzosȱinsteadȱofȱclosingȱtheȱfourthȱsideȱofȱtheȱmechitzosȱthemselvesȱsinceȱ theȱtzurasȱhapesachȱisȱbeingȱerectedȱinȱaȱreshusȱhayachidȱd’oraysa.ȱȱ

ȱ ȱ SECTIONȱIȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ15ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ consideredȱaȱreshusȱhayachidȱasȱwell.ȱȱInȱeffect,ȱaȱtzurasȱhapesach,4ȱtwoȱ postsȱoneȱonȱeitherȱsideȱofȱtheȱopeningȱwithȱaȱcrossbeamȱ[orȱaȱstring]ȱ runningȱacrossȱtheȱtopȱofȱthem,ȱformsȱtheȱdoorway[s]ȱnecessaryȱforȱanȱ areaȱtoȱbeȱtermedȱaȱreshusȱhayachidȱ(Eruvin,ȱ11bȱandȱShulchanȱAruch,ȱO.C.ȱ362:11).ȱ5ȱ ȱ Aȱ tzurasȱ hapesachȱ wouldȱ reclassifyȱ aȱ karmelisȱ asȱ aȱ reshusȱ hayachid.ȱȱ However,ȱ regardingȱ aȱ reshusȱ harabbim,ȱ theȱ Shulchanȱ Aruchȱ (O.C.ȱ 364:2)ȱ statesȱthatȱonlyȱdalsosȱ[doorsȱtoȱcloseȱtheȱbreaches]ȱwouldȱrectifyȱitȱandȱ notȱ aȱ tzurasȱ hapesach.6ȱȱTherefore,ȱ itȱ isȱ essentialȱ toȱ establishȱ theȱ classificationȱofȱanȱareaȱȰȱisȱitȱorȱisȱitȱnotȱaȱreshusȱharabbim?ȱȰȱinȱorderȱ toȱ ascertainȱ whatȱ kindȱ ofȱ enclosureȱ wouldȱ reclassifyȱ theȱ areaȱ asȱ aȱ reshusȱhayachidȱwhereȱitȱwouldȱthenȱbeȱpermissibleȱtoȱcarry.ȱ

4ȱ Thereȱareȱthoseȱwhoȱclaimȱthatȱtheȱtermȱeruvȱrefersȱtoȱeruveiȱchatzeirosȱandȱ notȱtoȱaȱtzurasȱhapesach.ȱȱHoweverȱtheȱGemaraȱ(Eruvin,ȱ6a)ȱcallsȱaȱtzurasȱhapesachȱ anȱeruv;ȱseeȱalsoȱtheȱPiskeiȱRidȱ(Shabbosȱ6a)ȱforȱfurtherȱproofȱthatȱtheȱtermȱeruvȱ appliesȱtoȱbothȱtheȱphysicalȱconstructȱandȱtheȱbrachah.ȱ ȱ 5ȱ TheȱRambamȱconsidersȱaȱtzurasȱhapesachȱaȱvalidȱmechitzahȱonlyȱwhenȱutilizingȱ atȱtheȱminimumȱtwoȱmechitzosȱthatȱareȱomedȱmerubehȱalȱhaparutzȱ(ShulchanȱAruch,ȱ O.C.ȱ362:10).ȱȱWhereȱthisȱisȱnotȱtheȱcase,ȱeachȱpoleȱcanȱbeȱnoȱmoreȱthanȱtenȱamosȱ apartȱ fromȱ theȱ other.ȱȱTheȱ Kafȱ HaChaimȱ (362:92)ȱ quotesȱ theȱ seferȱ Minchasȱ Yehudahȱ(simanȱ26)ȱthatȱstatesȱifȱaȱcityȱhasȱomedȱmerubehȱofȱitsȱhouses,ȱtheyȱcanȱ beȱ usedȱ toȱ qualifyȱ theȱ tzurasȱ hapesachimȱ asȱ aȱ Rambamȱ eruv.ȱȱSinceȱ theȱ proximityȱofȱpropertyȱlotsȱinȱBrooklynȱisȱsuchȱthatȱtheyȱareȱomedȱmerubehȱalȱ haparutzȱȰȱparticularlyȱ theȱ fencesȱ thatȱ surroundȱ theȱ propertyȱ lotsȱȰȱanyȱ eruvȱinȱBrooklynȱwouldȱbeȱconsideredȱaȱRambamȱeruv.ȱȱAdditionallyȱweȱhaveȱ determinedȱ thatȱ Brooklynȱ isȱ encircledȱ withȱ threeȱ mechitzosȱ thatȱ areȱ omedȱ merubehȱalȱhaparutzȱ(seeȱKuntresȱHaMechitzosȱpageȱ61ȱandȱmapȱofȱtheȱmechitzos);ȱtherefore,ȱ anyȱeruvȱinȱBrooklynȱwouldȱdefinitelyȱbeȱconsideredȱaȱRambamȱeruv.ȱ ȱ 6ȱ Mostȱposkimȱmaintain,ȱme’d’oraysa,ȱaȱtzurasȱhapesachȱwouldȱreclassifyȱaȱreshusȱ harabbimȱasȱaȱreshusȱhayachid;ȱhowever,ȱme’d’rabbananȱthereȱisȱaȱrequirementȱ ofȱdalsosȱ(ShulchanȱAruchȱHaRav,ȱO.C.ȱ364:4;ȱTzemachȱTzedek,ȱEruvinȱtheȱendȱofȱPerekȱ5;ȱAishelȱ Avraham,ȱsimanȱ345;ȱGaonȱYaakov,ȱEruvinȱ11a;iYeshuosȱMalko,ȱO.C.ȱ21;ȱAvneiȱNezer,ȱO.C.ȱ273:16,ȱ 279:2,ȱ289:2;ȱAruchȱHaShulchan,ȱO.C.ȱ364:1;ȱChazonȱIsh,iO.C.ȱ70:13,ȱandȱKafȱHaChaim,ȱO.C.ȱ364:12).ȱȱ Sinceȱ theȱ requirementȱ ofȱ dalsosȱ isȱ me’d’rabbanan,ȱ weȱ canȱ beȱ lenientȱ [safekȱ d’rabbananȱl’kulla]ȱandȱapplyȱanyȱadditionalȱheterȱtoȱremoveȱtheȱrequirementȱ ofȱdalsosȱ(KanahȱV’Kanamon,ȱ5:56;ȱLivushȱMordechai,ȱ4:4,ȱandȱBaisȱAv,ȱ2:9:3;ȱseeȱnoteȱ11).ȱ ȱ 16ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ SECTIONȱIȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ WhatȱIsȱaȱReshusȱHaRabbimȱ ȱ ȱ TheȱShulchanȱAruchȱ(O.C.ȱ345:7)ȱgivesȱfourȱdefiningȱconditionsȱofȱwhatȱ constitutesȱaȱreshusȱharabbim:ȱaȱstreetȱorȱmarketplaceȱthatȱisȱatȱleastȱ sixteenȱ amosȱ wide,7ȱ thatȱ isȱ notȱ roofedȱ [mikorim],8ȱ thatȱ isȱ openȱ andȱ runsȱstraightȱ9ȱfromȱcityȱgateȱtoȱcityȱgateȱ[mefulashȱm’shaarȱl’shaar],10ȱ

7ȱ AccordingȱtoȱRavȱAvrohomȱChaimȱNoehȱzt”l,ȱthatȱisȱapproximatelyȱ24ȱfeetȱ andȱ accordingȱ toȱ theȱ Chazonȱ Ish,ȱ aboutȱ 32ȱ feet.ȱȱAsȱ aȱ snifȱ l’heterȱ thereȱ areȱ poskimȱ whoȱ maintainȱ thatȱ ourȱ streetsȱ themselves,ȱ evenȱ thoseȱ thatȱ areȱ veryȱ wide,ȱ wouldȱ notȱ meetȱ theȱ criterionȱ ofȱ aȱ reshusȱ harabbim.ȱȱThereȱ isȱ aȱ requirementȱthatȱtheȱwholeȱ16ȱamosȱmustȱbeȱsuitableȱforȱpeople.ȱȱSinceȱtheȱ streetsȱareȱdesignatedȱforȱcars,ȱtheȱstreetsȱandȱtheȱsidewalksȱonȱeitherȱsideȱofȱ theȱstreetȱareȱnotȱconsideredȱconnectedȱtoȱformȱoneȱcontiguousȱ16ȱamosȱ(Tikvasȱ Zechariah,ȱp.ȱ40ȱandȱDivreiȱYatziv,ȱ2:172:13;ȱseeȱalsoȱOimȱAniȱChomah,ȱsimanȱ63).ȱȱAdditionally,ȱ theȱparkedȱcarsȱthemselvesȱserveȱasȱmechitzosȱasȱtheyȱseparateȱtheȱsidewalkȱ fromȱ theȱ street,ȱ andȱ therefore,ȱ theȱ streetsȱ areȱ notȱ consideredȱ 16ȱ amosȱ wideȱ (NesivosȱShabbos,ȱ3:1:2).ȱ ȱ 8ȱ Theȱ Aishelȱ Avrahamȱ (simanȱ 345)ȱ maintainsȱ thatȱ streetsȱ areȱ notȱ consideredȱ mefulashȱifȱtheyȱareȱintersectedȱbyȱroofedȱ[mikorim]ȱroadways.ȱȱAsȱaȱsnifȱl’heterȱ thereȱareȱposkimȱwhoȱmaintainȱthatȱsinceȱelevatedȱtrainȱtracksȱandȱoverpassesȱ ȰȱtheȱequivalentȱofȱroofedȱroadwaysȱȰȱcircumscribeȱourȱcommunitiesȱweȱ canȱ utilizeȱ theȱ heterȱ ofȱ theȱ Aishelȱ Avrahamȱ andȱ ourȱ streetsȱ wouldȱ notȱ beȱ consideredȱmefulash.ȱȱItȱisȱinterestingȱtoȱnoteȱthatȱRavȱMosheȱFeinsteinȱzt”lȱ (Igrosȱ Moshe,ȱ O.C.ȱ 1:140)ȱ alsoȱ maintainedȱ thatȱ aȱ streetȱ wouldȱ notȱ beȱ consideredȱ mefulashȱ ifȱ itȱ isȱ intersectedȱ byȱaȱroofedȱarea.ȱȱSoȱitȱwouldȱseemȱthatȱifȱRavȱ Mosheȱhadȱknownȱourȱneighborhoods,ȱheȱwouldȱagreeȱthatȱourȱstreetsȱareȱ notȱ mefulashȱ andȱ thereforeȱ ourȱ communitiesȱ wouldȱ notȱ beȱ classifiedȱ asȱ aȱ reshusȱ harabbim.ȱȱ[Seeȱ alsoȱ Igrosȱ Mosheȱ (O.C.ȱ 5:28:20)ȱ whereȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ positsȱ thatȱ whileȱ elevatedȱ trainȱ tracksȱ doȱ notȱ bisectȱ anȱ areaȱ ofȱ shishimȱ ribuyȱ intoȱ separateȱpartsȱofȱlessȱthanȱshishimȱribuy,ȱheȱadmitsȱthatȱtheȱintersectedȱstreetȱ isȱnotȱconsideredȱmefulash.]ȱȱ ȱ 9ȱ Mostȱ poskimȱ understandȱ mefulashȱ m’shaarȱ l’shaarȱ asȱ meaningȱ mefulashȱ u’mechuvanimȱ m’shaarȱ l’shaar,ȱ openȱ andȱ runningȱ straightȱ fromȱ cityȱ gateȱ toȱ cityȱ gateȱ (Baisȱ Yosef,ȱ 345:8;ȱ Magenȱ Avraham,ȱ 345:6;ȱ Priȱ Megadim,ȱ Aishelȱ Avraham,ȱ 364:ȱ 2;ȱ Baisȱ Ephraim,ȱ O.C.ȱ 26;ȱ Tiferesȱ Yisroel,ȱ introductionȱ toiShabbos;ȱ U’Bachartaȱ B’Chaim,ȱ simanȱ 123;ȱ Shoelȱ

ȱ ȱ SECTIONȱIȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ17ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

U’Maishiv,ȱ2:87;ȱYehudahȱYaleh,ȱO.C.ȱsimanȱ54;iMahariȱSlutsk,ȱO.C.ȱsimanȱ11;ȱMinchasȱElazar,ȱ3:4,ȱ andȱMishnahȱBerurah,ȱ345:20).ȱȱRavȱAharonȱKotlerȱzt”lȱstatesȱ(MishnasȱRavȱAharon,ȱ6:2),ȱ thatȱ forȱ aȱ streetȱ toȱ beȱ classifiedȱ asȱ aȱ reshusȱ harabbimȱ itȱ isȱ acceptedȱ thatȱ itȱ wouldȱ haveȱ toȱ beȱ mefulashȱ u’mechuvanimȱ m’shaarȱ l’shaarȱȰȱalthoughȱ heȱ personallyȱmaintainsȱthatȱitȱisȱdependentȱonȱaȱwalledȱcity.ȱ ȱ 10ȱ TheȱtextȱofȱShulchanȱAruchȱreads:ȱȱ “Whatȱ isȱ aȱ reshusȱ harabbim?ȱȱAȱ streetȱ orȱ marketplaceȱ thatȱ …ȱ isȱ notȱ walledȱ andȱ evenȱ ifȱ theyȱ areȱ walledȱ butȱ theyȱ [theȱ streetȱ orȱ marketplace]ȱareȱopenȱfromȱcityȱgateȱtoȱcityȱgate,ȱtheyȱ[theȱstreetȱorȱ marketplace]ȱwouldȱbeȱconsideredȱaȱreshusȱharabbimȱ….”ȱȱ ȱ EvenȱthoughȱtheȱShulchanȱAruchȱcitesȱtheȱcriterionȱofȱmefulashȱm’shaarȱl’shaarȱ inȱconjunctionȱwithȱaȱwalledȱcity,ȱtheȱTurȱdoesȱnotȱdifferentiateȱbetweenȱaȱ walledȱcityȱandȱanȱopenȱcityȱandȱtheȱBaisȱYosefȱ(simanȱ345)ȱdoesȱnotȱdisagreeȱ withȱtheȱTur.ȱȱTherefore,ȱmefulashȱwouldȱbeȱconsideredȱaȱcriterionȱofȱaȱreshusȱ harabbimȱevenȱinȱaȱcityȱthatȱisȱnotȱwalledȱ(seeȱBaisȱAv,ȱ2:9:1ȱforȱaȱdetailedȱexplanation).ȱȱ Seeȱ noteȱ 14ȱ thatȱ mostȱ poskimȱ maintainȱ thatȱ concerningȱ theȱ criterionȱ ofȱ mefulashȱthereȱisȱnoȱdifferenceȱhalachicallyȱwhetherȱorȱnotȱtheȱcityȱisȱwalled.ȱȱ TheȱGraȱoffersȱaȱdifferentȱperspectiveȱ(Bi’urȱHaGra,ȱO.C.ȱ345:7)ȱandȱexplainsȱthatȱ theȱwordsȱofȱtheȱShulchanȱAruch,ȱ“isȱnotȱwalled,”ȱrefersȱtoȱaȱstreetȱ[sratya].ȱȱ Theȱ Dmesekȱ Eliezerȱ clarifiesȱ theȱ Graȱ thatȱ aȱ sratyaȱ isȱ aȱ roadȱ whichȱ doesȱ notȱ haveȱ aȱ wallȱ aroundȱ it.ȱȱTheȱ Graȱ explainsȱ furtherȱ that,ȱ “evenȱ ifȱ theyȱ areȱ walled,”ȱrefersȱtoȱaȱmarketplaceȱ[platya].ȱȱTheȱDmesekȱEliezerȱexplainsȱthatȱaȱ platyaȱisȱaȱcityȱstreetȱthatȱisȱwalledȱonȱtwoȱsidesȱandȱtheȱremainingȱtwoȱsidesȱ areȱopenȱstraightȱfromȱcityȱgateȱtoȱcityȱgate.ȱȱWhatȱweȱseeȱfromȱthisȱDmesekȱ EliezerȱisȱthatȱwhatȱtheȱShulchanȱAruchȱrefersȱtoȱas,ȱ“walled,”ȱpertainsȱtoȱtheȱ streetsȱofȱtheȱcityȱandȱnotȱtheȱcityȱwalls.ȱȱTherefore,ȱitȱisȱunderstandableȱwhyȱ theȱ Graȱ (Sh’nosȱ Eliyahu,ȱ introductionȱ toȱ Mesechesȱ Shabbosȱ andȱ Chidushiȱ HaGra,ȱ Shabbosȱ 6a)ȱ whenȱdiscussingȱtheȱcriterionȱofȱmefulashȱm’shaarȱl’shaarȱdoesȱnotȱattributeȱitȱ toȱ aȱ walledȱ city.ȱȱItȱ followsȱ thatȱ ourȱ streetsȱ whichȱ areȱ linedȱ withȱ housesȱ wouldȱ beȱ classifiedȱ asȱ walledȱ streetsȱ andȱ wouldȱ haveȱ toȱ beȱ mefulashȱ u’mechuvanimȱm’shaarȱl’shaarȱtoȱbeȱcategorizedȱasȱaȱreshusȱharabbim.ȱȱNoteȱthatȱ sinceȱtheȱtermȱcityȱgateȱ[shaar]ȱdoesȱnotȱalwaysȱpertainȱtoȱtheȱgateȱofȱaȱwalledȱ cityȱ (Rashi,ȱ Yomaȱ 11a),ȱ mefulashȱ m’shaarȱ l’shaarȱ canȱ referȱ toȱ aȱ cityȱ thatȱ isȱ notȱ walledȱasȱwell.ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 18ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ SECTIONȱIȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ andȱ hasȱ 600,000ȱ peopleȱ traversingȱ itȱ dailyȱ [shishimȱ ribuyȱ (sixtyȱ myriads)ȱ11ȱovrimȱboȱ12ȱb’cholȱyomȱ13].ȱȱ

11ȱ TheȱtextȱofȱShulchanȱAruchȱreads:ȱȱ “Whatȱisȱaȱreshusȱharabbim?ȱȱAȱstreetȱorȱmarketplaceȱthatȱisȱsixteenȱ amosȱ wide,ȱ …ȱ andȱ thereȱ areȱ thoseȱ whoȱ sayȱ thatȱ ifȱ itȱ [theȱ streetȱ orȱ marketplace]ȱ doesȱ notȱ haveȱ 600,000ȱ peopleȱtraversingȱitȱdaily,ȱitȱisȱ notȱaȱreshusȱharabbim.”ȱȱ ȱ Rashiȱ isȱ theȱ originalȱ sourceȱ ofȱ thisȱ criterionȱ thatȱ theȱ streetȱ requiresȱ shishimȱ ribuyȱtraversingȱitȱinȱorderȱthatȱitȱbeȱclassifiedȱasȱaȱreshusȱharabbim,ȱandȱnotȱallȱ ofȱtheȱRishonimȱareȱinȱagreementȱwithȱhim.ȱȱ[TheȱBaisȱAvȱ(2:5:2)ȱbringsȱproofȱ thatȱtheȱmajorityȱofȱRishonimȱacceptsȱshishimȱribuyȱasȱaȱfundamentȱofȱaȱreshusȱ harabbimȱ (seeȱ alsoȱ Shemirasȱ Shabbosȱ K’Hilchasa,ȱ perekȱ 17,ȱ noteȱ 21ȱ andȱ Toldosȱ Shmuel,ȱ 3:86:8).]ȱȱ Sinceȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ unifiedȱ opinionȱ amongȱ theȱ Rishonim,ȱ whenȱ theȱ Shulchanȱ Aruchȱ(O.C.ȱ345:7)ȱmentionsȱtheȱcriterionȱthatȱtheȱstreetȱrequiresȱshishimȱribuyȱitȱ prefacesȱ itȱ withȱ aȱ qualifier,ȱ “vyeishȱ oimrim,”ȱ thereȱ areȱ thoseȱ whoȱ say.ȱȱ Nevertheless,ȱnearlyȱallȱofȱtheȱAchronimȱconsiderȱtheȱcriterionȱofȱshishimȱribuyȱ anȱacceptedȱfundamentȱofȱaȱreshusȱharabbimȱ(Taz,ȱ345:6ȱandȱMagenȱAvraham,ȱ345:7).ȱȱ Theȱ Aruchȱ HaShulchanȱ (Choshenȱ Mishpatȱ 162:1)ȱ maintainsȱ thatȱ shishimȱ ribuyȱ isȱ anȱ acceptedȱ fundamentȱ toȱ theȱ extentȱ thatȱ ifȱ oneȱ doesȱ notȱ wantȱ toȱ joinȱ hisȱ neighborsȱinȱtheirȱeruvȱchatzeirosȱbecauseȱheȱwantsȱtoȱbeȱstringentȱandȱnotȱrelyȱ onȱtheȱcriterionȱofȱshishimȱribuy,ȱhisȱneighborsȱcanȱcompelȱhimȱtoȱjoinȱthem.ȱ ȱ However,ȱ sinceȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ Rishonimȱ doȱ notȱ acceptȱ shishimȱ ribuyȱ asȱ aȱ requirementȱforȱaȱreshusȱharabbim,ȱthereȱisȱaȱdifferenceȱofȱopinionsȱamongȱtheȱ AchronimȱwhetherȱorȱnotȱaȱBaalȱNefeshȱshouldȱadoptȱtheȱstringentȱpositionȱifȱ thereȱisȱnoȱshishimȱribuyȱpresent.ȱȱMostȱAchronimȱmentionȱtheȱrequirementȱofȱ shishimȱribuyȱtraversingȱtheȱstreetȱwithoutȱstatingȱthatȱaȱBaalȱNefeshȱshouldȱ adoptȱtheȱstringentȱposition.ȱȱThisȱomissionȱsignalsȱthatȱtheȱrequirementȱofȱ shishimȱ ribuyȱ traversingȱ theȱ streetȱ isȱ anȱ acceptedȱ fundamentȱ inȱ theȱ lawsȱ ofȱ reshusȱ harabbimȱ andȱ evenȱ aȱ Baalȱ Nefeshȱ canȱ relyȱ onȱ it.ȱȱAdditionally,ȱ someȱ Achronimȱstateȱthatȱonceȱweȱutilizeȱaȱtzurasȱhapesachȱforȱaȱstreetȱthatȱisȱsixteenȱ amosȱwideȱitȱisȱacceptedȱthatȱaȱBaalȱNefeshȱcouldȱrelyȱonȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱstreetȱ doesȱnotȱhaveȱshishimȱribuyȱtraversingȱitȱ(KanahȱV’Kanamon,ȱ5:56;ȱLivushȱMordechai,ȱ4:4,ȱ andȱBaisȱAv,ȱ2:9:3).ȱȱOtherȱAchronimȱmaintainȱthatȱaȱBaalȱNefeshȱshouldȱadoptȱtheȱ stringentȱpositionȱandȱnotȱrelyȱonȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱstreetȱdoesȱnotȱhaveȱshishimȱ ribuyȱtraversingȱit.ȱȱHowever,ȱthatȱisȱonlyȱwhereȱtheȱsoleȱbasisȱforȱleniencyȱisȱ thatȱtheȱstreetsȱareȱlackingȱshishimȱribuyȱ(MishnahȱBerurah,ȱ364:8;ȱseeȱnoteȱ14).ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ SECTIONȱIȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ19ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

Itȱ isȱ importantȱ toȱ recognizeȱ thatȱ whenȱ consideringȱ theȱ basisȱ forȱ leniencyȱ thereȱareȱtwoȱlevels:ȱaȱfundamentalȱfactorȱinȱtheȱdinȱofȱreshusȱharabbimȱsuchȱ asȱ mefulashȱ orȱ mechitzosȱ andȱ aȱ tzadȱ l’heterȱ suchȱ asȱ usingȱ questionableȱ mechitzos.ȱȱTheȱMishnahȱBerurahȱ (Bi’urȱ Halachah,ȱ 345:23),ȱquotingȱtheȱElyaȱRabah,ȱ statesȱthatȱevenȱinȱconjunctionȱwithȱaȱtzadȱl’heter,ȱaȱBaalȱNefeshȱcanȱbeȱlenientȱ andȱrelyȱonȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱstreetȱdoesȱnotȱhaveȱshishimȱribuyȱtraversingȱit.ȱȱ Howȱmuchȱmoreȱso,ȱifȱweȱwereȱrelyingȱonȱfundamentalȱmitigatingȱfactorsȱ likeȱtheȱstreetsȱnotȱbeingȱmefulashȱandȱtheȱareaȱhavingȱmechitzos,ȱthereȱisȱnoȱ doubtȱthatȱtheȱMishnahȱBerurahȱȰȱandȱallȱtheȱotherȱposkimȱasȱwellȱȰȱwouldȱ agreeȱ thatȱ aȱ Baalȱ Nefeshȱ couldȱ beȱ lenientȱ andȱ utilizeȱ anȱ eruvȱ ofȱ tzurasȱ hapesachim,ȱsinceȱweȱhaveȱnotȱmetȱallȱtheȱrequirementsȱofȱaȱreshusȱharabbim.ȱȱ ȱ ItȱshouldȱbeȱnotedȱthatȱhadȱtheȱMishnahȱBerurahȱ(345:23)ȱseenȱtheȱBaisȱEphraimȱ (O.C.ȱ 26)ȱ inȱ conjunctionȱ withȱ theȱ Mishkenosȱ Yaakovȱ (O.C.ȱ 120Ȭ122),ȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ possibilityȱheȱwouldȱhaveȱpaskenedȱlikeȱtheȱBaisȱEphraimȱthatȱshishimȱribuyȱisȱ anȱacceptedȱfundamentȱofȱaȱreshusȱharabbim,ȱandȱheȱwouldȱhaveȱagreedȱthatȱ evenȱaȱBaalȱNefeshȱcouldȱbeȱlenientȱandȱrelyȱonȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱstreetsȱareȱ lackingȱ shishimȱ ribuy.ȱȱSeeȱ Bi’urȱ Halachahȱ (208:9,ȱ s.v.ȱ Einoȱ M’Vorech),ȱ whereȱ heȱ statesȱthatȱheȱdoesȱnotȱhaveȱtheȱseferȱBaisȱEphraimȱ (seeȱ alsoȱ Toldosȱ Shmuel,ȱ 3:81:7,ȱ 3:86:8;ȱBaisȱAv,ȱ2:5:2;ȱDivreiȱYatzivȱ2:173:1,ȱandȱEvenȱYisroel,ȱ8:36).ȱȱȱȱ ȱ ItȱisȱsignificantȱtoȱnoteȱthatȱRavȱMosheȱzt”lȱconsideredȱtheȱcriterionȱofȱshishimȱ ribuyȱanȱacceptedȱfundamentȱofȱaȱreshusȱharabbimȱ(IgrosȱMoshe,ȱO.C.ȱ3:94,ȱ5:19,ȱ5:24:10;ȱ seeȱalsoȱnoteȱ24);ȱhowever,ȱheȱhadȱchiddushimȱinȱhowȱtoȱapplyȱitȱ(seeȱnoteȱ20).ȱȱȱ ȱ 12ȱ Theȱ poskimȱ concurȱ thatȱ theȱ shishimȱ ribuyȱ mustȱ actuallyȱ traverseȱ theȱ street.ȱȱ Therefore,ȱ justȱ theȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ shishimȱ ribuyȱ traversingȱ aȱ streetȱ isȱ notȱ sufficientȱ groundsȱ forȱ theȱ streetȱ toȱ beȱ classifiedȱ asȱ aȱ reshusȱ harabbimȱ (Baisȱ Ephraim,ȱ O.C.ȱ 26;ȱ Mishkenosȱ Yaakov,ȱ simanȱ 121ȱ asȱ heȱ explainsȱ theȱ shitosȱ ofȱ theiShulchanȱ Aruch;ȱ Michtamȱ L’David,ȱ simanȱ 2;ȱ Divreiȱ Chaim,iAddendumȱ 3;ȱ Zivcheiȱ Tezdek,ȱ simanȱ 102;ȱ Maharsham,ȱ 3:188;ȱSefasȱEmes,ȱShabbosȱ6b;ȱYeshuosȱMalko,ȱsimanȱ27;ȱMinchasȱElazar,ȱ3:4;iTuvȱYehoshua,ȱp.ȱ8,ȱandȱ IgrosȱMoshe,ȱO.C.ȱ1:139:5,ȱ4:87).ȱȱȱ ȱ Sinceȱ theȱ Shulchanȱ Aruchȱ usesȱ theȱ termȱ shishimȱ ribuyȱ ovrimȱ boȱ itȱ impliesȱ aȱ thoroughfareȱ inȱ continuousȱ useȱ andȱ notȱ merelyȱ theȱ presenceȱ ofȱ 600,000ȱ peopleȱinȱtheȱvicinityȱwhoȱwouldȱhaveȱtheȱabilityȱtoȱutilizeȱtheȱstreet.ȱȱEvenȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ zt”lȱ (ibid.)ȱ interpretedȱ theȱ criterionȱ ofȱ shishimȱ ribuyȱ ovrimȱ boȱ toȱ meanȱaȱthoroughfareȱinȱcontinuousȱuse,ȱsuchȱasȱanȱintercityȱroad,ȱwhichȱheȱ maintainedȱwouldȱneedȱtoȱhaveȱ600,000ȱpeopleȱtraversingȱtheȱsameȱsectionȱ ofȱtheȱroadȱ (ibid.,ȱ 5:28:16)ȱ onȱaȱdailyȱbasisȱinȱorderȱitȱbeȱclassifiedȱasȱaȱreshusȱ ȱ 20ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ SECTIONȱIȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Sinceȱallȱfourȱcriteriaȱhaveȱtoȱbeȱmetȱforȱtheȱareaȱtoȱbeȱclassifiedȱasȱaȱ reshusȱ harabbim,ȱ ifȱ evenȱ oneȱ criterionȱ isȱ notȱ met,ȱ anȱ eruvȱ ofȱ tzurasȱ hapesachimȱcanȱbeȱerectedȱ(ShulchanȱAruchȱHaRav,ȱO.C.ȱ364:4;ȱBaisȱEphraim,ȱO.C.ȱ26,ȱandȱ MishnahȱBerurah,ȱ364:5).ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

harabbim.ȱȱAdditionallyȱRavȱMosheȱstatedȱ(ibid.,ȱ1:139:5,ȱ4:87,ȱ5:28:5,ȱ5:29)ȱthatȱtheȱ criterionȱofȱshishimȱribuyȱovrimȱboȱwhenȱappliedȱtoȱaȱcityȱwouldȱnecessitateȱaȱ populationȱofȱatȱleastȱ3,000,000ȱinhabitantsȱ(seeȱnoteȱ19).ȱȱOnlyȱaȱcityȱwithȱsuchȱ aȱ sizableȱ populationȱ couldȱ physicallyȱ satisfyȱ theȱ conditionȱ ofȱ shishimȱ ribuyȱ ovrimȱbo,ȱ600,000ȱpeopleȱcollectivelyȱtraversingȱitsȱstreetsȱatȱoneȱtimeȱ(seeȱnoteȱ 20ȱ forȱ theȱ rationaleȱ underlyingȱ Ravȱ Moshe’sȱ ruling).ȱȱ[However,ȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ acknowledgesȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ difficultȱ toȱ interpretȱ shishimȱ ribuyȱ ovrimȱ boȱ asȱ applyingȱtoȱaȱcityȱ(ibid.,ȱ1:139:5).]ȱȱȱ ȱ 13ȱ Thereȱareȱposkimȱwhoȱmaintainȱthatȱinȱorderȱtoȱclassifyȱtheȱstreetȱasȱaȱreshusȱ harabbimȱitȱisȱsufficientȱthatȱtheȱshishimȱribuyȱtraverseȱtheȱstreetȱmostȱdaysȱofȱ theȱ yearȱ (Maharsham,ȱ 3:188;ȱ Minchasȱ Elazar,ȱ 3:4,ȱ andȱ Minchasȱ Yitzchok,ȱ 8:32:1).ȱȱHoweverȱ otherȱposkimȱacceptȱtheȱsimpleȱreadingȱofȱtheȱShulchanȱAruchȱthatȱtheȱshishimȱ ribuyȱmustȱtraverseȱtheȱstreetȱeveryȱdayȱofȱtheȱyear,ȱotherwiseȱitȱwouldȱnotȱ beȱconsideredȱaȱreshusȱharabbimȱ(ZivcheiȱTezdek,ȱsimanȱ102;ȱAishelȱAvrahamȱ345:3;ȱKinyanȱ Torah,ȱ4:40:7,iandȱIgrosȱMoshe,ȱO.C.ȱ1:139:5,ȱ4:87Ȭ88,ȱ5:28:16).ȱ ȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ zt”lȱ alsoȱ understoodȱ theȱ literalȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ theȱ Shulchanȱ Aruchȱ asȱ meaningȱ shishimȱ ribuyȱ traversingȱ theȱ roadȱ itselfȱ onȱ aȱ dailyȱ basisȱ (ibid.,ȱ1:139:5,ȱ4:87,ȱ5:28:16).ȱȱRavȱMosheȱpositsȱthatȱwhenȱtheȱShulchanȱAruchȱstatesȱ asȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ criteriaȱ ofȱ reshusȱ harabbimȱ thatȱ theȱ streetȱ hasȱ toȱ haveȱ 600,000ȱ peopleȱ traversingȱ itȱ daily,ȱ theȱ Shulchanȱ Aruchȱ wasȱ alsoȱ referringȱ toȱ anȱ intercityȱ roadȱ whereȱ theȱ shishimȱ ribuyȱ wouldȱ haveȱ toȱ traverseȱ theȱ sameȱ sectionȱofȱtheȱroadȱeveryȱday.ȱȱAdditionally,ȱRavȱMosheȱstatesȱ(ibid.,ȱ4:88)ȱthatȱ althoughȱatȱtimesȱBrooklyn’sȱbeachesȱmightȱbeȱhostȱtoȱaȱmillionȱpeople,ȱthisȱ inȱitselfȱisȱnotȱreasonȱenoughȱtoȱprohibitȱanȱeruvȱofȱtzurasȱhapesachimȱbecauseȱ accordingȱtoȱtheȱShulchanȱAruchȱtheȱrequirementȱisȱthatȱtheȱshishimȱribuyȱhasȱ toȱtraverseȱtheȱstreetsȱonȱaȱdailyȱbasisȱ(seeȱalsoȱnoteȱ27).ȱȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ SECTIONȱIȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ21ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ WhyȱBrooklynȱIsȱNotȱaȱReshusȱHaRabbimȱ ȱ ȱ Basedȱ onȱ theȱ definitionȱ ofȱ reshusȱ harabbimȱ presentedȱ previously,ȱ theȱ streetsȱofȱBrooklynȱfailȱtoȱmeetȱatȱleastȱtwoȱofȱtheȱrequirementsȱofȱaȱ reshusȱharabbimȱforȱtheȱfollowingȱreasons:ȱ i Sinceȱ theȱ streetsȱ ofȱ ourȱ communityȱ doȱ notȱ runȱ straightȱ fromȱ oneȱ endȱofȱtheȱcityȱtoȱtheȱotherȱȰȱtheyȱareȱnotȱmefulashȱu’mechuvanimȱ m’shaarȱl’shaar.14ȱȱȱ

14ȱ Mostȱ poskimȱ useȱ theȱ termȱ mefulashȱ m’shaarȱ l’shaarȱ withoutȱ differentiatingȱ betweenȱaȱwalledȱcityȱandȱanȱopenȱcityȱ(seeȱalsoȱnoteȱ10).ȱȱSinceȱthisȱisȱaȱveryȱ importantȱdistinctionȱandȱhasȱaȱgreatȱimpactȱinȱhowȱweȱapplyȱtheȱcriterionȱofȱ mefulash,ȱ weȱ canȱ garnerȱ fromȱ thisȱ omissionȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ differenceȱ halachicallyȱwhetherȱorȱnotȱtheȱcityȱisȱwalled.ȱȱ ȱ Theȱfollowingȱisȱaȱpartialȱlistȱofȱposkimȱwhoȱareȱclearlyȱnotȱreferringȱtoȱaȱwalledȱcity:ȱ i TheȱMishnahȱBerurahȱ(364:8),ȱwhenȱdescribingȱtheȱcitiesȱofȱhisȱtimes,ȱstatedȱthatȱ thereȱwereȱstreetsȱthatȱwereȱsixteenȱamosȱwideȱandȱmefulashȱm’shaarȱl’shaar.ȱȱ Therefore,ȱ aȱ Baalȱ Nefeshȱ shouldȱ beȱ stringentȱ sinceȱ toȱ erectȱ anȱ eruvȱ inȱ theseȱ citiesȱtheyȱhadȱtoȱrelyȱonȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱstreetȱdidȱnotȱhaveȱshishimȱribuyȱ traversingȱit.ȱȱAsȱweȱknowȱthatȱmostȱtownsȱinȱhisȱtimesȱwereȱnotȱwalledȱȰȱ evenȱ inȱ earlierȱ timesȱ mostȱ citiesȱ wereȱ notȱ walled,ȱ Priȱ Megadim,ȱ Mishbetzesȱ Zahavȱ (362:17)ȱȰȱweȱcanȱdeduceȱthatȱheȱacceptedȱtheȱcriterionȱofȱmefulashȱasȱ notȱbeingȱdependentȱonȱaȱwalledȱcity.ȱȱ i Theȱ Divreiȱ Malkielȱ (4:3)ȱ statesȱ thatȱ toȱ findȱ aȱ streetȱ inȱ aȱ largeȱ cityȱ whichȱ isȱ mefulash,ȱopenȱfromȱoneȱendȱofȱtheȱcityȱtoȱtheȱother,ȱisȱunheardȱofȱandȱthatȱisȱ whyȱtheȱminhagȱisȱtoȱerectȱeruvinȱevenȱinȱtheȱlargestȱofȱcities.ȱȱHeȱwroteȱthisȱ teshuvahȱregardingȱOdessa,ȱaȱcityȱthatȱwasȱnotȱwalled.ȱ i RavȱShlomoȱDovidȱKahaneȱzt”lȱ(DivreiȱMenachem,ȱO.C.ȱvol.ȱ2,ȱpp.ȱ42Ȭ43),ȱoneȱofȱtheȱmainȱ rabbanimȱofȱWarsawȱbeforeȱWorldȱWarȱII,ȱpositedȱthatȱtheȱheterȱtoȱerectȱanȱeruvȱinȱ aȱlargeȱcityȱsuchȱasȱWarsaw,ȱwhichȱwasȱnotȱwalledȱfromȱtheȱyearȱ1877ȱ(Encyklopediaȱ Warszawy,ȱ 1994ȱ p.ȱ 187),ȱ wasȱ universallyȱ acceptedȱ asȱ theȱ streetsȱ wereȱ notȱ mefulashȱ u’mechuvanimȱm’shaarȱl’shaar.ȱȱMoreȱso,ȱheȱclaimed,ȱaȱsmallȱcityȱwouldȱhaveȱaȱ greaterȱproblemȱestablishingȱanȱeruvȱsinceȱitsȱstreetsȱwouldȱbeȱmefulash.ȱȱInȱaȱ smallȱcityȱthereȱisȱusuallyȱoneȱmainȱstreetȱrunningȱstraightȱthroughȱtheȱcenterȱofȱ theȱtownȱasȱopposedȱtoȱaȱlargeȱcityȱwhereȱtheȱstreetsȱareȱgenerallyȱnotȱstraightȱ fromȱcityȱgateȱtoȱcityȱgate.ȱȱ[Itȱisȱsignificantȱthatȱfromȱtheȱyearȱ1900ȱWarsawȱhadȱaȱ populationȱofȱmoreȱthanȱshishimȱribuyȱonȱoneȱsideȱofȱtheȱWistulaȱRiverȱwhichȱ ȱ 22ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ SECTIONȱIȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ i Sinceȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ streetȱ inȱ Brooklynȱ thatȱ isȱ traversedȱ dailyȱ byȱ 600,000ȱpeopleȱȰȱthereȱisȱnoȱshishimȱribuyȱovrimȱboȱb’cholȱyom.15ȱ

dividedȱtheȱcityȱinȱtwoȱȰȱtheȱlargerȱsideȱknownȱasȱWarsawȱandȱtheȱsignificantlyȱ smallerȱsideȱknownȱasȱPragaȱ(RocznikȱStatystycznyȱWarszawyȱ1921ȱiȱ1922,ȱ1924ȱp.ȱ14).]ȱȱ ȱ Itȱ isȱ importantȱ toȱ noteȱ thatȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ zt”lȱ (Igrosȱ Moshe,ȱ O.C.ȱ 5:28:7)ȱ disagreedȱ withȱtheȱaboveȱposkimȱandȱmaintainedȱmefulashȱu’mechuvanimȱm’shaarȱl’shaarȱ isȱaȱcriterionȱthatȱcanȱonlyȱbeȱutilizedȱinȱaȱwalledȱcity.ȱȱHowever,ȱsinceȱweȱ haveȱestablishedȱthatȱBrooklynȱisȱaȱwalledȱcityȱȰȱbecauseȱitȱisȱcircumscribedȱ onȱthreeȱsidesȱbyȱmechitzosȱ(seeȱKuntresȱHaMechitzosȱpageȱ61ȱandȱmapȱofȱtheȱmechitzos)ȱȰȱ RavȱMosheȱwouldȱagreeȱthatȱourȱstreetsȱhaveȱtoȱbeȱmefulashȱu’mechuvanimȱ m’shaarȱl’shaarȱinȱorderȱtoȱbeȱclassifiedȱasȱaȱreshusȱharabbimȱ(seeȱalsoȱnoteȱ31).ȱ ȱ 15ȱ Itȱ wasȱ theȱ mesorahȱ throughȱ theȱ agesȱ thatȱ shishimȱ ribuyȱ isȱ dependentȱ onȱ aȱ singleȱ street.ȱȱTheȱ Divreiȱ Malkielȱ (4:3)ȱ statedȱ whenȱ writingȱ toȱ theȱ peopleȱ erectingȱ anȱ eruvȱ inȱ theȱ cityȱ ofȱ Odessa,ȱ whichȱ hadȱ approximatelyȱ shishimȱ ribuy,ȱthat,ȱ“theȱminhagȱisȱtoȱerectȱeruvinȱevenȱinȱtheȱbiggestȱofȱcitiesȱandȱitȱ doesȱ notȱ concernȱ usȱ thatȱ theyȱ haveȱ shishimȱ ribuyȱ sinceȱ theȱ shishimȱ ribuyȱ isȱ dispersedȱ overȱ allȱ theȱ streets.”ȱȱNewȱ York’sȱ populationȱ inȱ 1905ȱ wasȱ muchȱ moreȱthanȱshishimȱribuyȱandȱtheȱrabbanimȱwhoȱwereȱinvolvedȱwithȱtheȱeruvȱ thenȱ reliedȱ onȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ thereȱ wasȱ noȱ streetȱ thatȱ hadȱ shishimȱ ribuyȱ traversingȱitȱ(OzneiȱYehoshua,ȱ1:18ȱandȱTiroshȱVaYitzhar,ȱsimanȱ73).ȱ ȱ Theseȱareȱsomeȱofȱtheȱadditionalȱposkimȱwhoȱmaintainȱthatȱshishimȱribuyȱisȱ dependentȱonȱtheȱstreet:ȱȱ i Theȱ Mishnahȱ Berurahȱ (Shaarȱ HaTzion,ȱ 345:25)ȱ indicatesȱ thisȱ byȱ theȱ usageȱ ofȱ theȱ phrase,ȱ “derechȱ hamavoiȱ hamefulash.”ȱȱ[Itȱ isȱ importantȱ toȱ note,ȱ theȱ Mishnahȱ Berurah’sȱ (345:24)ȱ primaryȱ issueȱ isȱ whetherȱ theȱ shishimȱ ribuyȱ areȱ requiredȱ toȱ traverseȱtheȱstreetȱeveryȱdayȱofȱtheȱyearȱorȱwhetherȱoccasionalȱuseȱofȱtheȱstreetȱ byȱ600,000ȱpeopleȱwouldȱbeȱsufficientȱ(seeȱalsoȱnoteȱ13ȱandȱToldosȱShmuel,ȱ3:86:10).]ȱȱ i TheȱMinchasȱElazarȱ (3:4)ȱstatesȱthatȱheȱbelievesȱtheȱmainȱstreetsȱinȱbigȱcitiesȱ suchȱasȱLondon,ȱParis,ȱViennaȱandȱBerlinȱhaveȱshishimȱribuyȱtraversingȱthem.ȱ i TheȱBaisȱAvȱ(2:5:2).ȱȱ i RavȱShmuelȱWosnerȱshlitaȱinȱShevetȱHaLeviȱ(6:41).ȱȱ i RavȱElyashuvȱshlitaȱasȱcitedȱinȱtheȱseferȱYashivȱMosheȱ(p.ȱ58).ȱ i RavȱYechezkelȱRothȱshlitaȱinȱEmekȱHaTeshuvahȱ(5:19).ȱ ȱ Thisȱ isȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ reasonsȱ whyȱ inȱ Eretzȱ Yisroelȱ eruvinȱ areȱ maintainedȱ inȱ Yerushalayimȱ andȱ inȱ theȱ Gushȱ Danȱ [Bneiȱ Brakȱ withȱ allȱ theȱ interconnectedȱ

ȱ ȱ SECTIONȱIȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ23ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

neighborhoods]ȱ evenȱ thoughȱ theseȱ regionsȱ haveȱ shishimȱ ribuyȱ asȱ wellȱ (Ravȱ YisroelȱYaakovȱFisherȱzt”lȱinȱEvenȱYisroel,ȱ8:36ȱandȱKinyanȱTorah,ȱ4:40).ȱ ȱ Evenȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ zt”lȱ (Igrosȱ Moshe,ȱ O.C.ȱ 1:109;ȱ seeȱ pageȱ 29)ȱ acceptedȱ asȱ factȱ thatȱ shishimȱribuyȱisȱdependentȱonȱtheȱstreetȱandȱonlyȱlaterȱ(ibid.,ȱ1:139:5,ȱ4:87Ȭ88,ȱ5:28:5,ȱ 5:29)ȱ statedȱ hisȱ chiddushȱ thatȱ inȱ aȱ city,ȱ shishimȱ ribuyȱ appliedȱ toȱ anȱ areaȱ ofȱ twelveȱmilȱbyȱtwelveȱmil.ȱȱ[Inȱthisȱchiddush,ȱadmittedlyȱhisȱown,ȱRavȱMosheȱ definesȱshishimȱribuyȱasȱmeaningȱ3,000,000ȱpeopleȱ(seeȱnoteȱ20).]ȱȱEvenȱafterȱheȱ developedȱhisȱchiddush,ȱRavȱMosheȱdeclinedȱtoȱgiveȱtheȱrabbanimȱofȱFlatbushȱ aȱ p’sakȱ againstȱ eruvin,ȱ asȱ heȱ wroteȱ thatȱ hisȱ chiddushȱ wasȱ notȱ statedȱ inȱ theȱ AchronimȱandȱthatȱtheȱAruchȱHaShulchanȱwouldȱnotȱagreeȱwithȱhimȱ(ibid.,ȱ4:87;ȱ seeȱ noteȱ 23);ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ Appendixȱ 4.ȱȱThatȱ isȱ whyȱ whenȱ itȱ cameȱ toȱ issuesȱ concerningȱaȱreshusȱharabbimȱȰȱforȱexample,ȱmenȱwearingȱglovesȱorȱaȱwatchȱ onȱShabbosȱorȱbringingȱbackȱhomeȱonȱyomȱtovȱaȱlulavȱorȱaȱshofarȱforȱaȱwomanȱ orȱaȱchildȱinȱanȱareaȱthatȱisȱnotȱenclosedȱbyȱanȱeruvȱȰȱRavȱMosheȱmaintainedȱ thatȱweȱrelyȱonȱtheȱheterȱofȱshishimȱribuyȱinȱallȱcitiesȱ(ibid.,ȱ3:94,ȱ5:19,ȱ5:24:10);ȱseeȱ Appendixȱ 5.ȱȱRavȱ Dovidȱ Feinsteinȱ shlitaȱ (Kuntresȱ L’Torahȱ V’Horaah,ȱ vol.ȱ 6,ȱ 1976)ȱ positedȱthatȱtheȱheterȱforȱaȱSuccosȱblockȱeruvȱisȱbecauseȱweȱrelyȱonȱtheȱheterȱofȱ shishimȱribuy.ȱȱAlthoughȱheȱwasȱreferringȱtoȱlowerȱManhattan,ȱwhichȱaccordingȱ toȱRavȱMoshe’sȱchiddushȱmetȱtheȱrequirementȱofȱhavingȱshishimȱribuyȱ(IgrosȱMoshe,ȱ O.C.ȱ1:139:5),ȱRavȱDovidȱshlitaȱstillȱallowedȱanȱeruv.ȱȱInȱsummationȱitȱisȱaȱgivenȱ thatȱshishimȱribuyȱisȱdependentȱonȱtheȱstreetȱ(seeȱalsoȱnoteȱ24).ȱ ȱ ItȱisȱimportantȱtoȱnoteȱthatȱBrooklynȱdoesȱnotȱhaveȱanyȱstreetȱthatȱsupportsȱ shishimȱribuy.ȱȱAccordingȱtoȱtheȱstatisticalȱrecordsȱofȱtheȱNYSDOTȱ[Appendixȱ 1],ȱ evenȱ oneȱ ofȱ Brooklyn’sȱ mainȱ thoroughfares,ȱ Oceanȱ ParkwayȱȰȱtheȱ largestȱthoroughfareȱincludedȱinȱtheȱFlatbushȱeruvȱȰȱhasȱfewerȱthenȱ55,000ȱ vehicles,ȱwithȱanȱaverageȱofȱ1.5ȱoccupantsȱperȱvehicleȱ(NYSDOT,ȱAȱTransportationȱ Profileȱ ofȱ NYS,ȱ 2004ȱ p.ȱ 4),ȱ traversingȱ itȱ dailyȱ inȱ bothȱ directions.ȱȱRavȱ Mosheȱ maintainedȱ(IgrosȱMoshe,ȱO.C.ȱ5:28:16)ȱthatȱinȱorderȱforȱanyȱsectionȱofȱanȱintercityȱ roadȱtoȱbeȱconsideredȱaȱreshusȱharabbim,ȱtheȱentireȱshishimȱribuyȱwouldȱhaveȱ toȱ traverseȱ thatȱ sectionȱ ofȱ theȱ roadȱ onȱ aȱ dailyȱ basisȱȰȱthisȱ wouldȱ excludeȱ peopleȱ whoȱ areȱ enteringȱ andȱ exitingȱ theȱ thoroughfareȱ atȱ differentȱ points.ȱȱ SinceȱOceanȱParkwayȱhasȱmuchȱfewerȱthanȱshishimȱribuyȱtraversingȱit,ȱthereȱ isȱ noȱ questionȱ thatȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ wouldȱ notȱ classifyȱ itȱ asȱ aȱ reshusȱ harabbim.ȱȱ Additionally,ȱ theȱ poskimȱ maintainȱ thatȱ peopleȱ traversingȱ theȱ roadȱ inȱ bothȱ directionsȱareȱonlyȱtalliedȱgoingȱoneȱwayȱandȱsoȱtheȱtotalȱforȱaȱroadwayȱlikeȱ OceanȱParkwayȱisȱactuallyȱmuchȱlessȱ(KuntresȱTikkunȱEruvinȱManhattan,ȱp.ȱ108;ȱKinyanȱ Torah,ȱ4:40:7,ȱandȱRechovasȱHa’ir,ȱ23:2).ȱȱHence,ȱweȱcanȱconcludeȱthatȱBrooklynȱdoesȱ notȱhaveȱaȱstreetȱthatȱhasȱshishimȱribuyȱtraversingȱit.ȱ ȱ 24ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ SECTIONȱIȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ SinceȱBrooklynȱdoesȱnotȱmeetȱatȱleastȱtwoȱofȱtheȱfourȱrequirementsȱofȱ aȱreshusȱharabbim,ȱanȱeruvȱofȱtzurasȱhapesachimȱcanȱbeȱerected.ȱ ȱ Moreover,ȱsinceȱBrooklynȱisȱsurroundedȱwithȱatȱleastȱthreeȱmechitzosȱ16ȱ [b’y’daiȱadamȱ17]ȱatȱitsȱwaterfrontȱ18ȱitȱisȱclassified,ȱme’d’oraysa,ȱasȱaȱreshusȱ hayachidȱ(TurȱandȱShulchanȱAruch,ȱO.C.ȱ363:1;ȱseeȱKuntresȱHaMechitzosȱpageȱ61ȱandȱmapȱofȱ theȱmechitzos;ȱseeȱalsoȱnoteȱ30).ȱȱConsequently,ȱme’d’rabbanan,ȱanȱeruvȱofȱtzurasȱ hapesachimȱcouldȱcertainlyȱbeȱutilizedȱtoȱrectifyȱtheȱfourthȱsideȱofȱtheȱ mechitzosȱ(seeȱnoteȱ3).ȱȱ1718ȱ

[Evenȱ moreȱ so,ȱ mostȱ poskimȱ maintainȱ thatȱ carsȱ areȱ notȱ talliedȱ inȱ theȱ shishimȱ ribuyȱ (Baisȱ Ephraim,ȱ O.C.ȱ 26;ȱ Maharsham,ȱ 1:162;iYeshuosȱ Malko,ȱ simanȱ 26Ȭ27;ȱ Hareiȱ B’samim,ȱ 5:73;ȱ BaisȱAv,ȱ2:9:3;ȱMahariȱStief,ȱsimanȱ68;ȱDivreiȱYatziv,ȱ2:172:13;iV’yaanȱYoseph,ȱ1:155:1;ȱKuntresȱTikkunȱ Eruvinȱ Manhattan,ȱ simanȱ 12ȱ p.ȱ 105;ȱ Kinyanȱ Torah,ȱ 4:40:6,ȱ andiRabbiȱ Eliezerȱ Y.ȱ Waldenbergȱ shlita,ȱ authorȱofȱtheȱTzitzȱEliezer,ȱasȱcitedȱinȱTheȱContemporaryȱEruv,ȱ1998ȱp.ȱ54ȱnoteȱ119).ȱȱTheȱreasonȱisȱ eitherȱbecauseȱaȱvehicleȱinȱitselfȱisȱconsideredȱaȱreshusȱhayachidȱandȱthereforeȱitsȱ occupantsȱ areȱ notȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ totalȱ orȱ becauseȱ weȱ onlyȱ includeȱ pedestriansȱ (holcheiȱregel)ȱwhoȱtraverseȱtheȱstreetȱinȱtheȱtally.ȱȱConsequently,ȱitȱisȱclearȱthatȱ thereȱisȱnoȱstreetȱinȱBrooklynȱthatȱhasȱshishimȱribuyȱtraversingȱit.]ȱȱ ȱ 16ȱ Itȱisȱimportantȱtoȱnoteȱthatȱinȱ1938ȱtheȱAchiezerȱandȱtheȱChazonȱIshȱallowedȱ theȱestablishmentȱofȱanȱeruvȱinȱParisȱȰȱ1936,ȱpopulationȱ2,829,746ȱ(Encyclopediaȱ Britannica,ȱ1968ȱvol.ȱ17ȱp.ȱ355)ȱȰȱwithȱexactlyȱtheȱsameȱconditionsȱasȱinȱBrooklyn:ȱ threeȱmechitzos,ȱomedȱmerubehȱalȱhaparutzȱandȱonȱtheȱfourthȱsideȱonlyȱaȱthirdȱ ofȱaȱmechitzahȱ(Achiezer,ȱ4:8).ȱȱFurthermoreȱthereȱwereȱmanyȱbridgesȱthatȱwereȱ poretzȱ inȱ theȱ mechitzosȱ (ibid.).ȱȱAdditionally,ȱ itȱ isȱ statedȱ inȱ theȱ Torontoȱ eruvȱ bookletȱ (Theȱ Torontoȱ Communityȱ Eruv,ȱ p.ȱ 15)ȱthatȱRavȱElyashuvȱshlitaȱconsentedȱtoȱ theȱeruvȱthereȱonȱconditionȱthatȱtheȱeruvȱbeȱprimarilyȱbasedȱonȱmechitzosȱonȱ atȱleastȱthreeȱsidesȱthatȱareȱomedȱmerubehȱalȱhaparetz.ȱȱ[Thereȱareȱpirtzosȱthatȱ interruptȱtheseȱmechitzos,ȱandȱmanyȱareȱevenȱgreaterȱthanȱtenȱamosȱandȱtheyȱ neverthelessȱallowedȱtheȱconstructionȱofȱtheȱeruv.]ȱȱInȱbothȱofȱtheseȱcasesȱtheȱ situationȱisȱtheȱsameȱasȱinȱBrooklyn;ȱseeȱalsoȱAppendixȱ8.ȱ ȱ 17ȱ Thereȱareȱposkimȱwhoȱmaintainȱthatȱtheȱnaturalȱriverbanksȱ[mechitzosȱhayam]ȱ themselvesȱareȱconsideredȱmechitzosȱȰȱwhenȱtheyȱareȱbuiltȱupȱtenȱtefachimȱ overȱaȱfourȬamosȱareaȱȰȱevenȱifȱtheȱareaȱwouldȱotherwiseȱbeȱclassifiedȱasȱaȱ reshusȱharabbimȱ(Maharsham,ȱ9:18;ȱHareiȱB’samim,ȱ5:73,ȱandȱEruvȱV’Hotzaah).ȱȱInȱ1905ȱtheyȱ allowedȱanȱeruvȱinȱManhattan,ȱwhichȱwasȱestablishedȱutilizingȱriverbanksȱasȱ mechitzosȱ onȱ threeȱ sides,ȱ andȱ onȱ theȱ fourthȱ side,ȱ theȱ Thirdȱ Avenueȱ Elȱ asȱ aȱ

ȱ ȱ SECTIONȱIȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ25ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

tzurasȱ hapesach.ȱȱBrooklynȱ isȱ circumscribedȱ byȱ riverbanksȱ onȱ threeȱ sidesȱ asȱ wellȱ andȱ accordinglyȱ wouldȱ beȱ classifiedȱ asȱ aȱ reshusȱ hayachid.ȱȱHowever,ȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ machlokesȱ haposkimȱ whetherȱ orȱ notȱ asuȱ rabbimȱ u’mevatleiȱ mechitztaȱ affectsȱmechitzosȱhayamȱ(MishnahȱBerurah,ȱ363:118).ȱȱThereforeȱourȱdiscussionȱwillȱ pertainȱ toȱ manȬmadeȱ wallsȱ [mechitzosȱ b’y’daiȱ adam]ȱ only,ȱ inȱ whichȱ caseȱ weȱ paskenȱloȱasuȱrabbimȱu’mevatleiȱmechitztaȱ (seeȱ noteȱ 2).ȱȱInȱadditionȱtoȱgatesȱthatȱ surroundȱ Brooklyn’sȱ waterfront,ȱ theȱ eruvȱ utilizesȱ seaȱ walls.ȱȱTheseȱ manȬ madeȱwalls,ȱwhichȱpreventȱtheȱencroachmentȱofȱtheȱsea,ȱareȱmechitzosȱb’y’daiȱ adamȱasȱwellȱand,ȱalongȱwithȱtheȱgates,ȱcircumscribeȱBrooklynȱonȱthreeȱsides.ȱ ȱ 18ȱ Additionally,ȱtheȱposkimȱmaintainȱthatȱweȱcanȱutilizeȱmechitzosȱhabatimȱasȱtheȱ mechitzosȱthatȱencircleȱourȱneighborhoodȱsinceȱtheȱhousesȱthatȱlineȱtheȱstreetsȱ areȱ omedȱ merubehȱ alȱ haparutzȱ andȱ thenȱ theȱ areaȱ wouldȱ beȱ considered,ȱ me’d’oraysa,ȱ aȱ reshusȱ hayachidȱ (seeȱ alsoȱ Baisȱ Shlomo,ȱ simanȱ 51;ȱ Mayimȱ Rabim,ȱ 1:38;ȱ Tuvȱ Yehoshua,ȱp.ȱ7,ȱandȱMahariȱStief,ȱsimanȱ68).ȱȱInȱessenceȱwithȱmechitzosȱhabatimȱweȱhaveȱ fourȱmechitzosȱsurroundingȱourȱneighborhoodȱorȱalternatively,ȱweȱcanȱutilizeȱ theȱ mechitzosȱ habatimȱ toȱ closeȱ theȱ fourthȱ sideȱ ofȱ theȱ threeȱ mechitzosȱ atȱ ourȱ waterfront.ȱȱFurthermoreȱthereȱisȱtheȱwellȬknownȱChazonȱIshȱ(O.C.ȱ74:10,ȱ107:4Ȭ7)ȱ whichȱstatesȱsince,ȱme’d’oraysa,ȱaȱbreakȱinȱanȱenclosureȱthatȱisȱomedȱmerubehȱ doesȱnotȱnegateȱtheȱenclosure,ȱwhenȱaȱstreetȱwhichȱcontinuesȱthroughȱaȱcityȱ ends,ȱeitherȱwithȱhousesȱorȱaȱdeadȱend,ȱtheȱwholeȱlengthȱofȱthatȱstreetȱwithȱ theȱ mechitzosȱ habatimȱ onȱ bothȱ sidesȱ andȱ itsȱ deadȱ endȱ wouldȱ beȱ consideredȱ omedȱmerubehȱonȱthreeȱsides,ȱandȱme’d’oraysa,ȱaȱreshusȱhayachid.ȱȱAsȱaȱresult,ȱ theȱ intersectionsȱ ofȱ thatȱ street,ȱ whichȱ wereȱ pirtzos,ȱ wouldȱ halachicallyȱ beȱ termedȱk’omedȱdami,ȱclosed.ȱȱConsequently,ȱallȱstreetsȱthatȱrunȱperpendicularȱ throughȱthisȱstreetȱȰȱwhichȱnowȱhasȱthreeȱmechitzosȱandȱhalachicallyȱclosedȱ intersectionsȱȰȱwouldȱ inȱ turnȱ beȱ surroundedȱ withȱ threeȱ mechitzosȱ themselves,ȱtheirȱownȱmechitzosȱhabatimȱonȱbothȱsidesȱofȱtheȱstreetȱandȱaȱthirdȱ wall,ȱtheȱomedȱofȱtheȱintersection.ȱȱThisȱcreatesȱaȱspiralingȱeffectȱthroughoutȱ theȱwholeȱcity.ȱȱTheȱChazonȱIshȱconcludesȱthatȱthereȱneverȱwouldȱbeȱinȱbigȱ citiesȱ aȱ reshusȱ harabbimȱ becauseȱ weȱ wouldȱ alwaysȱ findȱ oneȱ streetȱ thatȱ isȱ enclosedȱbyȱthreeȱwalls.ȱȱThisȱChazonȱIshȱisȱoneȱofȱtheȱreasonsȱwhyȱinȱEretzȱ Yisroelȱeruvinȱareȱmaintainedȱ(RavȱYisroelȱYaakovȱFisherȱzt”lȱinȱEvenȱYisroel,ȱ8:36;ȱKinyanȱ Torah,ȱ4:40,ȱandȱRavȱChaimȱKanievskyȱshlitaȱinȱShonehȱHalachos,ȱsimanȱ363).ȱȱ ȱ Thoughȱ theȱ Chazonȱ Ishȱ wasȱ knownȱ asȱ aȱ bigȱ supporterȱ ofȱ eruvin,ȱ inȱ Orchosȱ Rabbeinuȱ(vol.ȱ1,ȱp.ȱ170)ȱitȱisȱstatedȱthatȱtheȱChazonȱIshȱdidȱnotȱevenȱallowȱaȱchildȱ toȱutilizeȱtheȱeruvȱandȱcarryȱinȱBneiȱBrakȱonȱShabbos.ȱȱSomeȱclaimȱthatȱsinceȱ theȱ Chazonȱ Ishȱ didȱ notȱ allowȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ eruv,ȱ itȱ isȱ irrelevantȱ thatȱ heȱ maintainedȱthatȱaȱreshusȱharabbimȱdoesȱnotȱexistȱtoday.ȱȱTheyȱareȱmistaken;ȱ ȱ 26ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ SECTIONȱIȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ AȱSummaryȱofȱtheȱHalachicȱIssuesȱAccordingȱtoȱMostȱPoskimȱ ȱ ȱ Mostȱ poskimȱ maintainȱ thatȱ Brooklynȱ isȱ notȱ classifiedȱ asȱ aȱ reshusȱ harabbimȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱfollowingȱthreeȱreasons:ȱ i Theȱstreetsȱofȱourȱcommunityȱdoȱnotȱrunȱstraightȱfromȱoneȱendȱofȱ theȱcityȱtoȱtheȱotherȱȰȱtheyȱareȱnotȱmefulashȱu’mechuvanimȱm’shaarȱ l’shaar.ȱ i Noneȱofȱtheȱstreetsȱinȱourȱcommunity,ȱincludingȱOceanȱParkway,ȱ areȱ traversedȱdailyȱbyȱ600,000ȱpeopleȱȰȱthereȱisȱnoȱshishimȱribuyȱ ovrimȱboȱb’cholȱyom.ȱ i Asȱ Brooklynȱ isȱ circumscribedȱ byȱ moreȱ thanȱ threeȱ mechitzosȱ atȱ itsȱ waterfront,ȱitȱisȱfundamentallyȱaȱreshusȱhayachid.ȱ ȱ Evenȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ aboveȱ conditionsȱ wouldȱ beȱ sufficientȱ groundȱ toȱ permitȱanȱeruvȱofȱtzurasȱhapesachim.ȱȱAdditionally,ȱasȱthereȱareȱmanyȱ reasonsȱtoȱallowȱanȱeruvȱinȱBrooklyn,ȱevenȱaȱBaalȱNefeshȱcanȱutilizeȱtheȱ eruvȱwithȱcertainty.ȱȱFurthermore,ȱsinceȱBrooklynȱisȱboundedȱonȱthreeȱ sidesȱ byȱ mechitzos,ȱ anyȱ eruvȱ inȱ Brooklynȱ wouldȱ beȱ consideredȱ aȱ

Rambamȱeruv.ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ

theȱonlyȱdifficultyȱwithȱeruvinȱthatȱtheȱChazonȱIshȱhimselfȱwroteȱaboutȱwasȱ thatȱtheȱeruvȱwasȱb’chezkasȱbrokenȱorȱrippedȱliterallyȱeveryȱShabbosȱ(Teshuvosȱ V’Kasvim,ȱ simanȱ 85).ȱȱHeȱ wasȱ therforeȱ uneasyȱ aboutȱ peopleȱ utilizingȱ theȱ eruv.ȱȱ Modernȱ constructionȱ materialsȱ canȱ withstandȱ extremeȱ weatherȱ conditionsȱ andȱareȱb’chezkasȱkayama.ȱȱThereȱisȱnoȱdoubtȱthenȱthatȱtheȱChazonȱIshȱwouldȱ allowȱcarryingȱinȱanȱeruvȱtoday.ȱ

SECTION II

Hilchos Eruvin According

to Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l

ȱ 28ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ SECTIONȱIȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ SECTIONȱIIȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ29ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ SECTIONȱIIȱ ȱ ȱ HaGaonȱRavȱMosheȱFeinsteinȱzt”l’sȱApproachȱtoȱEruvinȱ ȱ ȱ Likeȱmostȱposkim,ȱRavȱMosheȱoriginallyȱmaintainedȱ(IgrosȱMoshe,ȱO.C.ȱ1:109)ȱ thatȱtheȱcriterionȱofȱshishimȱribuyȱwasȱdependentȱonȱtheȱstreetȱhavingȱ shishimȱ ribuyȱ [600,000ȱ people]ȱ traversingȱ itȱ andȱȰȱasȱ statedȱ inȱ theȱ previousȱ sectionȱȰȱaȱ tzurasȱ hapesachȱ wouldȱ thereforeȱ beȱ sufficientȱ anywhereȱinȱBrooklyn.ȱȱHowever,ȱlaterȱ (ibid.,ȱ 1:139:5)ȱheȱformulatedȱhisȱ chiddushȱinȱwhichȱshishimȱribuyȱwasȱnotȱdependentȱonȱaȱstreetȱbutȱonȱaȱ twelveȱ milȱ byȱ twelveȱ milȱ areaȱ [approximatelyȱ 8.1ȱ byȱ 8.1ȱmiles].ȱȱRavȱ Mosheȱconcludedȱ(ibid.,ȱ5:28:5,ȱ5:29)ȱ[seeȱAppendixȱ2]ȱthatȱinȱorderȱforȱanȱ areaȱthisȱsizeȱtoȱhaveȱ600,000ȱpeopleȱcollectivelyȱtraversingȱitsȱstreetsȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ timeȱ thereȱ wouldȱ haveȱ toȱ beȱ fiveȱ timesȱ thatȱ number,ȱ 3,000,000ȱ people,19ȱ livingȱ and/orȱ commutingȱ intoȱ theȱ areaȱ forȱ work.ȱȱ

19ȱ WhenȱRavȱMosheȱzt”lȱfirstȱdraftedȱhisȱchiddushȱ(IgrosȱMoshe,ȱO.C.ȱ1:139:5)ȱheȱdidȱnotȱ quantifyȱhowȱmanyȱpeopleȱwouldȱbeȱrequiredȱtoȱliveȱinȱaȱtwelveȱmilȱbyȱtwelveȱ milȱareaȱinȱorderȱthatȱ600,000ȱpeopleȱwouldȱbeȱpresentȱtoȱtraverseȱitsȱstreets.ȱȱInȱ theȱ firstȱ teshuvahȱ clarifyingȱ thisȱ matterȱ (ibid.,ȱ 4:87)ȱ heȱ statedȱ that,ȱ althoughȱ theȱ actualȱ numberȱ ofȱ inhabitantsȱ couldȱ possiblyȱ varyȱ accordingȱ toȱ theȱ city,ȱ inȱ Brooklynȱitȱwouldȱmostȱlikelyȱrequireȱfourȱtoȱfiveȱtimesȱshishimȱribuy.ȱȱInȱtheȱfinalȱ twoȱteshuvosȱwhichȱfollowedȱweȱseeȱthatȱRavȱMosheȱcodifiedȱhisȱchiddushȱthatȱtheȱ requirementȱis,ȱ”justȱaboutȱ3,000,000ȱpeople,”ȱ(ibid.,ȱ5:28:5)ȱor,ȱ“atȱleastȱfiveȱtimesȱ shishimȱribuy,”ȱ(ibid.,ȱ5:29)ȱwhichȱcouldȱamountȱtoȱevenȱmoreȱthanȱ3,000,000ȱpeople;ȱ seeȱAppendixȱ2.ȱȱConsequently,ȱinȱtheȱChicagoȱeruvȱpamphletȱ(WestȱRogersȱParkȱEruv,ȱ 1993ȱ p.ȱ 23)ȱ itȱ isȱ statedȱ thatȱ Ravȱ Dovidȱ Feinsteinȱ shlitaȱ wasȱ inȱ agreementȱ thatȱ accordingȱtoȱhisȱfather’sȱshitahȱthereȱmustȱbeȱaȱminimumȱofȱ3,000,000ȱpeopleȱinȱ orderȱforȱtheȱcityȱtoȱbeȱdefinedȱasȱaȱreshusȱharabbim.ȱȱThereforeȱRavȱDovidȱshlitaȱ allowedȱanȱeruvȱtoȱbeȱestablishedȱinȱChicagoȱevenȱthoughȱtheȱtwelveȱmilȱbyȱtwelveȱ milȱareaȱthatȱincludedȱtheȱeruvȱencompassedȱoverȱ2,500,000ȱpeople.ȱ ȱ 30ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ SECTIONȱIIȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Onlyȱthenȱwouldȱtheȱareaȱbeȱclassifiedȱasȱaȱreshusȱharabbimȱd’oraysa.20ȱȱ [ItȱisȱimportantȱtoȱnoteȱRavȱMosheȱclearlyȱstatedȱ(ibid.,ȱ4:87)ȱthatȱsinceȱinȱ theȱpastȱeruvinȱhadȱbeenȱerectedȱinȱcitiesȱwithȱpopulationsȱexceedingȱ shishimȱribuy,ȱoneȱcouldȱnotȱclassifyȱaȱcityȱasȱaȱreshusȱharabbimȱsolelyȱonȱ theȱbasisȱofȱtheȱexistenceȱofȱaȱpopulationȱofȱ600,000.ȱȱConsequentlyȱheȱ setȱforthȱhisȱchiddushȱofȱ3,000,000ȱpeople;ȱseeȱAppendixȱ3.]ȱȱThereforeȱ ifȱBrooklynȱencompassedȱ3,000,000ȱpeople,ȱaȱtzurasȱhapesachȱwouldȱnotȱ beȱadequate;ȱdalsosȱwouldȱbeȱneeded.ȱȱ ȱ However,ȱ ifȱ theȱ tzurasȱ hapesachȱ encircledȱ onlyȱ aȱ neighborhoodȱ inȱ Brooklyn,ȱitȱwouldȱbeȱpermissibleȱaccordingȱtoȱRavȱMosheȱasȱlongȱasȱ theȱeruvȱencompassedȱfewerȱthanȱshishimȱribuy,ȱ(ibid.,ȱ4:86,ȱ5:28:5,ȱ5:29)ȱ21ȱorȱifȱ Brooklynȱwasȱsurroundedȱbyȱmechitzosȱ(ibid.,ȱ1:139ȱtheȱendȱofȱanafȱ3).22ȱ

20ȱ Theȱ rationaleȱ underlyingȱ Ravȱ Moshe’sȱ zt”l’sȱ rulingsȱ isȱ basedȱ onȱ theȱ digleiȱ hamidbarȱfromȱwhichȱtheȱhalachosȱofȱdomainsȱareȱderived.ȱȱSinceȱtheȱtwelveȱ milȱbyȱtwelveȱmilȱencampmentȱinȱtheȱmidbarȱincludedȱshishimȱribuyȱ[600,000ȱ menȱ 20Ȭ60ȱ yearsȱ ofȱ age]ȱ plusȱ women,ȱ childrenȱ andȱ elders,ȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ calculatedȱ theȱ populationȱ toȱ beȱ 3,000,000.ȱȱAsȱ aȱ result,ȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ maintainedȱthereȱwasȱshishimȱribuyȱtraversingȱtheȱstreetsȱofȱtheȱencampment.ȱȱ Toȱutilizeȱtheȱsizeȱofȱtheȱencampmentȱandȱtoȱrequireȱaȱpopulationȱofȱ3,000,000ȱ asȱtheȱbasisȱforȱaȱreshusȱharabbimȱofȱshishimȱribuyȱisȱuniquelyȱRavȱMoshe’sȱownȱ interpretationȱinȱtheȱlawsȱofȱreshusȱharabbimȱ(IgrosȱMoshe,ȱO.C.ȱ1:139:5,ȱ4:87).ȱȱ ȱ 21ȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ zt”lȱ maintainedȱ (ibid.,ȱ 5:28:5)ȱ thatȱ sinceȱ theȱ Jewishȱ quartersȱ inȱ Europeanȱ citiesȱ wereȱ onlyȱ aȱ smallȱ sectionȱ ofȱ theȱ city,ȱ neverȱ encompassingȱ shishimȱribuy,ȱitȱwasȱpermissibleȱtoȱerectȱanȱeruvȱofȱtzurasȱhapesachimȱthere;ȱseeȱ Appendixȱ 6a.ȱȱ[Seeȱ alsoȱ Chiddusheiȱ Ravȱ Chaimȱ onȱ theȱ Rambamȱ forȱ aȱ relatedȱ rulingȱ (Hilchosȱ Shabbosȱ perekȱ 16ȱ Halachahȱ 16).]ȱȱFollowingȱthisȱlineȱofȱreasoning,ȱRavȱ Mosheȱ paskenedȱ thatȱ anȱ eruvȱ wasȱ permissibleȱ inȱ Kewȱ Gardensȱ Hills,ȱ Queensȱ andȱinȱOakȱParkȱandȱSouthfield,ȱDetroitȱbecauseȱtheseȱcommunitiesȱwereȱonlyȱ aȱsmallȱpartȱofȱtheirȱcitiesȱ(IgrosȱMoshe,ȱO.C.ȱ4:86,ȱ5:29ȱandȱAddendumȱtoȱO.Cȱ4:89).ȱȱ[Theȱ eruvinȱ inȱ Queensȱ andȱ Detroitȱ wereȱ unlikeȱ theȱ 1962ȱ Manhattanȱ eruv,ȱ whichȱ reliedȱonȱseaȱwallsȱtoȱencompassȱtheȱwholeȱborough.ȱȱInȱManhattanȱaȱtzurasȱ hapesachȱwasȱnotȱerectedȱtoȱencompassȱfewerȱthanȱshishimȱribuy.]ȱ ȱ 22ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ zt”l,ȱ mechitzosȱ wouldȱ classifyȱ theȱ areaȱ asȱaȱreshusȱ hayachidȱd’oraysa.ȱȱTherefore,ȱaȱtzurasȱhapesachȱwouldȱbeȱsufficientȱanywhereȱ inȱ theȱ areaȱ includedȱ byȱ theȱ mechitzos,ȱ sinceȱ itȱ wouldȱ beȱerectedȱinȱaȱreshusȱ

ȱ ȱ SECTIONȱIIȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ31ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Onlyȱ whenȱ allȱ threeȱ criteriaȱ haveȱ beenȱ realizedȱȰȱthatȱ is,ȱ Brooklynȱ hasȱ aȱ populationȱ ofȱ 3,000,000ȱ andȱ theȱ tzurasȱ hapesachȱ encompassesȱ moreȱthanȱshishimȱribuyȱandȱBrooklynȱisȱnotȱenclosedȱbyȱmechitzosȱȰȱ wouldȱitȱnotȱbeȱpermissibleȱtoȱerectȱanȱeruvȱofȱtzurasȱhapesachimȱevenȱ aroundȱaȱsectionȱofȱBrooklyn;ȱdalsosȱwouldȱbeȱneeded.ȱȱ ȱ ItȱisȱimportantȱtoȱnoteȱthatȱRavȱMosheȱdidȱnotȱsetȱforthȱhisȱchiddushȱasȱ aȱp’sakȱforȱothersȱsinceȱhisȱchiddushȱwasȱnotȱstatedȱinȱtheȱAchronimȱandȱ theȱ Aruchȱ HaShulchanȱ didȱ notȱ agreeȱ withȱ him.23ȱȱOnlyȱ whenȱ peopleȱ

hayachidȱd’oraysa.ȱȱHowever,ȱaȱtzurasȱhapesachȱwouldȱnotȱbeȱadequateȱtoȱcloseȱ theȱ pirtzosȱ thatȱ areȱ borderingȱ anȱ unenclosedȱ areaȱ containingȱ shishimȱ ribuy;ȱ dalsosȱwouldȱbeȱneededȱ(ibid.,ȱ1:139ȱtheȱendȱofȱanafȱ3);ȱseeȱnoteȱ31ȱandȱAppendixȱ9ȱ forȱaȱmoreȱcomprehensiveȱexplanation.ȱ ȱ 23ȱ Interestingly,ȱofȱallȱtheȱinstancesȱwhereȱRavȱMosheȱzt”lȱwasȱaskedȱforȱaȱp’sak,ȱ eruvinȱ isȱ probablyȱ theȱ onlyȱ issueȱ whereȱ heȱ didȱ notȱ wantȱ toȱ prohibitȱ somethingȱ solelyȱ onȱ theȱ basisȱ ofȱ hisȱ ownȱ chiddush.ȱȱTheȱ onlyȱ actualȱ p’sakȱ regardingȱ eruvinȱ issuedȱ byȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ wereȱ thoseȱ inȱ favorȱ ofȱ erectingȱ anȱ eruv,ȱinȱcommunitiesȱsuchȱasȱSeaȱGate,ȱKewȱGardensȱHillsȱandȱDetroitȱ(ibid.,ȱ 2:89Ȭ90,ȱ 4:86,ȱ 5:29).ȱȱYetȱ inȱ instancesȱ whenȱ heȱ personallyȱ wasȱ againstȱ theȱ establishmentȱofȱanȱeruvȱandȱheȱwasȱaskedȱforȱaȱp’sakȱonȱtheȱmatterȱsuchȱasȱinȱ Flatbush,ȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ notȱ onlyȱ avoidedȱ givingȱ aȱ p’sakȱ heȱ evenȱ declinedȱ toȱ stateȱhisȱpersonalȱconvictionȱ(ibid.,ȱ4:87).ȱȱHeȱjustȱsaid,ȱ“Iȱdoȱnotȱwantȱtoȱjoinȱ youȱinȱthisȱmatter,ȱbecauseȱthereȱareȱmanyȱopinionsȱonȱthisȱtopic,ȱasȱweȱseeȱ inȱ theȱ Shulchanȱ Aruch.”ȱȱItȱ isȱ alongȱ thisȱ sameȱ lineȱ ofȱ reasoningȱ thatȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱzt”lȱtoldȱRavȱTuviaȱGoldsteinȱzt”lȱȰȱevenȱafterȱtheȱ1979ȱkolȱkoreiȱwasȱ publishedȱȰȱthat,ȱnotȱwithstandingȱhisȱopinionȱofȱtheȱmatter,ȱifȱtheȱrabbanimȱ ofȱFlatbushȱwantedȱtoȱerectȱanȱeruvȱtheyȱcouldȱdoȱasȱtheyȱsawȱfit.ȱ ȱ However,ȱatȱtheȱtimeȱthereȱwasȱaȱmisunderstandingȱconcerningȱRavȱMoshe’sȱ personalȱconvictionȱandȱsomeȱpeopleȱmistakenlyȱsupposedȱthatȱheȱwasȱevenȱ inȱsupportȱofȱanȱeruv;ȱhenceȱRavȱMoshe’sȱtwoȱteshuvosȱclarifyingȱhisȱopinionȱ (ibid.,ȱ 4:87Ȭ88).ȱȱEvenȱwhenȱclarifyingȱhisȱposition,ȱwhichȱheȱconsideredȱtoȱbeȱ “l’dinah,”ȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ didȱ notȱ wantȱ toȱ issueȱ aȱ p’sakȱ since,ȱ asȱ heȱ wrote,ȱ hisȱ chiddushȱ wasȱ notȱ mentionedȱ inȱ theȱ Achronim,ȱ andȱ moreoverȱ theȱ Aruchȱ HaShulchanȱ wouldȱ notȱ agreeȱ withȱ him;ȱ seeȱ Appendixȱ 4.ȱȱItȱ isȱimportantȱtoȱ noteȱthatȱbothȱtheseȱteshuvosȱ(ibid.)ȱwereȱwrittenȱtoȱtheȱsameȱpeopleȱandȱtheȱ secondȱoneȱwasȱjustȱaȱclarificationȱofȱtheȱfirstȱandȱwasȱnotȱwrittenȱasȱaȱp’sakȱ ȱ 32ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ SECTIONȱIIȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

toȱprohibitȱtheȱeruv.ȱȱInȱtheȱfirstȱteshuvahȱ(ibid.,ȱ4:87)ȱRavȱMosheȱexplainedȱhisȱ chiddushȱthatȱinȱorderȱforȱthereȱtoȱbeȱshishimȱribuyȱtraversingȱtheȱstreetsȱoverȱ aȱ twelveȱ milȱ byȱ twelveȱ milȱ areaȱ thereȱ wouldȱ needȱ toȱ beȱ aboutȱ 3,000,000ȱ peopleȱlivingȱinȱtheȱarea.ȱȱHoweverȱafterȱRavȱMosheȱwasȱtoldȱthatȱthereȱwereȱ fewerȱ thanȱ 3,000,000ȱ peopleȱ livingȱ inȱ Brooklyn,ȱ heȱ expoundedȱ onȱ hisȱ chiddushȱinȱtheȱsecondȱteshuvahȱandȱaddedȱthatȱheȱwouldȱnotȱbeȱinȱfavorȱofȱ anȱ eruvȱ inȱ aȱ bigȱ cityȱ sinceȱ someȱ mayȱ thinkȱ thatȱ thereȱ wasȱ shishimȱ ribuyȱ traversingȱtheȱstreetsȱ (ibid.,ȱ4:88;ȱseeȱnoteȱ25ȱwhyȱthisȱissueȱdoesȱnotȱpertainȱtoȱus).ȱȱInȱ bothȱinstances,ȱ“l’dinah”ȱrefersȱtoȱRavȱMoshe’sȱpersonalȱopinion.ȱ ȱ ConcerningȱtheȱBoroȱParkȱeruv,ȱaȱsimilarȱsequenceȱofȱeventsȱoccurredȱwhenȱ RavȱMenasheȱKleinȱshlitaȱaskedȱRavȱMosheȱtoȱissueȱaȱp’sakȱwhetherȱheȱcouldȱ erectȱanȱeruv.ȱȱRavȱMosheȱansweredȱthatȱheȱcouldȱdoȱasȱheȱsawȱfitȱ(OimȱAniȱ Chomah,ȱp.ȱ266).ȱȱJustȱasȱinȱFlatbush,ȱthisȱwasȱmisunderstoodȱtoȱmeanȱthatȱRavȱ Mosheȱwouldȱsupportȱanȱeruv.ȱȱTherefore,ȱRavȱMosheȱfeltȱaȱneedȱtoȱclarifyȱ hisȱpersonalȱopinionȱonȱthisȱmatterȱ(IgrosȱMoshe,ȱO.C.ȱ5:28:20).ȱȱInȱbothȱBoroȱParkȱ andȱFlatbush,ȱRavȱMoshe’sȱteshuvosȱwereȱwrittenȱinȱreactionȱtoȱtheȱpublic’sȱ misunderstandingȱ ofȱ hisȱ personalȱ opinionȱ regardingȱ eruvinȱ andȱ notȱ asȱ aȱ p’sak.ȱȱ[ConcerningȱRavȱMoshe’sȱsignatureȱonȱtheȱkolȱkoreiȱofȱ1979ȱandȱ1981ȱ whichȱ prohibitȱ theȱ Flatbushȱ andȱ Boroȱ Parkȱ eruvin,ȱ seeȱ noteȱ 36ȱ andȱ Appendicesȱ10ȱandȱ11ȱforȱevidenceȱthatȱbothȱareȱspuriousȱdocumentsȱandȱ cannotȱbeȱreliedȱon.]ȱȱ ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ whenȱ Ravȱ Tzviȱ Eisenstadtȱ zt”lȱ askedȱ theȱ rabbanimȱ ofȱ Manhattanȱ forȱ theirȱ opinionsȱȰȱasȱ opposedȱ toȱ theirȱ p’sakȱȰȱconcerningȱ erectingȱ anȱ eruv,ȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ answeredȱ thatȱ inȱ hisȱ personalȱ opinionȱ theyȱ shouldȱnotȱestablishȱanȱeruvȱ (seeȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ Igrosȱ Moshe,ȱ O.C.ȱ 1:138ȱ whichȱ isȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ Manhattanȱ teshuvahȱ 1:139).ȱȱWhenȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ wasȱ askedȱ ifȱ theȱ rabbanimȱofȱManhattanȱhaveȱaȱrightȱtoȱerectȱanȱeruvȱheȱansweredȱthatȱtheyȱ couldȱdoȱasȱtheyȱsawȱfitȱ(ibid.,ȱ4:89ȱandȱHaPardes,ȱ33rdȱyear,ȱvol.ȱ9).ȱȱThisȱisȱexactlyȱ whatȱRavȱMosheȱtoldȱRavȱMenachemȱM.ȱKasherȱzt”l,ȱ“evenȱthoughȱIȱwillȱnotȱ joinȱ you,ȱ youȱ shouldȱ goȱ finishȱ whatȱ youȱ startedȱ [andȱ establishȱ theȱ eruv]”ȱ (DivreiȱMenachem,ȱO.C.ȱvol.ȱ2,ȱintroduction).ȱȱOnlyȱwhenȱRavȱAharonȱKotlerȱzt”lȱandȱ otherȱRosheiȱYeshivosȱmadeȱaȱtakanahȱnotȱtoȱerectȱanȱeruvȱinȱManhattanȱdidȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ joinȱ themȱ andȱ prohibitȱ theȱ eruvȱ asȱ wellȱ (Igrosȱ Moshe,ȱ O.C.ȱ 4:86ȱ andȱ Addendumȱ toȱ O.C.ȱ 4:89)ȱȰȱthisȱ takanahȱ wasȱ onlyȱ aboutȱ Manhattanȱ andȱ notȱ Brooklyn;ȱseeȱnoteȱ36ȱandȱAppendixȱ10.ȱȱEvenȱwhenȱRavȱMosheȱsignedȱonȱ theȱ1962ȱtakanahȱwithȱRavȱAharonȱKotlerȱweȱseeȱthatȱheȱwasȱnotȱatȱeaseȱwithȱ theȱlanguageȱwhichȱstatedȱthat,ȱ“thoseȱwhoȱrelyȱonȱtheȱeruvȱinȱManhattanȱareȱ

ȱ ȱ SECTIONȱIIȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ33ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ mistakenlyȱ supposedȱ thatȱ heȱ wasȱ personallyȱ supportiveȱ ofȱ theȱ eruvȱ didȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ feelȱ aȱ needȱ toȱ clarifyȱ thatȱ heȱ wasȱ notȱ personallyȱ inȱ favorȱofȱanȱeruv,ȱhenceȱhisȱteshuvahȱclarifyingȱtheȱmatterȱ(ibid.,ȱ4:87);ȱseeȱ Appendixȱ4.24ȱȱ

consideredȱ aȱ mechalelȱ Shabbos,”ȱ sinceȱ afterȱ heȱ quotedȱ thisȱ takanahȱ inȱ hisȱ teshuvah,ȱheȱomittedȱthisȱlastȱlineȱ(ibid.,ȱAddendumȱtoȱO.C.ȱ4:89).ȱȱȱ ȱ GivenȱthatȱRavȱMoshe,ȱdespiteȱhisȱpersonalȱconvictions,ȱneverȱissuedȱaȱp’sakȱ forȱ othersȱ againstȱ erectingȱ eruvinȱ weȱ canȱ possiblyȱ understandȱ whyȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ statedȱ (ibid.,ȱ 3:94,ȱ 5:19,ȱ 5:24:10;ȱ seeȱ noteȱ 24)ȱ thatȱ weȱ relyȱ onȱ theȱ heterȱ ofȱ shishimȱribuyȱinȱallȱcitiesȱȰȱevenȱBrooklynȱandȱManhattanȱȰȱsinceȱheȱdidȱnotȱ wantȱtoȱemployȱhisȱchiddushȱasȱaȱp’sak;ȱseeȱalsoȱAppendixȱ5.ȱ ȱ Itȱ isȱ importantȱ toȱ noteȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ evidenceȱ Ravȱ Aharonȱ Kotlerȱ zt”lȱ prohibitedȱeruvinȱinȱBrooklyn.ȱȱThatȱheȱsignedȱtheȱ1962ȱManhattanȱkolȱkoreiȱ onlyȱprovesȱthatȱheȱprohibitedȱaȱManhattanȱeruv;ȱseeȱnoteȱ36ȱandȱAppendixȱ 10.ȱȱ[ItȱmightȱbeȱthatȱtheȱreasonȱRavȱAharonȱsignedȱonȱtheȱ1962ȱkolȱkoreiȱwasȱ thatȱhe,ȱlikeȱmostȱrabbanim,ȱacceptedȱthatȱManhattanȱisȱclassifiedȱasȱaȱreshusȱ harabbimȱofȱshishimȱribuyȱȰȱasȱmostȱrabbanimȱwereȱunderȱtheȱimpressionȱthatȱ thereȱ wasȱ oneȱ streetȱ thatȱ hadȱ shishimȱ ribuyȱ traversingȱ itȱ (Ozneiȱ Yehoshua,ȱ 1:18;iTiroshȱVaYitzhar,ȱsimanȱ73;ȱMahariȱStief,ȱsimanȱ68,ȱandȱV’yaanȱYoseph,ȱ1:195).ȱȱWhileȱtheȱ rabbanimȱ ofȱ Manhattanȱ reliedȱ onȱ mefulashȱ u’mechuvanimȱ m’shaarȱ l’shaarȱ andȱ mechitzosȱ toȱ allowȱ anȱ eruv,ȱ Ravȱ Aharonȱ maintainedȱ thatȱ neverthelessȱ Manhattanȱwouldȱbeȱclassifiedȱasȱaȱreshusȱharabbimȱandȱanȱeruvȱwouldȱnotȱbeȱ permissibleȱ (seeȱ Mishnasȱ Ravȱ Aharon,ȱ 6:2ȱ forȱ hisȱ reasoning).ȱȱHowever,ȱifȱtheȱreasonȱ Ravȱ Aharonȱ prohibitedȱ theȱ Manhattanȱ eruvȱ wasȱ thatȱ heȱ acceptedȱ theȱ Mishkenosȱ Yaakov’sȱ (O.C.ȱ 120Ȭ122)ȱ p’sakȱ overȱ theȱ Baisȱ Ephraim’sȱ (O.C.ȱ 26)ȱȰȱthatȱ shishimȱribuyȱisȱnotȱaȱacceptedȱfundamentȱofȱaȱreshusȱharabbimȱȰȱalmostȱallȱofȱ theȱ Achronim,ȱ includingȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ zt”l,ȱ wouldȱ disagreeȱ sinceȱ theyȱ maintainedȱthatȱshishimȱribuyȱisȱanȱacceptedȱfundamentȱofȱaȱreshusȱharabbimȱ (seeȱ notesȱ 11iandȱ 24;ȱ theȱ criterionȱ ofȱ shishimȱ ribuyȱ hasȱ beenȱ theȱ acceptedȱ basisȱ forȱ eruvinȱ forȱ hundredsȱofȱyearsȱupȱuntilȱtheȱpresentȱday,iincludingȱeruvinȱinȱEretzȱYisroelȱandȱinȱmanyȱotherȱ largeȱcities;ȱseeȱnoteȱ15).]ȱ ȱ 24ȱ AlthoughȱRavȱMosheȱzt”lȱstatedȱthatȱheȱwouldȱnotȱbeȱinȱfavorȱofȱanȱeruvȱinȱ Brooklynȱ basedȱ onȱ theȱ informationȱ providedȱ toȱ himȱ atȱ theȱ time,ȱ heȱ neverthelessȱ wroteȱ onȱ numerousȱ occasionsȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ reshusȱ harabbimȱ todayȱbecauseȱweȱrelyȱonȱtheȱheterȱofȱshishimȱribuyȱ(IgrosȱMoshe,ȱO.C.ȱ3:94,ȱ5:24:10).ȱȱ However,ȱ theȱ detractorsȱ ofȱ eruvinȱ haveȱ alwaysȱ claimedȱ thatȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ ȱ 34ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ SECTIONȱIIȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ RavȱMoshe’sȱpersonalȱapproachȱtoȱeruvinȱprohibitedȱanȱeruvȱinȱBoroȱ Parkȱ andȱ Flatbush,ȱ becauseȱ itȱ wasȱ basedȱ onȱ informationȱ thatȱ wasȱ providedȱtoȱhimȱatȱtheȱtime.ȱȱ ȱ Thatȱis:ȱȱ i Brooklyn’sȱ population,ȱ includingȱ thoseȱ whoȱ commuteȱ intoȱ theȱ boroughȱtoȱwork,ȱisȱoverȱ3,000,000.ȱ i BoroȱParkȱandȱFlatbushȱindependentlyȱcontainȱmoreȱthanȱshishimȱribuy.ȱ i Brooklynȱisȱnotȱencompassedȱbyȱmechitzos.ȱȱ ȱ Whatȱ followsȱ areȱ currentȱ Brooklynȱ factsȱ andȱ statisticsȱ thatȱ wouldȱ makeȱtheȱeruvȱpermissibleȱinȱitsȱpresentȱconstructionȱevenȱaccordingȱ toȱRavȱMoshe’sȱpersonalȱapproachȱtoȱeruvin.ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ AreȱThereȱThreeȱMillionȱPeopleȱinȱBrooklynȱ ȱ ȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ zt”lȱ maintainedȱ thatȱ theȱ areaȱ Brooklynȱ encompassesȱ isȱ aȱ littleȱ moreȱ thanȱ twelveȱ milȱ byȱ twelveȱ milȱ andȱ heȱ wasȱ toldȱ thatȱ theȱ populationȱ ofȱ Brooklynȱ isȱ somewhatȱ lessȱ thanȱ 3,000,000ȱ (ibid.,ȱ 4:87Ȭ88).ȱȱ Heȱ neverthelessȱ maintainedȱ thatȱ Brooklynȱ hasȱ theȱ statusȱ ofȱ aȱ reshusȱ harabbimȱ d’oraysaȱ becauseȱ heȱ wasȱ ledȱ toȱ believeȱ thatȱ nearlyȱ aȱ millionȱ peopleȱcomeȱintoȱtheȱboroughȱtoȱworkȱ(ibid.,ȱ4:88).25ȱ

certainlyȱdidȱnotȱmeanȱBoroȱParkȱorȱFlatbush.ȱȱTheȱmostȱilluminatingȱofȱallȱ hisȱteshuvosȱisȱthisȱfinalȱoneȱonȱtheȱissueȱ(ibid.,ȱvol.ȱ8,ȱO.C.ȱ5:19),ȱregardingȱaȱblindȱ womanȱusingȱaȱwalkingȱstickȱonȱShabbos.ȱȱRavȱMosheȱendsȱthisȱteshuvahȱbyȱ sayingȱ thatȱ todayȱ weȱ relyȱ onȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ almostȱ noȱ trueȱ reshusȱ harabbim.ȱȱInȱ Kovetzȱ Amȱ HaTorahȱ (1986ȱ no.11),ȱ whereȱ thisȱ teshuvahȱ wasȱ firstȱ printed,ȱitȱclearlyȱstatesȱthatȱthisȱwomanȱlivedȱinȱBoroȱPark;ȱseeȱAppendixȱ 5a.ȱȱTheyȱ purposefullyȱ omittedȱ thisȱ veryȱ importantȱ factȱ fromȱ theȱ teshuvahȱ whenȱtheyȱprintedȱIgrosȱMosheȱvolumeȱ8ȱposthumously;ȱseeȱAppendixȱ5b!ȱȱ ȱ 25ȱ Whileȱ accordingȱ toȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ zt”l’sȱ personalȱ opinionȱ ifȱ theȱpopulationȱofȱ Brooklynȱisȱ3,000,000ȱtheȱboroughȱwouldȱbeȱclassifiedȱasȱaȱreshusȱharabbim,ȱinȱ

ȱ ȱ SECTIONȱIIȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ35ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Theseȱareȱtheȱfacts:ȱ TheȱUSȱCensusȱBureauȱ(Censusȱ2000ȱSummaryȱFileȱ1)ȱreportedȱtheȱpopulationȱ ofȱ Brooklynȱ inȱ theȱ yearȱ 2000ȱ asȱ beingȱ 2,465,326ȱ people,26ȱ whichȱ isȱ

hisȱlastȱteshuvahȱregardingȱeruvinȱinȱBrooklynȱ(IgrosȱMoshe,ȱO.C.ȱ5:29;ȱseeȱalsoȱ4:88),ȱ weȱseeȱthatȱRavȱMosheȱrealizedȱthatȱtheȱtotalȱpopulationȱofȱBrooklynȱisȱlessȱ thanȱ3,000,000.ȱȱNevertheless,ȱheȱmaintainedȱthatȱdespiteȱthisȱanȱeruvȱshouldȱ notȱbeȱconstructedȱsinceȱinȱaȱlargeȱcityȱoneȱmayȱthinkȱthatȱthereȱisȱshishimȱ ribuyȱoverȱaȱtwelveȱmilȱbyȱtwelveȱmilȱarea.ȱȱTherefore,ȱinȱRavȱMoshe’sȱfinalȱ analysisȱaȱBrooklynȱeruvȱisȱnotȱaȱmatterȱofȱaȱd’oraysa;ȱitȱisȱonlyȱaȱgezeirah.ȱ ȱ Thisȱgezeirahȱdoesȱnotȱpertainȱtoȱusȱasȱwellȱforȱtheȱfollowingȱreasons:ȱ i Ravȱ Mosheȱ onlyȱ statedȱ thisȱ gezeirahȱ becauseȱ heȱ wasȱ ledȱ toȱ believeȱ thatȱ Brooklynȱdidȱnotȱhaveȱmechitzos.ȱȱOnceȱweȱhaveȱestablishedȱthatȱBrooklynȱisȱ circumscribedȱ byȱ mechitzos,ȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ wouldȱ certainlyȱ notȱ haveȱ objectedȱ becauseȱofȱaȱgezeirahȱsinceȱinȱanyȱcaseȱwithȱmechitzosȱBrooklynȱisȱconsidered,ȱ me’d’oraysa,ȱaȱreshusȱhayachid.ȱȱ i Sinceȱ weȱ haveȱ erectedȱ aȱ tzurasȱ hapesachȱ inȱ eachȱ neighborhood,ȱ theȱ areaȱ enclosedȱ containsȱ aȱ populationȱ ofȱ muchȱ fewerȱ thanȱ shishimȱ ribuy,ȱ whichȱ wouldȱ definitelyȱ notȱ beȱ mistakenȱ asȱ aȱreshusȱharabbim.ȱȱInȱfact,ȱRavȱMosheȱ allowedȱtheȱseparationȱofȱaȱneighborhoodȱwithȱaȱtzurasȱhapesachȱ(seeȱnoteȱ21).ȱȱ ȱ Itȱ isȱ interestingȱ toȱ noteȱ theȱ similaritiesȱ betweenȱ theȱ Brooklynȱ andȱ Chicagoȱ eruvin.ȱȱBothȱ Brooklynȱ andȱ Chicagoȱ haveȱ aȱ populationȱ ofȱ approximatelyȱ 2,500,000ȱpeopleȱoverȱaȱtwelveȱmilȱbyȱtwelveȱmilȱarea.ȱȱDespiteȱthisȱnumberȱ ofȱpeopleȱRavȱDovidȱFeinsteinȱshlitaȱwasȱcitedȱinȱtheȱChicagoȱeruvȱpamphletȱ (Westȱ Rogersȱ Parkȱ Eruv,ȱ 1993ȱ p.ȱ 23)ȱ asȱ beingȱ inȱ agreementȱ that,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ hisȱ father,ȱ anȱ eruvȱ couldȱ beȱ establishedȱ inȱ Chicago.ȱȱThisȱ gezeirahȱ wasȱ notȱ consideredȱ aȱ seriousȱ enoughȱ issueȱ toȱ impedeȱ theȱ constructionȱ ofȱ eruvinȱ inȱ ChicagoȱandȱshouldȱnotȱinterfereȱwithȱanȱeruvȱinȱBrooklynȱasȱwell.ȱ ȱ 26ȱ Sinceȱ thisȱ chiddushȱ isȱ selfȬadmittedlyȱ Ravȱ Moshe’sȱ zt”l’sȱ ownȱ (Igrosȱ Moshe,ȱ O.C.ȱ1:139:5,ȱ4:87),ȱitȱisȱunwarrantedȱforȱpeopleȱtoȱelaborateȱonȱhisȱchiddushimȱ andȱ investȱ themȱ withȱ meaningȱ thatȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ neverȱ intended.ȱȱForȱ example,ȱinȱorderȱtoȱmeetȱRavȱMoshe’sȱcriterionȱofȱ3,000,000ȱpeople,ȱsomeȱ claimȱ thatȱ thereȱ areȱ hundredsȱ ofȱ thousandsȱ ofȱ illegalȱ immigrantsȱ livingȱ inȱ Brooklynȱthatȱareȱnotȱincludedȱinȱtheȱcensus,ȱresultingȱinȱaȱtotalȱpopulationȱ ofȱoverȱ3,000,000.ȱȱThisȱnovelȱsuggestionȱisȱbaseless;ȱinȱfactȱtheȱcensusȱbureauȱ triesȱ toȱ includeȱ allȱ illegalȱ immigrantsȱ inȱ theirȱ count.ȱȱEvenȱ ifȱ someȱ illegalȱ immigrantsȱhadȱbeenȱoverlooked,ȱtheirȱnumbersȱwouldȱbeȱmuchȱfewerȱthenȱ ȱ 36ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ SECTIONȱIIȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ muchȱfewerȱthanȱtheȱpopulationȱrequiredȱbyȱRavȱMoshe.ȱȱHowȱmuchȱ moreȱsoȱifȱweȱwereȱtoȱfocusȱonlyȱonȱaȱtwelveȱmilȱbyȱtwelveȱmilȱareaȱ andȱnotȱtheȱentireȱBrooklyn,ȱtheȱpopulationȱwouldȱbeȱsignificantlyȱlessȱ thanȱ theȱ numberȱ requiredȱ byȱ Ravȱ Moshe.ȱȱAdditionally,ȱ evenȱ ifȱ oneȱ wereȱtoȱfactorȱintoȱtheȱpopulationȱtheȱnumberȱofȱpeopleȱwhoȱactuallyȱ commuteȱ intoȱ theȱ boroughȱ toȱ workȱ [235,918ȱ people],ȱ theȱ totalȱ neverȱ comesȱcloseȱtoȱtheȱrequiredȱ3,000,000ȱpeople.27ȱȱEvenȱmoreȱso,ȱatȱtheȱ sameȱ timeȱ thereȱ areȱ moreȱ peopleȱ whoȱ commuteȱ outȱ ofȱ Brooklynȱ toȱ workȱ [424,107ȱ people];ȱ thus,ȱ theȱ totalȱ fallsȱ farȱ shortȱ ofȱ theȱ requiredȱ 3,000,000ȱ (NYCȱ Departmentȱ ofȱ Cityȱ Planning,ȱ Tableȱ CTPPȱ PȬ6,ȱ PȬ7,ȱ 2003).ȱȱHadȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ knownȱ theseȱ factsȱ heȱ wouldȱ concurȱ thatȱ Brooklynȱ doesȱ notȱ haveȱtheȱstatusȱofȱaȱreshusȱharabbimȱofȱshishimȱribuy.ȱ ȱ ȱ

theȱ figuresȱ neededȱ toȱ fulfillȱ Ravȱ Moshe’sȱ requirementȱ ofȱ 3,000,000ȱ people.ȱȱ Toȱ putȱ thisȱ intoȱ perspective,ȱ sinceȱ Brooklyn’sȱ populationȱ isȱ approximatelyȱ 2,450,000ȱweȱwouldȱneedȱanotherȱ550,000ȱillegalȱimmigrantsȱtoȱreachȱaȱtotalȱ ofȱ3,000,000.ȱȱThisȱwouldȱmeanȱthatȱeveryȱsixthȱpersonȱlivingȱinȱBrooklynȱisȱ anȱ illegalȱ immigrant,ȱ whichȱ isȱ justȱ preposterous.ȱȱTheȱ factȱ isȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ neverȱmentionedȱtheseȱinnovationsȱinȱhisȱteshuvos.ȱ ȱ 27ȱ Thereȱareȱthoseȱwhoȱclaimȱthatȱthereȱareȱoverȱaȱmillionȱpeopleȱwhoȱutilizeȱ theȱ Brooklynȱ beaches,ȱ andȱ asȱ aȱ resultȱ theȱ totalȱ populationȱ ofȱ Brooklynȱ exceedsȱtheȱ3,000,000ȱpeopleȱrequiredȱbyȱRavȱMosheȱzt”l.ȱȱ[Inȱfact,ȱonlyȱinȱ rareȱinstancesȱhadȱthereȱeverȱbeenȱcloseȱtoȱthatȱnumberȱofȱpeopleȱutilizingȱ theȱ beaches,ȱ oneȱ weekendȱ orȱ soȱ everyȱ decade.]ȱȱHoweverȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ addressedȱthisȱissueȱhimselfȱ(ibid.,ȱ4:88)ȱandȱstatedȱthatȱtheȱbeachesȱthemselvesȱ wouldȱ notȱ beȱ reasonȱ enoughȱ toȱ prohibitȱ anȱ eruvȱ becauseȱ accordingȱ toȱ theȱ ShulchanȱAruchȱtheȱrequirementȱisȱthatȱtheȱshishimȱribuyȱhasȱtoȱtraverseȱtheȱ streetsȱ onȱ aȱ dailyȱ basis.ȱȱSinceȱ itȱ isȱ onlyȱ inȱ theȱ summertimeȱ thatȱ theȱ populationȱ swellsȱ atȱ theȱ beachesȱ andȱ itȱ doesȱ notȱ occurȱ onȱ aȱ dailyȱ basis,ȱ Brooklynȱwouldȱnotȱbeȱclassifiedȱasȱaȱreshusȱharabbimȱofȱshishimȱribuyȱ(seeȱalsoȱ noteȱ13).ȱȱ[Additionally,ȱtheȱbeachesȱareȱcordonedȱoffȱwithȱtheirȱownȱmechitzos,ȱ theȱboardwalk,ȱandȱaccordingȱtoȱRavȱMosheȱtheyȱwouldȱnotȱbeȱconsideredȱ partȱofȱtheȱtwelveȱmilȱbyȱtwelveȱmilȱarea.]ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ SECTIONȱIIȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ37ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ DoesȱtheȱEruvȱEncompassȱShishimȱRibuyȱ ȱ ȱ RavȱMosheȱzt”lȱmaintainedȱ (Igrosȱ Moshe,ȱ O.C.ȱ 5:28:5,ȱ andȱ Addendumȱ toȱ O.C.ȱ 4:89)ȱ thatȱanȱeruvȱofȱtzurasȱhapesachimȱwasȱnotȱpermissibleȱinȱBoroȱParkȱandȱ Flatbushȱ sinceȱ heȱ wasȱ ledȱ toȱ believeȱ thatȱ eachȱ neighborhoodȱ individuallyȱ containedȱ aȱ populationȱ inȱ excessȱ ofȱ shishimȱ ribuy;ȱ seeȱ Appendixȱ6.28ȱȱȱ ȱ Theseȱareȱtheȱfacts:ȱ CensusȱfiguresȱrevealȱthatȱinȱBoroȱParkȱtheȱeruvȱincludesȱaȱpopulationȱ ofȱlessȱthanȱ100,000ȱpeopleȱandȱinȱFlatbushȱaȱpopulationȱunderȱ200,000ȱ peopleȱ (NYCȱ Departmentȱ ofȱ Cityȱ Planning,ȱ Communityȱ Districtȱ Profiles).ȱȱHadȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱknownȱtheseȱfigures,ȱheȱcertainlyȱwouldȱhaveȱagreedȱtoȱanȱeruvȱ ofȱtzurasȱhapesachimȱinȱtheseȱBrooklynȱcommunities,ȱwhichȱwouldȱsetȱ themȱoffȱfromȱtheirȱborough,ȱjustȱasȱheȱallowedȱthatȱanȱeruvȱinȱKewȱ GardensȱHills,ȱQueensȱ29ȱandȱtheȱeruvinȱinȱEuropeanȱcommunitiesȱsetȱ themȱoffȱfromȱtheirȱrespectiveȱcitiesȱ(IgrosȱMoshe,ȱO.C.ȱ4:86,ȱ5:28:5).ȱ

28ȱ ItȱisȱundeniableȱthatȱRavȱMosheȱzt”lȱwasȱledȱtoȱbelieveȱthatȱindependentlyȱ BoroȱParkȱandȱFlatbushȱhaveȱpopulationsȱofȱshishimȱribuy.ȱȱHeȱstatesȱthisȱinȱ twoȱteshuvosȱ(ibid.,ȱO.C.ȱ5:28:5,ȱandȱAddendumȱtoȱO.C.ȱ4:89);ȱseeȱAppendixȱ6.ȱȱThisȱisȱ theȱ primaryȱ reasonȱ whyȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ didȱ notȱ recommendȱ anȱ eruvȱ utilizingȱ tzurasȱhapesachimȱinȱBoroȱParkȱandȱFlatbush.ȱ ȱ 29ȱ Asȱ thereȱ areȱ manyȱ similaritiesȱ betweenȱ Brooklynȱ andȱ Queens,ȱ allȱ theȱ argumentsȱwhyȱanȱeruvȱcannotȱbeȱerectedȱinȱBrooklynȱcanȱbeȱsaidȱofȱQueensȱ asȱwell.ȱȱ[Forȱexample,ȱtheȱclaimȱthatȱthereȱareȱmanyȱillegalȱimmigrantsȱwhoȱ areȱnotȱincludedȱinȱtheȱBrooklynȱcensusȱcanȱbeȱsaidȱofȱQueensȱasȱwellȱandȱ neverthelessȱ weȱ doȱ notȱ seeȱ thatȱ thisȱ issueȱ concernedȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ zt”lȱ regardingȱBrooklynȱorȱQueensȱ(seeȱalsoȱnoteȱ26).]ȱ ȱ ThereȱareȱpeopleȱwhoȱattemptȱtoȱrationalizeȱwhyȱRavȱMosheȱallowedȱanȱeruvȱ toȱbeȱerectedȱinȱQueens.ȱȱForȱexample,ȱsomeȱclaimȱthatȱKewȱGardensȱHillsȱisȱ consideredȱ aȱ suburbȱ ofȱ Queensȱ whileȱ othersȱ allegeȱ thatȱ Queensȱ wasȱ notȱ incorporatedȱ intoȱ theȱ cityȱ asȱ aȱ wholeȱ unit,ȱ butȱ ratherȱ asȱ aȱ setȱ ofȱ disparateȱ neighborhoods.ȱȱTherefore,ȱ theyȱ argue,ȱ theȱ populationȱ ofȱ Queensȱ isȱ consideredȱ dividedȱ andȱ eachȱ neighborhoodȱ isȱ independentȱ ofȱ theȱ other,ȱ ȱ 38ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ SECTIONȱIIȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

whichȱ isȱ whyȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ allowedȱ anȱ eruvȱ toȱ beȱ erectedȱ there.ȱȱThisȱ assumptionȱisȱincorrect;ȱRavȱMosheȱneverȱclaimedȱthatȱKewȱGardensȱwasȱaȱ separateȱentity,ȱonlyȱthatȱitȱwasȱaȱsmallȱneighborhoodȱinȱQueensȱ(ibid.,ȱ4:86ȱandȱ AddendumȱtoȱO.C.ȱ4:89).ȱȱAdditionally,ȱKewȱGardensȱHillsȱisȱpartȱofȱQueensȱjustȱ asȱBoroȱParkȱandȱFlatbushȱareȱpartȱofȱBrooklyn,ȱasȱcanȱbeȱseenȱonȱanyȱmapȱofȱ theȱarea;ȱseeȱAppendixȱ7.ȱȱEveryȱneighborhoodȱinȱQueensȱisȱbuiltȱupȱtoȱtheȱ adjoiningȱ neighborhoodȱ andȱ formsȱ oneȱ contiguousȱ boroughȱ justȱ asȱ allȱ neighborhoodsȱdoȱinȱBrooklyn.ȱȱWhyȱthenȱdidȱRavȱMosheȱallowȱanȱeruvȱinȱ Queensȱ andȱ opposeȱ oneȱ inȱ Brooklyn?ȱȱEvenȱ moreȱ so,ȱ sinceȱ bothȱ Brooklynȱ andȱQueensȱhaveȱsimilarȱpopulationsȱofȱoverȱ2,000,000,ȱwhyȱdidȱRavȱMosheȱ notȱ applyȱtheȱsameȱgezeirahȱthatȱheȱimplementedȱinȱBrooklynȱtoȱnegateȱanȱ eruvȱinȱKewȱGardensȱHills,ȱQueensȱasȱwellȱ(seeȱnoteȱ25)?ȱȱȱ ȱ TheȱunderlyingȱprincipleȱmustȱbeȱthatȱRavȱMosheȱallowedȱanȱeruvȱinȱKewȱ GardensȱHillsȱbecauseȱtheȱtzurasȱhapesachȱthereȱseparatedȱtheȱneighborhoodȱ justȱasȱheȱstatedȱtheȱeruvinȱinȱEuropeȱdemarcatedȱtheȱJewishȱquartersȱfromȱ theirȱ citiesȱ (ibid.,ȱ 5:28:5;ȱ seeȱ noteȱ 21);ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ Appendixȱ 6a.ȱȱRavȱ Mosheȱ consideredȱ theȱ eruv,ȱ inȱ andȱ ofȱ itself,ȱ aȱ separationȱ ofȱ theȱ shishimȱ ribuyȱ andȱ allowedȱtheȱeruvȱthere.ȱȱ[SeeȱalsoȱChiddusheiȱRavȱChaimȱonȱtheȱRambamȱforȱaȱ relatedȱrulingȱ (HilchosȱShabbosȱperekȱ16ȱHalachahȱ16).]ȱȱConsequentially,ȱRavȱMosheȱ wasȱ notȱ concernedȱ aboutȱ theȱ possibilityȱ thatȱ aȱ twelveȱ milȱ byȱ twelveȱ milȱ sectionȱofȱQueensȱwhichȱincludesȱKewȱGardensȱHillsȱmightȱbeȱclassifiedȱasȱaȱ reshusȱharabbim,ȱevenȱthoughȱQueensȱȰȱlikeȱBrooklynȱȰȱhadȱaȱpopulationȱ wellȱoverȱ2,000,000.ȱȱTheȱimportantȱissueȱwasȱthatȱinȱKewȱGardensȱHills,ȱaȱ neighborhoodȱinȱQueens,ȱtheyȱwereȱdividingȱonlyȱaȱpartȱofȱQueensȱwhichȱ containedȱlessȱthanȱshishimȱribuyȱwithȱaȱtzurasȱhapesachȱinȱcontrastȱtoȱBrooklynȱ whereȱRavȱMosheȱwasȱunderȱtheȱimpressionȱthatȱtheȱtzurasȱhapesachȱencircledȱ moreȱ thanȱ shishimȱ ribuyȱ (Igrosȱ Moshe,ȱ O.C.ȱ 5:28:5ȱ andȱ Addendumȱ toȱ O.C.ȱ 4:89);ȱ seeȱ Appendixȱ6.ȱ ȱ Furthermore,ȱRavȱMosheȱallowedȱtheȱestablishmentȱofȱeruvinȱinȱtwoȱDetroitȱ neighborhoods,ȱOakȱParkȱandȱSouthfieldȱ (ibid.,ȱ 5:29),ȱevenȱthoughȱregardingȱ theȱcityȱofȱDetroitȱproperȱRavȱMosheȱhadȱstatedȱthatȱanȱeruvȱshouldȱnotȱbeȱ erectedȱ becauseȱ ofȱ hisȱ gezeirahȱ (seeȱ noteȱ 25).ȱȱNevertheless,ȱ heȱ allowedȱ theseȱ twoȱeruvinȱdespiteȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheseȱtwoȱneighborhoodsȱareȱwellȱdevelopedȱ withȱhousesȱrightȱupȱtoȱtheȱDetroitȱcityȱlines.ȱȱTherefore,ȱitȱisȱevidentȱthatȱtheȱ definingȱ issueȱ inȱ theseȱ twoȱ neighborhoodsȱ wasȱ thatȱ theȱ tzurasȱ hapesachȱ separatedȱonlyȱaȱpartȱofȱDetroit.ȱȱȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ SECTIONȱIIȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ39ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ IsȱBrooklynȱEnclosedȱbyȱMechitzosȱ ȱ ȱ RavȱMosheȱzt”lȱstatedȱ(ibid.,ȱ5:28:5)ȱregardingȱBrooklyn’sȱmechitzos,ȱ“Untilȱ nowȱtheyȱ[theȱmechitzos]ȱdidȱnotȱexistȱbutȱthatȱoneȱcanȱinvestigate”ȱ(seeȱ alsoȱibid.,ȱAddendumȱtoȱO.C.ȱ4:89).ȱ ȱ Theseȱareȱtheȱfacts:ȱ Thatȱ thereȱ areȱ threeȱ mechitzosȱ nowadaysȱ enclosingȱ moreȱ thanȱ 95ȱ percentȱ ofȱ theȱ Brooklynȱ waterfront,30ȱ isȱ obviousȱ evenȱ toȱ theȱ mostȱ casualȱofȱobserversȱ(seeȱKuntresȱHaMechitzosȱpageȱ61ȱandȱmapȱofȱtheȱmechitzos).31ȱȱȱ

Additionally,ȱ thereȱ areȱ thoseȱ whoȱ claimȱ thatȱ theȱ reasonȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ permittedȱ anȱ eruvȱ inȱ Kewȱ Gardensȱ Hillsȱ wasȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theȱ rabbinicalȱ consensusȱsupportingȱanȱeruv.ȱȱTheyȱareȱincorrect,ȱforȱRavȱMoshe’sȱconcernȱ wasȱnotȱtheȱconsensusȱofȱotherȱrabbanimȱbutȱtheȱhalachahȱasȱheȱsawȱit.ȱȱAȱcaseȱ inȱpoint:ȱHadȱtheȱpositionȱofȱotherȱrabbanimȱbeenȱaȱconsiderationȱRavȱMosheȱ wouldȱ notȱ haveȱ allowedȱ theȱ Manhattanȱ rabbanimȱ toȱ establishȱ anȱ eruvȱ (ibid.,ȱ 4:89ȱ andȱ HaPardes,ȱ 33rdȱ year,ȱ vol.ȱ 9);ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ Appendixȱ 10d.ȱȱEvenȱ thoughȱ heȱ maintainedȱ otherwiseȱ andȱ heȱ undoubtedlyȱ knewȱ thatȱ thereȱ wereȱ rabbanimȱ otherȱ thanȱ himselfȱ whoȱ wereȱ alsoȱ againstȱ theȱ establishmentȱ ofȱ anȱ eruvȱ (seeȱ Kuntresȱ Tikkunȱ Eruvinȱ Manhattan,ȱ pp.ȱ 168Ȭ169),ȱnevertheless,ȱatȱthatȱtimeȱheȱallowedȱ theȱrabbanimȱtoȱdoȱasȱtheyȱsawȱfit.ȱȱȱ ȱ 30ȱ Theseȱ mechitzosȱ wereȱ evaluatedȱ byȱ theȱ followingȱ rabbanimȱ toȱ seeȱ whetherȱ theyȱfulfilledȱRavȱMosheȱzt”l’sȱrequirements:ȱȱ i MembersȱofȱRavȱYechezkelȱRothȱshlita’sȱBaisȱDin;ȱseeȱEmekȱHaTeshuvahȱ(5:19)ȱ andȱAppendixȱ8.ȱȱ i RavȱShlomoȱGrossȱshlita,ȱBelzerȱDayanȱofȱBoroȱPark.ȱ i RavȱTuviaȱGoldsteinȱzt”lȱsentȱaȱselectȱgroupȱfromȱhisȱkollelȱEmekȱHalacha.ȱ ȱ Allȱ wereȱ inȱ agreementȱ thatȱ theseȱ mechitzosȱ existȱ andȱ thatȱ theyȱ areȱ validȱ mechitzosȱaccordingȱtoȱRavȱMoshe.ȱ ȱ 31ȱ AtȱfirstȱRavȱMosheȱzt”lȱquestionedȱifȱBrooklynȱhadȱmechitzosȱatȱall,ȱaddingȱ thatȱevenȱifȱBrooklynȱwasȱsurroundedȱbyȱmechitzos,ȱdalsosȱwouldȱbeȱrequiredȱ atȱtheȱpirtzosȱ(IgrosȱMoshe,ȱO.C.ȱ5:28:5).ȱȱ ȱ ȱ 40ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ SECTIONȱIIȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

RavȱMosheȱmaintainedȱ(ibid.,ȱ1:139:3)ȱthatȱevenȱifȱanȱareaȱsuchȱasȱaȱwalledȱcityȱ Ȱȱwhichȱisȱconsideredȱme’d’oraysa,ȱaȱreshusȱhayachidȱȰȱhasȱpirtzosȱwhichȱareȱ openȱ toȱ anȱ unenclosedȱ areaȱ containingȱ shishimȱ ribuy,ȱ theseȱ pirtzosȱ wouldȱ neverthelessȱrequireȱdalsos,ȱme’d’rabbanan.ȱȱThisȱcriterionȱisȱRavȱMoshe’sȱownȱ chiddush.ȱȱ[Onȱtheȱcontrary,ȱtheȱShulchanȱAruchȱHaRavȱ(364:4);ȱBaisȱEphraimȱ(O.C.ȱ 26);ȱBaisȱMeirȱ(O.C.ȱ364:2);ȱMishnahȱBerurahȱ(364:5),ȱandȱtheȱAchiezerȱ(4:8)ȱmaintainȱ thatȱ onlyȱ whenȱ theȱ areaȱ isȱ classifiedȱ asȱ aȱ reshusȱ harabbimȱ isȱ thereȱ aȱ requirementȱofȱdalsos.]ȱ ȱ [ThisȱshitahȱwasȱoriginallyȱsaidȱaboutȱManhattanȱwhichȱhadȱshishimȱribuyȱandȱ neverthelessȱ wasȱ considered,ȱ me’d’oraysa,ȱ aȱ reshusȱ hayachidȱ becauseȱ itȱ wasȱ enclosedȱbyȱmechitzosȱȰȱseaȱwallsȱthatȱencompassedȱtheȱisland.ȱȱSinceȱRavȱ Mosheȱ hadȱ seenȱ Ravȱ Eisenstadt’sȱ teshuvahȱ heȱ knewȱ thatȱ thereȱ wereȱ someȱ pirtzosȱ inȱ theȱ Manhattanȱ mechitzosȱ (Kuntresȱ Tikkunȱ Eruvinȱ Manhattan,ȱ pp.ȱ 68,ȱ 168Ȭ69;ȱ Divreiȱ Menachem,ȱ O.C.ȱ vol.ȱ 2,ȱ p.ȱ 76;iRavȱ Tzviȱ Eisenstadtȱ zt”lȱ inȱ hisȱ Hatzaahȱ L’Tikkunȱ Eruvinȱ B’Manhattan,ȱandȱinȱhisȱseferȱMinchasȱTzvi,ȱsimanȱ4).ȱȱNevertheless,ȱbecauseȱManhattanȱ isȱanȱisland,ȱtheȱpirtzosȱopenedȱtoȱtheȱwater,ȱwhichȱobviouslyȱdidȱnotȱcontainȱ shishimȱribuy,ȱandȱthereforeȱposedȱnoȱproblemȱtoȱRavȱMosheȱsinceȱaȱtzurasȱ hapesachȱ wouldȱ thenȱ beȱ adequate.ȱȱHoweverȱ accordingȱ toȱ Ravȱ Moshe’sȱ chiddush,ȱ theȱ bridgesȱ leadingȱ fromȱ ManhattanȱȰȱwhichȱ wereȱ openȱ alongȱ theirȱsidesȱȰȱpossiblyȱwouldȱhaveȱneededȱtoȱbeȱrectifiedȱwithȱdalsos.ȱȱRavȱ Mosheȱquestionedȱ(IgrosȱMoshe,ȱO.C.ȱ1:139:5)ȱwhetherȱtheȱbridgesȱwereȱconsideredȱ partȱofȱManhattan,ȱinȱwhichȱcaseȱtheȱcity’sȱpopulationȱwouldȱinȱeffectȱcauseȱ theȱ bridgesȱ toȱ beȱ classifiedȱ asȱ aȱ reshusȱ harabbimȱ andȱ theyȱ wouldȱ requireȱ dalsos.ȱȱAlternatively,ȱifȱtheȱbridgesȱwereȱnotȱconsideredȱpartȱofȱtheȱcity,ȱbutȱ anȱintercityȱroad,ȱtheyȱwouldȱrequireȱshishimȱribuyȱcrossingȱthemȱinȱorderȱtoȱ beȱclassifiedȱasȱaȱreshusȱharabbimȱ(seeȱalsoȱnotesȱ12Ȭ13ȱandȱ15).ȱȱAsȱthisȱwasȱnotȱtheȱ case,ȱaȱtzurasȱhapesachȱwouldȱthenȱbeȱsufficient.]ȱȱȱ ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Ravȱ Moshe,ȱ inȱ aȱ Brooklynȱ neighborhood,ȱ aȱ tzurasȱ hapesachȱ wouldȱsufficeȱforȱtheȱfollowingȱreason:ȱ i Sinceȱtheȱtzurasȱhapesachȱweȱerectedȱinȱourȱneighborhoodȱonlyȱsurroundsȱaȱ sectionȱofȱBrooklynȱandȱnotȱtheȱentireȱboroughȱandȱitsȱbordersȱareȱnotȱopenȱ toȱaȱreshusȱharabbimȱ[Queens]ȱbutȱtoȱaȱreshusȱhayachidȱ[theȱrestȱofȱBrooklyn],ȱ theȱtzurasȱhapesachȱisȱsufficientȱandȱdalsosȱareȱnotȱrequiredȱ(ibid.,ȱ1:139ȱseeȱtheȱendȱ ofȱanafȱ3ȱwhereȱRavȱMosheȱstatesiclearlyȱthatȱifȱtheȱtzurasȱhapesachȱisȱerectedȱinȱaȱreshusȱhayachid,ȱ itȱ isȱ sufficient);ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ Appendixȱ 9.ȱȱOnlyȱ ifȱ weȱ wereȱ closingȱ theȱ pirtzosȱ betweenȱ Brooklynȱ andȱ Queens,ȱ wouldȱ weȱ requireȱ dalsos,ȱ asȱ Queensȱ isȱ notȱ enclosedȱ byȱ mechitzosȱ andȱ mayȱ perhapsȱ containȱ shishimȱ ribuy.ȱ ȱ [Inȱ fact,ȱ Queensȱdoesȱnotȱencompassȱaȱpopulationȱofȱ3,000,000ȱsoȱweȱcouldȱcloseȱtheȱ

ȱ ȱ SECTIONȱIIȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ41ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

pirtzosȱinȱtheȱmechitzosȱbetweenȱBrooklynȱandȱQueensȱwithȱaȱtzurasȱhapesachȱ sinceȱtheȱpirtzosȱareȱopenȱtoȱanȱareaȱthatȱdoesȱnotȱincludeȱshishimȱribuy.]ȱ ȱ Theȱ onlyȱ issueȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ hadȱ withȱ theȱ Brooklynȱ mechitzosȱ wasȱ thatȱ heȱ requiredȱdalsosȱ(ibid.,ȱ5:28:5);ȱhowever,ȱregardingȱManhattan,ȱRavȱMosheȱstatedȱ that,ȱbasedȱonȱadditionalȱshitosȱyechidaos,ȱevenȱwithȱmechitzosȱandȱdalsosȱatȱtheȱ pirtzosȱManhattanȱwouldȱnotȱbeȱclassifiedȱasȱaȱreshusȱhayachidȱ(ibid.,ȱ1:39:5Ȭ6).ȱȱȱ ȱ Evenȱ theseȱ shitosȱ yachidaosȱ wouldȱ notȱ affectȱ anȱ eruvȱ inȱ aȱ Brooklynȱ neighborhoodȱforȱtheȱfollowingȱreasons:ȱȱ i RavȱMosheȱutilizedȱtheseȱshitosȱinȱconjunctionȱwithȱhisȱchiddushimȱregardingȱ dalsosȱandȱtheȱsimilaritiesȱheȱnotedȱbetweenȱManhattanȱandȱYerushalayimȱ(seeȱ noteȱ33)ȱtoȱnullifyȱtheȱbenefitȱtheȱmechitzosȱsurroundingȱManhattanȱwouldȱhaveȱ providedȱ(ibid.,ȱ1:39:6).ȱȱHowever,ȱsinceȱRavȱMosheȱwouldȱconcurȱthatȱdalsosȱareȱ notȱnecessaryȱwhenȱanȱeruvȱencirclesȱonlyȱaȱsectionȱofȱBrooklynȱandȱtheȱissueȱ ofȱYerushalayimȱdoesȱnotȱconcernȱusȱasȱwellȱ (seeȱ noteȱ 33)ȱthereȱisȱnoȱquestionȱ thatȱRavȱMosheȱwouldȱallowȱanȱeruvȱinȱBrooklynȱinȱitsȱcurrentȱconstruction.ȱ i RavȱMosheȱatȱfirstȱstatedȱinȱaȱteshuvahȱregardingȱManhattanȱ(ibid.,ȱ140)ȱthatȱheȱ wasȱunclearȱwhetherȱmefulashȱisȱconsideredȱaȱcriterionȱofȱaȱreshusȱharabbim.ȱȱ Onȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱaccordingȱtoȱthoseȱwhoȱdoȱregardȱmefulashȱasȱaȱcriterionȱ ofȱ aȱ reshusȱ harabbim,ȱ sinceȱ theȱ streetsȱ ofȱ Manhattanȱ wereȱ notȱ mefulashȱ theȱ mechitzosȱwouldȱclassifyȱManhattanȱasȱaȱreshusȱhayachidȱȰȱorȱme’d’rabbananȱasȱ aȱkarmelis.ȱȱInȱwhichȱcase,ȱnotwithstandingȱtheseȱshitosȱyachidaos,ȱRavȱMosheȱ allowedȱthatȱdalsosȱatȱtheȱpirtzosȱwouldȱbeȱtheȱonlyȱrequirement.ȱȱHowever,ȱ inȱaȱlaterȱteshuvahȱregardingȱBrooklynȱ(ibid.,ȱ5:28:7)ȱRavȱMosheȱdoesȱacceptȱthatȱ forȱaȱwalledȱcityȱtoȱbeȱclassifiedȱasȱaȱreshusȱharabbimȱthereȱisȱaȱrequirementȱ thatȱitsȱstreetsȱȰȱtoȱbeȱanalogousȱtoȱtheȱdigleiȱhamidbarȱȰȱwouldȱneedȱtoȱbeȱ mefulashȱu’mechuvanimȱm’shaarȱl’shaar,ȱaȱcriterionȱofȱaȱreshusȱharabbim.ȱȱ[Thisȱ isȱ contraryȱ toȱ Ravȱ Aharonȱ Kotler’sȱ zt”l’sȱ understandingȱ ofȱ theȱ criterionȱ mefulashȱu’mechuvanimȱm’shaarȱl’shaarȱasȱbeingȱdependentȱsolelyȱonȱmechitzosȱ andȱnotȱaȱcriterionȱofȱaȱreshusȱharabbimȱ(seeȱMishnasȱRavȱAharon,ȱ6:2;ȱseeȱalsoȱnoteȱ9).]ȱȱ Therefore,ȱgivenȱtheȱfactȱthatȱBrooklynȱisȱenclosedȱbyȱmechitzosȱandȱitsȱstreetsȱ areȱ notȱ mefulashȱ u’mechuvanimȱ m’shaarȱ l’shaar,ȱ Brooklynȱ wouldȱ notȱ beȱ classifiedȱasȱaȱreshusȱharabbimȱatȱall,ȱandȱRavȱMosheȱwouldȱagree,ȱthatȱtheseȱ mechitzosȱwouldȱclassifyȱBrooklynȱasȱaȱreshusȱhayachid,ȱnotwithstandingȱtheseȱ shitosȱ yachidaosȱ (seeȱ alsoȱ noteȱ 14).ȱȱConsequently,ȱ inȱ regardsȱ toȱ Brooklyn,ȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ onlyȱ mentionsȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ requirementȱ ofȱ dalsosȱ ifȱ Brooklynȱ isȱ enclosedȱ byȱ mechitzosȱ (Igrosȱ Moshe,ȱ O.C.ȱ 5:28:5).ȱȱHowever,ȱ asȱ explainedȱ previously,ȱsinceȱweȱareȱerectingȱaȱtzurasȱhapesachȱonlyȱaroundȱaȱsectionȱofȱ Brooklyn,ȱdalsosȱwouldȱnotȱbeȱrequiredȱasȱwell;ȱseeȱAppendixȱ9.ȱ ȱ 42ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ SECTIONȱIIȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Therefore,ȱaccordingȱtoȱRavȱMoshe,ȱBrooklynȱisȱclassifiedȱasȱaȱreshusȱ hayachidȱ andȱ anȱ eruvȱ ofȱ tzurasȱ hapesachimȱ canȱ beȱ erected.ȱȱ[Whenȱ aȱ tzurasȱ hapesachȱ isȱ erectedȱ inȱ aȱ Brooklynȱ neighborhood,ȱ itsȱ pirtzosȱ areȱ openȱtoȱtheȱrestȱofȱBrooklyn,ȱaȱwalledȱcityȱthatȱis,ȱme’d’oraysa,ȱaȱreshusȱ hayachid.ȱ ȱ Evenȱ accordingȱ toȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ theȱ pirtzosȱ doȱ notȱ requireȱ dalsosȱ(IgrosȱMoshe,ȱO.C.ȱ1:139,ȱtheȱendȱofȱanafȱ3);ȱseeȱnoteȱ31ȱandȱAppendixȱ9ȱforȱaȱ moreȱcomprehensiveȱexplanation.]ȱȱ ȱ Othersȱhaveȱclaimed,ȱinȱtheȱnameȱofȱRavȱMoshe,ȱthatȱaȱbreakȱofȱtenȱ amosȱinȱtheȱmechitzosȱ[pirtzosȱesser]ȱisȱaȱBiblicalȱproscription,ȱthusȱtheȱ mechitzosȱencirclingȱBrooklynȱareȱdeficient.ȱ ȱ Theseȱareȱtheȱfacts:ȱ RavȱMosheȱclearlyȱstatesȱthatȱpirtzosȱesserȱisȱonlyȱaȱrabbinicalȱproscriptionȱ (ibid.,ȱ2:89Ȭ90)ȱandȱthereforeȱaȱtzurasȱhapesachȱwouldȱbeȱsufficientȱtoȱcloseȱtheȱ pirtzos.32ȱȱ[Additionally,ȱ theȱ mechitzosȱ aroundȱ Manhattanȱ hadȱ theȱ sameȱ issueȱconcerningȱpirtzosȱesserȱ(DivreiȱMenachem,ȱO.C.ȱvol.ȱ2,ȱp.ȱ76ȱandȱMinchasȱTzvi,ȱsimanȱ4)ȱ asȱ Brooklyn,ȱ andȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ wasȱ notȱ disturbedȱ byȱ thisȱ fact.]ȱȱ Accordingly,ȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ wouldȱ concurȱ thatȱ theȱ mechitzosȱ encirclingȱ Brooklynȱareȱsufficientȱevenȱifȱtheyȱhaveȱpirtzosȱofȱtenȱamos.ȱ ȱ InȱlightȱofȱtheseȱfactsȱitȱisȱobviousȱthatȱRavȱMoshe’sȱapproachȱtoȱeruvinȱ inȱ Boroȱ Parkȱ andȱ Flatbushȱ wasȱ basedȱ onȱ aȱ totallyȱ differentȱ setȱ ofȱ circumstancesȱ andȱ ifȱ heȱ wouldȱ haveȱ knownȱ theȱ particularsȱ ofȱ ourȱ situation,ȱheȱwouldȱhaveȱallowedȱanȱeruvȱtoȱbeȱerected.33ȱ

32ȱ Nearlyȱallȱposkimȱmaintainȱthatȱpirtzosȱesserȱisȱme’d’rabbananȱ(MabitȱinȱKiryatȱSefer,ȱ ShabbosȱPerekȱ16;ȱPriȱMegadim,iMishbetzesȱZahav,ȱ363:1;ȱShulchanȱAruchȱHaRav,ȱO.C.ȱ345:11;ȱZeraȱ Emes,ȱ eruvinȱ 17;ȱ Baisȱ Ephraim,ȱ O.C.ȱ 26Ȭ27;iTikkunȱ Eruvinȱ Krakow,ȱ teshuvahȱ 1;ȱ Melamudȱ Leho’il,ȱ simanȱ 68;iAvneiȱ Nezer,ȱ O.C.ȱ 265:13,ȱ 265:25,ȱ 276:1,ȱ 279:3;ȱ Aruchȱ HaShulchan,ȱ O.C.ȱ 362:26;iMahariȱ Slutsk,ȱO.C.ȱ11;ȱAchiezer,ȱ4:8;ȱChazonȱIsh,ȱO.C.ȱ107:5Ȭ8,ȱ112:5;iChavatzeletȱHaSharon,ȱO.C.ȱ19,ȱandȱ Kolȱ Mevaser,ȱ 1:20:2;ȱ concerningȱ aȱ pirtzahȱ ofȱ sixteenȱ amosȱ seeȱ noteȱ 45).ȱȱAdditionallyȱ practicallyȱallȱposkimȱmaintainȱthatȱtheȱmultitudesȱ[rabbim]ȱdoȱnotȱnegateȱtheȱ enclosure,ȱloȱasuȱrabbimȱu’mevatleiȱmechitztaȱ(seeȱnoteȱ2).ȱ ȱ 33ȱ ItȱisȱimportantȱtoȱnoteȱthatȱRavȱMosheȱzt”l,ȱusingȱYerushalayimȱinȱtheȱtimesȱ ofȱ theȱ Baisȱ HaMikdashȱ asȱ hisȱ precedentȱ (Igrosȱ Moshe,ȱ O.C.ȱ 1:139:5,ȱ 4:89,ȱ 5:28:15),ȱ

ȱ ȱ SECTIONȱIIȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ43ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ AȱSummaryȱofȱtheȱHalachicȱIssuesȱAccordingȱtoȱRavȱMosheȱ Feinsteinȱzt”lȱ ȱ ȱ EvenȱRavȱMoshe’sȱchiddush,ȱwhichȱwasȱhisȱpersonalȱopinionȱandȱnotȱaȱ p’sakȱ forȱ others,ȱ doesȱ notȱ precludeȱ theȱ establishmentȱ ofȱ anȱ eruvȱ inȱ Brooklynȱforȱtheȱfollowingȱthreeȱreasons:ȱ i Theȱ populationȱ ofȱ theȱ entireȱ Brooklynȱ withȱ theȱ peopleȱ whoȱ commuteȱintoȱtheȱboroughȱtoȱworkȱisȱmuchȱlessȱthanȱtheȱ3,000,000ȱ inhabitantsȱrequiredȱbyȱRavȱMoshe.ȱȱȱ i Evenȱ ifȱ theȱ totalȱ populationȱ ofȱ Brooklynȱ wouldȱ beȱ moreȱ thanȱ 3,000,000,ȱsinceȱtheȱeruvinȱerectedȱinȱourȱneighborhoodsȱencircleȱaȱ populationȱofȱmuchȱlessȱthanȱshishimȱribuy,ȱRavȱMosheȱwouldȱhaveȱ allowedȱanȱeruvȱtoȱbeȱerectedȱinȱourȱneighborhoodsȱinȱBrooklyn.ȱ i EvenȱifȱBrooklynȱwouldȱhaveȱaȱpopulationȱofȱ3,000,000ȱandȱtheȱeruvȱ wouldȱ encircleȱ moreȱ thanȱ shishimȱ ribuy,ȱ sinceȱ thereȱ areȱ mechitzosȱ encompassingȱBrooklyn,ȱRavȱMosheȱwouldȱdefinitelyȱhaveȱallowedȱ anȱeruvȱtoȱbeȱerectedȱinȱanyȱneighborhoodȱinȱBrooklyn.ȱ ȱ

maintainedȱthatȱanȱeruvȱshouldȱnotȱbeȱerectedȱinȱManhattanȱevenȱifȱthereȱisȱ noȱhalachicȱbasisȱagainstȱerectingȱanȱeruvȱthere.ȱȱRavȱMosheȱmaintainedȱthatȱ anȱeruvȱwasȱnotȱerectedȱinȱYerushalayimȱinȱtheȱtimesȱofȱtheȱBaisȱHaMikdashȱ becauseȱofȱtheȱfearȱthatȱpeopleȱwhoȱtraveledȱtoȱYerushalayimȱfromȱallȱoverȱ theȱworldȱwould,ȱuponȱreturningȱhome,ȱerectȱeruvinȱimproperly.ȱȱ[TheȱNodaȱ B’Yehudah,ȱMahaduraȱTinyanaȱKuntresȱAchronȱ (simanȱ 21)ȱandȱtheȱTiferesȱYisroelȱ (Eruvin,ȱ10:57)ȱmaintainȱthatȱanȱeruvȱwasȱallowedȱinȱYerushalayim,ȱhoweverȱitȱ wasȱ notȱ possibleȱ toȱ establishȱ anȱ eruvȱ atȱ theȱ time.]ȱȱSinceȱ Manhattanȱ likeȱ Yerushalayimȱ hasȱ manyȱ visitorsȱ fromȱ allȱ overȱ theȱ world,ȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ maintainedȱ anȱ eruvȱ shouldȱ notȱ beȱ establishedȱ inȱ Manhattanȱ asȱ well.ȱȱ However,ȱRavȱMosheȱagreedȱ (HaPardes,ȱ 33rdȱ year,ȱ vol.ȱ 9)ȱthatȱifȱtheȱrabbanimȱinȱ Manhattanȱ wouldȱ erectȱ anȱ eruv,ȱ theȱ precedentȱ ofȱ Yerushalayimȱ wouldȱ notȱ poseȱanȱobstacle.ȱȱHowȱmuchȱmoreȱsoȱwouldȱRavȱMosheȱhaveȱallowedȱanȱ eruvȱthatȱhadȱbeenȱerectedȱinȱBrooklyn,ȱasȱheȱwasȱnotȱsureȱifȱBrooklynȱwasȱ evenȱcomparableȱtoȱYerushalayimȱatȱallȱ(IgrosȱMoshe,ȱO.C.ȱ1:139:6,ȱ5:28:15).ȱ ȱ ȱ 44ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ SECTIONȱIIȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Itȱisȱimportantȱtoȱnoteȱthat,ȱaccordingȱtoȱRavȱMoshe,ȱevenȱoneȱofȱtheȱ aboveȱconditionsȱwouldȱbeȱsufficientȱreasonȱtoȱpermitȱanȱeruvȱofȱtzurasȱ

hapesachim.34ȱȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ

34ȱ Manyȱpeopleȱdoȱnotȱknowȱmuchȱaboutȱhilchosȱeruvinȱandȱtheyȱunfortunatelyȱ approachȱtheȱsubjectȱwithȱaȱclosedȱmind.ȱȱThusȱwhenȱaȱpermissibleȱeruvȱisȱ constructed,ȱtheyȱareȱquickȱtoȱissueȱaȱblanketȱstatementȱandȱdeclareȱthatȱRavȱ Mosheȱzt”lȱwouldȱnotȱhaveȱapprovedȱofȱtheȱeruvȱinȱanyȱform.ȱȱInȱtruth,ȱRavȱ Mosheȱmaintainedȱotherwiseȱandȱheȱisȱoftenȱmisquotedȱȱorȱmisinterpretedȱinȱ anȱ attemptȱ toȱ validateȱ misconceptionsȱ aboutȱ eruvin.ȱȱ[Forȱ example,ȱ someȱ haveȱclaimedȱinȱtheȱnameȱofȱRavȱMosheȱthatȱpirtzosȱesserȱisȱme’d’oraysaȱ (seeȱ pageȱ42).]ȱȱShouldn’tȱtheyȱlearnȱhilchosȱeruvinȱandȱRavȱMoshe’sȱteshuvosȱbeforeȱ theyȱ makeȱ upȱ theirȱ mind?ȱȱShouldn’tȱ theyȱ beȱ seekingȱ theȱ truthȱ insteadȱ ofȱ collectingȱ allȱ sortsȱ ofȱ objectionsȱ fromȱ disparateȱ sources?ȱȱWhyȱ mustȱ theȱ objectiveȱalwaysȱbeȱtoȱasserȱeruvin?ȱȱ ȱ Ofȱ course,ȱ itȱ isȱ alwaysȱ possibleȱ toȱ citeȱ shitosȱ yachidosȱ toȱ invalidateȱ anȱ eruv;ȱ however,ȱ rulingȱ accordingȱ toȱ shitosȱ yachidosȱ isȱ notȱ theȱ correctȱ approachȱ inȱ halachah.ȱȱ[TheȱȱChasamȱSoferȱwritesȱ(Y.D.ȱ37)ȱthatȱifȱweȱwereȱtoȱcollectȱallȱtheȱ shitosȱ ha’ossrimȱ weȱ wouldȱ notȱ beȱ ableȱ toȱ eatȱ breadȱ orȱ drinkȱ water.]ȱȱEvenȱ moreȱso,ȱinȱhilchosȱeruvin,ȱsinceȱallȱcriteriaȱhaveȱtoȱbeȱmetȱforȱtheȱareaȱtoȱbeȱ classifiedȱ asȱ aȱ reshusȱ harabbim,ȱ evenȱ ifȱ weȱ wereȱ toȱ employȱ aȱ shitasȱ yachidȱ regardingȱreshusȱharabbimȱthatȱwouldȱthenȱdisqualifyȱtheȱeruvȱbasedȱonȱonlyȱ oneȱcriterion,ȱtheȱotherȱconditionsȱwouldȱnotȱbeȱmetȱandȱanȱeruvȱwouldȱbeȱ permissibleȱl’chatchilah.ȱȱConsequently,ȱtoȱinvalidateȱanȱeruv,ȱoneȱwouldȱhaveȱ toȱselectivelyȱchooseȱfromȱdisparateȱshitosȱyachidosȱȰȱwhichȱinȱmanyȱcasesȱ areȱcontradictoryȱȰȱandȱthatȱisȱanȱunjustifiableȱapproachȱtoȱhalachah.ȱȱTheȱ realityȱisȱthatȱifȱsomeoneȱlearnsȱhilchosȱeruvinȱwithȱanȱopenȱmind,ȱheȱwouldȱ realizeȱ thatȱ sinceȱ itȱ isȱ almostȱ impossibleȱ toȱ meetȱ allȱ theȱ criteriaȱ ofȱ aȱ reshusȱ harabbim,ȱcreatingȱanȱeruvȱl’chatchilahȱisȱaȱrealȱpossibility.ȱȱȱ

SECTION III

Other Issues Regarding Eruvin

ȱ 46ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ SECTIONȱIIȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ SECTIONȱIIIȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ47ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ SECTIONȱIIIȱ ȱ RavȱMosheȱFeinsteinȱzt”lȱRespectedȱtheȱHalachicȱOpinionsȱofȱ OtherȱPoskimȱ ȱ ȱ BasedȱonȱtheȱaboveȬenumeratedȱfacts,ȱitȱisȱclearȱthatȱRavȱMosheȱwouldȱ haveȱ permittedȱ eruvinȱ inȱ Brooklynȱ inȱ theirȱ presentȱ construction.ȱȱ Nevertheless,ȱ evenȱ ifȱ oneȱ wouldȱ claimȱ thatȱ despiteȱ theȱ aboveȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ wouldȱ notȱ haveȱ allowedȱ anȱ eruvȱ inȱ Brooklyn,ȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ questionȱthatȱRavȱMosheȱwouldȱnotȱhaveȱbeenȱmocheh.35ȱ ȱ Inȱ1978,ȱsomeȱofȱtheȱrabbanimȱofȱFlatbush,ȱwantingȱtoȱestablishȱanȱeruvȱ there,ȱ askedȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ forȱ hisȱ p’sak.ȱȱNotȱ onlyȱ didȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ notȱ declareȱthatȱitȱwasȱprohibitedȱtoȱconstructȱanȱeruv,ȱheȱwasȱnotȱmochehȱandȱ didȱnotȱevenȱrecommendȱthatȱtheyȱnotȱerectȱanȱeruvȱ(IgrosȱMoshe,ȱO.C.ȱ4:87).36ȱ

35ȱ RabbiȱShlomoȱPearlȱshlitaȱstatedȱ (inȱ aȱ shiurȱheȱgaveȱinȱAgudathȱIsraelȱBaisȱBinyomin,ȱ Nov.ȱ14,ȱ1999ȱtapeȱ#325)ȱthatȱheȱhadȱspokenȱwithȱRavȱDovidȱFeinsteinȱshlitaȱaboutȱ beingȱmochehȱagainstȱtheȱeruvȱ[inȱBoroȱPark]. ȱRavȱDovidȱshlitaȱmadeȱitȱclearȱ thatȱ noȱ oneȱ shouldȱ beȱ mocheh.ȱȱAdditionally, Ravȱ Dovidȱ shlitaȱ wasȱ unequivocalȱ inȱ hisȱ declarationȱ thatȱ evenȱ ifȱ aȱ gadol,ȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ negateȱ theȱ eruveiȱchatzeiros,ȱwasȱtoȱdeclareȱthatȱheȱisȱmochehȱagainstȱtheȱeruv,ȱheȱ“mustȱbeȱ crazy”ȱ(seeȱalsoȱnoteȱ1).ȱȱ ȱ 36ȱ Inȱreferenceȱtoȱtheȱ1979ȱkolȱkoreiȱagainstȱtheȱerectingȱofȱanȱeruvȱinȱFlatbush,ȱ thereȱ areȱ someȱ inconsistenciesȱ thatȱ areȱ importantȱ toȱ expose.ȱȱEvenȱ thoughȱ RavȱMosheȱzt”lȱallowedȱtheȱrabbanimȱofȱManhattanȱtoȱpaskenȱasȱtheyȱsawȱfitȱ (Igrosȱ Moshe,ȱ O.C.ȱ 4:89ȱ andȱ HaPardes,ȱ 33rdȱ year,ȱ vol.ȱ 9),ȱ heȱ signedȱ againstȱ theȱ establishmentȱofȱtheȱManhattanȱeruvȱinȱ1962.ȱȱHowever,ȱRavȱMosheȱstatedȱ (IgrosȱMoshe,ȱO.C.ȱ4:86ȱandȱAddendumȱtoȱO.C.ȱ4:89)ȱthatȱheȱhadȱsignedȱagainstȱtheȱeruvȱ becauseȱ Ravȱ Aharonȱ Kotlerȱ zt”lȱ andȱ otherȱ membersȱ ofȱ theȱ Agudasȱ ȱ 48ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ SECTIONȱIIIȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

HaRabbonimȱ hadȱ enactedȱ aȱ takanahȱ againstȱ establishingȱ anȱ eruvȱ inȱ Manhattan.ȱȱ[Evenȱ whenȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ signedȱ onȱ theȱ 1962ȱ takanahȱ withȱ Ravȱ AharonȱKotler,ȱweȱseeȱthatȱheȱwasȱnotȱatȱeaseȱwithȱtheȱlanguage,ȱsinceȱafterȱ heȱquotedȱthisȱtakanahȱinȱhisȱteshuvah,ȱheȱomittedȱthisȱlastȱlineȱwhichȱstatedȱ that,ȱ “thoseȱ whoȱ relyȱ onȱ theȱ eruvȱ inȱ Manhattanȱ areȱ consideredȱ aȱ mechalelȱ Shabbos”ȱ(ibid.,ȱAddendumȱtoȱO.C.ȱ4:89).]ȱȱSinceȱRavȱMosheȱsignedȱagainstȱanȱeruvȱ inȱ 1962,ȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ afterwardsȱ [inȱ 1978]ȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ didȱ notȱ forbidȱ theȱ rabbanimȱofȱFlatbushȱtoȱestablishȱanȱeruvȱevenȱthoughȱtheyȱhadȱaskedȱforȱhisȱ p’sakȱ(ibid.,ȱ4:87)ȱmakesȱitȱhighlyȱdoubtfulȱthatȱRavȱMosheȱwouldȱhaveȱsignedȱ onȱaȱkolȱkoreiȱagainstȱtheȱerectingȱofȱanȱeruvȱinȱFlatbush.ȱȱItȱisȱinterestingȱtoȱ noteȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ versionȱ ofȱ theȱ 1979ȱ kolȱ koreiȱ withoutȱ Ravȱ Moshe’sȱ signature.ȱȱInȱallȱprobability,ȱthisȱisȱtheȱauthenticȱkolȱkoreiȱsinceȱonȱtheȱkolȱkoreiȱ thatȱ doesȱ haveȱ hisȱ signature,ȱ Ravȱ Moshe’sȱ signatureȱ isȱ noticeablyȱ smallerȱ thanȱallȱtheȱothersȱȰȱsuggesting,ȱperhaps,ȱthatȱtheȱsignatureȱwasȱtamperedȱ with.ȱȱ[ItȱisȱimportantȱtoȱnoteȱRavȱMosheȱstatesȱthatȱrabbanimȱmayȱonlyȱenactȱ aȱtakanahȱforȱtheirȱparticularȱlocaleȱandȱonlyȱforȱaȱshortȱperiodȱofȱtimeȱ(ibid.,ȱ 4:49).ȱȱConsequently,ȱevenȱthisȱ1962ȱtakanahȱwouldȱonlyȱhaveȱbeenȱinȱeffectȱforȱ aȱshortȱperiodȱofȱtimeȱandȱnotȱindefinitely.]ȱ ȱ Moreover,ȱtheȱtextȱofȱtheȱ1979ȱFlatbushȱkolȱkoreiȱ[Appendixȱ10a]ȱrefersȱbackȱ toȱtheȱ1962ȱManhattanȱkolȱkoreiȱ[Appendicesȱ10bȱandȱ10c],ȱandȱwhileȱtheȱ1962ȱ kolȱ koreiȱ specifiesȱ Manhattan,ȱ theȱ 1979ȱ kolȱ koreiȱ falselyȱ usesȱ theȱ placeȱ nameȱ NewȱYorkȱinȱadditionȱtoȱotherȱlargeȱcities,ȱimplyingȱthatȱtheȱissurȱthenȱ[1962]ȱ wasȱonȱallȱlargeȱcitiesȱȰȱincludingȱBrooklynȱȰȱandȱnotȱjustȱtheȱboroughȱofȱ Manhattanȱ asȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ himselfȱ statedȱ (ibid.,ȱ 4:86ȱ andȱ Addendumȱ toȱ O.Cȱ 4:89).ȱȱ Furthermore,ȱwhenȱtheȱrabbanimȱofȱFlatbushȱaskedȱRavȱMosheȱforȱhisȱp’sakȱȱ aboutȱerectingȱanȱeruvȱ(ibid.,ȱ4:87),ȱifȱtheȱtextȱofȱtheȱ1979ȱkolȱkoreiȱisȱcorrect,ȱheȱ shouldȱhaveȱreferredȱbackȱtoȱtheȱ1962ȱkolȱkoreiȱandȱstatedȱthatȱtheȱissurȱthenȱ includedȱerectingȱanȱeruvȱinȱBrooklyn.ȱȱNotȱonlyȱdidȱRavȱMosheȱnotȱreferȱtoȱ theȱ1962ȱkolȱkorei,ȱheȱdidȱnotȱevenȱdeclareȱthatȱitȱwasȱforbiddenȱtoȱconstructȱ anȱeruvȱ(seeȱnoteȱ23).ȱȱThatȱtheȱ1962ȱprohibitionȱagainstȱestablishingȱanȱeruvȱinȱ Manhattanȱ extendedȱ toȱ allȱ ofȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ Cityȱ andȱ otherȱ largeȱ citiesȱ isȱ obviouslyȱaȱfabricationȱofȱtheȱ1979ȱkolȱkorei.ȱȱThisȱcorrelatesȱwithȱwhatȱRavȱ MenasheȱKleinȱshlitaȱwroteȱ(OimȱAniȱChomah,ȱsimanȱ7)ȱthatȱRavȱMosheȱtoldȱhimȱinȱ 1979ȱȰȱinȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱRavȱElimelechȱBluthȱshlita,ȱRavȱShalomȱDresnerȱ shlita,ȱandȱRavȱMordechaiȱTendlerȱshlitaȱȰȱthatȱcontraryȱtoȱwhatȱsomeoneȱinȱ theȱ Agudasȱ HaRabbonimȱ wasȱ promotingȱ theȱ 1962ȱ issurȱ fromȱ theȱ Agudasȱ HaRabbonimȱwasȱonlyȱregardingȱManhattan.ȱȱSinceȱRavȱMosheȱwasȱoneȱofȱ theȱsignatoriesȱofȱtheȱ1962ȱissur,ȱnoȱoneȱknewȱbetterȱthanȱRavȱMosheȱhimselfȱ thatȱthisȱissurȱwasȱonlyȱonȱManhattanȱandȱnotȱonȱBrooklyn. ȱConsequently,ȱitȱ

ȱ ȱ SECTIONȱIIIȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ49ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

isȱhighlyȱdoubtfulȱthatȱRavȱMosheȱsignedȱonȱtheȱ1979ȱkolȱkorei.ȱȱAccordingly,ȱ theȱmanyȱrabbanimȱwhoȱsignedȱonȱtheȱ1979ȱkolȱkoreiȱoutȱofȱrespectȱforȱRavȱ Mosheȱ wereȱ misledȱ asȱ well.ȱȱItȱ isȱ importantȱ toȱ note,ȱ Ravȱ Tuviaȱ Goldsteinȱ zt”l,ȱ aȱ Talmud/Chaverȱ ofȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ zt”l,ȱ saidȱ onȱ numerousȱ occasionsȱ thatȱ evenȱ afterȱ theȱ 1979ȱ kolȱ koreiȱ againstȱ theȱ Flatbushȱ eruvȱ wasȱ published,ȱ heȱ spokeȱwithȱRavȱMosheȱwhoȱagreedȱthatȱifȱtheȱrabbanimȱwantedȱtoȱerectȱanȱ eruvȱtheyȱcouldȱdoȱasȱtheyȱsawȱfit.ȱȱ[Moreover,ȱheȱstatedȱthatȱevenȱRavȱMosheȱ himselfȱwouldȱhaveȱallowedȱanȱeruvȱinȱitsȱpresentȱconstruction.]ȱ ȱ Additionally,ȱ theȱ textȱ ofȱ theȱ 1979ȱ kolȱ koreiȱ containsȱ anȱ outrightȱ fabrication.ȱȱ Theȱ 1979ȱ Flatbushȱ kolȱ koreiȱ refersȱ backȱ toȱ theȱ 1962ȱ Manhattanȱ kolȱkoreiȱandȱ assertsȱthatȱRavȱEliyahuȱHenkinȱzt“lȱsignedȱagainstȱestablishingȱanȱeruvȱinȱ Manhattanȱinȱ1962.ȱȱButȱthereȱisȱnoȱsignatureȱfromȱRavȱHenkinȱtoȱbeȱfoundȱ onȱ theȱ 1962ȱ kolȱ koreiȱ [Appendicesȱ 10bȱ andȱ 10c]!ȱȱEvenȱ moreȱ so,ȱ fromȱ Ravȱ Henkin’sȱfinalȱlettersȱ(KisveiȱHagriahȱHenkin,ȱp.ȱ33)ȱandȱfromȱtheȱ1960ȱkolȱkoreiȱonȱ behalfȱofȱtheȱManhattanȱeruvȱ(DivreiȱMenachem,ȱO.C.ȱvol.ȱ2,ȱp.ȱ10)ȱ[Appendixȱ10d],ȱ weȱseeȱheȱwasȱaȱproponentȱofȱtheȱManhattanȱeruv.ȱȱFourȱyearsȱago,ȱtheȱVaadȱ HaEruvȱofȱBoroȱPark,ȱinȱorderȱtoȱestablishȱtheȱveracityȱofȱtheȱ1979ȱkolȱkorei,ȱ offeredȱ anȱ awardȱ ofȱ $5,000ȱ toȱ anyoneȱ whoȱ wouldȱ comeȱ forwardȱ withȱ theȱ originalȱdocument.ȱȱUntilȱtoday,ȱnoȱoneȱhasȱfurnishedȱit.ȱ ȱ Theȱ1981ȱletterȱfromȱRavȱMosheȱ[Appendixȱ11]ȱagainstȱtheȱestablishmentȱofȱaȱ Boroȱ Parkȱ eruvȱȰȱwhichȱ wasȱ neverȱ printedȱ inȱ Igrosȱ Mosheȱ andȱ wasȱ onlyȱ circulatedȱ asȱ aȱ flyerȱȰȱisȱ questionableȱ asȱ well.ȱȱThisȱ letterȱ purportsȱ thatȱ accordingȱtoȱRavȱMoshe’sȱShevatȱ1979ȱteshuvahȱ(IgrosȱMoshe,ȱO.C.ȱ4:88)ȱRavȱMosheȱ joinedȱ theȱ Agudasȱ HaRabbonimȱ inȱ prohibitingȱ eruvinȱ inȱ Brooklyn.ȱȱInȱ factȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ neverȱ mentionedȱ aȱ wordȱ inȱ thisȱ teshuvahȱ aboutȱ joiningȱ theȱ AgudasȱHaRabbonimȱinȱprohibitingȱeruvinȱinȱBrooklyn.ȱȱMoreover,ȱasȱstatedȱ previously,ȱthereȱneverȱwasȱanyȱissurȱfromȱtheȱAgudasȱHaRabbonimȱagainstȱ erectingȱ eruvinȱ inȱ Brooklyn,ȱ onlyȱ inȱ Manhattan.ȱȱAdditionally,ȱ hadȱ Ravȱ MosheȱmeantȱthatȱheȱjoinedȱwithȱmembersȱofȱtheȱAgudasȱHaRabbonimȱbyȱ signingȱ theȱ 1979ȱ Flatbushȱ kolȱ koreiȱȰȱwhichȱ statedȱ thatȱ theȱ 1962ȱ Agudasȱ HaRabbonimȱissurȱonȱManhattanȱincludedȱallȱlargeȱcitiesȱȰȱwhenȱaskedȱforȱ hisȱp’sakȱbyȱtheȱrabbanimȱofȱFlatbushȱ(ibid.,ȱ4:87),ȱheȱwouldȱhaveȱdeclaredȱthatȱ theȱAgudasȱHaRabbonim’sȱissurȱwasȱonȱBrooklynȱasȱwellȱandȱthereforeȱanȱ eruvȱcouldȱnotȱbeȱerected.ȱȱȱ ȱ Furthermore,ȱ isȱ itȱ credibleȱ thatȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ wouldȱ stateȱ inȱ thisȱ 1981ȱ letterȱ that,ȱ“thoseȱwhoȱrelyȱonȱtheȱeruvȱareȱconsideredȱaȱmechalelȱShabbos,”ȱwhenȱheȱ wasȱobviouslyȱsoȱuncomfortableȱwithȱaȱcomparableȱlineȱinȱtheȱ1962ȱtakanahȱ ȱ 50ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ SECTIONȱIIIȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Whatȱheȱdidȱtellȱthemȱwas,ȱ“Iȱdoȱnotȱwantȱtoȱjoinȱyouȱinȱthisȱmatter,ȱ becauseȱ thereȱ areȱ manyȱ opinionsȱ onȱ thisȱ topic,ȱ asȱ weȱ seeȱ inȱ theȱ ShulchanȱAruch.”ȱȱOnlyȱwhenȱsomeȱpeopleȱmisunderstoodȱtheseȱwordsȱ asȱsomehowȱsupportingȱtheȱeruvȱdidȱRavȱMosheȱfeelȱthereȱwasȱaȱneedȱ toȱclarifyȱhisȱpersonalȱapproachȱregardingȱtheȱissue.ȱȱHenceȱheȱwroteȱ thisȱteshuvahȱclarifyingȱhisȱopinion,ȱexplainingȱthatȱheȱhadȱaȱchiddush,ȱ whichȱaccordinglyȱwouldȱprohibitȱtheȱerectionȱofȱanȱeruv.ȱȱHowever,ȱ heȱ declinedȱ toȱ issueȱ aȱ p’sak,ȱ since,ȱ asȱ heȱ acknowledged,ȱ hisȱ chiddushȱ wasȱnotȱmentionedȱinȱtheȱAchronim,ȱandȱmoreoverȱitȱwasȱobviousȱthatȱ theȱ Aruchȱ HaShulchanȱ wouldȱ notȱ agreeȱ withȱ himȱ (seeȱ noteȱ 23);ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ Appendixȱ4.ȱȱȱ

againstȱ erectingȱ anȱ eruvȱ inȱ Manhattanȱ thatȱ heȱ omittedȱ itȱ fromȱ hisȱ teshuvahȱ (ibid.,ȱAddendumȱtoȱO.Cȱ4:89).ȱȱAdditionally,ȱtheȱsubsequentȱlineȱisȱquestionableȱ asȱ well,ȱ “andȱ thoseȱ whoȱ erectedȱ theȱ eruvȱ areȱ causingȱ theȱ rabbimȱ toȱ falter.”ȱ ThreeȱyearsȱearlierȱinȱhisȱteshuvahȱtoȱtheȱrabbanimȱofȱFlatbushȱ (ibid.,ȱO.C.ȱ4:87)ȱ RavȱMosheȱdidȱnotȱcensureȱthem,ȱinsteadȱheȱrefrainedȱfromȱissuingȱaȱp’sakȱ andȱ statedȱ thatȱ theȱ Aruchȱ HaShulchanȱ andȱ otherȱ Achronimȱ wouldȱ disagreeȱ withȱhim.ȱȱInȱlightȱofȱtheȱaforementioned,ȱRavȱMenasheȱKleinȱshlitaȱwroteȱatȱ theȱtimeȱ(OimȱAniȱChomah,ȱsimanȱ53)ȱthatȱthereȱwereȱRosheiȱYeshivosȱwhoȱdeclaredȱ publiclyȱ thatȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ hadȱ neverȱ signedȱ thisȱ letter.ȱȱFurthermore,ȱ apartȱ fromȱ theȱ dateȱ andȱ theȱ signature,ȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ handȱ writtenȱ originalȱ onlyȱ aȱ typedȱ copyȱ andȱ theȱ signatureȱ itselfȱ isȱ questionable.ȱȱTheȱ signatureȱ onȱ thisȱ letterȱisȱindistinguishableȱfromȱtheȱoneȱonȱtheȱhaskamahȱtoȱaȱbookletȱagainstȱ erectingȱ eruvin,ȱ andȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ possibleȱ forȱ twoȱ signaturesȱ toȱ beȱ exactlyȱ theȱ same.ȱȱInȱlightȱofȱtheȱaforementionedȱinconsistenciesȱinȱthisȱletter,ȱitȱfollowsȱ thatȱ oneȱ canȱ onlyȱ beȱ confidentȱ inȱ whatȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ actuallyȱ statedȱ inȱ hisȱ teshuvosȱandȱnotȱinȱwhatȱisȱmerelyȱwrittenȱonȱaȱflyer.ȱȱȱ ȱ ItȱisȱimportantȱtoȱnoteȱthatȱallȱtheȱobjectionsȱtoȱeruvinȱinȱBrooklynȱareȱbasedȱ onȱthisȱ1981ȱletterȱandȱtheȱ1979ȱkolȱkorei,ȱandȱasȱweȱhaveȱshownȱabove,ȱbothȱ areȱ spuriousȱ documentsȱ andȱ cannotȱ beȱ reliedȱ on.ȱȱFinally,ȱ evenȱ ifȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ hadȱ signedȱ thisȱ letterȱ andȱ theȱ signatureȱ onȱ theȱ 1979ȱ kolȱ koreiȱ wasȱ authenticȱ sinceȱ Ravȱ Moshe’sȱ oppositionȱ toȱ theseȱ eruvinȱ wasȱ basedȱ onȱ aȱ totallyȱdifferentȱsetȱofȱcircumstancesȱwhichȱdoesȱnotȱpertainȱtoȱusȱtodayȱ(seeȱ sectionȱtwo),ȱthereȱisȱnoȱquestionȱthatȱheȱwouldȱhaveȱallowedȱourȱeruvin.ȱȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ SECTIONȱIIIȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ51ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Additionally,ȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ wroteȱ concerningȱ theȱ Manhattanȱ eruv,ȱ thatȱ heȱ knowsȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ differenceȱ ofȱ opinionsȱ andȱ everyoneȱ hasȱ aȱ rightȱtoȱpaskenȱasȱtheyȱseeȱfitȱ(ibid.,ȱ4:89ȱandȱHaPardes,ȱ33rdȱyear,ȱvol.ȱ9).37ȱȱWhatȱ weȱ seeȱ fromȱ thisȱ isȱ thatȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ acknowledgedȱ thatȱ thereȱ areȱ differencesȱ ofȱ opinionsȱ regardingȱ eruvinȱ and,ȱ ofȱ course,ȱ thatȱ otherȱ poskimȱ mayȱ disagreeȱ withȱ him.ȱȱFurthermore,ȱ itȱ isȱ clearȱ thatȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ allowedȱ othersȱ toȱ disagreeȱ withȱ himȱ inȱ anyȱ issueȱ andȱ heȱdidȱ notȱ considerȱ itȱ aȱ slightȱ toȱ hisȱ kavodȱ ifȱ someoneȱ didȱ notȱ acceptȱ hisȱ halachicȱrulingsȱ(IgrosȱMoshe,ȱO.C.ȱ1:109).ȱ38ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

37ȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ zt”lȱ declaredȱ (Igrosȱ Moshe,ȱ Addendumȱ toȱ O.C.ȱ 4:89)ȱ thatȱ thereȱ wasȱ noȱ proposalȱtoȱerectȱanȱeruvȱinȱBrooklynȱbecauseȱBrooklyn,ȱunlikeȱManhattan,ȱ wasȱnotȱsurroundedȱbyȱmechitzosȱandȱthat,ȱindependentȱofȱeachȱother,ȱBoroȱ ParkȱandȱFlatbushȱhaveȱpopulationsȱofȱshishimȱribuy.ȱȱThisȱisȱnotȱpertinentȱ todayȱ because,ȱ asȱ weȱ haveȱ establishedȱ previously,ȱ Brooklynȱ doesȱ haveȱ mechitzosȱ andȱ neitherȱ Boroȱ Parkȱ norȱ Flatbushȱ haveȱ anywhereȱ nearȱ shishimȱ ribuyȱ(seeȱpagesȱ37ȱandȱ39).ȱȱȱ ȱ SomeȱclaimȱthatȱRavȱMosheȱimpliedȱinȱthisȱAddendumȱthatȱinȱBrooklynȱoneȱ hasȱ theȱ rightȱ toȱ beȱ mochehȱ asȱ opposedȱ toȱ Manhattan.ȱȱHoweverȱ thisȱ isȱ incorrect,ȱbecauseȱRavȱMosheȱwouldȱhaveȱbeenȱmochehȱwhenȱtheȱrabbanimȱofȱ Flatbushȱaskedȱforȱhisȱp’sakȱaboutȱtheȱeruvȱtheyȱwantedȱtoȱestablishȱ(ibid.,ȱO.C.ȱ 4:87;ȱseeȱpageȱ47).ȱȱȱ ȱ 38ȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ zt”lȱ wasȱ onceȱ askedȱ (ibid.,ȱ Y.D.ȱ 3:88)ȱ ifȱ itȱ wasȱ disrespectfulȱ toȱ disagreeȱ withȱ theȱ shitosȱ ofȱ theȱ Chazonȱ Ishȱ inȱhisȱhometownȱBneiȱBrakȱevenȱ thoughȱheȱwasȱtheȱMorehȱD’Asra.ȱȱRavȱMosheȱstatedȱthatȱunquestionablyȱitȱisȱ allowedȱandȱheȱaddedȱthatȱitȱwasȱevenȱaȱkavodȱforȱhimȱ[theȱChazonȱIsh]ȱwhenȱ oneȱdebatedȱTorahȱinȱhisȱname.ȱȱByȱextension,ȱRavȱMosheȱwouldȱdefinitelyȱ permitȱandȱconsiderȱitȱaȱkavodȱforȱusȱtoȱdebateȱhisȱpiskeiȱhalachahȱinȱhisȱnameȱ (seeȱalsoȱtheȱhakdamahȱtoȱIgrosȱMosheȱvol.ȱ1).ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 52ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ SECTIONȱIIIȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ComparingȱEruvinȱWithȱOtherȱD’Oraysasȱ ȱ ȱ Whyȱ isȱ eruvinȱ differentȱ fromȱ anyȱ otherȱ issueȱ thatȱ itȱ elicitsȱ suchȱ aȱ visceralȱresponse?ȱ ȱ Theȱdetractorsȱofȱtheȱeruvȱclaimȱthatȱtheirȱfierceȱoppositionȱisȱbecauseȱ itȱisȱaȱmatterȱofȱd’oraysas.ȱȱHowever,ȱthereȱisȱnoȱotherȱd’oraysaȱthatȱhasȱ arousedȱsuchȱaȱpassionateȱneedȱtoȱbeȱmochehȱotherȱthanȱeruvin.ȱ ȱ Forȱ example,ȱ manyȱ peopleȱ maintainȱ thatȱ shitasȱ Rabbeinuȱ Tamȱ [72ȱ minutesȱ afterȱ shkiah]ȱ isȱ anȱ obligatoryȱ extensionȱ ofȱ Shabbos,ȱ toȱ theȱ extentȱ thatȱ ifȱ someoneȱ doesȱ aȱ melachahȱ atȱ anȱ earlierȱ zemanȱ heȱ isȱ consideredȱaȱmechalelȱShabbos.ȱȱShitasȱRabbeinuȱTamȱisȱalsoȱaȱmatterȱofȱaȱ d’oraysa,ȱyetȱpeopleȱareȱnotȱmochehȱagainstȱthoseȱwhoȱkeepȱanȱearlierȱ zeman,ȱcallingȱthemȱmechaleleiȱShabbos.ȱȱWhyȱisȱtheȱissueȱofȱeruvinȱanyȱ different?ȱ ȱ Theȱoppositionȱtowardȱeruvinȱisȱirrationalȱandȱhasȱnoȱsupportȱorȱbasisȱ inȱhalachah.39ȱ ȱ

39ȱ Eruvinȱisȱdifferentȱthenȱotherȱhalachicȱissuesȱinȱoneȱsignificantȱaspect.ȱȱEruvinȱ moreȱthanȱanyȱotherȱissueȱvestsȱaȱcertainȱamountȱofȱcentralizedȱpowerȱtoȱtheȱ baalȱha’machsher.ȱȱPeopleȱpubliclyȱcarryingȱinȱaȱrav’sȱeruvȱisȱaȱclearȱsignȱofȱtheȱ posek’sȱinfluenceȱandȱsupportȱinȱtheȱcommunity,ȱunlikeȱrelyingȱonȱtheȱrav’sȱ hechsherȱ onȱ food,ȱ whichȱ isȱ aȱ moreȱ privateȱ matter.ȱȱConsequently,ȱthereȱareȱ peopleȱ whoȱ findȱ itȱ incumbentȱ uponȱ themselvesȱ notȱ toȱ allowȱ anȱ eruvȱ toȱ beȱ established,ȱ andȱ insistȱ thatȱ theirȱ rav’sȱ opinionȱ isȱ theȱ onlyȱ oneȱ thatȱ canȱ beȱ followed.ȱȱIfȱoneȱwereȱtoȱfollowȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱeruvinȱinȱcitiesȱwhereȱthereȱwasȱ noȱ centralȱ governingȱ ravȱ orȱ Baisȱ Din,ȱ theyȱ wouldȱ findȱ thatȱ machlokasȱ oftenȱ eruptedȱ asȱ aȱ resultȱ ofȱ thisȱ desireȱ forȱ dominanceȱ inȱ communityȱ affairsȱ [Krakowȱ1888,ȱSt.ȱLouisȱ1895,ȱOdessaȱ1900,ȱNewȱYorkȱ1905ȱtoȱtheȱpresent,ȱ Manchesterȱ1906,ȱFrankfurtȱamȱMainȱ1914,ȱandȱLondonȱ1932ȱtoȱtheȱpresent].ȱȱ Otherwise,ȱeruvinȱwouldȱgenerateȱtheȱsameȱlevelȱofȱreactionȱasȱsayȱaȱmikveh,ȱ whereȱeveryȱindividualȱjustȱfollowsȱtheȱp’sakȱofȱhisȱownȱrav.ȱ

ȱ ȱ SECTIONȱIIIȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ53ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ShalomȱandȱMachlokesȱ ȱ ȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ zt”lȱ wroteȱ (ibid.,ȱ 1:186)ȱ thatȱ whenȱ oneȱ followsȱ one’sȱ ravȱ onȱ anyȱissue,ȱevenȱonȱissureiȱchilulȱShabbos,ȱalbeitȱtheȱhalachahȱisȱnotȱlikeȱ theirȱrav’sȱinterpretation,ȱnoȱaveirahȱisȱtransgressed.ȱȱThereȱareȱoverȱ100ȱ rabbanimȱ whoȱ maintainedȱ thatȱ neitherȱ Brooklynȱ norȱ Manhattanȱ isȱ aȱ reshusȱharabbimȱd’oraysaȱandȱconsequentlyȱanȱeruvȱcanȱbeȱerected;ȱseeȱ Appendixȱ12.ȱȱTherefore,ȱbyȱfollowingȱourȱrabbanimȱevenȱifȱothersȱfeelȱ thatȱtheȱp’sakȱisȱwrong,ȱaccordingȱtoȱRavȱMosheȱnoȱtransgressionȱhasȱ occurred.ȱȱWhyȱ areȱ thoseȱ whoȱ invokeȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ inȱ theirȱ everyȱ attemptȱtoȱdiscreditȱeruvinȱignoringȱRavȱMoshe’sȱownȱrulings?ȱȱȱ ȱ Toȱclaimȱthatȱanȱeruvȱbringsȱmachlokesȱisȱaȱfallacy.ȱȱOnȱtheȱcontrary,ȱasȱ statedȱinȱtheȱ Yerushalmi,ȱanȱeruvȱincreasesȱshalomȱbyȱbringingȱpeopleȱ togetherȱ (Eruvinȱ 3:2).ȱȱThroughȱ theȱ years,ȱ rabbanimȱ haveȱ alwaysȱ hadȱ differingȱhalachicȱopinionsȱonȱcriticalȱTorahȱissuesȱandȱweȱhaveȱalwaysȱ saidȱ eiluȱ veiluȱ divreiȱ elokimȱ chaim.ȱȱByȱ followingȱ ourȱ rabbanimȱ andȱ erectingȱ anȱ eruv,ȱ areȱ weȱ imposingȱ theirȱ p’sakȱ onȱ others?ȱȱTheȱ Torahȱ wayȱ isȱ toȱ honorȱ theȱ rightȱ ofȱ othersȱ toȱ followȱ theirȱ poskim,ȱ andȱ thisȱ respectȱshouldȱbeȱmutual.ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ TheȱMitzvahȱandȱObligationȱofȱEruvinȱ ȱ ȱ Theȱ Gemaraȱ inȱ Eruvinȱ (68a)ȱ describesȱ anȱ encounterȱ betweenȱ theȱ Amoraimȱ Rabbahȱ barȱ Ravȱ Chananȱ andȱ Abaye.ȱȱRabbahȱ barȱ Ravȱ ChananȱaskedȱAbayeȱwhyȱinȱaȱcityȱofȱtwoȱgreatȱAmoraimȱ[himselfȱandȱ Rabbah]ȱ neitherȱ ofȱ themȱ hadȱ erectedȱ anȱ eruv.ȱȱInȱ anȱ attemptȱ toȱ vindicateȱhimselfȱandȱRabbah,ȱAbayeȱansweredȱthatȱitȱwasȱnotȱfittingȱ forȱRabbah’sȱdignityȱtoȱgoȱfromȱdoorȱtoȱdoorȱcollectingȱtheȱrequisiteȱ ȱ 54ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ SECTIONȱIIIȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ matzos,ȱandȱthatȱhe,ȱAbaye,ȱwasȱsoȱpreoccupiedȱwithȱhisȱlearningȱthatȱ heȱhadȱnoȱtimeȱtoȱsuperviseȱtheȱeruvȱofȱtheȱcity.ȱ ȱ Theȱ Mordechaiȱ infersȱ fromȱ thisȱ Gemaraȱ thatȱ underȱ normalȱ circumstancesȱwhenȱtheȱrabbiȱofȱanȱareaȱisȱnotȱsimilarlyȱpreoccupied,ȱ heȱ hasȱ anȱ obligationȱ andȱ aȱ mitzvahȱ toȱ erectȱ anȱ eruvȱ forȱ hisȱ community.40ȱ ȱ Followingȱ thisȱ reasoningȱ theȱ Roshȱ inȱ aȱ famousȱ teshuvahȱ (21:8)ȱ sharplyȱ criticizesȱtheȱleadershipȱofȱaȱcityȱwhoseȱpolicyȱwasȱnotȱtoȱerectȱanȱeruv:ȱ “ȱIȱhaveȱalreadyȱwrittenȱtoȱyouȱconcerningȱtheȱconceptȱofȱanȱeruv,ȱthatȱ itȱ isȱ customaryȱ inȱ allȱ areasȱ whereȱ Jewsȱ [reside]ȱ toȱ allowȱ carryingȱ inȱ thoseȱ streetsȱ thatȱ areȱ openȱ onȱ eitherȱ endȱ toȱ theȱ [streetsȱ whereȱ the]ȱ gentilesȱ [reside]ȱ withȱ [theȱ rectificationȱ of]ȱ aȱ tzurasȱ hapesach.ȱȱYouȱ forbadeȱsuchȱ[anȱeruv]ȱforȱtheȱcongregationȱofȱFreres,ȱandȱyouȱwroteȱ meȱyourȱproofs,ȱandȱIȱinformedȱyouȱthatȱtheyȱamountȱtoȱnothing.ȱȱIȱ warnedȱ youȱ thatȱ youȱ mustȱ recantȱ andȱ notifyȱ theȱ congregationȱ thatȱ theyȱ shouldȱ rectifyȱ theirȱ streetsȱ [withȱ anȱ eruv]ȱ asȱ theirȱ gedolimȱ haveȱ accustomedȱthemȱto.ȱȱNowȱIȱhaveȱbeenȱtoldȱthatȱyouȱstillȱupholdȱyourȱ position,ȱ andȱ areȱ thusȱ causingȱ theȱ multitudesȱ toȱ desecrateȱ theȱ Shabbos.ȱȱIȱ thereforeȱ compelȱ you,ȱ uponȱ receiptȱ ofȱ thisȱ letterȱ beforeȱ witnesses,ȱtoȱrectifyȱtheȱstreetsȱthatȱopenȱintoȱtheȱreshusȱharabbimȱofȱtheȱ [streetsȱ whereȱ the]ȱ gentilesȱ [reside],ȱ withȱ aȱ tzurasȱ hapesach,ȱ withinȱ aȱ spanȱofȱaȱfewȱweeksȱuponȱseeingȱthisȱletter.ȱȱIfȱyouȱdoȱnotȱrectifyȱtheȱ streetsȱasȱIȱhaveȱwritten,ȱIȱwillȱexcommunicateȱyou.ȱȱIfȱyouȱhadȱbeenȱinȱ theȱtimesȱofȱtheȱSanhedrinȱtheyȱwouldȱhaveȱexecutedȱyou,ȱasȱyourȱaimȱ isȱtoȱuprootȱtheȱTalmudȱeditedȱbyȱRavȱAshi,ȱandȱtoȱargueȱwithȱallȱtheȱ gedolimȱuntilȱourȱtimes,ȱthoseȱwhoȱareȱnoȱlongerȱwithȱusȱz”l,ȱandȱthoseȱ whoȱareȱstillȱalive”ȱ(seeȱalsoȱTashbetz,ȱ2:37).ȱ ȱ

40ȱ Justȱasȱitȱisȱtheȱresponsibilityȱofȱeachȱindividualȱravȱtoȱinsureȱthatȱthereȱbeȱaȱ kosherȱmikvehȱinȱhisȱcommunity,ȱitȱisȱincumbentȱonȱeachȱravȱtoȱerectȱanȱeruvȱasȱ wellȱ (Teshuvosȱ V’Hanhagos,ȱ 1:844;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ Chasamȱ Sofer,ȱ O.C.ȱ 99).ȱȱEvenȱ moreȱ so,ȱ theȱ Chemdasȱ Shlomoȱ (p.ȱ 203)ȱ statesȱ thatȱ membersȱ ofȱ theȱ communityȱ shouldȱ establishȱanȱeruv.ȱȱTheȱobligationȱisȱtheirsȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱrav’s.ȱ

ȱ ȱ SECTIONȱIIIȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ55ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Thoseȱofȱusȱwhoȱhaveȱworkedȱsoȱhardȱtoȱerectȱanȱeruvȱhaveȱnotȱdoneȱ soȱbecauseȱweȱseekȱleniencies,ȱbutȱratherȱoutȱofȱconvictionȱthatȱitȱisȱaȱ mitzvahȱ(seeȱTurȱandȱShulchanȱAruch,ȱO.C.ȱ366:13,ȱ395:1;ȱseeȱalsoȱMedrashȱSechelȱTov,ȱBeshalachȱ 16:10;ȱ Medrashȱ Lekachȱ Tov,iBeshalach;ȱ Halachosȱ Gedolos,ȱ Perekȱ Hador,ȱ andȱ Priȱ Megadim,ȱ Aishelȱ Avraham,iO.C.ȱ260:3).ȱ ȱ Establishingȱanȱeruvȱaccomplishesȱtheȱfollowing:ȱ i ItȱhelpsȱusȱavoidȱchilulȱShabbosȱifȱweȱinadvertentlyȱforgetȱandȱcarryȱ somethingȱ inȱ theȱ streetsȱ onȱ Shabbosȱ (Baisȱ Yosef,ȱ 395;ȱ Bach,ȱ 395:1,ȱ andȱ Taz,ȱ 395:1).ȱȱTheȱ Chasamȱ Soferȱ (O.C.ȱ 99)ȱ statesȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ possibleȱ forȱ anȱ individualȱ toȱ ensureȱ thatȱ allȱ membersȱ ofȱ hisȱ householdȱ doȱ notȱ inadvertentlyȱcarryȱonȱShabbosȱandȱtherefore,ȱtheȱconstructionȱofȱanȱ eruvȱ isȱ theȱ obligationȱ ofȱ everyȱ rav.ȱ ȱ Inȱ lightȱ ofȱ thisȱ Chasamȱ Sofer,ȱ itȱ followsȱ thatȱ oneȱ cannotȱ assertȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ needȱ forȱ anȱ eruv.ȱȱ [Evenȱ ifȱ theȱ heterȱ toȱ permitȱ anȱ eruvȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ clearȱ one,ȱ theȱ Aishelȱ Avrahamȱstatesȱ(simanȱ363)ȱthatȱneverthelessȱanȱeruvȱshouldȱbeȱerectedȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ saveȱ peopleȱ fromȱ chilulȱ Shabbosȱ beshogegȱ (seeȱ alsoȱ Krienaȱ D’Igrasa,ȱp.ȱ106ȱandȱOimȱAniȱChomah,ȱp.ȱ136).]ȱ i ItȱhelpsȱtoȱminimizeȱchilulȱShabbosȱbyȱourȱJewishȱbrethrenȱwhoȱareȱ unfortunatelyȱnotȱreligiousȱandȱcarryȱonȱShabbosȱwithoutȱanȱeruvȱ (NefeshȱChayah,ȱsimanȱ25ȱandȱBaisȱAv,ȱ2:1:25).ȱ i Itȱ helpsȱ toȱ increaseȱ ourȱ onegȱ Shabbos,ȱ e.g.,ȱ familiesȱ withȱ youngȱ children,ȱtheȱelderly,ȱandȱtheȱinfirmȱareȱnoȱlongerȱconfinedȱtoȱtheirȱ homesȱ(Perishah,ȱO.C.ȱ395:1).41ȱȱ i Itȱ helpsȱ alȱ piȱ Kabbalahȱ toȱ increaseȱ theȱ kedushahȱ ofȱ aȱ neighborhoodȱ (ShaarȱHaMitzvos,ȱparshasȱBeshalach).ȱ

41ȱ OneȱwhoȱclaimsȱthatȱanȱeruvȱnegativelyȱimpactsȱtheȱsanctityȱofȱtheȱShabbosȱ byȱencouragingȱunbecomingȱbehavior,ȱsuchȱasȱballȱplaying,ȱisȱinȱfactȱmakingȱ aȱblanketȱstatementȱagainstȱallȱeruvinȱȰȱsinceȱtheseȱissuesȱcanȱbeȱproblematicȱ withȱeruvinȱinȱbothȱbigȱandȱsmallȱcitiesȱandȱevenȱwithȱeruvinȱinȱbungalowȱ coloniesȱȰȱandȱ heȱ canȱ beȱ consideredȱ anȱ einohȱ modehȱ b’eruv.ȱȱWhenȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ zt”lȱ permittedȱ anȱ eruvȱ inȱ Kewȱ Gardensȱ Hills,ȱ Queens,ȱ Detroit,ȱ Seaȱ Gateȱ andȱ inȱ otherȱ communitiesȱ heȱ didȱ soȱ becauseȱ heȱ recognizedȱ theȱ greatȱ needȱforȱeruvinȱ(IgrosȱMoshe,ȱO.C.ȱ1:139:5,ȱ4:86,ȱ5:29).ȱȱEruvinȱaccordingȱtoȱRavȱMosheȱ wasȱalwaysȱaȱmatterȱofȱhalachahȱandȱnotȱhashkafah.ȱȱLetȱusȱrememberȱthatȱanȱ eruvȱisȱaȱtikun,ȱnotȱaȱmichshol,ȱandȱservesȱtoȱimproveȱtheȱspiritualȱqualityȱofȱaȱ community’sȱShabbosȱobservance.ȱȱȱ ȱ 56ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ SECTIONȱIIIȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Evenȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ zt”l,ȱ whenȱ heȱ establishedȱ thatȱ anȱ eruvȱ couldȱ beȱ erected,ȱsawȱaȱgreatȱneedȱforȱitȱ(IgrosȱMoshe,ȱO.C.ȱ1:139:5,ȱ4:86,ȱ5:29).ȱ ȱ Sinceȱ itȱ isȱ aȱ mitzvahȱ toȱ erectȱ anȱ eruv,ȱ itȱ isȱ unjustȱ toȱ requestȱ thatȱ weȱ refrainȱ fromȱ performingȱ aȱ mitzvah,ȱ particularlyȱ whenȱ itȱ doesȱ notȱ negativelyȱaffectȱthoseȱwhoȱdoȱnotȱwishȱtoȱpartakeȱinȱthisȱmitzvah.ȱȱForȱ generationsȱinȱEurope,ȱevenȱinȱbigȱcitiesȱsuchȱasȱWarsawȱ42ȱandȱLodz,43ȱ ourȱancestorsȱhadȱpracticedȱtheȱmitzvahȱofȱeruvinȱandȱweȱbelieveȱthatȱ thisȱmitzvahȱisȱnowȱoverdueȱinȱourȱcommunity.44ȱȱAsȱsupportersȱofȱtheȱ eruv,ȱ weȱ respectȱ allȱ theȱ rabbanimȱ ofȱ ourȱ communityȱ andȱ kindlyȱ askȱ you,ȱourȱdearȱneighbor,ȱregardlessȱofȱyourȱpersonalȱfeelingsȱaboutȱtheȱ eruv,ȱtoȱrespectȱourȱrabbanimȱasȱwellȱsoȱthatȱweȱcanȱallȱcontinueȱtoȱliveȱ b’shalomȱandȱhelpȱbringȱMashiachȱsoon.ȱ ȱ ȱ

42ȱ Whichȱhadȱshishimȱribuyȱonȱtheȱlargerȱsideȱfromȱatȱleastȱtheȱyearȱ1900ȱ(Rocznikȱ StatystycznyȱWarszawyȱ1921ȱiȱ1922,ȱ1924ȱp.ȱ14).ȱ ȱ 43ȱ Whichȱhadȱshishimȱribuyȱfromȱtheȱyearȱ1931ȱ(EncyclopediaȱJudaica,ȱ1996ȱvol.ȱ11ȱp.ȱ426).ȱ ȱ 44ȱ EvenȱRavȱShimonȱSchwabȱzt”l,ȱwhoȱinȱ1962ȱwasȱagainstȱerectingȱanȱeruvȱinȱ ManhattanȱbecauseȱofȱhashkafahȱissuesȱȰȱtheȱgenerationȱwasȱlaxȱinȱshmirasȱ ShabbosȱȰȱpositedȱ(MaayanȱBeisȱHaSho’eivah,ȱpp.ȱ232,ȱ234)ȱthatȱhopefullyȱtheȱfutureȱ generationsȱ wouldȱ beȱ strongȱ inȱ Torahȱ andȱ atȱ thatȱ point,ȱ withȱ greatȱ joy,ȱ everyoneȱwouldȱtakeȱpartȱinȱerectingȱeruvinȱinȱManhattanȱandȱinȱallȱcities.ȱȱ Weȱbelieveȱthatȱtimeȱhasȱcome.ȱȱConcerningȱRavȱSchwab’sȱsignatureȱonȱtheȱ 1979ȱ kolȱ koreiȱ againstȱ theȱ eruvȱ inȱ Flatbush,ȱ theȱ hashkafahȱ issuesȱ thatȱ Ravȱ SchwabȱhadȱregardingȱManhattanȱinȱ1962ȱcouldȱstillȱhaveȱbeenȱanȱissueȱinȱ Flatbushȱinȱ1979.ȱȱHowever,ȱtoȱsayȱthatȱtheseȱhashkafahȱissuesȱareȱvalidȱtoday,ȱ 42ȱyearsȱlater,ȱorȱthatȱRavȱSchwabȱmeantȱthisȱissurȱforeverȱisȱillogical.ȱȱRavȱ Schwab’sȱownȱwordsȱaffirmȱhisȱhopeȱthatȱatȱsomeȱpointȱweȱwillȱbeȱstrongȱ enoughȱ inȱ Torahȱ toȱ erectȱ eruvinȱ inȱ allȱ cities.ȱȱ[Itȱ isȱ importantȱ toȱ noteȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱzt”lȱstatesȱthatȱrabbanimȱmayȱonlyȱenactȱaȱtakanahȱforȱtheirȱparticularȱ localeȱandȱonlyȱforȱaȱshortȱperiodȱofȱtimeȱ(IgrosȱMoshe,ȱO.C.ȱ4:49).]ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ SECTIONȱIIIȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ57ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ AȱSummaryȱofȱVariousȱIssuesȱConcerningȱEruvinȱ ȱ ȱ i Inȱlightȱofȱtheȱinformationȱprovidedȱtoȱhimȱatȱthatȱtime,ȱRavȱMosheȱ zt”lȱ didȱ notȱ favorȱ anȱ eruvȱ inȱ Flatbush.ȱȱDespiteȱ thisȱ heȱ didȱ notȱ forbidȱ theȱ constructionȱ ofȱ anȱ eruvȱ butȱ acknowledgedȱ toȱ theȱ rabbanimȱ ofȱ Flatbushȱ thatȱ thereȱ areȱ differencesȱ ofȱ opinionsȱ regardingȱeruvin.ȱȱ i Eruvinȱ isȱ justȱ likeȱ anyȱ otherȱ d’oraysaȱ whereȱ everyoneȱ followsȱ theȱ p’sakȱofȱhisȱownȱrav,ȱandȱtherefore,ȱthereȱisȱnoȱreasonȱtoȱbeȱmocheh.ȱȱȱ i Oneȱshouldȱfollowȱhisȱravȱonȱeveryȱissue,ȱincludingȱerectingȱandȱ utilizingȱanȱeruv.ȱȱȱ i ItȱisȱaȱmitzvahȱtoȱerectȱeruvinȱandȱevenȱRavȱMosheȱmaintainedȱthereȱ isȱ aȱ greatȱ needȱ forȱ it.ȱȱTherefore,ȱ itȱ isȱ unjustȱ toȱ requestȱ thatȱ weȱ refrainȱ fromȱ performingȱ aȱ mitzvahȱ sinceȱ itȱ doesȱ notȱ negativelyȱ affectȱthoseȱwhoȱdoȱnotȱwishȱtoȱpartakeȱinȱthisȱmitzvah.ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 58ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ SECTIONȱIIIȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

SECTION IV

The Mechitzos Encircling Brooklyn

ȱ 60ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ SECTIONȱIIIȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ SECTIONȱIVȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ61ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ SECTIONȱIVȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ KuntresȱHaMechitzosȱȱ ȱ ȱ Evenȱ ifȱ oneȱ arguesȱ thatȱ Brooklynȱ meetsȱ allȱ theȱ criteriaȱ ofȱ aȱ reshusȱ harabbimȱ d’oraysa,ȱ sinceȱ Brooklynȱ isȱ circumscribedȱ byȱ mechitzosȱ onȱ threeȱsides,ȱwhichȱencloseȱmoreȱthanȱ95ȱpercentȱofȱitsȱwaterfrontȱ (seeȱ enclosedȱ map),ȱtheȱboroughȱisȱneverthelessȱclassifiedȱasȱaȱreshusȱhayachidȱ d’oraysaȱ(seeȱpageȱ24).ȱȱȱ ȱ Thereȱareȱnaturalȱriverbanksȱ[mechitzosȱhayam]ȱsurroundingȱBrooklynȱ onȱ threeȱ sidesȱ andȱ accordingȱ toȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ poskim,ȱ theyȱ wouldȱ beȱ sufficientȱtoȱchangeȱtheȱstatusȱofȱBrooklynȱtoȱaȱreshusȱhayachidȱd’oraysaȱ (seeȱnoteȱ17).ȱȱ ȱ Theȱmechitzosȱweȱareȱutilizing,ȱhowever,ȱareȱuniversallyȱacceptedȱsinceȱ theyȱonlyȱconsistȱofȱmanȬmadeȱwallsȱ[mechitzosȱb’y’daiȱadam]ȱinȱwhichȱ caseȱ weȱ paskenȱ thatȱ theȱ multitudesȱ [rabbim]ȱ doȱ notȱ negateȱ theȱ enclosure,ȱ loȱ asuȱ rabbimȱ u’mevatleiȱ mechitztaȱ (seeȱ noteȱ 2).ȱȱInȱ additionȱ toȱ gatesȱ thatȱ circumscribeȱ Brooklyn’sȱ waterfront,ȱ theȱ eruvȱ utilizesȱ seaȱ walls.ȱȱTheseȱmanȬmadeȱwalls,ȱwhichȱpreventȱtheȱencroachmentȱofȱtheȱ sea,ȱ areȱ michitzosȱ b’y’daiȱ adamȱ asȱ wellȱ and,ȱ alongȱ withȱ theȱ gates,ȱ surroundȱ Brooklynȱ onȱ threeȱ sidesȱ (seeȱ noteȱ 17).ȱȱAdditionally,ȱ weȱ canȱ utilizeȱmechitzosȱhabatimȱtoȱcloseȱtheȱfourthȱsideȱofȱtheȱthreeȱmechitzosȱ atȱourȱwaterfrontȱ (seeȱ noteȱ 18),ȱandȱasȱaȱresultȱweȱareȱcircumscribedȱbyȱ fourȱmechitzosȱomedȱmerubehȱalȱhaparutz.ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 62ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ SECTIONȱIVȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Theseȱmechitzosȱwereȱconfirmedȱbyȱtheȱfollowingȱrabbanim:ȱȱ i Membersȱ ofȱ Ravȱ Yechezkelȱ Rothȱ shlita’sȱ Baisȱ Din;ȱ seeȱ Emekȱ HaTeshuvahȱ(5:19)ȱandȱAppendixȱ8.ȱȱ i RavȱShlomoȱGrossȱshlita,ȱBelzerȱDayanȱofȱBoroȱPark.ȱ i RavȱTuviaȱGoldsteinȱzt”lȱsentȱaȱselectȱgroupȱfromȱhisȱkollelȱEmekȱ Halacha.ȱ ȱ Whileȱthereȱmayȱbeȱsomeȱpirtzosȱ[gaps]ȱinȱtheȱmechitzos,ȱonceȱtheȱwallsȱ areȱ omedȱ merubehȱ alȱ haparutzȱ onȱ threeȱ sidesȱ [thatȱ is,ȱ moreȱ thanȱ 50ȱ percentȱ ofȱ theȱ lengthȱ ofȱ eachȱ sideȱ mustȱ actuallyȱ consistȱ ofȱ aȱ wall]ȱ practicallyȱ allȱ poskimȱ maintainȱ thatȱ theȱ multitudesȱ doȱ notȱ negateȱ theȱ enclosure,ȱloȱasuȱrabbimȱu’mevatleiȱmechitztaȱ(seeȱnoteȱ2).ȱȱAlthoughȱsomeȱ ofȱtheȱpirtzosȱmayȱevenȱbeȱtenȱamos,ȱpracticallyȱallȱposkimȱmaintainȱthatȱ pirtzosȱ esserȱ isȱ onlyȱ aȱ rabbinicalȱ proscriptionȱ includingȱ HaGaonȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ Feinsteinȱ zt”lȱ andȱ thereforeȱ aȱ tzurasȱ hapesachȱ wouldȱ beȱ sufficientȱ toȱ closeȱ theȱ pirtzosȱ (seeȱ noteȱ 32).45ȱȱFurthermore,ȱ sinceȱ weȱ canȱ utilizeȱmechitzosȱhabatimȱtoȱcloseȱtheȱfourthȱside,ȱjustȱaboutȱeveryȱposekȱ wouldȱagreeȱloȱasuȱrabbimȱu’mevatleiȱmechitztaȱofȱfourȱmechitzos.ȱȱȱ ȱ [AnȱadditionalȱbenefitȱofȱtheseȱmechitzosȱsurroundingȱBrooklynȱisȱthatȱ theȱ pirtzosȱ inȱ theseȱ mechitzosȱ openȱ intoȱ theȱ waterȱ asȱ opposedȱ toȱ openingȱ intoȱ aȱ thoroughfareȱ thatȱ isȱ traversedȱ byȱ aȱ rabbim.ȱȱ Additionally,ȱtheȱpirtzosȱinȱtheseȱmechitzosȱareȱnotȱbkerenȱzavisȱȰȱgapsȱ atȱtheȱcornersȱwhereȱtheȱmechitzosȱmeet.]ȱ ȱ

45ȱ Whenȱclarifyingȱthatȱaȱpirtzahȱofȱtenȱamosȱisȱaȱrabbinicalȱproscription,ȱalmostȱ allȱ poskimȱ doȱ notȱ differentiateȱ betweenȱ aȱ pirtzahȱ ofȱ tenȱ amosȱ andȱ oneȱ ofȱ sixteenȱ amosȱ whichȱ isȱ proofȱ thatȱ theyȱ maintainȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ differenceȱ halachicallyȱbetweenȱthem.ȱȱAdditionally,ȱthereȱareȱposkimȱwhoȱclearlyȱstateȱ thatȱaȱpirtzahȱofȱsixteenȱamosȱisȱme’d’rabbananȱasȱwellȱ(BaisȱEphraim,ȱO.C.ȱ26;ȱAruchȱ HaShulchan,ȱ O.C.ȱ 362:26,ȱ andȱ Chazonȱ Ish,ȱ O.Cȱ 107:5Ȭ8).ȱȱFurthermore,ȱ evenȱ thoseȱ fewȱ poskimȱ whoȱ stateȱ aȱ pirtzahȱ ofȱ sixteenȱ amosȱ isȱ me’d’oraysaȱ theyȱ wouldȱ admitȱ thatȱ whenȱ utilizingȱ aȱ tzurasȱhapesachȱtoȱcloseȱtheȱpirtzahȱitȱisȱasȱthoughȱtheȱ pirtzahȱ itselfȱ ceasesȱ toȱ existȱ (Mishkenosȱ Yaakov,ȱ O.C.ȱ 122ȱ p.ȱ 144).ȱȱ[Evenȱifȱaȱrabbimȱ traversesȱthroughȱtheȱpirtzahȱsinceȱweȱpaskenȱloȱasuȱrabbimȱu’mevatleiȱmechitztaȱ theyȱdoȱnotȱnegateȱtheȱmechitzahȱ(seeȱnoteȱ2).]ȱ

ȱ ȱ SECTIONȱIVȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ63ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Me’d’rabbanan,ȱweȱareȱrequiredȱtoȱrectifyȱallȱtheȱpirtzosȱinȱtheȱmechitzosȱ withȱ atȱ leastȱ aȱ tzurasȱ hapesachȱ soȱ thatȱ theȱ areaȱ isȱ entirelyȱ enclosed.ȱȱ Alternatively,ȱ theȱ tzurasȱ hapesachȱ canȱ beȱ utilized,ȱ me’d’rabbanan,ȱ toȱ encircleȱaȱsectionȱofȱtheȱareaȱenclosedȱbyȱtheȱmechitzosȱsinceȱtheȱtzurasȱ hapesachȱisȱbeingȱerectedȱinȱaȱreshusȱhayachidȱd’oraysaȱ(seeȱpageȱ14ȱandȱnoteȱ3).ȱȱ Sinceȱ Brooklynȱ isȱ classifiedȱ asȱ aȱ reshusȱ hayachidȱ d’oraysa,ȱ anȱ eruvȱ ofȱ tzurasȱhapesachimȱcanȱbeȱerectedȱinȱanyȱofȱBrooklyn’sȱneighborhoods.ȱȱ EvenȱaccordingȱtoȱRavȱMoshe,ȱwhenȱaȱtzurasȱhapesachȱisȱerectedȱinȱaȱ BrooklynȱneighborhoodȱitsȱpirtzosȱareȱopenȱtoȱtheȱrestȱofȱBrooklyn,ȱaȱ walledȱcityȱthatȱis,ȱme’d’oraysa,ȱaȱreshusȱhayachid.ȱȱAccordingly,ȱitȱdoesȱ notȱ requireȱ dalsosȱ (Igrosȱ Moshe,ȱ O.C.ȱ 1:139,ȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ anafȱ 3);ȱ seeȱ noteȱ 31ȱ andȱ Appendixȱ9.ȱȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 64ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ SECTIONȱIVȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

APPENDICES

ȱ 66ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ SECTIONȱIVȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ APPENDIXȱONEȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ67ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Appendixȱ1ȱ APPENDIXȱONEȱ Theseȱ statisticalȱ recordsȱ ofȱ theȱ NYSDOTȱ showȱthatȱOceanȱParkway,ȱoneȱofȱ Brooklyn’sȱmainȱthoroughfaresȱȰȱandȱtheȱlargestȱthoroughfareȱincludedȱinȱ theȱFlatbushȱeruvȱȰȱhasȱfewerȱthenȱ55,000ȱvehiclesȱtraversingȱitȱdailyȱinȱbothȱ directions,ȱwithȱanȱaverageȱofȱ1.5ȱoccupantsȱperȱvehicleȱ(NYSDOT,ȱAȱTransportationȱ Profileȱ ofȱ NYS,ȱ 2004ȱ p.ȱ 4).ȱȱConsequentially,ȱ becauseȱ Oceanȱ Parkwayȇsȱ trafficȱ isȱ significantlyȱlessȱthanȱshishimȱribuy,ȱaccordingȱtoȱmostȱposkimȱanȱeruvȱofȱtzurasȱ hapesachimȱcanȱbeȱerectedȱanywhereȱinȱaȱBrooklynȱneighborhood.ȱȱSeeȱnoteȱ15.ȱ ȱ ĺ [ED. NOTE: AADT = ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC] AADT [ED. NOTE:

(Continuedȱonȱtheȱfollowingȱpage.) ȱ 68ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ APPENDIXȱONEȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ [ED. NOTE: AADT = ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC] ĺ

ȱ ȱ APPENDIXȱTWOȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ69ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Appendixȱ2ȱ APPENDIXȱTWOȱ Inȱ Ravȱ Moshe’sȱ zt”l’sȱ finalȱ twoȱ teshuvosȱ aboutȱ eruvinȱ weȱ seeȱ thatȱ heȱ codifiedȱ hisȱ chiddush;ȱ inȱ orderȱ forȱ aȱ cityȱ toȱ beȱ classifiedȱ asȱ aȱ reshusȱ harabbimȱ ofȱ shishimȱ ribuy,ȱ theȱ requirementȱ isȱ atȱ leastȱ fiveȱ timesȱ shishimȱ ribuyȱ whichȱ couldȱ amountȱ toȱ 3,000,000ȱ orȱ moreȱ people.ȱȱConsequently,ȱ theȱ Chicagoȱ eruvȱ pamphletȱ (Westȱ Rogersȱ Parkȱ Eruv,ȱ 1993ȱ p.ȱ 23)ȱ statesȱ thatȱ Ravȱ Dovidȱ Feinsteinȱ shlitaȱ wasȱ inȱ agreementȱ thatȱ accordingȱ toȱ hisȱ father’sȱ shitahȱthereȱmustȱbeȱaȱminimumȱofȱ3,000,000ȱpeopleȱinȱorderȱforȱtheȱcityȱtoȱ beȱdefinedȱasȱaȱreshusȱharabbim.ȱȱSeeȱpageȱ29ȱandȱnote 19. ȱ ȱ ȱ 70ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ APPENDIXȱTHREEȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Appendixȱ3ȱ APPENDIXȱTHREEȱ Thisȱ teshuvahȱ provesȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ zt”lȱ knewȱ thatȱ thereȱ wereȱ citiesȱ withȱ populationsȱ exceedingȱ shishimȱ ribuyȱ andȱ nevertheless,ȱ eruvinȱ hadȱ beenȱ erectedȱthere.ȱȱThereforeȱheȱpositedȱthatȱthereȱwouldȱneedȱtoȱbeȱ3,000,000ȱ peopleȱoverȱanȱareaȱofȱtwelveȱmilȱbyȱtwelveȱmilȱinȱorderȱforȱthatȱareaȱtoȱbeȱ classifiedȱasȱaȱreshusȱharabbim.ȱȱTheȱfollowingȱlargeȱcitiesȱwithȱpopulationsȱ ofȱ600,000ȱerectedȱeruvin:ȱWarsaw,ȱwhichȱwasȱnotȱwalledȱfromȱtheȱyearȱ 1877ȱandȱwhichȱhadȱshishimȱribuyȱonȱtheȱlargerȱsideȱfromȱtheȱyearȱ1900ȱ (Mishmeresȱ Sholom,ȱ 24:10;ȱ Divreiȱ Menachem,ȱ O.C.ȱ vol.i2,ȱ pp.ȱ 42Ȭ43;ȱ Encyklopediaȱ Warszawy,ȱ 1994ȱ p.ȱ 187,iandȱRocznikȱStatystycznyȱWarszawyȱ1921ȱiȱ1922,ȱ1924ȱp.ȱ14;ȱseeȱalsoȱIgrosȱMoshe,ȱO.C.ȱ5:28:5ȱ andȱ Appendixȱ 6a),ȱLodzȱ (Mishmeresȱ Sholom,ȱ 24:10ȱ andȱ Encyclopediaȱ Judaica,ȱ 1996ȱ vol.ȱ 11ȱ p.ȱ 426),ȱ Odessaȱ (Divreiȱ Malkiel,ȱ 3:14Ȭ18,ȱ 4:3;ȱ Tikkunȱ Shabbos,ȱ andȱ Tuvȱ Yehoshua),ȱ Manchesterȱ (introductionȱ Baisȱ Avȱ vol.ȱ 2ȱ andȱ Encyclopediaȱ Britannica,ȱ 1911ȱ vol.ȱ 17ȱ p.ȱ 547),ȱ St.ȱ Louisȱ (Tikvasȱ Zechariahȱ andȱ Encyclopediaȱ Britannica,ȱ 1911ȱ vol.ȱ 24ȱ p.ȱ 24),ȱ andȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ inȱ 1905ȱ (Ozneiȱ Yehoshua,ȱ1:18;ȱTiroshȱVaYitzhar,ȱsimanȱ73;ȱEruvȱV’Hotzaah,ȱandȱUSȱCensus,ȱ1900).ȱȱSeeȱpageȱ30.ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ APPENDIXȱFOURȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ71ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Appendixȱ4ȱ APPENDIXȱFOURȱ Thisȱ teshuvahȱ confirmsȱ thatȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱzt”lȱneverȱgaveȱaȱp’sakȱagainstȱanȱ eruvȱinȱFlatbushȱbutȱonlyȱstatedȱhisȱpersonalȱopinion,ȱsinceȱheȱrecognizedȱ thatȱ hisȱ chiddushȱ wasȱ notȱ acceptedȱ byȱ theȱ Achronimȱ andȱ thatȱ theȱ Aruchȱ HaShulchanȱdidȱnotȱagreeȱwithȱhim.ȱȱSeeȱpagesȱ31ȱandȱ50;ȱsee also note 23.ȱ

(Continuedȱonȱtheȱfollowingȱpage.)ȱ ȱ ȱ 72ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ APPENDIXȱFOURȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ APPENDIXȱFIVEȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ73ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Appendixȱ5 APPENDIXȱFIVEȱ Theȱ detractorsȱ ofȱ eruvinȱ haveȱ alwaysȱ claimedȱ thatȱ whenȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ zt”lȱ statedȱthatȱthereȱisȱnoȱreshusȱharabbimȱtodayȱbecauseȱweȱrelyȱonȱtheȱheterȱofȱ shishimȱribuyȱ(IgrosȱMoshe,ȱO.C.ȱ3:94,ȱ5:24:10),ȱheȱcertainlyȱdidȱnotȱmeanȱBoroȱParkȱorȱ Flatbush.ȱȱTheȱmostȱilluminatingȱofȱallȱhisȱteshuvosȱisȱthisȱfinalȱoneȱonȱtheȱ issue,ȱregardingȱaȱblindȱwomanȱusingȱaȱwalkingȱstickȱonȱShabbosȱ(ibid.,ȱvol.ȱ8,ȱ O.C.ȱ5:19).ȱȱRavȱMosheȱendsȱthisȱteshuvahȱbyȱstatingȱthatȱtodayȱweȱrelyȱonȱtheȱ factȱthatȱthereȱisȱalmostȱnoȱtrueȱreshusȱharabbim.ȱȱȱ ȱ Fig.ȱ5a

Inȱ Kovetzȱ Amȱ HaTorahȱ (1986ȱ no.ȱ 11) Fig.ȱ5b [Fig.ȱ5a],ȱwhereȱthisȱteshuvah was firstȱprinted,ȱitȱclearlyȱstatesȱthat thisȱ womanȱ livedȱ inȱ Boroȱ Park. Theyȱ purposefullyȱ omittedȱ this veryȱ importantȱ factȱ fromȱ the teshuvahȱwhenȱtheyȱprintedȱIgros Mosheȱ volumeȱ 8ȱ posthumously [Fig.ȱ 5b]!ȱȱSeeȱ notesȱ 15ȱ andȱ 24. Theȱ reasonȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ stated thatȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ trueȱ reshus harabbimȱtodayȱisȱbecauseȱheȱfelt heȱcouldȱnotȱextendȱhisȱpersonal *ȱNoteȱtheȱomissionȱofȱtheȱwoman’sȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ approachȱtoȱeruvinȱtoȱothers.ȱȱSee place of residence. noteȱ23. ȱ 74ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ APPENDIXȱSIXȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Appendixȱ6ȱ APPENDIXȱSIX Fromȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ zt”l’sȱ firstȱ teshuvahȱ listedȱ hereȱ [Fig.ȱ 6a]ȱ weȱ seeȱ heȱ maintainedȱthatȱifȱtheȱtzurasȱhapesachȱencircledȱfewerȱthanȱshishimȱribuyȱitȱ isȱconsideredȱasȱifȱtheȱtzurasȱhapesachȱseparatesȱtheȱneighborhoodȱfromȱtheȱ wholeȱcityȱandȱanȱeruvȱisȱpermissible.ȱȱSeeȱnotesȱ21ȱandȱ29.ȱȱAdditionally,ȱ bothȱtheseȱteshuvosȱ[Figs.ȱ6aȱandȱ6b]ȱdemonstrateȱthatȱRavȱMosheȱwasȱledȱ toȱbelieveȱthatȱindependentlyȱBoroȱParkȱandȱFlatbushȱhaveȱpopulationsȱ ofȱ shishimȱ ribuyȱ andȱ thereforeȱ anȱ eruvȱ ofȱ tzurasȱ hapesachimȱ wasȱ notȱ permissible.ȱȱRavȱ Mosheȱ statesȱ thatȱ eachȱ oneȱ ofȱ theseȱ neighborhoodsȱ encompassesȱ lessȱ thanȱ twelveȱ milȱ byȱ twelveȱ milȱ andȱ neverthelessȱ theyȱ haveȱmoreȱthanȱshishimȱribuy.ȱȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhandȱRavȱMosheȱstatesȱthatȱ Brooklynȱincludesȱanȱareaȱofȱmoreȱthanȱtwelveȱmilȱbyȱtwelveȱmilȱ(IgrosȱMoshe,ȱ O.C.ȱ 4:87Ȭ88).ȱȱConsequently,ȱ theseȱ teshuvosȱ mustȱ indicateȱ thatȱ eachȱ neighborhoodȱindependentlyȱhasȱshishimȱribuyȱandȱnotȱjustȱtheȱwholeȱofȱ Brooklyn.ȱȱSeeȱpageȱ37ȱandȱnoteȱ28.ȱ ȱ

Fig.ȱ6a Fig.ȱ6b

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ APPENDIXȱSEVENȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ75ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Appendixȱ7ȱ APPENDIXȱSEVENȱ Asȱ thisȱ mapȱ indicates,ȱ Kewȱ Gardensȱ Hillsȱ isȱ connectedȱ withȱ theȱ restȱ ofȱ Queens,ȱtoȱformȱoneȱcontiguousȱboroughȱjustȱasȱBoroȱParkȱandȱFlatbushȱ areȱ connectedȱ withȱ theȱ restȱ ofȱ Brooklyn.ȱȱConsequentially,ȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ RavȱMosheȱzt”lȱallowedȱanȱeruvȱinȱKewȱGardensȱHillsȱmustȱbeȱbecauseȱ theȱ tzurasȱ hapesachȱ demarcatesȱ theȱ neighborhoodȱ fromȱ theȱ restȱ ofȱ theȱ borough.ȱȱSeeȱnoteȱ29.ȱ ȱ 76ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ APPENDIXȱEIGHTȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Appendixȱ8ȱ APPENDIXȱEIGHTȱ Aȱ letterȱ fromȱ Ravȱ Yechezkelȱ Rothȱ shlitaȱ attestingȱ toȱ theȱ mechitzosȱ encompassingȱ Brooklynȱ andȱ statingȱ thatȱ anȱ eruvȱ wouldȱ beȱ permissibleȱ accordingȱ toȱ allȱ poskim (seeȱ alsoȱ Emekȱ HaTeshuvah,ȱ 5:19).ȱȱSeeȱ noteȱ 30.ȱȱ Additionally,ȱitȱisȱstatedȱinȱtheȱTorontoȱeruvȱbookletȱ(TheȱTorontoȱCommunityȱEruv,ȱ p.ȱ15)ȱthatȱRavȱElyashuvȱshlitaȱconsentedȱtoȱtheȱeruvȱthereȱonȱconditionȱthatȱ theȱ eruvȱ beȱ primarilyȱ basedȱ onȱ mechitzosȱ onȱ atȱ leastȱ threeȱ sidesȱ thatȱ areȱ omedȱ merubehȱ alȱ haparetz.ȱȱAsȱ isȱ evidentȱ fromȱ thisȱ letter,ȱ theȱ situationȱ inȱ BrooklynȱisȱtheȱsameȱasȱtheȱsituationȱisȱinȱToronto.ȱȱSeeȱnoteȱ16.ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ APPENDIXȱNINEȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ77ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Appendixȱ9ȱ APPENDIXȱNINE Thisȱteshuvahȱdemonstratesȱthatȱifȱaȱtzurasȱhapesachȱisȱerectedȱinȱaȱreshusȱ hayachidȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ ztȈlȱ wouldȱ agreeȱ thatȱ thereȱ wouldȱ notȱ beȱ aȱ requirementȱofȱdalsos.ȱȱSinceȱBrooklynȱisȱcircumscribedȱbyȱmechitzosȱandȱisȱ classifiedȱasȱaȱreshusȱhayachid,ȱaȱtzurasȱhapesachȱwouldȱbeȱsufficientȱinȱanyȱ sectionȱofȱBrooklyn.ȱȱSeeȱnoteȱ31.ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 78ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ APPENDIXȱTENȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Appendixȱ10ȱ APPENDIXȱTENȱ Theȱtextȱofȱtheȱ1979ȱkolȱkoreiȱagainstȱaȱFlatbushȱeruvȱ[Fig.ȱ10a]ȱrefersȱbackȱ toȱ theȱ 1962ȱ Manhattanȱ kolȱ koreiȱ [Fig.ȱ 10b],ȱ claimingȱ thatȱ itȱ includesȱ BrooklynȱinȱtheȱManhattanȱissurȱandȱlistingȱamongȱtheȱsignatoriesȱRavȱ EliyahuȱHenkinȱzt“l.ȱȱHowever,ȱasȱtheȱoriginalȱcopyȱofȱtheȱ1962ȱkolȱkoreiȱ demonstrates,ȱ theȱ takanahȱ thenȱ againstȱ erectingȱ eruvinȱ onlyȱ appliedȱ toȱ Manhattanȱ andȱ notȱ toȱ Brooklyn.ȱȱAdditionally,ȱ itȱ showsȱ onlyȱ fiveȱ signatures.ȱȱNowhereȱ isȱ Ravȱ Eliyahuȱ Henkin’sȱ signatureȱ toȱ beȱ found.ȱ ȱ ȱ Fig. 10a

ȱ SeeȱalsoȱtheȱreprintȱofȱthisȱkolȱkoreiȱbyȱtheȱAgudasȱHaRabbonim,ȱwhichȱisȱ identicalȱtoȱtheȱoriginalȱdocumentȱ (HaPardesȱ 40thȱ year,ȱ vol.ȱ 8)ȱ[Fig.ȱ10c].ȱȱEvenȱ moreȱ so,ȱ fromȱ Ravȱ Henkin’sȱ lettersȱ (Kisveiȱ Hagriahȱ Henkin,ȱ p.ȱ 33),ȱandȱfromȱtheȱ 1960ȱkolȱkoreiȱonȱbehalfȱofȱtheȱManhattanȱeruvȱ(DivreiȱMenachem,ȱO.C.ȱvol.ȱ2,ȱp.ȱ10)ȱ [Fig.ȱ 10d],ȱ weȱ seeȱ heȱ wasȱ aȱ proponentȱ ofȱ theȱ Manhattanȱ eruv.ȱȱ Additionally,ȱRavȱMosheȱzt”lȱneverȱgaveȱaȱp’sakȱl’maasehȱagainstȱeruvinȱasȱ theȱ1979ȱkolȱkoreiȱfalselyȱclaims.ȱȱOnȱtheȱcontrary,ȱheȱdeclinedȱtoȱissueȱaȱ p’sakȱsinceȱtheȱAruchȱHaShulchanȱandȱotherȱAchronimȱdisagreedȱwithȱhimȱ (IgrosȱMoshe,ȱO.C.ȱ4:87);ȱseeȱAppendixȱ4.ȱȱSeeȱnotesȱ23ȱandȱ36.ȱ

ȱ ȱ APPENDIXȱTENȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ79ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Fig.ȱ10b

Fig.ȱ10c

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ (Continuedȱonȱtheȱfollowingȱpage.) ȱ 80ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ APPENDIXȱTENȱ ȱ ȱ

Fig.ȱ10d ȱ

ȱ ȱ APPENDIXȱELEVENȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ81ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Appendixȱ11ȱ APPENDIXȱELEVENȱ ȱ Thisȱ1981ȱletterȱȰȱwhichȱwasȱneverȱprintedȱinȱIgrosȱMosheȱandȱwasȱonlyȱ circulatedȱasȱaȱflyerȱȰȱisȱquestionableȱasȱwell.ȱȱThisȱletterȱpurportsȱthatȱ accordingȱ toȱ Ravȱ Moshe’sȱ Shevatȱ 1979ȱ teshuvahȱ (Igrosȱ Moshe,ȱ O.C.ȱ 4:88)ȱ Ravȱ MosheȱjoinedȱtheȱAgudasȱHaRabbonimȱinȱprohibitingȱeruvinȱinȱBrooklyn.ȱȱ Inȱfact,ȱRavȱMosheȱneverȱmentionedȱaȱwordȱinȱthatȱteshuvahȱaboutȱjoiningȱ theȱAgudasȱHaRabbonimȱinȱprohibitingȱeruvinȱinȱBrooklyn;ȱtheȱteshuvahȱ wasȱwrittenȱonlyȱtoȱclarifyȱhisȱpriorȱteshuvahȱ(ibid.,ȱ4:87;ȱseeȱnoteȱ23).ȱȱMoreover,ȱ thereȱneverȱwasȱanyȱissurȱfromȱtheȱAgudasȱHaRabbonimȱagainstȱerectingȱ eruvinȱinȱBrooklyn,ȱonlyȱinȱManhattan;ȱseeȱnoteȱ36ȱandȱAppendixȱ10.ȱ ȱ

ȱ Thisȱ correlatesȱ withȱ whatȱ Ravȱ Menasheȱ Kleinȱ shlitaȱ wroteȱ (Oimȱ Aniȱ Chomah,ȱ simanȱ 7)ȱ thatȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ toldȱ himȱ inȱ 1979ȱȰȱinȱ theȱ presenceȱ ofȱ Ravȱ Elimelechȱ Bluthȱ shlita,ȱ Ravȱ Shalomȱ Dresnerȱ shlita,ȱ andȱ Ravȱ Mordechaiȱ Tendlerȱ shlitaȱȰȱthatȱ contraryȱ toȱ whatȱ someoneȱ inȱ theȱ Agudasȱ HaRabbonimȱ wasȱ promotingȱ theȱ 1962ȱ issurȱ fromȱ theȱ Agudasȱ HaRabbonimȱ wasȱ onlyȱ regardingȱ Manhattan.ȱȱFurthermore,ȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ plausibleȱ thatȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ wouldȱ haveȱ statedȱ inȱ thisȱ 1981ȱ letterȱ that,ȱ “thoseȱwhoȱrelyȱonȱtheȱeruvȱareȱconsideredȱaȱmechalelȱShabbos.”ȱȱWeȱseeȱheȱ wasȱuncomfortableȱwithȱaȱcomparableȱlineȱthatȱwasȱutilizedȱinȱtheȱ1962ȱ ȱ 82ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ APPENDIXȱELEVENȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ takanahȱagainstȱerectingȱanȱeruvȱinȱManhattanȱsinceȱheȱomittedȱitȱfromȱhisȱ teshuvahȱ (Igrosȱ Moshe,ȱ Addendumȱ toȱ O.C.ȱ 4:89).ȱȱAdditionally,ȱtheȱsubsequentȱline,ȱ “andȱ thoseȱ whoȱ erectedȱ theȱ eruvȱ areȱ causingȱ theȱ rabbimȱ toȱ falter,”ȱ isȱ questionableȱ asȱ wellȱ becauseȱ threeȱ yearsȱ earlierȱ inȱ hisȱ teshuvahȱ (ibid.,ȱ O.C.ȱ 4:87)ȱtoȱtheȱrabbanimȱofȱFlatbushȱnotȱonlyȱdidȱRavȱMosheȱnotȱcensureȱthem,ȱ heȱdeclinedȱtoȱissueȱaȱp’sakȱandȱacknowledgedȱthatȱtheȱAruchȱHaShulchanȱ andȱ otherȱ Achronimȱ wouldȱ disagreeȱ withȱ him.ȱȱInȱ lightȱ ofȱ theȱ aforementioned,ȱRavȱMenasheȱKleinȱshlitaȱwroteȱ(OimȱAniȱChomah,ȱsimanȱ53)ȱthatȱ thereȱwereȱRosheiȱYeshivosȱwhoȱdeclaredȱpubliclyȱthatȱRavȱMosheȱneverȱ signedȱthisȱletter.ȱȱAdditionally,ȱitȱisȱinterestingȱthatȱonlyȱtheȱdateȱandȱtheȱ signatureȱ areȱ handwrittenȱ onȱ thisȱ flyer.ȱȱ[Althoughȱ manyȱ peopleȱ haveȱ askedȱ toȱ seeȱ theȱ handwrittenȱ letterȱ inȱ itsȱ entirety,ȱ itȱ hasȱ neverȱ beenȱ forthcoming.]ȱȱNoteȱ tooȱ thatȱ theȱ signatureȱ itselfȱ isȱ questionable.ȱȱTheȱ signatureȱonȱthisȱletterȱisȱindistinguishableȱfromȱtheȱoneȱonȱtheȱhaskamahȱ toȱ aȱ bookletȱ againstȱ erectingȱ eruvin,ȱ andȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ possibleȱ forȱ twoȱ signaturesȱ toȱ beȱ exactlyȱ theȱ same.ȱȱInȱ lightȱ ofȱ theȱ aforementionedȱ inconsistenciesȱinȱthisȱletter,ȱitȱfollowsȱthatȱoneȱcanȱonlyȱbeȱconfidentȱinȱ whatȱRavȱMosheȱactuallyȱstatedȱinȱhisȱteshuvosȱandȱnotȱinȱwhatȱisȱmerelyȱ writtenȱonȱaȱflyer.ȱȱȱ ȱ Itȱ isȱ importantȱ toȱ noteȱ thatȱ allȱ theȱ objectionsȱ toȱ eruvinȱ inȱ Brooklynȱ areȱ basedȱonȱthisȱ1981ȱletterȱandȱtheȱ1979ȱkolȱkoreiȱ[seeȱAppendixȱ10],ȱandȱasȱ weȱ haveȱ shownȱ above,ȱ bothȱ areȱ spuriousȱ documentsȱ andȱ cannotȱ beȱ reliedȱ on.ȱȱFinally,ȱ evenȱ ifȱ Ravȱ Mosheȱ hadȱ signedȱ thisȱ letterȱ andȱ theȱ signatureȱ onȱ theȱ 1979ȱ kolȱ koreiȱ wasȱ authenticȱ sinceȱ Ravȱ Moshe’sȱ oppositionȱ toȱ theseȱ eruvinȱ wasȱ basedȱ onȱ aȱ totallyȱ differentȱ setȱ ofȱ circumstancesȱwhichȱdoesȱnotȱpertainȱtoȱusȱtodayȱ(seeȱsectionȱtwo),ȱthereȱisȱnoȱ questionȱthatȱheȱwouldȱhaveȱallowedȱourȱeruvin.ȱȱSeeȱnoteȱ36.ȱȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ APPENDIXȱTWELVEȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ83ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Appendixȱ12ȱ APPENDIXȱTWELVEȱ Aȱ listȱ ofȱ moreȱ thanȱ100ȱrabbanimȱwhoȱmaintainedȱthatȱneitherȱBrooklynȱ norȱ Manhattanȱ isȱ aȱ reshusȱ harabbimȱ d’oraysaȱ andȱ consequentlyȱ anȱ eruvȱ couldȱbeȱerected.ȱȱSeeȱpageȱ53.ȱ

ÌÈ˜ÒÂÙ‰ ˙ÂÓÈ˘¯ ‡˙ÈÈ¯Â‡„ ÌÈ·¯‰ ˙Â˘¯ ‰È‡ [ÔÈÏ˜Â¯· Â‡ ÔËÚ‰‡Ó] ˜¯‡È ‡Â ¯ÈÚ˘ ¦¢°ª ¦¢©± ¦¢©²± ³¡¢² ¥¤¥¤± ¢¤ ³©§¥ ©¢¯§ ¥³§ ±°¢« ,¦ ¦¢±¢¤ ,‡˙ÈÈ¯Â‡„ ÌÈ·¯‰ ˙Â˘¯ ‰Ê‰ ÔÓÊ· ÂÏ ÔÈ‡˘ ¦¢±ª ¢©¥ ‰ÙÂ¯È‡· ˙ÂÏÂ„‚‰ ˙Â¯ÈÈÚ‰ ÏÎ· ."± §« § ¢ °" ²«§¥ ¦¢¤§ª ¦¢©¢ ¢³ ¥¤ , ¦¢ « ˙Â¯ÈÈÚ‰ ÏÎ· Ï‡¯˘È ı¯‡·Â § ¥§ .¦¢¥« ¦¢¢ ¤¥²¢"¯¢ °±¢ © ©±¢« ¢¤ ±§² ¢§ ©¤ ,¨¥¥ ©¡°¥²§£ .³± ±ª§ ¦¢§ª±§ ¥±²¢ ¢¥ ¢© ÌÈ·¯ ‰‡ÓÓ ¯˙ÂÈ ¥² ³¢°¥ §¢²± ¨¥¥ ˙Â˘¯ ‰È‡ [ÔÈÏ˜Â¯· Â‡ ÔËÚ‰‡Ó] ˜¯‡È ‡Â ¯ÈÚ˘ °ª² ©± ¢°ª ¨¡«©§ ¨¢±¢« ¨°³¥ « ¦©¯± «¢² ¥ ¦ ,‡˙ÈÈ¯Â‡„ ÌÈ·¯‰ .¨¢¥°± ³©² ³¤§) ¦"²±§ ³"² ª" §«¥"¯ ¨±« °"§" .‡ (¦"²±§ ³"² ª© ,¥"¯ ¥«¢ª «²¢ ¢±§"¥ "ª±³ ª" §« ¥ª¢©¡ª " ¥"¯ ®¢± ²¢ ²¢¢¢¥ '¢± ¢±§" .· (°±¢ © ¨¢±¢« ¨°¢³ ±¢³¥³¤² ³¤§) ¦¢§² ¢± ³"² (¥"©¤) ¥ª¢§«± " ¥"¯ ²¢¥¢¢§ ²§ ¢±§" .‚ (¥"©¤) ®¥«¢° " ¥"¯ ¢°ª§¥²±¢ ¦ © ²§ ¢±§" .„ ¯ ±¢« ±ª) °±¢ © " ¥"¯ ¥«¢ª «²¢ ¢±§" .‰ ("ª±³³©² ³²³) ¥¢¤¥§¢± ³"² ¥«¥"¯ ¦¢©©«¡ ¢¯ ¥¤¢§ ¢±§" .Â (±"± ¥ ±§ ' '¢ª " ²±¢³³"² ±ª) °ª©¥ " ¥"¯ ¨¥¤¢§ ¥° ¢ ¢¯¢±§" .Ê ("« '¢ª ±¯¢ ȱ 84ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ APPENDIXȱTWELVEȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

²¢ ¨ ±ª) ²¢ ¨ ¥«¥"¯ ®¢¥±° '¢«²¢ ¦± ¢±§" .Á ³¥ ³±¢¢« ±¢³¥ ²±§ '¤ '-' ³ "§ '¢ª ¨¢±¢« ³¤¥ (²"¢¢« ©©§ ¥³²³ ±§) ²± " ¥"¯ ©¤ §¥²¢±§" .Ë (±"± ¨¡ª ±«¡ª«²¡©§ " ¥"¯ ®¢¥«¢ ¨± ¦±¢±§" .È ('¬©« '¡ '¢ª ,' ¬©« ' '¢ª ©¢©³ ³¢ ±ª) °±¢ © © ±¢« « ¨¢ ³¢§ '¢²) ¥"¯ ¡¡²©¢¢ ¢¯ ¦ ©§ ¢±§" .‡È (°±¢ « ¥²°"° ¦³ ) ©¢²§§ ¥"¯ ²¢¥° ¨«§² '±±"§ °"¤ .·È (¤"²³³©² ¨¢¡«©§±¢« ¨°¢³ ¨«§¥ (¥"©¤) °ª©¢§©§ ¥"¯ ¥±« ¦ © '±±"§ °"¤ .‚È (¥"©¤) ¨¢±§ ¥"¯ ±«©¢¢¥ ¦ ±¢ '±±"§ °"¤ .„È (¥"©¤) ®¢©²¢°§ ¥"¯ ¥¢²« «²¢ ¦± '±±"§ °"¤ .ÂË (¥"©¤) ¨¢§ ¥"¯ ¨§«¢± §¥² ¢¤±§ '±±"§ °"¤ .ÊË (¥"©¤) ± °" ¥"¯ ±«©¢¢¡² ²§ ¢±§" .ÊÈ (¥"©¤) ©±¡ °" ¥"¯ ²±¢ ¬ª¢ ¢±§" .ÁÈ (¥"©¤) ²¡©«±«ª °" ¥"¯ °¥¥¥"ª ¦ ©§ ¢±§" .ËÈ (¥"©¤) °¥ª °" ¥"¯ ®¢²¢¥ ¢±§" .Î ³²«¥ ±³§ ¤¥¢"«² ¦¢¤ª) ¥"¯ ¨¢°©« ¢¥ ¬ª¢ ¢±§" .‡Î (¢³¤§ §¤ ,±¢« ¢"«² ¦¢¤ª) ¢¯±³"² "§«¥"¯ °©± ª ¢¯¢±§" .·Î (¨¡«©§¥±¢« ³²«¥ ±³§ ¤¥ ¢"±§ ³"²) ¨«¢ ¦¢±¢ ³« °" ¥"¯ ¬¢¢¡² ¨³©¢ ¢±§" .‚Î (¥"¯ ±«©¢¢¡² "¢± ®"§ ³¤§ ³« , "ª '¢ª ¬¢¢¡² ³±³ ±ª) ±¡¢¢© §"± ± ¥"¯ ¥©§ª¢¢ ±«¥¤¢§ ¢±§" .„Î (³± ±§ "§ ±ª) ªª-®²§ ±"§ ¥"¯ ²¡¢°²§ ¬ª¢ ¢±§" .‰Î (¨¢±¢« ¨°¢³ ³"² ,"§²³³©² °"²§ ³¤§) ¥"¯ ±§¡ª§ ±"§ °"¤ .ÂÎ °©¢³¢¥ «¢ ³±§ ¦ ,³¡§² '°¥ ¬ª ¦¥²¢± ("¢ ±«« "± ³«¤ ,"§¢ ³¢± ³²«¥ °"²

ȱ ȱ APPENDIXȱTWELVEȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ85ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

'¢ª " ¢¯¢ ¢± ³"² ±ª) ¥"¯ ±©«¢¥°-©¯§ ±"§ °"¤ .ÊÎ ("«° '¢ª "«° ¥¤ ¥¡¥¡ " ± ¥« ±¢« ²«²) ¥"¯ §±"§ °"¤ .ÁÎ (³² ,« ,"¯° '¢ª , "©° '¢ª ¬ª¢ ¨«¢ ³"²) ¥"¯ §±"§ °"¤ .ËÎ (¢¢§¥³¢©³«¤ ,"¥²³³©² ³¤§ (¥² ±±¢« ²«²) "ª§ ¥"¯ °©¢ª§ ±"§ °"¤ .Ï ³©² ³¤§) ²§±² °" ¥"¯ ¢©« °¯±¢ ¢¥³©¢±§" .‡Ï (°"¥ "¥²³ ³¤§) °²¡ °" ¥"¯ £¢¢±©«¡¥« ¦± ¥§² ¢±§" .·Ï (°"¥ "¥²³³©² "¥²³³©² ³¤§) ¢¥«¡§ª °" ¥"¯ ®"¤ «²¢ ¢±§" .‚Ï (°"¥ "¥²³³©² ³¤§) ± °" ¥"¯ ±«¥¥¢§ ¨«§² ¢±§" .„Ï (°"¥ (°"¥ "¥²³³©² ³¤§) ®¥°²¢§ °" ¥"¯ ±«±« ¦¢¢ ¢±§" .‰Ï (°"¥ "¥²³³©² ³¤§) ¢©«¥ " ¥"¯ ²¢ ¦¢¢ ¢±§" .ÂÏ ³¤§) ¨«¢ ¦¢±¢ ¥° "± ¥"¯ ±«©¢¢¡² '¢¥ ¬ª¢ ¢±§" .ÊÏ (°"¥ "§²³³©² "§²³³©² ³¤§) °±§«° °" ¥"¯ ±«©¢± ±¢§ ¢±§" .ÁÏ (°"¥ ¡°¥¢ª" §« ¢© °" ¥"¯ ¥«±¢ ±¢§ ¦±¢±§" .ËÏ (°"¥ "§²³³©² ³¤§) ª"² ¥« ¢±¢§ (³¤§) "ª§-®¢©°§ ¥"¯ ¨¢±¥¢¢ ¢¤±§ ¢±§" .Ó ¢± ³"² §¤) ¨±² °" ¥"¯ ¨«¥±²¢ ¨«§² ¢±§" .‡Ó (¥"© ¢ª §«§ '¢ ¦² ¦¥² (¥"©¤) ²¢° °" ¥"¯ ²¡¢«¥°«¢ ¢±§" .·Ó (¥"©¤) ©ª±° °" ¥"¯ ¨¢¢¡²©¡¤¢¥¥¥¢ ¢±§" .‚Ó ¦¢¥²±¢ °"¢«³¢± « " ¥"¯ ª¢¢ °«¢ ° ¯¢ ¢±§" .„Ó ¢¢ °± ± ±¢« ³¢¢²«² ±§² "¡¢¥²"± ¤© ¢«²) ¥« ¦¢§« ¦¢©¢© ¦¢±§ ¢³ ± ¢¤ ,¢ª©§§ ±§ ±³¢ (" ±¢« ¨¢²« ¨¢ «§ ¥³ ,®±

ȱ ȱ 86ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ APPENDIXȱTWELVEȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

" ²§±³"²) ¨¢¯«±« °" ¥"¯ ¨±«¡² ²§ ¢±§" .‰Ó ( "ª± '§« § ¢© ¦ ±ª ¢ ¨¤ ,'§¨§¢ª ³ ©§ ±ª) °"¢« ¦¢¥²±¢§ ¥"¯ £±«¢ ¨§¥§¥²¢±§" .ÂÓ (¨¢¥°± " ,¥±²¢ ®± ¦¢¥²±¢ «© ¡"¥ ¨§¢ª " §¥² °"¢« ¦¢¥²±¢³¢± « " ¥"¯ ©¢¢± '¢± ²§ ¢±§" .ÊÓ (.. °"²³¢ ±« ±¢« ²« «¢¤²) ¦¢¥²±¢³¢± « ®" "± ¥"¯ ±²¢°«¢ ¥±²¢ ¢±§" .ÁÓ " – ¦¢¥²±¢¥ «© "¥ '¢ª ¥±²¢ ¨ ³"² ±ª) °"¢« (¨¢¥°± ¦¢¥²±¢³¢± « ®" ± ¥"¯ ®¢± ¦±¢±§" .ËÓ ('§ '¢ª " ±³ ¨¢©° ³"² ±ª) °"¢« ¤¥ ¦¢©¢¢¯§ ¦¢±«² ª" §«¥"¯ ¨¢± ¨§¥§¥²¢±§" . (¨¡«©§¥ ¨¢±¢« ¨°¢³ ª±¡©° § ¨¤ ,"¡¢¥²"± ©³«) ²§ ³§ ³"² ±ª) ²°" ¥"¯ °«°«¢ ²§ ¢±§" .‡ (±"± ¥ ¡© "© '¢ª £¢±² ¢¢§¥³¢©³«) ¥"¯ ¥¯±©¢¢¡² ²§ ¢±§" .· (³"§ ±"± ©¢ ¨¢¥°± ¢¤¥"§¤ ("¡¢¥²"± ©³«¤) ¥« °" ¥"¯ ª¢¢ ¦¥²¢±§" .‚ "¡¢¥² ¢©³«) ¥±¢° °" ¥"¯ ¦¢¥¡¢¢¡ ¥¢ ¢±§" .„ (²±§ ³¢ ¢¥¥³§ ³« ¦ ©³«) ±¡±¢© °" ¥"¯ ¦¢¥¡¢¢¡ ¢¥ ¡"¢ ¢©© ¢±§" .‰ (±"±¥¥¥¤² ¥²³¤§§ ¤§ ¨¤ ,"¡¢¥² ¦ ±ª ¤"¤) ..±ª ¢²© ¥° ± ¥"¯ ±«©¢ ¢±§" .Â ( "ª± '§« " § ¢© ¦¢§¢§³ ¢¤§³ §"± "± ¥"¯ ¢°ª±°«¢ ° ¯¢ ¥±²¢ ¢±§" .Ê (¥"©¤) ²¡¢¢¥ ¢¥²) ¥ª¢¢ °" ¥"¯ ±«©¡± ¢¥±« ±¤²¢ ¢±§" .Á (' ¨° ±« ¥² ±±¢« ²« "¡¢¥²©³« ¥« ³ ©§ ª" §« ¢°¡ °" ¥"¯ °¢² ¦ ©§ ¢±§" .Ë (.. ±¢« ¨°¢³ « ¦¢¤ª ¦¢±¥ «¢¤) ª"²

ȱ ȱ APPENDIXȱTWELVEȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ87ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

³ ©§ ³"²) ±«¢«§ °" ¥"¯ ±«±«¥ ±² ª © ¢±§" .Ò ("© '¢ª " ±² ¤¥ °§« ¥¥¤ ²± " ¥"¯ ¨¢¢¡²¥ '¢¡ ¢±§" .‡Ò (¦¢§ª±§ ¢±«¢²°"° ¥«³§¢³ ) ("¡¢¥² ¢©³«¤) ¨§¢¢± °" ¥"¯ ±«¥¢ ¥±¢±§" .·Ò ÌÈ·¯ ‰·¯‰ Ï˘ ‰¯Â˙ ˙Ú„ ‡Â‰ ÔÎ ‡"ËÁÏ·ÈÂ ‡"ËÈÏ˘ ‰¯Â˙ ÈÏÂ„‚ ÌÈ˜È„ˆÂ ÌÈÂ‡‚ ¦ ¯" ¦¢©±¥"§¤ ³« ¥¢) "¡¢¥² ±§¡ª§ ±"§ °"¤ .‚Ò ¢"« ±¢« ²¢ ¦ ,³"§ ±"± ²² ¨¤ ¤¢¥"¡¢¥² ¢¤©§ §¤¥ ±¢²¤§ ± ¯"¥ ³« ¥¢ ¨¤ ,"ª§ .¡ª ¢©± ²±§ ³¢ (.. ±¢«¥³§¤ª§ ³«² "¡¢¥² ¦¢¥¤¢² ²"©¥ ³« ¥¢) "¡¢¥²°± ¢© ®¢©¢§ ±"§ °"¤ .„Ò (±¢²¤§ ± ¥« £§ª¥ ¢¥ ¢¯ ±ª§ ,³¢ ¢©§©¥ ³« ¥¢) "¡¢¥² §±"§ °"¤ .‰Ò (¦ª±§¤ ³¢¥ ¦¤¢¥¥ ,.. ³¢¢² "§¢ ¢"« ±¢« ²«) "¡¢¥²¥«§±"§ °"¤ .ÂÒ (.. ±¢« ±³¢¥ ³« ¥¢ ±³¢ ¨¢©«³§ª±§ ³²³) "¡¢¥² ²¡°©§§ ±"§ °"¤ .ÊÒ (.. ²«©² ±¢« ¢"« ¥¡¥¡ ²±§ ³¢ ¢"« ¤±¯¥±¢« ¦¢©°³§) "¡¢¥² ±¢°ª§ ±"§ °"¤ .ÁÒ ("ª§ ±¢¤§ ¦² ,¦ª±³©² ³¤§) "¡¢¥² .. §±"§ °"¤ .ËÒ (¥"¯ ¢ ³« ±¢« ±¢³¥ ³« ¥¢) "¡¢¥² ..¥¢©±«²¡§ ±"§ °"¤ .Ú (.. (±³¢¥ ²"©¥ ³« ¥¢) "¡¢¥² " ±©ª¤¥§ ±"§ °"¤ .‡Ú ¢"« ³« ¥¢) .. ®¢©¢ °"° ®"§ "¡¢¥² ª°§ ±"§ °"¤ .·Ú (±"± ¥ ¤¥ ¥« " ±¢§ ¨±¤ §"± ""¡¢¥² ±© ¢¥ ¥§² ¢±§" .‚Ú ³"² « ± ,"¡¢¥²¯"± ©³¤§ ¨¢¢«) ¢¥¡² ³"² (" ¤ ¡°©² "¯-"¯ '¢ª " ¢¥¡² ȱ ȱ 88ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ APPENDIXȱTWELVEȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

³²³) ¨¢¢¥ °""¡¢¥² ²¡¢°²±« ¥²¢ ¦¢±¢±§" .„Ú (±³¢¥ °"° ¥«¦³ ª"²³ ,"§²³ ³§ª±§ ¢±«¢² ,³¤§) ±ª¥±° °""¡¢¥² ¡± ¥° ¢ ¢±§" .‰Ú (¨¢±¢« '¥ ¢³²³ ³©² ³¤§§ ¥ ) ¢± °""¡¢¥² ¢±° ¦¥²¢±§" .ÂÚ ,¥"°¯ ±§¡ª§ °" ³§¤ª ±¢«² ³¤ ¦² "¥²³ (ª"²³³©² '²³ ,ª"²³ - "§²³³©²§ ¢³¤§) "¡¢¥² ¢²§ °"§" .ÊÚ (²¡«¥ ±¢« ¥« ¢±±¢ '§ ¢© ¦' ±ª) ±© °""¡¢¥² ¨¢¢¥° ²©§ ¢±§" .ÁÚ (¨¢±¢« ¨°¢³ ¨¢©« ³§ª±§ ³²³) ©¢¥ °""¡¢¥² ±««¢ ¨± ¢±§" .ËÚ ±¢« °¢ ¥ °"° ¥«¦³ ª"²³³©² ,"§²³³©² ª©² (" ±¢²¤§ ±) ¢¥«±«ª §"± °""¡¢¥²®"¤ ¢ ¦¢¢ ¢±§" .Ù (.. ±¢« ¥² (²"©¥ ³« ¥¢) ¨«¢ °""¡¢¥²®"¤ ¥¢²© ±² ¢±§" .‡Ù ¥¢±¡©§ ³ ¢°¢ § °"° ±"¡¢¥² ¨§¢¢© ° ¯¢ °«¢ ¢±§" .·Ù (.. ±¢« °¢ ¥ ¢§ ³¤§) ³¤§ ,¢³²³) °¢ °""¡¢¥² ¢©«° '¢«²¢ ¦¢¢ ¢±§" .‚Ù (²¡¥ ±¢« ¥« °¢ ¥«³ ¢°¢ § ¥° ®"§ "¡¢¥² ª± ¨¤ §¥²¢±§" .„Ù (¥"©¤ ³¤§) .. .. ¨«¢ ¦¢±¢ ³« ¥° ®"§ "¡¢¥² ¨¢±¥¢¢ ¢¯¢±§" .‰Ù (¥"©« ³¤§) ± ³¢®"¢ ±"¡¢¥² ±«© ¢¥ °«¢ ¨¢¯ ¨ ¢±§" .ÂÙ ±¢« ¥« ±²¤ ³¤ ,¥"©¤ ³¤§) .¢.© ¢ª©§ ¢¥¡² ("ª²³ ,²¡«¥ ³¤§) .¢.© ¢±©§ ¥¢ ³¢±° ®"§ "¡¢¥² ¥©§ ° ¯¢ ¢±§" .ÊÙ (¢³²³ ¢²¢ §"± ¡ª § ±"§ "¡¢¥²±«¢¢¥ ¢°¥«§² ¥§² ¢±§" .ÁÙ (¥"©¤ ³¤§) ª ³±³ ³¢³§

ȱ ȱ APPENDIXȱTWELVEȱ THEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ/ȱ89ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

³"² ±ª) ¨¢± ª±«¥ °""¡¢¥² ¨¢±¥¢¢ ¨© ¥ ¢± §" .ËÙ ("¤ '¢ª ¨© ¥ ² ³"² ±ª) ¢¥© ,«ª¡¢¢§ "¡¢¥²°¥ ¢¥ ª ¢±§" .ˆ ('³ ¡"¥ '¢ª ¢¥ § ¥«¦³ ) ±²«§«¡ °""¡¢¥²±«¢¢¥ ±¢§ ¬ª¢ ¢±§" .‡ˆ (°"° (°"° ¥«¦³ ) ¥ ¥³ °"° ±"¡¢¥² °¢² ° ¯¢ ¢±§" .·ˆ ±²"©¥ ³¤§) ¢¥±« °""¡¢¥²±ª ¨© ¢ ¢±§" .‚ˆ (°± (¢³¤§) ¥¢± ¢«¡© °""¡¢¥² ±«©©¢¯ ¥¢±¢±§" .„ˆ ¢±«¢²) ±¡¢¢© ""¡¢¥² ±«ªª±¡² ¨¤ ¨¢¯ ¨ ¢±§" .‰ˆ (.. ±¢« °¢ ¥ ³¤§ ¦¢§ª±§ ¢©«« 18 ¥« "§¢ ®"§ "¡¢¥² ¨¢¢¡²°« ¥¢²© ±² ¢±§" .Âˆ (³¤§) ¥¥¤ ²± " ®¢©¢ °"°¥ ®"§ "¡¢¥² ¢¢ °«¢ ¢±§" .Êˆ (³¤§) ¦¢©¢¢¯§¥ ± °¢ ª" §« °«¢ ¢¥ §"±"¡¢¥² ®±² ¥° °«¢ ¢±§" .Áˆ (³¤§) ¦¢± ¡¢±¡ª 50 ¥« "§¢ ®"§ "¡¢¥² ¦©¥ ª ¦¥²¢±§" .Ëˆ (³¤§) ¢° ° ¯¢ ³¥ © ¥° ±"¡¢¥² ¦¢¥ °¢¢¢ © ¢±§" .˜ ( "¥²³ ¨² ±§ ² ³¥« ¨ ±¢ ³²³) ª©«± (³¤§) ¡¡²©¢¢ ""¡¢¥²±«¥¥¢§ ¨¤ °«¢ ¥¢ ¢ ¢±§" .‡˜ .. ¢¥±« ±ª ³¤ ¥° ±"¡¢¥²±ª '¢«²¢ ¨§¥¢±§" .·˜ (.. ±¢« °¢ ¥ °"° ¦³ ) °¢ ¥ °"° ¥«¦³ ) «¥« °""¡¢¥² ¢ª¢¡ ¬ª¢ ¢±§" .‚˜ (.. ±¢« ¦³ ) ¨¢¯ ¢±«² ¥° ""¡¢¥² ¨¢±¥±²¢ ±«¥ ¦¢¢ ¢±§" .„˜ (.. ±¢« °¢ ¥ °"° ¦¢©± ³ ³®"§ "¡¢¥² ¨§«¢± °¥«§² ¥§² ¢±§" .‰˜ (¡"¢¨¢¥ ¥±²¢ ± ®° ª©² ³²³) ‡"ÚÈ ÔÈÏ˜Â¯·· ˙Â·ÂÁ¯· ÔÈ·Â¯ÈÚ Â˘Ú˘ ÌÈ·¯ ‰·¯‰ „ÂÚÂ ȱ 90ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ KEYȱPOINTSȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ KEYȱPOINTSȱ ȱ

TheȱCommunityȱEruv:ȱKeyȱPointsȱ

ȱ ȱ Sectionȱ Iȱ –ȱ AccordingȱtoȱmostȱGedoleiȱHaPoskim,ȱpastȱand present,ȱthereȱareȱatȱleastȱthreeȱreasonsȱwhyȱeruvin canȱbe erectedȱinȱBrooklyn.ȱȱȱ SectionȱIIȱ–ȱBasedȱonȱcurrentȱfactsȱthereȱareȱthreeȱreasons whyȱaccordingȱtoȱRavȱMosheȱFeinsteinȱzt”lȱanȱeruv canȱbe erectedȱinȱBrooklyn.ȱȱ[Thisȱisȱbasedȱonȱthirteenȱteshuvosȱin IgrosȱMosheȱ(O.C.ȱ1:138Ȭ40,ȱ2:89Ȭ90,ȱ4:86Ȭ89,ȱ5:24,ȱ5:28Ȭ29,ȱandȱAddendumȱto O.C.ȱ4:89).]ȱ SectionȱIIIȱ–ȱSinceȱtheȱeruvȱisȱpermissibleȱoneȱmayȱnotȱbe mocheh.ȱȱOnȱtheȱcontrary,ȱsinceȱitȱisȱaȱmitzvahȱtoȱerectȱeruvin,

oneȱshouldȱpartakeȱinȱthisȱmitzvah.ȱȱ

Sectionȱ IVȱ –ȱ Anȱ analysisȱ ofȱ theȱ mechitzos encircling Brooklyn.ȱ

ȱ zenkqd izpekyd aexird / ak

Rabbi Benzion Y. Wosner xpf`e ield awri oeiv oa Rosh Beis Din Shevet Halevi ÈÂÏ‰ Ë·˘ ‰‡¯Â‰ ˙È·Â ı"„·„ „"·‡ Monsey - Beit Shemesh ˘Ó˘ ˙È· - ÈÒ‡Ó .°"¥ "ª²³ "È˙¯Ó˘Ó ˙‡ Ì˙¯Ó˘Â" 'ª¥ °"²« ³"¢« ¯˘Î‰ ·˙Î

±¢ ,³±«§ ² ¥ © ¥ " ,¢¥«±² ³¥ © ¬ ¦¢§¢«© ¢¥ ¥©¦¢¥ ¢²¢ ¢²± ¦"¢±§ ¦§ ±¢ ¢²³ ¨©±¢©¢"« ©²°³© ±² ,¨¢¥°±²²¡«¥ ¦¢§¢°§² ±¢« "« ¢©« " «¢¥ ¦©¢§¢¥ §«¥ "¡¢¥²¦¢² ¦¢°§ ¦¢©± ³¢ª¢ °¢ ¢± © ,¥³ ³¯° ¥¤ ¦¥«§ § ¥" ©¢³± ©¢³ ©§¤ ,¦³©¤² ±²¤§ ±¢« ¦¢°¥ ¤ ¦©§² , ¢¥¯ ¦¢ '® "² ©¯§ ,¦¢§« §¤ §¤ ¢°§ ,¨¢¯ '§ ³ ³¢°§ ³¯¢ § £³³¯¢ § ³±§ ³¯¢ § ± ¥« ª¢§ ±°¢«² ,§ ³±¥ ,³¢¢± ±"±¥ ¬ ³¢¥§ ¦°§ ° ± ,¦¢§«¡ ±² ¤§ ¨¤ ¦«¡§ ±² "¯ ¢"« ±ª© ³±³© ³¯±¢ ¡«¢§ ,©¢³²³ "« ©±¢ ±²¤ ,¢«°± ¨² ¦"§± ³«¥³±¥ ,'ª ¥¤ ³«¥ ±²¤§ ±¢« ¯§© ,±§ ¥¤ ¬±¢¯²« ,¦¢±§ ª°±° - °¢² "« ©§° ±² ¨¢±¢« ³©¤³§ ª¢¤ ¥¤ ,«"² ¢¥«¥¤ ¢" .("«° '¢ª - "¯ '¢ª ' °¥ ) ¢¥¡² ³"² ª© ¨¢³¥«§ ¨¢³¡± ±² ,« ±¤² ,³¢§³ ±¢« ³±²¤ ¥« °¢² ±²¤§ ' ±¢ "³ ¢²§ §«² ¢± ³«§ ·Â¯ÈÚ‰˘ ,¦¢± ³ ±«² «¢¥ ¢©© ,£±¢ ±² ¥¤¥ ¢© ± ,³ ¢© ,³©¡¥² ³²± ¬±¡¯§ ¢©¢± ,ÔÈ¯„‰Ó‰ '‰ È‡¯È ˙Â·¯Ï ‰ÂÎÈ Ï‡¯˘È Ì˘· ¯˘‡ ÏÎÏ ¯„Â‰ÓÂ ¯˘Î ˘Â·ËÚÏÙ„ ¥¡§ ¨¢ ±°¢«§² , ¥« ¦«¢¢ª¥¦³¤¥ ,¥"© ±¢« ¢²± ³²°¥ §² ¨¢³±¢¢« ¨¢±«§ ¨¢² "³¥«§³ ¦² ("« "ª¨¢±¢«) ª"² ²±§¤ ,¦¢¥« ¯ ¥¡¥¡³² ¥¥¢ «©§¢ ,±¢« ±¢« ¢"« £² ³± ¢§¤ «° ¦²§ ,¨¢³§ ¥§¥¤ ,¦¢°ª ±² (¡"¯ '¢ª ") ª" ¨±§ ¥²¢°³³±¤ ,±¢¯ ¥¥¤§ ±² ²¢±¤"²§¤ ,±¢« ¢"« ¤ ±¢¯² ,¢¤±¯ ³ - ¥¢¡ ³² ©« ³¯§ .("¯²) ¦¢©± © ,²¢ ¢©§ ±³ ¥ ,¦¤¥ £±¢ ¥ ,±¢³¥ ,¯§ ° ,±§¢ '°¢ ±¢« ¢§¢°§¥ ¢ §°¢ ¦ ,³§° ¦¢±¢³§ ¦¢¢¢ § "± «"² ³§¢³ª ³¡² ¥©¥ ¨¢ © ¦¥ ,³ª¤±¤ ¦¤© ¡ ,³¥°§ ¤¥¥ ¦¢«© ¦¢± ±±«¢ ¦ © ,©¤ ¦¢±±«§ ¢© ¦¤§¯« §¢¢° ,©¢³ ¦±«² ¥ ±² ³² ³±¢ ,°² ¢§«¡§ ¢¦ ±² ¥«± ,³²³² ¢§ ¥¡¥¡ ±ª¢§ ¥±²¢ ¢¥ ³± ³¥¯ ¢¤ ,«§² ¥ ²± ¤ , §± ¯§¥ ©³¥±³ ¥ « £³§ ¦¢²© §°¢² ¨¤³¢¥¥¥¤ ,¦¢¥°¢² ¥¤ ³¥ ¢¯ ³©±¤ ¦¢±§ ¦¢§¥ © ±²¤ ,¢¥«¦²© ±ª§ ¥" ©¢³± ©¢³² ¥« ³ ,³±¢¢« ¢±¢« ¥« ±«±«§ ¢² "³ ©¤ (' "¤ ¥¥¤) ¥"²"± ¢§ ¯¢² ² ¥ ,(¦²) ª" ,("¥ '¢ª " ) ®"²³ § ¢¥¨¤ ,²"¢¢« ,¢ §¥³ ¢² ¬ . ¯§² ¢ ¥ 'ª - ¦¢±°¢ ¢©§ ¢²± ¦°§ ¢²³¥¤ ¤¢² '¨³¢ ,£ ¦¥²©± ¢«± ¢ ¨«§¥ ¦¥²¢¢ ,"£¢©" ¥£¢© ¢±°³¥ ,¦¥« ¦¥² ³±¥ ,©¢©³§° ¦¢°ª«³§ ¥¤ ¥« ¢©°¢³² ("«" ¨¢±¢«) ¥©© ©¢± ,¢§¥²±¢ ³¢¤ ,£¢³©§± ¥² - £¥¢ .±"¢¤ ¦¥« ¦¥²¦¢±§ - ¨¢±¢« `k / izpekyd aexird zenkqd

Rabbi M. Mandel Ï„‡Ó ‰˘Ó Rabbi of Cong. Beth Mordechai 1358 East 13th Street ÈÎ„¯Ó ˙È· Ï‰˜„ „"·‡Â ·¯ Brooklyn, NY 11230 ‡"ÚÈ ÔÈÏ˜Â¯· ,˘Â·ËÚÏÙ Tel. 718-339-8691

¬¢«ª "ª² ¨§¢ª " «"² ³¤ .äáåùú °"¥ "ª²³ ³¡ ,"ª ,³±¯ ¢±¢« ± ± ¥ ¯§ "¢ .äìàù " " . " ¢³« ³ § ¢³ ¦¢¥² ¦¢± ¥² ¢¤ «°ª ±± ©²§ ¦² ¤ « .¨¢¥°± ±¢« ¨¢©« '¬¢«ª"¯² ¨§¢ª .±ª¢ ¥¡¥¡¥ ¢ .äáåùú ¦² .¤"« ,³§ ¢³¢² ± ± ¥ ¯§ ± °ª ±³ ±² ³¤² § ¢¥ ' " ' ¢¢¥ ¢ ¤²¢ ¨ '°"ª ±± ©²§ ±¯± ¨±§ ¤ ¥¥¤ ¨³©« ' " .¤"« ,¥¡¥¡ ±ª¢ °¥ ²§³±¥¯ ¨¢¢¡²©¢¢ ²§ ' " íéðùáå ³¯¢ § ²¢ ¦ ³ ¤ ¨§¢ª ¦¢¢ ± ³¢ª ± « ±³© ¦¢©± .¤"« ,'¤ ¦¢± ³²± ¨¢ ¨¢ ¨¢¥°± ¢ª ¨±ª ¢©§ ¯ ±ª¢ ¦¢¥²¤© . ³²± ¨¢ ¨¢² ³¯¢ § ²¥² °± ²¢² ¨¢ ¨¤ ¦¢²§ § ±³¢ ¢¢ ³ ³ ²¢ ³« ³«¥ «¢¢ ¦ ¦¢±ª ¦¢°ª ± ,¦¢°ª ¥¤¥ ¦¢± «± ¥¢ .±¢« ³²«¥ ¦¢¢¢ ² ¦¢§«¡ . , «§²§ ¨¤ ¢ ¢ ³²± ¨¢ ²¢ ³¯¢ § ²¥² ¦ ±² ¢ ¡«§¤ ¥¤¥ «³¢ ³« ¨ ¢ ¯± ¥² "¥° ¨§¢ª '°¥ ²§³± °± ³¤¥¤ ³² ±§² ² §¯« ¥« ±§¥ ) " " . «ª©² ¦°§ ³©¤ ±¡««¥« ±¢³¥ ¯ ±ª¢ ,¦¢©¥ ²«©² ¢©§ ±°³ ¢ ¦«¡§ (¢«ª ³²«¥ ¦¢§¢¤ª§ ©¢² ¥ ¨§ ïëáå ³±¯ ¦¢²« ¦ ¨¤ ,® ¥ ²«© ¦ «§²§ ¦³©¤ , ² ¥²±³¢ §² ±¢« .³¯¢ § ²¥² ²¢²¤ ©§ , ³ , ' ¥¡¥¡ ±¢³¥ ±¢« ¨¢²«² ¨ °± ¢ ²¢² ³¤² ¦¢³¤§ ³²³ ¥¤ ïáåîå ¥¢¯¥ ¥¢² ±¢« ³¢¢²« ¦ ¥ ¨¢² ¨ ° ¦¢± ³²± ²² ¯§ ¥ ¢ ²¢ ±± ,¯ ±ª¢ , . ) ³« ³³¥ ¥² ¨¢ ¨¤ ³¯¢ § ²¥² ¨°³¥ ¯« ²¢ ¡± ±¢« ³²«¥ ± ¥¢¥ ³¥¢«© ³³¥ '¢ ¢¡¥ "²± ° ¦ °± °±¢ ¥ ³¥³¥ ¨§¢ª ³²«¥ ¢©² ²¢² ¨ ° ¢ ,¦¢± ³²± ³±³ ² ³¤± ¥¤¥ ¤¢ ¢"« (±¢« ) ' " ¡¢ ± ¨¢¢« ±«²¥ ±«²§ ¦¢²¥§ ¦¢ ³ ¤ ³¤¥¤ ³² ±§²§ ¥¤ ¥« ¥ .('°"ª"§² '¢ª " "¢° ³² ±§ ² §¥ ¤¢ ¡± úåéäå ¢§ ¨³¤¥¤ ³³² ¢³² ¨¢±§²§ ¢¥§¥ "« ¢¥ ±§ ¦¢² ¦¢©± ¦« ¢³±² .¤"« ,¨¢¥© ¢ª ³¯¢ § ²¥² ²¢² °² " . é"äæòáå ¦¢± ³²± ¨¢ ¨¢ ©«¥ ¨¤ ¨¢¥°± ±³¢ ¦¢²§ ¥¤ ³¤¥ ¥³² .¦¢°ª ¥¤¥ ¨¢¥°± ¢ ²¢² ,³«¤ ¢¥ «¢² ¦¢§«¡ , .äìàù ª¢§«¥ ¥² ¢¤ ,±¢« ³²«¥ ± ¯§ ±§© ¦ ¢³« ³ § ¢³ ¥² , ,²±¥ ²± ¨¢ ± ¨³¢¥ ¢¤ ,¢§ ±³¢ ¦ ¨¢¥°± ¦¢± ³²± ¨¢ ¨¢ , .¦¢§«¡ §¤ °± «² ¥¤ ³¤ ²¢ ³¢ ±¢« ³²«¥ ¯§ ¢ ²¢ £²§² ¦«¡§ ±¢« ³²«¥ ¦¢§¢¤ª§ ©¢² ©±«¢ ,³¢²§ ©¥¢¯¢² ¢ ¥°¥ éúìéôúå ¥²¤¢ ±¢« ¥« ² ¥²±³¢ ¨§ ©¢¢² ¢¤ ¡¢ ¢±¢ ³¤¥ ¦ ,¥²¥ ²¢ ²¢ ¨¤ .¯ ±ª¢ ¦¢²© ,¥²¤§ ¢¥ ³ ±§¥ ¤² ,³ , . ²¢ ¦ ¨¢¥°± ¦¢± ³²± ¨¢ ²¢ ±§© ¢± ¢ §²¢ '¢¢ ¥² ¨ ³¯¢ § ³²«¥ ¯§ ¢ .±¢« ³²«¥ £¤ ± ,¦¢± ³²± « zenkqd izpekyd aexird / k

« ± ¢¢±²§ ± ¢§«§ ¦ª±§ ¯"± " ©¢¢ ' § "²°"¤ìà ¥« ³«¤ ,"¡¢¥² ¢²§ " ±"§ '¤ ¦¢²¢²±³ « ±¯© ¦¢²°§ ± .±¢ ³¢ª ±³ ¢¯¢±§ ¢©²±§ ²¡«¥ ³± ¥±²¢

¥¤ ³±¡«§ ³¤±§ ©² ¡" § ¦¢©² ³¤± "¡¢¥² °"¤³£±¥úéùàøá ¢¥«§ ±© ³¢± ³§ © ¢³ ¤ ° ¢ ³"¢² ,³¤±¯© ³«²¢ ¡ ¢© ³¤¥§§ ¥« ¦¢§¢ £¢±¢ '° ³« £¢²§¥ ¦¢©² ³± « ¤¢² ."¢ ¨©¢ ³¢ « ¦¢§¢«©

³©³ ¥ ©¢§¥ "¡¢¥² ¨§¥ ±"± ¢© ¦« ©¢¢² ³« °³² §³ '¡¦¢'éä ±¢« ¨¢©« ³ ± ³¯° ¡°²© ¦ ¢³ ¥² ¦¢ ¢² ¨¢ ,¢ ¢² "« ©³¤© ¨¢¯ ¨ '± ¨ © ¥² ³"« © ¯¢² §² ¦¢±§ !± ¥ ¢³±§ ,²¡«¥ ,±§ ª¤§ ®° ¡«§¤ ³ «§² .±¢« ³ ±¢²¤§ ± ² "¡¢¥² ±«© ±° ³±§² ,°§ "¨" ,¨¢¯ ¨ '± ¢© © ¢³±§ ¥ ³ ¥§ ¬ ," ," ±°² ," ¢© © ¢³±§² ² ¢§² ¢¥ ¦¢¥¤¢ ,'¤ '¤ §¥ ³ ¯§¥ ¦¢¥¤¢ .¥"¤« ,¥ ¦¢± ¢©¥ ¢ ¦ ,¦¢±

³¢¥ © ¦¢¥¤¢ £¢ ¢¤ © ¢©² ¢©§ ¥ ±¢« « ¢³§³ ¥ ¢©² ¬ ¥ ¢³±§ íâå ¤¥ ¢ ¥« ±¢« ¨°³¥ ¦¢¥¤¢ ¦ ,« ¢§³ ¢ ©¥² ¦¢¥ ¥ ±¢« ¨¢©« © ¨±§ ±¢ ¨ ¨¢¥¢ § ¥§ ¢©¥§ ¦¢°ª§ "¡¢¥² ¯" ±"§ °"¤ ¦ ± '¢² ¨§ ,²§ ³± ±ª ¢§ ¢¢ '¢ ³« ² ³ ¥"¯ ¨¢¢¡²©¢¢ §"± ¦¢± ¢¤¢ ¢¤ '¢ ±¢« ¨°³¥ ¦¢¥¤¢ ¢ ¦² ³±³ ³« ¦ '¢ °¢±«§ ¨¤ , °ª« ¥¤¥ «"«¥ ª©¤¥ ¢¥ § ¢¤ ,¦¢«¢ ¦¢§«¡§ ¬³³²¥ ¥¤¢ ¢©©¢ ¥ ,'¤ ¥² § ,¦¢± ©¥³¢ ±±¢ ¨§ £²§² ° ,¤"¤ ² ³¢ ¢³«² ² ¢©©¢ .³±³¥ ¥ '¥² ±§ ,¨§ ²«¢ ¥¤² ²«¢ hi / izpekyd aexird zenkqd

‰"· Rabbi Chaim Koenig ‚ÈÚ˜ 'ÈÚ˘È ÌÈÈÁ 1243-55th Street Ú˜‡È'„ ‰ÓÏ˘ ˜˘Á Ï‰˜„ Ó"¯Â „"·‡ Brooklyn, NY 11219 Á"Á ÌÈÈÁ È˜Á ˙"Â˘ Ò"ÁÓÚ· 718 853-0070

.íìåò ãò ãàî àâñé ïåëîåìù - ïéì÷åøá - áåøéòä ãòåå éìäðî ãåáëì

¢±ª °° ±²¤ - ±³ ³« ¢³« § ¦ª±§ ±¤ © - ¤± § £± éøçà ¢"« ±²¤§ ² ±¢« ¢°¥ ¥¤² ,¦¢¢ ¢° ³"² " " - ³±« ¥± ¡« - ³ ³±¯ ¨°³¥ ±¢« ¢ª©± ¥« ¥¡§ ,¨¢±¢« ³¤¥ ¦¢°§ ¦¢±§ ³± " ±ª ¦³ ³"² £± °ª©¤ - ³² ¥¥¢ ¥²¤¥§ ¥±²¢ ¢© ©¢ ¥¢¯¥ ¥¤ ¢¢ ¢ ¡«§¤ ¢³«¢¢ ¡«¢§ ¢¥ ±² '° ©²¥§ ± ¢ ¥ ¢§ ¥ - ¡"¯ '¢ª .±§ ¯¢ ± ³¯¢ © ³§ § ¨¤ - ±§ ¦¢§¤ ¨²¥ ³©¢ ©²¥² ¢³²³

"« '¬¨¡°«§¢"²± ¢"« - '° ¢±¥ ¦¢©¢« ¢³³© "ª ¨§¢ª " " éøôñá ©¢¢ - ³"² ¬ ' ±« ¢©¥ ¥ ¥« ¦¢±« "¢² ±§¥¤ - ±« ¢©¥ " ³±¢« ¥²¤§ ¤"²¤§ ¥"©³«¤ - ²"¢¢« ²«§¤ ² © ¦³¥ ¥²¤§§ ¥¢¯¥ ¦³¢²« ¢ ¢¤¢ ¦¢°ª ¦¤ª§ - ' ³² ³ "¦³±§²" ("¥³§²) ¢³¤ - ²° ³² ²¢ ³² ¥¥¢ ¥² ¥²¤§§ ¥¢¯¥ ¢¤ ¤"« - ± ±³ ¨¢¤¥ ¨¢ "±¢§²" ³¤² .¥" °"² ¥¥¢ ¥²¤§§ ¦¢±¢² ¦¢¤±¯© ¡«¢§¥ ¬ ²² ¥

±ª¢§ ±³¢ ¥¢° "±¢«" - '¤ §¢ ³¢«¢ ""«"§ ¨¢±¢« 'ª³ ïééò ¢¤ ,¦¢ ³ ³±¯ ¢©°¢³ ¥² ¨°¢³ ¢¯ ¥¤ ¡±¥ ³¤ ¥ ±§¤ - ¦¢± ¥± ¡« ¦ ¦¢°° ,±³²© ¦¢ª§¥° §¤ ±¤ ¢¤ - £±¯ ¨§ ¨¢ ¦ , ± ¢³ §² ¢±« - ±¢« ¨°¢³ ³¯¢ © ¢³¢¥«² § - ³§ ¦¢¯±¥ ¢ - ³±« ¦¢©«§ ¥±²¢ ¢© ©¢ - ¦¢ ³ ³±¯ ©°³© ¨¢¥°±² ¦¢¤¥ §¤ §¤² ¢³± .²° ³²

.°"¥ "ª²³ ³¡ ² ¥ "¤ zenkqd izpekyd aexird / gi

³¢ ²¡«¥ ¦¢©± ¢©° ¢² ³¢ª ± ² ¦¢± ³ ±«² «¢¥ éððä ©² °"¥ "ª²³ ±°¢ '¦¢"¡¢¥² ¢²§ °"° ¯" ¥² ²±§ ¨¢§¥ ¡¢¥ ,±¢¡«§ ²¡«¥ ³©¤² ©¢³©¤² ¨¢±¢« ¨°¢³ ³ ²± ¤ °" ‡"ËÈÏ˘ ¯Ê‡Â ÈÂÏ‰ ·˜ÚÈ ÔÂÈˆ Ô· '¯ ¯"‰ÂÓ " ¦ª±§ ¨ ¤ ³ ± §« ¨ ¢ «±¤ ± ,¢"© ¢ª©§ ¢¥ ¡² ± ³¢ ¯" ¢² ,°± ¢© ±¢§ ¨±¤ "± "¡¢¥² ±© ¢¥ ¥§² '±±"§ ¯" ©±² ³±²¤ ³¢¥¤³ ¢¢² ©¢³©¤² ¢ª §°² ¦¢ ³ ³±¯ ³¯¢ § °¥ ³±¥ .¦¢°ª ¢¥ ³¡¢² ¥¤¥ ±¢

±¤ ,¨¢±¢« ¨°¢³ ¡± ,¥¥¤ ± ¢©¢©« ¢° §§ ¢ ¢ ² ¦ª±§ òåãéå ¢± © .¥³ ¢¯° ³¥ ³±¢¢« §¤ ¦¢°² ¨¢±¢« ± ± ¤§ª "¡¢¥² "± ±§ ,¦¢§« §¤ §¤ ¦¢ ³ ³±¯ ³¯¢ § ¥² ³¢ª¢ °¢ .ÔÈ¯„‰Ó‰ ÔÓ ÔÈ¯„‰ÓÏ Ì‚Â „‡Ó ¯˘ÎÂÓ ·Â¯ÈÚ ÌÈ˜‰Ï ÂÎÊ˘ ¢¥¯ ¦¢ ' ® "²

¤² , ¨§¥ ©«¢ ©§¢° ©¢¢ ² ¥« ±¢« ¢©°ª« ¦« ¢ ¤±¥ ° ¥ éððäå ±¡« ±¢ ,©¢³©¤² ¢ª ¨¢±¢« ¨°¢³ ¥² ²© ¯§ ¦¢± ³ ¤¢ ¦¢¢ ¢²³² ±¢« ±¢« ¥¤ ¨¢±¢« ¨°³¥ °¢ ¢© «"© ©¢³± ©¢³² ©²¢¥ .¦¢¯§© ¦²

RABBI Y. ROTH 1556 - 53rd Street Brooklyn, NY 11219 ‚¯Â·ÒÏ¯‡˜ ˜"˜„·‡ Tel. (718) 435-1502 ‡"ÚÈ .È. ,ÔÈÏ˜Â¯· ,˜¯‡Ù ‡¯‡·

"ª²³ ±¢¢ ,¢"«

'§ ¨ ± ³¥«§ ¥ ¤¥ ¦¢©¢¢¯§ ¦¢±«² «© ±¤ © ± " ‡"ËÈÏ˘ ¯ÚÊ‡Â ÈÂÏ‰ ·˜ÚÈ ÔÂÈˆ Ô· ¯"§¤ '¤ ¨¢ ±§ ÔÈ·Â¯ÈÚ ÔÂ˜È˙ ¨¢©« ¦¥¥¤ ± ¢©¢©« ¢ §³¢ ± ¢¤ ,¢ª©§ ÂÈÏÚ ÍÂÓÒÏ ÔÈÏÂÎÈ ÔÈ¯„‰Ó‰ Û‡Â ,¤¥ ¢°° ³²«¥ ¢ ¥« ±¤ ¢³°¯ ¢³± ± ¢ ¢ ±¢ ¨ «±¤ ± ¢¤ .¢¥« ¨«²© ¥±²¢ ³¢ ¥¤ ±² "¡¢¥² ²"± ¨±§

,¦¥² '¢

ÔÈÂ¯· ¯ÊÚÏ‡ ÌÈÈÁ ˜È˘ ˜ÁˆÈ „Â„ ²¡«¥ ¨¢¯ ¢±«² ¥° ± ¥ ¥¢³ °"° ± zenkqd izpekyd aexird / fh

,£«¢²¢ ¦¢¡ ¥ ²"« ª©±¥ ¥ª ²¢¥ .±§¢§ ¨²¥ ¤"« "¥ª °§ .« ©¤ ±±§ ³¢¤ ¥¤«¥ ²° ¢©§¤ ¨¡² ¡² ,±¢« ¥°¢§¤ ¤¥ ¥"¢¢° ¥ ,¤ ²§³²¥ ²± ¦¥² ïòîìå ¡¢²¥ '¢ °§ ±¢§ ¥ ¥"¢¢° ±ª ¦³ ¥² '° ©²¥ ¦« ±§ ¦¢¤© § ,("± '¢ª "¢ ¢") ¢¢ ¢ ¦«¡ ³¤§ ±°¢ ("¤ '¢ª §" ) ³¤² ©²§ ¦¢±© ¨¢ ,¦¢§² ±§¤ £± ¦«¡ ¥ ³ © ¦¢§¤ ¢±¤ ¨³ ³ £©¢ ¨±ª ²¢ ,'¤ ¢§¥³ ±¢ ¢ .¥"¤« ,¬¯° ¬¯² ¨¢¥« .¤

¨¢ ¥ ©¢ ¢¤²¥ ¨³©² ¥¢³ éðàå ¢¤±¯ ¦¢°ª«¥ ¥ ¥¤ £±§ éðà ¥²¤§ ¨¢ ¨°¢³ ¨¢ ¨¢ ¥ ©¤¢ ³ ¢¥ ²¢ ²¢ ,©§ ±¢¯ ³¡¢² ¥² ³¢§¥ ,±³ ¥² ³¢§¥ © ¦¢±§ ±¢« ¢©°³§ ³ ,³« . ± ¢§¤ £± ,( ,¯ °") ¯§ «¢§¥ ©¢« ¦¥² ¦¢³ ³¤ ,©²§² ¤± £¥§ ¢± ³¤ ¢©² ³¥ øåîæî ¤"²§ ,(©¢ '±) ¦³«¢¢ª§ ±¢¯ ¥¤ ¥² ±² ,' ³± "« ¢"²±¤ ,¦³¢²« ¥¢¤ ¦¤¢¥« ¥«§ ¦² ,¢©«³ ¥ ' ©° « ¢±«© ¢©³§¥ "© ¥ ,'¤ ¦¢±§ ¦³ ¨¢ '¢ .£±¢ ¦¢±²¢ ±¥ £«± ¢ « ²§§ ,"±§ ¥ ¦¢±§" ±§§¥ ¨¢¤¢±¯ ³¢¢± ¢¢¥ ³³ ¨¯± ¢¢ .±"¢¤ ¨¢©« :("¤ ¨¢±¢«) « ¨±° ¨²¥ äæå ¦¢¤¢±¯ ,± ¢§« °" ³¤ ¦¢² ¦¥¤ '¢¢² ²± ±¢« °"²¥ ¦¢¤±¯© ,¢©§¤ ±¥ ³¤± £±³©² ¨¯± ¢¢ ¨¤ , ²¢¤ ³¤ ¤±³¢ ,'¤ ,(±¢«-±¢«) ³¢ ¦¥² §« ³ £±¢ ¨³¢ §«¥ « ¡ ¦² ¥« ¢¢§¥³ ³¤² §¤ .¨§ ©¢§¢ ±§ °¯ ¥ ¨°¢³ ³¥ª ¢"± ¢¢§¥³ ¦² ª¢§«² ¥ ¡¢¢ ¢ ¥« .±¢« ±¢« £"¥ ¦² °ª ±¢« ³¯§

£"¥ ±§¥ ±² ,(¢ ,§° ¦¢¥³) ¦¥²

eh / izpekyd aexird zenkqd

[Â] ª©¤© ,¥¤¢¤ ,§ '¥ ¥² ª§ ³ ³ ÌÂÈÒ ¢²© ©¤ ¦ ¥ ¥¢¤ ¦¢± ¥¥¤ ± °¢ ²¢² § ±¢« ¢±§ (áë ³¤¥§ ©¢ °± ¥ ,"±¢ ©¢³©¢§ ,¨©± ¥« ¤± ¦"§± ³©²¥ ³¤¥§ ©¢ ¦ ¥ ,©¢ ¦¢§² ,¤± ¢« ¦¢± ¢ ³¢ ±§ ¢±ª ±§ £¢ ¥¤ .©¢ ¦"§± ¥ ,(¤ ³²) ±ª³ ¥ ©¯ ³¢²± ³¥ ³ ¤ ±ª§ ¢±§ ³¯§ ¥¤ :³¤ ( ,¢) ³¤± '¥ ¢±² .³¢²¢ ¢§³ ¨¢§¥² §¤ ÔÂ‚Î" ¨©¢² ³¯§ ¨¢ '¤ ¦¢±ª .¦¢¢°§ ±² ³¤² ,©¯ £±§ ,'¤ "·Â¯ÈÚ §«¡ ¢§ ,¤"« ,'¤ ²«³ £¥ ±§¢ ¥ ¥ ¨¢ª©¤© ¦¢± ¢³²° ïëáå ³¤ ("«° '¢ª) ³¯§ ±ª .±¢« ¡±§ ‰Ó· ÂÏÎ˙Ò˙ ,¦¢¢§¥³ ¦« §¥ ,²« ³¯§ ' ±§¢ ±² ¢±ª§ ¨¤ ³ ³¤ ±±¥ ,¨°©° ¥ Â· ˘È˘ ±² ,'¤ ,¦¢§¤ ¥ «§²¥ ¨¢¢¢ ¨ ¥² ±°§ ,¨¢©« ¨¤³ ¥¤ ¥² ³¤² § ¢¥ °¥¢ ©¢§ °© ±§¥ ±ª§ ª¢ § ,¤¥ £±« ©§ ¨¢ °¥ ¥ (±« ¢¥ ¤ª 'ª§) ¢"²± ³ "¥¢¤²³ ³¤ ¨²¥ "« ,©§ ¨°¢³ °± ,±ª³ ¥ ¥¥¤ ©¢² ¦¢¢© "ª ¦§±³³ £± ¥« ,¨²«³ ±² ¦"§±¥ ¥"ª ,¥¥¤ ¦¢¢© .¢¥ ¤ ¤¥ °ª ¨±° ±² ±°§ ,©§ ¥« ¬ ¨¢¤±§² ² ·Â¯ÈÚ ÔÈ„ ¯ÈÎÊ‰ ÔÎÏÂ ,£¥ ±§¢ Ì"·Ó¯‰ ÔÂ˘Ï ˜ÂÈ„· ¯Â˜Ó '¢¢ ¨¤§ ,©°³ ± ¥ ©§ ± ¨²¥ ©¤ ª¢§«¥ ±² (àë '¢ª) ±ª ¦³ ³¤² §¥ ¨§© ±°§ (") ¨¢±©ª ³¤¥ ¦"§± ¦¢° ¥« ,±¢« ³¯§ ¥« ¨¢¤±§² (¡"¯ ¨§¯« ³§ §" °¯ ± ¦¢± :³¤² ±© ,¨¢±¢« ¨°¢³ "²«³ § .'¤ ¥«§ ¨¢ ± '¤ "¨³« ."©«¥ ±°§ § ,"¨³« ¨§¯«" ¨²¥ ²±¢ ¥« ª¢§² ±§¥ ±² ±§¥ . "³ ( ,¤) ¨¢±©ª ³¢ øéòàå ¨«§¥ °ª ,¨°©° ¥¤³ª³ ¥ ©²§ ¢"²±¤ ,¤¥ "¥ ¨¢§¢«©§ ¨²¥ £± ¥« ,¨²«³ ±² ³ ¥¢¤²³ © ¢± ³ ¨¢©°³§ ¢ ¨¢©¢¢«§ § ²¢ ( "") ¨³© ¢± ³ ¥" ¢±ª '¤ ,¤ ¥ ¨¤§ ¨§§ ±¢« .¦² ¦¢²±§ ¨¢¢« ,'¤ ©¥ (¤ ,³° ) ª "" ³ "« ±ª§ ¦¢°' ¦³' ³¢³ ¢²± ¦¢§«¥ "¥¥¯ ±§¡ª§ ±"§ ¢ éðåãàå ³±¯' ³¢³ ¢²± ¦¢§«¥ ,'' ³¤ ¨²¥ ²±¥ ¥¢± '¢² ±±¥ ¨¢¤¢±¯ ³©§ ¥¤ ,£¢' ¬ª¤' ¥"¥ ,"²«¢ ¢©¢« ±²¢ ¥¤ ²¢" "©«¥ .¦± ¥§ §¤ ¢ ¥°¥ ¥² ©¢³± ¥« ±¢§ ¥ ,²« ¨¤ª§' ³§¤ ' ³¢³ ¢²± ±§¥ ±² ,²«¢ "¢©¢« ±²¢ ¥ ± §ª¤ ¨¤ ,§¤ ± ¢² ¢"« ,¢' ©°¢³ ¨¤ ,¨©³¢ ¨¢¢«¢² ±§¥¤ .¤"« ¨ ¢§²§ ±§¢§ ¢¥ ±§² § ©¥ ¨³ ,± ¥² ±³ ³¤± '¢ ¥¢¤ "¥¯ °ª¢± " °¢¯ «§²¥ "« ,¥¢¤²¥ ¨¢¥ ©¢ ¢³¯§ ¥ ±²¤ ±¢« ¢³¯§ ¥" ±§ .±"¢¤ ,£¢³±³ §¥³ ¦¢¢°¥ zenkqd izpekyd aexird / ci

¦³ ¡ ¦³ ¨¢ ¦ ¤§ª ± ¥ ¤¥ °ª ª¢ ¢¤ ,£±« ¨ ¥² ( ,¢°) ¨¢±©ª ¢"²± ¥" ,±²¤ ©¢ ,¨ ¥² £±« ¥² ±¢ ¨¤ ,¥±²¢ ¨¢¢« ,'¤ ¦³ ² « ¦¢±°² ³ ¨¢«¡§ .©¤ ¦¢±ª" :³¤² " ¬ª ³¤± ³§ ¥§ ¥° ¢ ¢± ,'¤ §± ¦¢²²§ £©¢ ¦¢¤© ³§ ©¢³© ©¢© (èé ¥« ¢³ «¡ :³¤² ³¤§ ²¢ ² ¥° ³ ¦§ ¦¢§¢¥«§² "² " ±"§ ¢¥ ±§ ¨¤ .'¤ ¢³§³ ¢¢ ¥° ¨¤ ,"£±« ¨ ¥² °ª ¤" ¥² ¨ "± "¡ ¥¢ "¥¯ § ,³©§© ¦³©©² ¦¢¢°§ ¥¤¥ ±° "¡¢¥² ¨§¢± ²©§ ¦¢¢ ¥±²¢ ¢± ,¢±¤ ¦³« ¦¢§¢¢°§ ¦¢©° ³²± ¨¢ ¨¢¥°±¥ ²¢² ¦³§¢³ «© ± ³¡²³ £©¥ ³ §¢¢°¢² ²§ ¢§²§ ¢¥ ±§ .¦¢± ±ª³ ¨«§¥ ,£±« ¨ ¥² ¥² ¥±²¢ ¥² §¢³ ² °¢²¡¢¢¥ª ¥ ¦¢²° ©¢³± ³±ª§ ² ¦¢© "± §³ ¥ «¢ '± ¥« "± ¦¢¡²§ ¥ .¦¢²° ©¢³ ³¥° ¦¢± ©¢³©« .¨¢§¥ ¢ ,§¯« ¨ ¥² ¢¡²§ ¦ ,¦¢©¥ ¦¢²³ ±² ¤ ¥¥¢ ¦± ¢¤² ³¥¢§ ²«© .¢°¥ ' £±« .¥¥¤ ¤¥ ,¦¢¥ ¥² ¤¥ °ª ,¦¢«¢±¤§ ¥«² ³«§² ¥ ¨¤ ¦¥² ¬ª¢ "± ¥² ©³ ¢¥ øîàå ¦¢±§ ³¤ ±§³ ¥ ¥« ,"¡¢¥² (¤± "²¢) ¢²¢¥ ¦¢± ¢ ¥² ¦¢± ¢§² ¦¢§ª±§ ¢±¡ °¥ ² §¤ ±¤¥ ±¢«² ") ª"² ¨²¥ "« .¤"« ,'¤ ¦¥«§ ¤ ²¢ ¨¤ ,£±« ¨ ¥² ¥« ¦± ¨§ ¥° .¢³±§ ¥ ¢© '¤ ±§ £§²§ ("©° ÔÎ ‡Ï Ï·‡ .¤"« ,°¥ ¥ ¦¢°ª ±²¥ ±ª ± ±§ ¥° ¥² © ¨ ±§ ¥² ,±ª ¦³ ,¢ «© Â·˙Î ©¢³©« ¦¢¥³§ ©¢©² ³§ ,¦¢¢ ¢± ,¥§² ³¢ ,¢²§ .¦¢± ±± ¦©²¥ ¦¥¤ ,'¤ '¤ ,¦"²±§ .£±« ¨ ¥² °ª ¥« °¥ ¥ ±² ¢² © °² ³± ²° äøåúäå £¢ ³"² ¦¢¢ ¢± ¨²¥ °" ³¢¤ ,³ ³§¢¥ .¦¢§« §¤ ³ ²¢§² ¦¢© ¢« ¦¢¢ ¢ ¢"« ,³± ±§ ¢«§ ¢©¥¢¯³² '¢ ¢± ³¥³ .±"« [‰] ¯˜ÈÚ Ô˜ ˜‰ ‡Ï - Á˙Ù· È ÚÎ ‰˘˜· ±¤¥ ,( ,¡ ³¤±) ¦¢© ³«§ ¦¢© ¨²¥ ©¥¢¯³ ª±¢ ²¢ .¨²¥ ¥¤ ³ ¦¢±±«§² ©¤ ¢ ± §¤ (ë ±§¥ ±² .¢ ¢ ¨²¥ ¢©¥¢¯³ ,¦¢± © ¢© £± ¥« ,¥ ¨¤ ¦¢°ª« ¥² «± ¨³«¢§ '¢ ¦¢© ¢«§ ,¦¢© ¦¢©± ¥ ±¢ §° ¥¢ ¥² ± ¢¥« ¢ ¥ ³¤¥ ²° ¦« ,±³ ¢© ¦¢§¤ ¢¢§¥³ '¢¢ ¥ ± ¥«² ¦¢© ³«§ ,¦³« ¥¤³ª³ ¥ ¥² ©²§ ¦¢¢§¥³ §¥ © .±"¢¤ «± ¨¤² «± ± ¤ ³©«¥ ¥²¤© .¨°©°

±¢ ³ ¬ª¢ ³¢ ¦¢¢ª ±²¤ ÷åãå ³¤¥) ¦"§± ¨²¥ ¥¤ °¢¢¥ ùéå ¥² ±² ³¤ ("¤³ '¢ª) §" ±³ ¢ ¥« "« ("" ,¦¢±§§ ¥±²¢ ¥¤ ¡²³³² ¢©¤¢ :°"¥ ,¥³ ³©°³ ¥ ³¤² (¢ ,¢ ¦¢±) £±¢ ±² ¢¥¤¢ ¢§² ¥°³© ³²° © ."'¤ ,¦¢±¥ ¦ ±² ³©§ ³±¢ ' °¥ ¦¥ ²¢ ¥±²¢ ¥¤ ,¥³ ,'¤ "¦¥« ¨°³¥" "³ ° ¥" ¢¤ ¥ ¤ ¨ ¥²§ ,«"² ¢°¥ ¥¥¤¥ "¨²¥ ¥¤" ¡°©² ±§¥ ±² ©¤² ¢© ,ÍÂ¯Ú‰ ÔÁÏ˘· ¦¢¡²§ ¨°¢³" ¦¢©² ¦¢¡ ¦¢¥¥¤ ³©°³ « ,"§± ¢ ¢°ª §± ¢ ¦¢¯¢ ¥¥¤ "±¢¯ ³¡ ¦ ¬ ³ ±°¥ ³©¤¥§ ¢° «©§©² £¤ ¢¤ ,¦¢§«¡ ¢©² ²¢ ¢± ±¢« ¨°¢³ ¥² ¢§² ±§) "§± ¦² ,'¤ ±ª ¢ ¨°³¥ ,¯ ±ª¢ ¥²¤§§ ³ ° ¥ ¢ ¬ª¢ ³¢ ¥² ³¥ "¤« ,(" ²©«© ³¢¢¯ ¢± ¥" .³¢± ³© ³¡ ¦¥« ³ ¦¢«° ¦ ,"§± - ²§ ¥² ° ³±¯ ¢±¢« ("°³ '¢ª ¦± ¥²) ¦¢§ .¤¥ °ª ³±ª ¢¢ '¢¢ ¥² ¦²§ ,³² ,³²§² ¨¢ ±¢³ ª¢©¤¥ ¢¯¥§ © ³¤² § ¨¢¥ ±² ± (çé ˜ÊÁÓ ·Â¯ÈÚ‰˘ ˘È‚„‰Ï ÔÈÎÈ¯ˆÂ .¤"« ±§ :¥" ,§° "± ¥² ÈÏÙË„ ˙ÂÁÙ˘Ó‰ Ì˘ Â¯Â„È˘ ˙ÂÂÎ˘‰ ¢³ ¥¤" ¥« «"² ±°§ ± ¨ ¥ § ¨¢« ¦¢¥«§² ¢§ ¥« .Â‰· 'ÈÂÏ˙ ¯˘ ¯˘‡ ÍÈ‡ „ÓÏÂ ‡ˆ ."'¤ ¢³ ±¢« .¢ ³ ²¢ ¤¥ ±² ¢¤ ¥² Ú‚¯ ÏÎ ¯ÂÓ˘Ï ‰„¯ÁÂ ‰‡¯È‰· ˙ÂÂ‡‚‰ ±²" °ª ³ ³¤ ¦"§±² ,‰ÏÈÏÂ ÌÓÂÈ Â· ˙È‚‰Â ¯Ó‡˘ ‰Ó ÌÈÈ˜Ï ³¢²« ¥ ¦° °ª ³ ¦©§ ,"£±¢ ÔÈÈˆÏÂ ‡ÂˆÓÏ ÂÓÊ ˙˘Â„˜ ¯ÒÓ Ê"ÎÚÂ ³¤ ¥ ,£¥ ¢¢ ±² ± ¢ ¥« ¯·ÁÓ‰·˘ ‰·È˙ ÏÎ· Ï"ÊÁ· ¯Â˜Ó "¯³ ¢ £©¢ ¥« ,¦"§± ¦²§ ¡² ?¦«¡ § §¥ .‡"Ó¯‰Â "± ,°¢ ¦²¥ ¨²¥ ¥¤ ³¤© ³¤ ¥² ¨¢ ³¢ ¦ £±« ¨ ¥² ¢°¥ '² ¨§ °± ¢±¢¢§ ¢¢ ±² °ª ³¤ .¥±²¢ ¥¥¤ ©¢©¢©«¥ .¦¢¢° ²°§ ³¢² ¨¢±©ª ³"±£'¥ ¢'¢±²' ³¢²«' §±¥ ±² ©± "± ¢ ²«§¥ ¡°© ïëå ."¥¯ ¥¢ ,©¥¢ " ±« ¦¢¢ ¢± ¨¤ « ,©° " ¨© ¥ ° ¯¢ ¢± ¨ [„] ¢ ° ¯¢ ¨¢« ³"² ±ª² £¤ ¢¤ ÍÂ¯Ú ÔÁÏ˘‰ ˜ÒÙ ÁÎ - Ú„ÂÈ ÈÓ Ú·¯‡ ,©§ © °«¢ ³©¤²§ ¥² ±«±« ²° ¥«§¥ , ³¢§ ¢©¥°§ (æé © ±¢§ ¥ ©¥ ¨¢ ¥ :¥" ¦¢¢ª§ £±« ¨ ¥² ¢°¥ «±² ,± ±§ .¤"« ,£±« ¨ ¥² ¦¢«¢±¤§ ¦¢«° ¥ ¨¢ ³¢ ¦ '¢ª §" ±°§ ,¥±²¢ ¤¥ ³ ¢ £±« ¨ ¥² ¥« °¥ ¥ «©² ïáåîë ¨²¥ ¥¢± ,¦² ³" ,¦² ¤"© ,"¤ ±² "±¥ ³§³¥ ±² ,¦¢²° ©¢³± ¥² ³"² ¢±ª ,¢¥ ©³ ± §¢§² «¢§ §¥ª ²± ¥² ,±ª ¦³ ,¢ «©¤ ¦¯« .£±« ¨ ¥² °ª ¨¢ ¨© ¢± ,²§ ¢² , §² ± ,¢²§ ¥« ª¢§ ±± ©²§ ¥² ±¢ .'¤ '¤ ,¥¢ ¢± ,¦¢¢ zenkqd izpekyd aexird / ai

¢³«§² :³¤² ¦"§± ¨²¥ °¢³« '¢ ¥ ¡¢¢ ³¡¢²² § àöåéä ,©¢³±§ «§²² ¢±§ § ¦«¡ ,±¢« ¨°³¥ ¦¢¢¢ ² ("§"³¢«) '¤ ©¢¥¯ ¦ª±§ ±°§ ,¯ ¥²¤§§ ¦¢± ¥¢¯¥ ¢¤ ³¯§ ¦¢°¥ ª¢ ¢§³ '¢ £¥§ ,¦¢°ª ª"² ±§ ±¢« ¦«¡ ¦¢²° ©¢³± ¥¯ ,³± £²§ (¨¢±¢« ³¤¥ ²¢±) ³¢©§¢¢§ ³ ¨¤ ."¢¤« «"¢ ,¦¢²° ©¢³ ¥ ±¢« ¤¢ ± §«¡ 'ª³§ ³¤ ('¤ '¢ª) ²"¦"±§ ¥" .±ª¢ ¢¢¥ ¢³¢¥ ¨¢ ¨¢¥°± ¦¢± ³²±¥ òâåðáå ,¦¢± ¢¥°¥°§ ±§ §¥³ ¢§¢ ¦ ¢¥ ¢¤ ,£¢±¥ ¤³¥ ¦°§ ³¤ ¨¤ ,'¤ ³« §¤ §¤ ³ ¥« '¢ ¥ ³« ³ ¢¤§ ¦¢¢ "©« "¥¯ ¥¢ ¢± ¥« ±"§ ¢ ¢© ¥¤ ¢³«¢¢ ¢¥ ,±"± ¨¢ ¨¢¥°±¥ ¨¢² ¨¤ ,°¢± ±¢§ ¢± ¨¥ ³¤§ ±§¢ ±§¡ª ¢ °§ ± ±§ ,¥²¤§ ±¢« ¢©² °¢±§² ±§¥ ³¥° ¯§ °± ¥ ,¦¢¡² ¦¢± ,¨¤ ¥« ¤¥ ²±§ ¨°¢³§ £¥ ©² ¢± ¥¢ © ³ ¦ ¬ ,¢³ .± ±¢ ³ ³±°§ £¢±¯ ,¥²¤§ «± ¥¢ ±ª ¦³ ¢°ª ¨±° £ª ¥« ¦¢°ª ª"² «°© ³¤¥ §¤ ¦² ¬¢± ° ©²¥ ° (¡"¯ '¢ª) ,¯ ³³¤ '¢«) "¦¢ ¥¤ ¦¢²«§ " ª¢ "¤« .¨¢±¢« ¨°¢³¥ «© ±ª ¦³ ³¤² ¢³¢± .('¤ , , ¦² 'ª³ , ¢© °"¤ ³¡¢²² ³¡² ±§¥ ±² ,"¢²³ ³©² "¡¢¥² «¢§ "± ¨¢¥°± ¨¢² '¢ "¥¥¯ ±"§ ¢ ±¢« ±°² §§ '¢± ¢ ¢ª ¨¤ ±§¤ .¥¥¤ ±"± ²² Ì‚ ÔÎ ‰¯˜ Ì˘ ¥ ¥ ,¢¢ª-¡ª¢ '¢ª) £±« ¨ ¥² °ª ³¡²¤ §¥« ,'¤ ,ÍÂÈÁ· Ì‚ ,˙Â¯˘Î· Ì‚ ,˙Â‡ÂÂ˜Ó· ¥¤ :³¤² (³§°§ §¤ « , "¢°ª "² ±¢ ¨¤ ±³© ª¢¢³©² ¦° ©¢³ ¬ª¢ ³¢² ¬) ³¢¥§±¤ ©¥² ¦¢± ³²± ¥ ,³¢± ,¦¢©¢ ¢³ ,³¥¢° ¢©² ,¦± ¢¥¡¢ §¤ ³¥ ³±¢¢« ± '¢ ‡¯·‚ ÈÁÓ˙È‡ ¥-¥ ¥³ ¥ ©¢§¢ .(¢±§ ˙Â¯ÈÈÚ‰Ï ‰ÓÂ„· ˙ÂÏÈ‰˜‰ ÌÂÈ˜ ÈÎÓÒÈ‡Â ." ¨©¢ ³¢ « ,‰ÓÁÏÓ‰ Ì„Â˜ ³¤ ¢¥ '¢ ¥ ¢³ ¦¢¥² (æè §¤ ³¢ ¢ ¢³±¢² ¥¥¤§ ¯¢ ±§¡ª§ ±"§ ¢ ¢© ë"ùîå ,±¢« ¦« § ,«² ' ¦¢ ¥¤ ¦¢©² ±¢§ ¢± ¨¥ ¥² ¢©±¤ ¦²± ¨¢² ±§¥ ¨³¢© ³§ ³¢¢²« ¥ ¨¢©« ² «©" :°¢± § ±¢« .±¢« ¨¢©« ±§ ¢ ³²© §¤ ¥¢¯¥ ¢¤ ³±¢¢« ¨¢±¢« ³² ¯¢ ³ ¦«² ©± §ª±² ¥²² "©«¥© .(¢ ,¡"¢±§ ³±) "'¤ ¥±²¢§ ±¢« ¢ ³ ¡§ ¦« ²° ¥ ¨±° ¥« ¨ ¥² ¤¥ ¥² ³ ¢ ¢©² «§²§ "©«¥ ,¨¢¢±ª¢± ¢³²¤ ( "ª '¢ª "¢ ³"²) ³¤² "« ,¥"¯ ¦¢¢°¥ ³ ¦« ¯± ¥"¯ ¢± ¢±§ ³°§ ¦¢²© ¥° ¥« ¤§ª ±¢§°ª¥ ¢© ,¡ ¦² ¥« ¢¢§¥³ ¢"± ³¡¢² .¤"« ,'¤ ©°³ ¢³¯§ ¢© ,'¤ ²¢² ¦°§ ¢¯¥ ¢°¥ ,'¤ ±¤²²¢ ³ ³ ¦¢¢° ,±²¤ ±¢« ¦² ³²±¢ ³¥°§ ,±§¡ª ³¡¢² "¤« (åè .³©§ .¦¢± ³²± ©¥ ¨¢² '¢ ,¢³ `i / izpekyd aexird zenkqd

,£±« ¨ ¥² ,³²³ ¢°¥ ¢ ³ "¤« .°¢¢ "¢¥± ¢¤¥" ²±¢ ¨¢«° .±ª§ . ¤¥ ±°¢« ±§ ¢¥ ¥² ±°§

±§¡ª§ ±"§ ¢ ¢© ³ éúìàù ˙ËÈ˘Â ,¯‡ÓË‡ÒÓ Ï‡ÂÈ È¯·„‰ ˙ËÈ˘ ¨¢ ³"² ¢±ª §¥ "¥¯ ¯ÙÂÒ Ì˙Á‰Â ·Ï ·ËÈÈ‰ ,Ê‡Ò ¥«² ¥©© ©¢±§ ³¢± ¦¢ª¢¢§ ¥° ¢ ¢± ¦¢¢ ¢±² ¦¢° (âé ¥¤ ,¨¥¥¤ ¢¥ ¢² ,§¤ ª"² ¨°¢³ ¢§³ ¥³² ¦¢± ¦¢© ¥ ¦¢°ª ¢¥ ©¢³±² ³¢ ¢³¤ ¢¯¢ ¢± "²¥" .³±¢¢« ¨¢±¢« ¤¥ ¨¢¥« £§ª¥ ±² ¢ ¨¢¥« ±« ±¤² ± §« ° ("«° '¢ª " ") .°"¥¤« ,²«§¥ ¨¢±¢« ¨°³¥ ¥±²¢ ³¯³ ¥¤ © ,'¤ °° ¦² ¢¥ ³¥ ³±¢¢« ¥¤ ¢³± ¦¢¢ ¢± ³¡¢² ô"ëò ³§°§ ©¤ ¨¢±¢« ¨°³¥ ¨¤© ¢± ¨¢±¢« ¨°³¥ ¥±²¢ ©§ ¦¢¢°¥ ¢©¢ « ¤"²§ ²"¢¢« ."¤« ,© ¥« ¥¥¤ ¨¢²² ¨¢ ³¥ ³±¢¢« .¥"§¤ ,±¢« .§ "¡§ ±³¢ ¨¢ ± ³ ± ©¢³± ¥¤ :¦² ¢¥ ¡² ¤"²§¤ ¥ ±"± ¨¢ ¦¯«§ ±§ øåîàëå ª¢ ¥« ¨¢±¢« ©°¢³ ¢" ¥" ¤"°¢³« ,¦¢¡± ±²§ ¥ ¥¢± ± ,¦¢«° ±"ª ¨©¢« ³¤ ±± ©²§ ,¢¯¢ ¢± ¦² ¤"²§ ,¥ §¢¤ª ¦¢§² ¨§ ¥¤ '¤ ¤ ±¢« ±¤ ,±¢§ ¥ ¦¢°ª ± ³«² £±« ³¤ ¨²¥¤ ,"¤« ,'¤ ³« ¦¢± ³¢ ³"² ± ¥² ¢¥« .¢¢§¢« ¨ ¥² ±² ³¤ ¨²¥¤ ,¦¢± § ± " ) ¢¥ ¡² ¥« ¦ .¦¢©± ¢¥ « '¢ ¡¢ª " ¥ ¡¢¢ ³¡¢² (ãé ³¯° ¡© ±± ©²§ ,¥" ³¤ ("¯ '¢ª ¢± ¥ ,¨¢±¢« ¨°¢³ ³¢°³ ±³¢ ¨¤² §¯« ¢« ¥ ,'¤ ±¢§ ¥ ³¢ ²± ¡¢ª ±¢« ¥ ¢±² ³±¢¢« ¥ ³¯³ ¥¤ ¦¢© ²¢²¤ ¥ ¢¯§ °¢¥ ¨¢ :³ª©¤ ¦¢¢ ¢± ¨ ¨°¢³ ¢± ¥¢ ³¥ ¨« ¥© °¢¥ (¡"¢° ³²) ³² ¥¥¢ ¢± ¨ ³¤ ¨¤ .²¢ ¨ ¦² ±« ,±¢« ¨¤ ¨¢² ¦²§ ³² ¯ " ) ¥±²¢ ¨ ±ª ±²¢ °«¢ ¥±²¢ ¨°³¢² ¢§¥ ¢¥² "« ¨³© ¢© ±§ ¢± ¢ "ª² '¢ª ¤¥ ±¢ ("¥ .("¥¥¯ ±"§ ¢ ¢© ¢§) ©±¢« ±¢« ³¢ ³ ± ¥ ¥ °«¢ ³©¤²§ ¥« ¦¢§« ¢ ¥ ¡¢¢ ± '° ±ª ³¢¯§³ .¤"« ,¨¤ ¥ ¨¢² ¦¢± ,³±¢¢« ¨¢±¢« ¨°³¥ ³± ³¡¢² ¦¢©²± ³©²¥ ¦¢°¢² ¦¢± ³ ,²³ ³²) ¦¢© ¡¢¢ ³¤² § ¨¤ ¤¥ "« «°¥ «© ©¢ ¦¥² ±ª§ ³² ¨«§ ¦¢± «©§¥ ¢² ¢§ ("¢ ³¤² § ¢¥ ¥ ,±§¤ ,²«§¥ ¨¢±¢« ¢©°¢³ ¨°³¥ ¥³²¢ ,'¤ ¯ ³ .¦¢¥« ¦¢©«²© ©² ¦¢°ª ¢¥ ³¤ ¨¤ .'¤ ¦¢± ¥¢¯¥ ¢¤ ±¢« ¥¤ «¢² ¨¢¤¢±¯ ¥ ¥¥¤ ¨°³¥ ©¢¥« :¥" ( ¥²¢ ') ¥ ¡¢¢ ¯§¥ ©¢¢ ¨¢² ± ¦¢§¥ ±ª¢ ¥²¤¢ ¥² ¨«§¥ ±¢« ¨¢±¢« ¢ ¥«" «°¥ ¦¢©²± ³¡¢² ¢¯§¥ .¦¢§ª±§ ¦¢«¢ ¦¢± ,¯ ³ ¢¤ ,'¤ ³© ¢±ª² "± zenkqd izpekyd aexird / i

³²± ©¥ ¨¢² £±« ¨ ¥² ¦¢§« ¥¤ ³ ¢±°¢« ³§ ¥§ , §"¢ "§² ,"§² ,"¤² ,"¥² '¢ª ³¤² §¤) ¦¢± § £© £¥²¢ ¢¤ '¢ ¥ ,³©§ ¢¥ª ¢ "§ '¢ª «" ¬ª¢ ³¢ ¤" '¢« ,'¤ ±§ ²¡«¥ § "¡ ± ©³²© £¢±¯ ±± ©²§ ³¡¢²¥ «© .(³« ,©¥¢ ,°± ¢© ,¦¢¥²±¢ § "¡ ("§² '¢ª) ¤¥ ±¢ ³¤² § °¢¢¥ ¢¥ "¢ ,³±³§² ,¨¢¥±° ,°ª¢± ±² ³¤ ¦± ¨§ ¢±¡² ±«¥¢¢¡ª " ¤ ¦² ¢²¢ ¢²± ±²¤" ¥ ,"¢¤ ¡¢¥ ¦¢°ª £ ±¤ ¥« ,¥ ³±¢¢« ¨¢±¢« ¨¢©°³§ ±² ¦¢©²± ¢¥ ± "©¯§ ©² ©§ "²«§¥ ¤¥" «©² ±§¥ £¢±¯ £¥§ ¥° "«¥© .¤"« ,'¤ ¦¢±¢§ § ± ¦¢²² ¢¥ , ³§ ³±³ ¥±²¢ ,"¦±ª§ ±ª¥ ¦¢©²± ¯§¥" ¥¢ ¦¢± ³²± ¨¢ ¨¤ ¨¢ ²¥§ £±« ¨ ¥² © ± ¢ ¥« «°¥ ¢©² ±¢§ °± ,¨± ¢± ³©²§ ¢¥ ,¨¢±«¢²¥ £¢± ³³© ± ±ª§ ¢±¡ ³¤² §¤ ©³¢ ±³ ± ¥² ( "± '¢ª) ¤¥ ±¢ ³¤ ¢± ©²§ ¨²¥¤ ,¢¢§¢« ±± ©²§ ,² ¦¢©²± ±ª§ ¦¢± ³¢ ³"² ¥±²¢ ¥¤¥ ¨¢¥¢°§ ¨§¯« ¥« ¨¢±¢§ § ¢¥² ³¤ ¢¥ ¡² ° ¯¢ ³ ©§ .("§"¯¢) ³¢ ³"² ³ ±± ©²§ ± '¢ ."¢¤ ¦¢©²± ± ¯§ '¢ ¦¢± ¢¤±§ ²§ ¢± ¨ ¢± åìàå ÈÎ ‰‡¯Â‰ È„ÓÂÏÏ ‰Ê ÔÈÚ ˘È‚„‰Ï È‡„ÎÂ ¦¥«§ :("¢ª ¢¤±§ ¢²¥) ¨¢¢¡²« ˙ÂÁ„ÏÂ ‰È¯ÙÒ· ÌÂ˘‡¯ ˘ÙÁÏ ÍÏ Ì‡ ±¢« ¨°³¥ ¦³¥¤¢ ¥¤ ©¢³ ¥³² ˙‡Â ,ÂÈÏÎ ‡˘ÂÂ ÍÂ¯Ú ÔÁÏ˘‰ ˜ÒÙ ¥«² ¦¢© ¢"« ¢§³ ²«© "¯ ¢"« Â"Á Á˙ÙÂ ,Ì‡·ˆ ¯ÙÒÓ ÈÙ ÏÚ ,Ï·Â˜Ó‰ ¢© ³¤ ¨¤ ,'¤ ³©± ª¤ ¢¢ ©¢¢ ©¯§ ¥ ,˙Â˘Ï ‰ˆÂ¯‰ ÏÎÏ ¯Ú˘ .¡² , ±« ¡¢¥ ¢¥ .±¢¤¥§ " ,²±§ ³¢ ©¢¥± .¨± ¢± ³©²§ ³©¤ "©«¥ ±©

¥«² ,¦² "± ¨²¥ °¢ «© øéòàå "± ¨²¥ °¢¢¥ ±² "©«¥ (áé ¢"²± ¨¢¢« ³¤ "²¥§" ¥² ¨¢ °¢ª§² (' ,"§² '¢ª) £±« ¨ ¥² ¥ §¥ ²§ ³± ²° ,"«¡"© ¨¢¢¯ ±²¤ ¢¤ ,±"± ©¢ ±"ª ¢¥² "¢¤ ³©¤ «§²§ "©«¥ ,'¤ '¬¢"²± ¨¢¢¯ ¬¢ª ,¦¢°ª ª"² ³±°§ ³ ¦² ˘ÏÂÙÓ„ ÌÚË‰ È"˘¯ ˘¯ÙÓ Ì˘„ ¦²§ ± 'ª" ¨¢ ¥« "²¥§ ¦ ¦" ¨¢ ¥« ¨²¥¤ ."¯·„Ó ÈÏ‚„Ï ÈÓ„" 'È‰È˘ È„Î ,"¨¢¢«" ³¢³ ¥ ³¤ ,"¦¢ ¥¤ ¨¢±« ± ¢"²±¢ ¦¢± ³²± (' ¢"ª±) ²"± ¨¢°¢¢§ "± ³¢³ «¢¤ - .²"¢¢« ¢² ,± 'ª ¨¢¢¯§ ,§ "¡ Ï"Ó˜ ¥"¯ .°"¢³¤ ¦³¤² ±³¢ ±«²¥ ±«²§ ²¥§ ¥² ¦¢± ³²± ÌÈÚÈ¯ÎÓ ˙Â¯Â˜Ó‰ ÂÏ‡˘ "ÔÈÈÚ" ÔÂ˘Ï· ,"±§ ¢¥¥ § ²¥¢ ¢²" .‰ÎÏ‰· ¢ ³¤² § ¨¢¢¯¥ ²¢ .¥"¤« ³¢² ("¢¨§¢ª) ¦¢¢ ¢¯« ³"² °" ,"¢¤ £±« ¨ ¥² °ª ± 'ª ïéãáå ,±§ ¢¥¥ § ©© °±° ³ª©¤ :(¡"¢°ª ¯"¢ª) §" £"² ¨¢¢« ÌÈ·¯‰ ˙Â˘¯ §¤ £¥¥ ³¡¯¢ ,'¤ ¢±²" ¦³ª © "¢¤ ¥"ª £±« ¨ ¥² ¨²¥² «§²§ ,³¡² '¤ ¨¢«° §¤ °ª ¢§© ¢¤ ,"¨¤ °¢ª§ ¬ª¢ ³¢ h / izpekyd aexird zenkqd

,±³¢ § "¡ ³ ± ¨¢±¢« ²«² ,¦¢± ³²± '¢¢² ¢¤ ¨¢±« ± ¥¢¢¯°"² ¨¢¢¯§ ³± ©¢¢ ± 'ª ¢« ¦¢°ª¥ ¥¢ ¢± ¨ ,³² ¥ ² ¦¢±¤ ¦¢ ±ª¢ ¨¢©«¥ ¥ ,³¡ ¢ ¨¢©«¥ ¨ ,±« ¦¢¢ ¢± ¨ ,¨§¥ ±ª¢ ¨¢±«§ ¨¢ ¦¢°ª ¥¤ ¦¢§ ¯ ,¨¢±¢« ¨¢°ª« ¢ ,« ,²¢ ¥² ©§ ,¨¢«° ± 'ª¨¢²¬ «¢ ,© ¨¤² ¢«§ ±± ©²§ © .¤"« ,³«¡ ³±¢¢« ±¢« ©¢ ³¢ ,° ¯¢ ³ ©§ ¥² ¬¢± ©²¥ °ª ¦¢± ³¢ ³"² ¥«² «¢ ¦¢¥²±¢ ±¢« ³¡¥ ¦¢±±«§ © ³ °³ ±³ª ("¤ '¢ª ") ¨§© ©°¢³ ¨§ ¥¤ ©¢§ ¥¤ ,°"¢« ,°«¢ ³©¤²§ ¥² ¦¢²±¢ ³¢± ³± ¥¤ £²§ ¦¢ ± ³ ± ¨¢±¢« ¨°³¥ ¨¢¤¢±¯ ²«§¥ ¤¥ °¢ª§ ,¨¢ , ±§¤ ,°° ¢¥ ± 'ª ¨¢ ¤¢ ³±¢¢« ¨¢±¢« ,°±° ,ª« ,²± ,¦±¡ª§ ±«²§ ²¥§ £± ¨¢ ,¦¢ ¥¤ ¨¢«° ³©¤ ¨¢² ¤"« ,¥¥¤§ ¯¢ ¢¥ " £±« ¨ ¥² ¤¥ ±°§) '¤ ±«²¥ «±§¥ ¥ ¥¤ ¥ª¥ ¨± ¢± ³©²§ ³¤² § ¨¢¢¯¥ ²¢ .( ³ ±¤©¤ §¥² ¢± ¨ ¥" .± ±¢¤¥ ¢¥ ±ª ©°§ ¨© ¥ ° ¯¢ ¢± ¨ ¬ ³"§) ³« ¦«¡ ¡ ³"² ±«¥° ¤¥ ¨¢©« (' °" ' '¢ª ") ° ¯¢ ¨¢« ³©¤²§ ±ª ³¤² § ¢²¢ ¥ :('ª :¦² ¥" ,£±« ¨ ¥² °ª© ³ ¥² ³©¤ ¥"¯¤"« ¥ .'¤ °«¢ ©¥ ¨¢ ¥ ±¢§ ¥ ³¤ °«¢ ³©¤²§ ¢±¡ ¨²¥¤ ¨± ¢± ³©²§ .£±« ¨ ¥² © ±¢§ ¥ ¨¢°°§²" "§² '¢ª ±± ©²§ ¥¢¯¥ ¢¤ ¥ ,¥¥ ¦¢°ª¥ ²² ¢ "©«¥ :¥"© ¨± ¢± ³©²§ áúëå ,"±¢« ¨°³¥ ¨¢¤¢±¯ ¥²¤§§ ¥¥¤ °«¢ ³©¤²§ ¥² ³ ¤ ("« ¥¥¤ , ¦ ³§²©) ¦ ¢¢ ¨²¥¤ ³¥ ³±°§ ³¤¢± ±§ ,³±± ¢¥°¥°§ ³§ ¨°³¥ ±¤ ±§¥ ¤"« £¢±¯ ¢©« ¢³«¥ .'¤ ³±³ ¦ ,"± ¢¢§¥³ ±² ³¤ ¨¤ ,¦¢± "« ³¤¥ ¨± ¢± ³©²§ ³©¤² «© ³¤ ¨¢¢¡²©¢¢ ²§ ¢± ¨ ¢©³ ²¢² ¨¢ ¢¥ ('³) ¦² ³¤² ¥ ³¥«³ ± ¢©" ª©¢° ±¢«¥ ,±«²¥ ±«²§ ²¥§ '¢¢² ¦¢± ³²± ,"'¤ ¥²¤§§ ¥¯ ±¢« § ±«²§ ²¥§ ¢² ±"± ¨©¢« :¥" ¥¤²" ±±¢² ¢§¥ § ± §¥ "¤« '¢ª «"² ¦¢°ª ±§¤ ±«²¥ ¨¢ ,"±§² ¯§ ° ±¢ ,°°¥ ±±¥ ¨¢ ¢² ¬ ,"§² ¡² ¯§ ¢ ¥² ¨¤§ " ¢ ±³ ¢¤ ¨¥ ©³© ³²± §"§ ©²§ ¥² © ³¤² "« ,±¢¯¥ ³¢± ³¤ ,'¤ ¨¢¤¢±¯ © §¥¥ ¢²§ '¢ ¢ :( ¢¤±§ § 'ª) ±± .²¥§ ¨¢¤¢±¯ ¨¢² ³¥ ¥« ²² §¯« ,±¢« ¨¢±¢« ¥« § .¤"« ,§ "¡ ± ³¡¢² ¥« ¨¢«° ± 'ª ¨¢ ¢§© ¢¤ (àé ©³© ³²± "« ³©¤ ¨¤ ¦ £ ±¤ ¨± ¢± ¨² £¢ «¢ ±³ ¨ ìë ÏÎ ÏÚ ˜ÏÂÁ ‡Ï‰ ¢¤ ¥ ¢ ,'¤ ¨¥ ¢§«¥ ¥ª ¢¢ ¢§ '¢ ±«¥¡° ÂÈ˙Â·¯ ÏÚ ˜ÏÂÁÂ ,‰Â‰·Â ¯·Ú· ÌÈ˜ÒÂÙ‰ ¥² ª¢§ ±³ §« ³ ©¢§ ,'ÂÎÂ ˜¯· È· ,˜"‰ÈÚ ÌÈÏ˘Â¯È· ‡ÏÈÂÂ· zenkqd izpekyd aexird / g

¢ ³¯§ °°§ ¥¤ ¦©§ .¨§ ¥¤ ¢ ¥°³© «"² °ª .³¢¢± ¥ ,²§ ³± ³±§ ¦¢¢°¥ ¥°¥ ±§¤) °" ,°"± ¥¤ ²«§¥ ³¤ .¥¥¤ ±¢¯ ³ ¨¤ ¢±¤¥ ¥ ¢± ³"² ,±ª ¦³ ³"² ,¦¢± ³¢ ³"² ¢¥ :(¡¥ ,¦¢±«¢² '°) ¡©¥ª ²"±§ ¥« ¥" ,('¤ ,° ¯¢ ³ ©§ ³"² ,¥¢¤¥§ ¢¤ ³¯ ¦¢²© ¦¢¥²±¢ ¢±¢°¢§ ³± ±¢« ¨¢©« ,('¢³"¯ '¢ª ' °¥ ) ¢¥ ¡² ¢ «© ³«¤ ± ±°¢« ±¢« ± ¥±²¢ ¢¢©§ ¥¤ :°¢² ¥¥ ± ¢±°¢« .'¤ ±ª ¦³ ¦ ±±¢ £¢±¯ .²"¢¢« ,¦¯« ¨°¢³ ³¢¥ £¢±¯ ¨¢«° ± ¦¢²²² ¡°© .¥ ¨¢ ¥¥¤© ,²¡«¥ ³©¤² °± ,±«²¥ ±«²§ ²¥§ ,³ ± ¢²¢ ¨¤ °ª ±§¤ .±"± ¢ '¢ª " ) ²§ ³± ¨ «¢¤ (æ ,²¢ ¨ ,±« ¦¢¢ ¢± ¨ ,¦"¢± ±" "©«¥© '¤ ,( " '¢ª " ,¡"¥° .'¤ '¤ ,° ¯¢ ³ ©§ ¨ ¥² ³¤² §² ,'¤ ¨¤© "² ¨¢«° ± ¦¢²² °±² "§² '¢ª £±« ‰ÎÏ‰ Ú‚Â· ¥ ,¥¥¥ ¥¤ (è ¦¢²² ¦©²¢ ¦ ¢ª ,¦¢± ³²± ¢ ¤" ³¤ ²§ ³± ¥ ‰˘ÚÓÏ ¢ ±¢«² ³ ± ¥¤ ® ± '¤¥) ±¡²§ ±¢« ³©¡¥²§ ©«©" '¢² «¢ ,'¤ ,¦¢± ³²± '¢ ¨¢¥°± ¨¢² (¦¢°ª«§ «©² ¨¢«° ± ¦¢²²² ¥"ª ±« ¨¢ §"§ ¥ ,¤ ±ª§ ²¡«¥ ³± "² § «" .³ ± ±² ¥°³¥ ¢³ ±¢« ¦² ¨°³¥ ¥« ¥¢§ "¢ ¥² ¡² ¦¢± ¦² ²§ "¤« .'¤ ,± 'ª ¦ ²¢² ³±¢¢« ¦¢²© ¨¢¥¢§ '§ "±³¢" ¥¢§ "¢ «©² ¨¢¢¡²©¢¢ ²§ ¢± ¨ ³©°ª§ °¥ ¦ .±"ª ¡² ³¯ ¦¢¯§© ³±³ ¤¥ ¢ ¥« ¨¢ ¦¢± ³²± ¨¢¥ ³ ± ¨¢¤¢±¯² °ª² «"² ¥« ¦² ±² § §¥¢ §² ¤"²§) ¨¢¥°±¥ ±"± ³¢ '¤ ,±«²¥ ±«²§ ³©¤§ ¨¢²¥§ ¦ ,¨¢¥°±§ ±³¢ ³¥ ³±¢¢« ¢ ,³±¢¢« ²§ ³± ,²"±§ ±°§ ¬ª¢ ¯§² ¢¥ ¡² ¥« ³¤ ¥ ,°¢²¥ ³©¤ ²¡«¥² °¢ª§ ¨¤¥ ,²"±§ ¢± ¥¤ ¥² ¡²² ³ ¦ ¬ ,±¢« ¦² ¨°³¥ ± ±§© ¥¤ ¦¢©¢©« ¥« ,±"± ³±³ ²¢ .(¥"§¤ ,¥¢§ "¢"«"¢§ ±³¢ ¨¢¥°± .¢¥ ©³ ± ¥² ³§¢§³ ³°¯ °¢¢¥ ¢¤ ¨¢ ¦ª±¢ ³¤ ¦°² £¢ ²§ ³± ¨ ¤ £±« «¢ ¢©§¤ ¢§ © (ç ¤" ,"¥¯ ,³¢§¥ ³±ª "³« ¢¥ ¨¢¢¡²©¢¢ ²§ ¢± ¨ °ª §§ ©²§ '¢ ³¢¯§ ¥ «© ±²¤ ¢±ª ³²³ ª© ¢¥ ¦ ,"¥¯ ³±³ ©¥ ¨³© ¤± ¨²¥¤ ¦° ³¤² ÌÂ˜Ó ÔÈ‡ ¥° "©«¥ ¦©§ .¦¢§ª±§ ."¥¯ ,¦¥« ¢¢ ³§ Ë˘Ù Ï·˜Ï ¯Â·Èˆ‰ ÛÂÎÏ ‰¯Â˙‰ ÁÎÂ ¦ ©¢±² ¥§ ¥¢ ‰ÎÏ‰· ˘„Á ‰"ÏˆÊ ¯ÚÏË‡˜ Ô¯‰‡ È·¯ ÔÂ‡‚‰ ˙ËÈ˘ ²© £±« ¨ ¥² °ª² ¡²¤ ©¢ «° ("¤ª " ) ¨± ¢± ³©²§ ³"² (é ¦¢©± ¢°ª ¢¥ ©¤ ,¦¢¥¤ ¢ ) ³©°ª§ ¥« ³¥ ³±« ¦¢«¢°± ¥¤ ±ª ¦³ ¢ «©¤ °«¢ ³©¤²§ ³"² ¥« (± ¨±° ©¢° ±ª§¤ ©¢ ¦ ¡± ,¢¢§¢« 'ª ¦¢¤¢±¯ ¨¢² °¢ª§² ("¤°-"° '¢ª ") ,±³ ¥¤ ¢ ,± §«¤ ¥ ,©§ f / izpekyd aexird zenkqd

³²«¥ ³« ,¢¥« £§ª¥ "± ¢¤ ¨¤ ³§« «©§ ¥¤ ¦¢¤¢« °± ±§¥¤ ,©¢¯¯ © © '¢© .© "±« '¥ ±¢«¥ ²¢ ±¯° "©«¥ ¨¤¥ .±¢« ² ,©¢©° ©¥ ¢¢ ,©¢³¥ ¦¢¥² .¥±²¢ ³± ¡²³© ³±³ §¤ ,©±¢« ¦ ±¢« ¨°³¥ ,©¢³±ª§ ¨©¤³ ©³ ,©¢¯± ³¥ ³±¢¢« ¥² ¨§°§ ¢ £© ³§ úîåòìå .©¢§¢ ±§ ¦¢¢§¥³ ±¢«¯ ± ¦¢ ² ±¢« ±ª¢ ²¢ " ¥¢¤ ³¢§¥³ „Â·Î Ï˘ ‰¯ÂÓÁ‰ ‰ÂˆÓ‰Ï òâåðáå ±¢« ¢³«¥ ,¥¥¤ ±¢« ¨°¢³ ±¢ ±§¤ ,‰ÈÏÂ„‚Â ‰¯Â˙‰ ¥« ±§¤ ,¨°¢³ £©¢ £¢±¯ ¢± '¢ ª¢ ±§ ¢¥ ,("§-"§± '¢ª) « ¦¤«± ¦¤³ ¢³¢± ¦¢°§ ±§© ¤ ¦¢²© ±ª§ ¢¥ ²§ ³± °ª ª±¡©° ¨¤ ¦¢¢°¥ ° .¦¤¢± ¥ «©² °¢ª§ ¥ ,¥ ³ ² ² ³¤² § ¦¢¢°³¢ "¤« ,"ª ¦¢± ³²± ©¢ ,¦¢²© £¤ ¥¤ ¨¢² ³°¥ § ¥¤ ³ ©²§ ¥« ¦¢©²± ±³©² "² ³ ¦ ¬ ,¨¥¥¤ ¤¢ ¢¢ ¥«² ,'¤ ¦¢§² ¦²¥ ² ¦² ¦¢¥¥³§ £¢¥¢¡² ©¢³©¤² ¥ ±¢« ¨¢ ¥ ¢¤ ,³§ ¯¢ ¦¢³± ¦¢³ ³±ª§ ³¥° ¥¢¯¥ ¨°³¥ ¨¢¢¢ ( ,¨¢²± ¢©² £¢ ³ ¤ ,±¢« ±¢« ¨°³¥ ¨¢¢¢ ² ( ,¦¢°ª ª"² ²±§¤ ,¥²¤§§ ¢¥« ,²¡³ ¥ £§ ³ ,£¢ ¥² £± ¥« ,¯ ±ª¢ ¦¯« ±¢² ¥±²¢ ³¢ ³² § ±¢«¥ ³¤ §± ³ ±¢« ¥² ¦"§± ¥" ³¤² ³"± ³±¥ ¢"² ²° ¦² § ²¢ ,¯ ±ª¢ ²¢² ±¢¤¥ ¢¤ ¦¢¥²±¢ ¥¤ .¦¢©²'¢¢³'² ' ³©°³ ¥« (:¢ ³²) ¢"²± ²±¢² §¤ .²"¢¢« ,£¥ ¦¤ ¦ ,"« £¥§ §¥² ,¦¢±ª ³¡¢² ³¯¥ ±¢§ éøùà ¢¤± ¢¤± "« ° ¨§¤ ¥ ¢¤¢ ¦ ©"¥ ³¥ ¨¤§ éðàå "©«¥ ± .¦¥² ¢³¢³© ¥¤ ¦«© ¥«§¥ ¤"²§² ³ ¢¤§ ³¢± .¦¢± ³²±¥ «© ¦¢¥ ³¡¢² ,±¢ ³©«¡ ¥² ª¢ ¥« ¥ .¨¤ ©¢ ©¤ ," ¬± ¤ ,³° ± ³« [‚] ¦¢±§² §¥ "« ¨¤§ '¢ .±"« Â¯Â„ ÈÏÂ„‚ ˙ËÈ˘ .¦¢± ¨¤ ±§¢ ¦¢¤²¢ ¦ ³§ ¥« § ÈÏÂ„‚ ±² "©«¥ ±§ ±¯° ± (å ,‰˘Ó ˙Â¯‚‡‰ ,Ï‡ÂÈ È¯·„‰Î ÌÈ˜ÒÂÙ‰ ¢ £ª§ ¢© ¨¢ "«² ùéâãàå ¨¢ ¤¥¥² ¦¢¡°© ,Ô¯‰‡ È·¯ ˙˘Ó‰Â ¢¥ ¡© «²§ ¥ ¨±° ¢± ª¢ ,¦¢± ³²± ¨¢ ¨¢¥°±¥ "©«¥© °± ³¤ ¥« ¥«§ ¢© ,¯ ¢ ,¨¥¥¤ ¦ ¦² ³±« "©«¥ .¢²§ ±¯° .¥°³³ ³¥¢§ §¢ «± ·¯ ‰"· ÂÚ·˜ ˙ÚÎ ,©¢³©¤²¥ òâåðáå ‰"ÏˆÊ ÔÈÈË˘ÈÈÙ ‰˘Ó È·¯ ÔÂ‡‚‰ ˙ËÈ˘ ÈÈ„· ÏÂ„‚Â ·Â˘Á ¯È˘ÎÓ‰ ³§°§ §¤ °ª© " £±« ïçìùá ‡·ÈÏ‡ ÍÓÒÂÓÂ È˜· ÁÈ‚˘ÓÂ ,ÔÈ·Â¯ÈÚ ¦¢± ³²± ©¥ ¨¢ ¨§² ,¦¢©¢ ¢¡± ³¤§ ±±¢ ,‡ÓÏÚ ÈÏÂÎ„ zenkqd izpekyd aexird / e

¢§¢« ²¢ ¨ ²«² òåãéëå ,³©¡¥² ¯§ ±² '¢ ¦) ³©¡° ³¥ ¥¤ ®" ,°± ¢© ¨¢±¢« :(¤ ¥¥¤ ³"²) ²"± ¥" .('¤ ,³©§§ ¯§ ,"³ ¦¢¥²±¢ °"¢« ¡¢¥ ¢¥ ±¢³¥ ¥±²¢ ³¥¢¥ ¥¤ © ¢± ¨ ,²± ¦"¢± ¢²¢ .'¤ , ³ ³±¯ ¨¢²¥§ ¨¢³§ "¢ ¢± (±«¢ ³"² ¥«) ±« ¦¢¢ '¢ ³±¢¢« ¥¤² ³ ³¢¯§ ³ ,'¤ ¦±¡ª§ ," , ,©¥¢ ¤¥ ±¢ ,¦¢°ª ¦³¤ ¨¢±¢« ª"³ ,¢¯¢¥ ¦¢©¢ ¢³ ¡"²« ,'¤ ("ª² '¢ª) ¦¢§ ¢±§ ¨¤ ³¤ ,®¢²± °" ,¨±© ¢¢§¥³ ¦¢± ±°«² ·˜ÚÈ ˙ÂÎ˘Ó‰ ¥« ¥¢ ¥¤² ³¢¯§³ .¨«¢ "¢ ,²¡¢¢ ¥« ¥ ±«±« ²« ³¥ ¨© ¡ ³±¢¢« ¨¢±¢« ©°¢³ ¨§ ¥¤ ¦°§ ¦°§ ¥¤§ ,§ "¡ ± ± ±¢« ‰·‰‡‰ Â·ÎÈ ‡Ï ÌÈ·¯ ÌÈÓÂ - ,³¥ ¥¡¥¡¥ ˙Â¯ÈÈÚ‰ ÏÎ· ‚‰Ó‰ :¥" ³¤ ˙‡ ÂÙË˘È ‡ÏÂ ÍÂ¯Ú ÔÁÏ˘‰ ˜ÒÙÏ ¨¢¤±² ³±¢¢« '¢ ,"¯ ¢"« ©§ ³ ,ÌÈ˘Â„˜‰ ÂÈ˙Â·‡ ˙¯ÂÒÓ ,'¤ ,§ "¡ ¨¢ ± ³ ± ¨¢²¥§ ,±³ ³¯§ ¦¢°¥ «© ³± .(¤"° '¢ª ") ¤"« ¯¢ ±² ¨«§¥ ³¤ ¨²¥¤ .¢³¤¥ ¢©³ ,"¢± " ³¢ ³ ¢© ³ ³¢¥±§ ¨§¥ ¦¢± ¢± ¨ «¢¤ (ã '¥) ¨³ ³¤ ¨²¥¤ ,¥±²¢ ®± ©³¢© °«¢ ³©¤²§ ¥² ³¢± ±³ª ¥² ³¤² "« ,"¦¤¢± " ¦¤«±¥ (¢³« ¦©¢§¢ §² ¥±²¢ ¢¡² ¥¤ ,« ¬°³ ³¤ ¤"« ,£¥ ±§¢ £¢©° ' £¢ ¡«² ¡² ±² ÌÈ¯Ù‡ ²± ¥« ¤²¥ ¥² ¥"© ³±¥ ¦¤¢± ¨²¥ ³¢ ³"²) ¤¥ °ª ±²« ± ± .¦¤¢³ ³±ª§ ³ ¦¤¢± ³± ²«§¥ ¨¢²« ²« ("¤ '¢ª " ,¦¢± ¨¤ .³©¢§ ¥¤ ³±¢¢« ¥¤ ¨¢±¢« ,¥" ³§¢§ ¥ ,"ÔÓÊ ÏÎÏ" «© (ä ³ '¢ ,¨¢¥¢ ¦¢©± ³¢ª ,³±¯ ¨¢±¢« ¢"²± ¨°¢³² § ¢¤ "±¢« ¥¤ ¨¢±¢« ³²«¥" ³©°³§ ¦"¢± ¢²¢ ,°±° "§± ,°«¢ ¥° ¥° ¨³«) ³² ³±¢§²¥ ¥ ª¢ ±© ²"¦"±§ « ²± ²¢ ª¢¢³©²¤ ,( "ª±³ §³ "¢ ²± ¥ ,'¤ '¤ ,±§¡ª ¥¢ ¢± ²«© ¦°§ ¥¤" ³©°³§ '¢ ,°"± ¦² ³±¢¢« ¨¢±¢« ¨°¢³ ¨¢ °ª© ¥"¢±§ '¢ ± ¨¤ª ,'¤ "±¢« ° ¦¢¤¢« '¢² ¦°§ ¨§ ¦² ¦°§ .("¤° '« ,² §« 'ª) °ª¢± " ¥"¯ ¨¢°ª¢ ¯§ ,¨¢±¢« ³¤¥ ¦¢©¢ ¤§ ³¢¤ «¢±¤ " ( ,«°) ¢¥ ¡² ¥" ¦² °± ,³°¥ § " ,³©§§ ,³©¡¥² ¢§¤ ± '¢ ¨¤ ("° '¢ª ") ¬°³ ¦¢± ²"¦"±§ ¤"²§¤) .±¢« '¢ ¥ Ï˘ ˘ÈÚ¯ÓÂ ÛÈ¯Á‰ ©²¥ .²"¢¢« ,³± ,'¤ "¯ ¨¢ ¢©§ ¦¢ ¨¢ ("«°) ˙ÂÓÂ˜Ó ÏÎ· Ô˜˙Ï (¡¯ ") ¯ÙÂÒ Ì˙Á‰ (¨«¥«©) ¦¢² ² ¢³«§²) .²"¢¢« ¤§ «¢ ¥ ,ÔÈ·Â¯ÈÚ Ì‰È˙Â·˘ÂÓ '¤ "¯ ³¯ ³²«¥ ²¢¢³© ¡ª« ¤¥ ¡² ³ §¥² ¦¢©¢«¥ ¨¢±¥¢° ¡ª« ¢²³ ± ¢¤ ,±¢« ³²«¥§ ¤« ¥ ¢§¥³ ³¤ ¨¤ ,¦¢± ³¢ §¤ ¥" .(±"« ¨«¥«© ¨§ ¢ ¦¢©§²¤ ,²"¦"±§ ³"² ¢³§ ©±§ ¤ ¥ ±² :(²³ ³²¥ ²±) ¥ ¡¢¢ ¥² ¨¢©§ ¨¢© ± ²«§¥ ¡°© ³¤ ¨¤ ,'¤ ±¢« ¥³²¢ ¦¢±² ¥¯ «¢²¥ .¡² ,±³ ¥¤ ¢ ¦¢°ª ¢¥ d / izpekyd aexird zenkqd

³¯¢ © ± ±²© ¢¥ ,± Â·Ï˘ [‡] ¨¢±¢« ¨°¢³² ¢³© ¢©¥ ±ª§¥ ‰ÚÂ·˜ ‰ÎÏ‰ ³¤± ¢©¢« ,³± ³±ª§ ³±¢¢« ¥° ¢³« ³ ¦² ³±« ¢³³¤ (à ¦¢±¢«¯ ³© ¦¢© £© ¥ ¦¢± ³©² £±« « ±¢« ¨¢ ±±¢ ¨¢ ¬«³ª§ £±« ¨ ¥² ¢ ¥«² «¢² ,"© § ¥° ±¢«¢" ª±¡©° "¥²³ ¯±²) ¥²¥ ,¦¢± ³²± ¨¢¥°± ¢¥ ¢³³¤ ,¦¢©¥ ¦"²³ ±² ³©² ¥ ³¤ (¥¢§ ¨¢ "§± © ¥"²±¤ ±¢§ ¥ "± ¦ª±§ ±¢«-¨°ª« ³²° :¥" ("¤ " ,©¢©³) ¢ «© ¢°¥¢ ¢±« ¦° «) ¥"¯ ¡±«¯±§ ¥¢¥ ¦¢± ¥ ¥ ±¢² §¯«¥ ±¢§ § ,©³¢« ³«² ¦ª±³© ª© ,( ³« ¥¤ ± §« ¢ ° ,±ª¢¥ ³±¥ ª© ,±ª§¢¥¢ ¥¤ ®© '¢² ¨¢ ¨¢© ¢§© ¢¤ .¥"¤« ,¨¢¥¢ ³©¢§ £©¢ ¨«§¥ ¦¢¤ ³«¤ .'¤ ,±§ .³©¢§ ¥¤ ± §« § ¢ ° ¥² ¦¢±¢«¯ ©¢³© ©¢© ¥² ±²¢ ¨¢±¢« ¨°¢³ ¥² ±ª§ ¦§ ¤³²³ ,¦¢± ³²± ¨¢² ±¢« ïåâëáå ," ¨¢±¢« '¥ ¦"§± ,"« ¨¢±¢«¤) ³±¢¢« ¢¥ ª"² ‰ÚÂ·˜ ‰ÎÏ‰‰ ¥ ¥ ¢"²±¤ "«"§¬ ,³°©¢³ ³ ¤²¥ ¥² ,£±« ¨ ¥² ,¦¢©²± ,¦"§± ,¢§¥²±¢ ¬±¡¯§ ¢©© .("¨¢ ³±§" ±¢« ¤²¥ ¦¢± ¥¢¯¥ ±¢« ¨°³¥ ÔÈ·ÈÈÁ „"È·‰˘ ¦¢°ª« ¥±²¢ ¢§¤ ¥¥ ¢²© ³ ¤¥ ¢±ª ¥¤ ²±§¤ ,¥²¤§§ ¦¢±¢« ³§ ¢³¢² ¨¢ © ¦¢¢°¥ ,ª² ,ª² ,§² " ,¡ ¯¢ ,ª , ¤ ¨¢±¢«) ¥¥¤ ,±"± ³±³ ¦ ¨¢² ³±¢¢« ©²§ ,²¢ ¨ .('¤ ª° §" ,¯² ³¤ ."¯¢ ²¡«¥ ©¢³©¤² "©«¥ ¦¢±¢« ©°³ '¤ ,±«¢ ,±± ¦"§±§ (¡"¥ '¢ª §" ©¢©³) ¢ «© ¨¢²² ³¯§ ¨¢°°§² ¥ ,¨¢±¢« ("ª° '¢ª §" ) £±« ¨ ¥² (¦¢©¤² ³¤¥) .¨§¯«¥ «¢¢ª¥ ¥¤ ³ ¨¢¤ ¨¢ ³¢ ¢ ¤¥ ,³§ ¢³¢² ³¯ ³¢¢²« "¦¢©¢ ¢¡±" ¦¢©³ ùéå .¨§ ¥¤ ¦°§ ¥¤ «© ¨¢¢« .³«¤ ¨¢© ¨¢ ,±¢« ² ("§¬) "±§ ± ²«§ ±ª ¡¢¥ ¥ ©¢± ¢°ª ¢¥ ã"ðòìå ±¢« '¢ ³² ²¢¥ ¥² © ¢ ,¦¢± ³²± ¨¢¥°±² ¨¤§ ¨¢ ¤ ±§ .²"¢¢« ,±²¤ ,Ï‡ÂÈ È¯·„‰ ˙ËÈ˘ "ª ±¢ ¨¥¥ ¤ ±§ ¢¤ ,¥¥¤ ±¢¯¥ ¨¤ ³±¥ ¨¢©« ,Ô¯‰‡ È·¯ ˙˘ÓÂ ,‰˘Ó ˙Â¯‚‡‰ .¢¢§ ¥ ³ ¥ª ¢¢ ¢¥ °± ¥ ,¦¢± ³²± ³±³ ¦¯«§ ¨¤ ±§) . .(¦¢«³ª§ ¦¢©¢ ¢¡±§ [·] Ï‡¯˘È· ‰‡¯Â‰ ‰Ë˘Ù˙ ,±ª ¥ ¢³©¡° ³« ¦«¡ ¡² ¦ (á ¨¢±¢« ¨°¢³ ¨¢² ±§¥ ±² "©«¥ (â ¨¢¢ ±§¢ §² :¦"§± ³¤ ¥ ¦"§± ¤¥ ¥¥¤ ª©¤© ³±¢¢« ¥¢) ¨¢¢¥ ¨¢ '¤ ³ ±¯¥ ¢¥ § ³¤¥) ¥±²¢ ³± ¡²³© ¥² ¨¢©«¤ ³± ÂÈÈÚ˘ § ¥ (¨¢ ³¢² ¨¡°¥ ,ÌÂ˜Ó ,‰È„Ó ‰È‰ ‡Ï ¢± ,(" ,¦¢±§§ ("¥°) ±³ - (" ¨¢±©ª ³¤¥) ³±¢¢« ,·Â¯ÈÚ ¯ÈÚ· Â˜È˙ ‡Ï˘ ,ÔÓÊ § ¥ ¨¢¢¥ ¥ ¨¢ : ¥« ¢"²± ³¤ zenkqd izpekyd aexird / c

,(£¥) ¦¢± ¦¤«± ³ ¦¤³ 'ª¥ '¦¢ ,³"¥¢² .°"¥ ("ª²³) "±ª§ ³"§ ³©² åéáà íòî ø"òðä úà á"øò êãáò éë øîàî íéðáä êåðéçå úåáà úøåñîå ~ úåøééòá ïéáåøéò ïå÷éú ïéðòá :íéðéðòä ïëåú

ÔÈ‡˘ ¯ÈÚ· ·Â¯ÈÚ Ô˜˙Ï „"È·‰ ÏÚ ÏËÂÓ˘ ,˙"Â˘‰ È¯ÙÒÂ ÍÂ¯Ú ÔÁÏ˘ ,ÌÈ˜ÒÂÙÂ Ò"˘· ‰ÚÂ·˜ ‰ÎÏ‰ (‡ .ÌÂÈ‰ „Ú ÔÎ ÌÈ‚‰Â˘˙Â·‰Â ÌÈ·‰ ÔÎ ÍÁÏ ˘ÈÂ ,¯"‰¯ ‰· .Ï‡¯˘È· Â˙‡¯Â‰ ‰Ë˘Ù˙ ‰˘ÚÓÏ ‰ÎÏ‰ ÔÈ·Â¯ÈÚ ÔÂ˜È˙ Ï˘ ‚‰Ó‰ (· .ÂÈÓÈ „ÚÂ Ï"ÊÁ ˙ÚÓ ,˙ÂÏÂ„‚ ˙Â¯ÈÈÚ· ÔÈ·Â¯ÈÚ Â˜È˙ ,ÔÓÊ ÏÎ· ,ÌÂ˜Ó ÏÎ· ,‰È„Ó ÏÎ· ˙˘Ó‰ ,Ï‡ÂÈ È¯·„‰ ,‰˘Ó ˙Â¯‚‡‰ ˙ËÈ˘ .¯"‰¯ ˙¯Â˙ ‰· ÔÈ‡˘ ¯Â„‰ ÈÏÂ„‚Ï Ï"Ò ÔÈÏ˜Â¯·Ï Ú‚Â·(‚ .Ô¯‰‡ È·¯ ˜"‰Â·‡ ˙¯ÂÒÓ ÈÙÏÂ ,ÂÏ˘ ÏÂ„‚‰ „"È·‰ ‡Â‰ Ú"Â˘‰ ."ÚÈ¯ÎÓ‰ ‡Â‰ ÍÂ¯Ú ÔÁÏ˘‰"˘ ‰ÎÏ‰ ˜ÒÙ („ .Ú"Â˘· ˘¯ÂÙÓ ˜ÒÙ ÏÚ ˜ÂÏÁÏ ÌÈÂ¯Á‡ ˙Â¯Â„· ÌÈÏÂ„‚ ÁÎ· ÔÈ‡ ˜"‰Â·¯Â .ÔÎ ‚‰˙‰Ï ¯ÂÒ‡Â ‰ÎÏ‰ ˜ÒÙ „Â·Î ÏÂÏÈÁ ÌÈÓ¯Â‚ ÌÈ¯¯Â·Ó ÌÈ‡Â ÌÈ„ÒÂÈÓ ÌÈ‡˘ ˙ÂÓÈ˙Á‰ (‰ ‡"È„ ÌÈÓ˘ ˙ÂÎÏÓ„ ‡È„ ¯Ó‡ ‰ÊÎ ÏÚ ,‰"¯È ‰È„Ó‰ ‡È˘ ÌÁÂÏ Ì‰ÈÏÚ˘ ÌÈ˘ÚÓ‰Î ‚‰˙‰Ï .‡È„ ‡Ú¯‡„ ‡˙ÂÎÏÓ„ ‡È„Â .ÌÂÈÒ (Â The following points are addressed in the subsequent teshuvah.

x It is an established halacha in Shas, Rishonim, and in the Shulchan Aruch that the local Bais Din is obligated to establish an eruv if there is no reshus harabbim (sources listed). In all countries and towns throughout the years eruvin were established. x The Shulchan Aruch is the Bais Din and constitution of Klal Yisroel (sources listed). x According to the Gedolei HaDor Brooklyn is not classified as a reshus harabbim. The opinions of Rav Moshe Feinstein, the Satmer Rebbe, and Rav Aharon Kotler regarding the basics of reshus harabbim (sources listed). x Destroying eruvin, preventing rabbanim from expressing their own opinions, and printing false signatures is against the Torah (sources listed). b / izpekyd aexird zenkqd

„"Ò· Grand Rabbi ˘ËÈÂÂ‡ È·‡¯ ·ÈÏ ‡„Â‰È ‰˘Ó Moishe L. Rabinovich of Munkach ˘Ë‡˜ÂÓ ˜"˜„·‡ 1417 - 49th Street ˜¯ÂÈ ÂÈ ,ÔÈÏ˜Â¯· Brooklyn, N. Y. 11219

"ª²³ ¥² ±ª¥ ' ²"¢ ¤© ¥«© ¦ª±§ ¨ ± ¢¢¢ ¤¥ ¥¥ ³ ¢¥« ¨¢±§ ¨¢ ³"¥¤² ²¢ "¡¢¥² øòðæàåå éåìä á÷òé ïåéö ïá ± ±"±§ ²§² ³¢ ¢ª©§ ¢¥ ¡² ®" " §« £¥ ,°"± '¢ «"¢ "²¤ ,« ¢³±¤© ,¡"¥«² «² ¢³¢ ±°¢ éøçà ¢³¤¥²¤² ,¥ ±§ ,²° ¨§ ³¯ ³¥¥ ¥"¯ °¢ ¨¤ ²"±§ ¥ ¥°§ ¢ ¥ ± ±¢ ¦¥« ±¢² ,«"¢ ²³ ¢¤± ¥« °" ¢ ¤¥ ¢ ¢© ¥°¥ . ¤¥ ,³¥¥ ¯¢ ¢© ,¢³±¤² ³« £ ,°"°³ ¥« ¢± ,³"¤«§ ³± "« ²¡«¥ ±¢« ¦¢°¥ ©¤² ¢©± ¢¥§ ¤² °± ¥« §« ïéðòá ¢«¥ ¦³ ³¤ ¥¤ ¥« ,± «¢¢ ¥§« ³±¥ ¦ ³§¤ ³±³ «¢°² ±² °¥ ¢±² ,¨¢±§ ' ¢±¢ ³±¥ ©¤¢ ¥±²¢ ¦² ±² ¥¤¥ ±§ ±²¤ ¨ ²«©² .¦°¥ ¢±² ¥«² ±³ ©§ °¢ ¦ ²° ³² ¨°¢³ ² §§ ® ¨¢±¢« ¨°¢³ åððîæá ¥"²"± ¥² ¦¢±© ¢± ³ ³¤§ ±¢¤² § ¦ ²« ¡ ¨¤¥ .¥" ³©°³ ¢§ ¥±²¢ ³«§ ¥¢¥ ³©¥ ,¦¢°¥ ³±³ ¥« ©¢³²© ±ª§¥ ¦¢¢¢ § © ©² ³¤² ±¢¤ ¨¤ .³ ¨¢³¢§§ ±§§ ¨°¥ ³ ¦¢© ¢ ²°§ ¨§² ,±¢« ³§ ¨°³¥ ¤«§² ¢± ²±§ ¨¤ .¥"± °±© ³©¢§ ,³§ ¨°³¥ ¥² °© ¥² ¢§² ®"²³ ¢± ¦² ©¢§² ±¢«¥ °± ±¢« ¨°¢³ ¥§ ¥² ¨¤² ¥¤) "¥ ° £¢¢² ¥ ±¢« ¨°¢³² ®"²³ ¦¢±² ¬ . ²§ " ± ¢± ¥¤ ¨°³§ "³¥ ¥ ³¤ ¥ (" ¦¢¥« ,¢§³ ¦¢¥« ± ¥ £¢±¯ ¦°§ ¥¤§ ,«"¢ ±«¥ ³ ©§ ¥« ±"§ " ¦¢ ¦¢§ª±§ .¦¥« « ©«± ¢§ ©¢§ ' ³±³ ¤³²³ ¥ " ² ±"§ " ³±§ ³ ±³¢ ¦¢¥« ¥° ³«² ²«§ ¢²© ¦¢¢ª "³§¤§éúòîùå ¢¥ ,¢± ±²¤ ±¢« ²¢² ¦°§ ³² ±¥ ³¯¥ ¥² ,«"¢ ±¤²²¢ ¢© ³¤ ¦¢²«² ²«± ±³©² ,±³¢ ³±¤¢© ¢± ³³¢§ ©± ¢¤ ,"¢¤ ³§ ¦ª¢¤ ¢² ,¥"± ¥°¥° ¥ ³² ¨°¢³ ©¢ ±¢« ¨°¢³² ¦¢³¤ ¦¢±§ ,±¢« ¦¢§ ¦©¢² .' ¦ ±¢ ,¥"± ¦§ ¬© ³©¢§ ¢±² § ¦² ² ¯² ³«§ ¦¢± ©¤ ©¤ ±³ ¥¢¥ ¢¥«§ ¥¤ ¢¥¯¢ ,¦¢± ' ³±«¥ ±² ¥« ¥« ' ¦¥²¢ ³ ¥¤ ìòå .¦¥« « ±¢¥ ,³¡ ²" ¢¢ Asȱaȱcommunityȱeruv,ȱweȱwelcome yourȱparticipationȱandȱsupport.ȱȱ Pleaseȱdirectȱallȱinquiriesȱto:ȱȱȱ ȱ VaadȱL’TikkunȱEruvinȱȱ ofȱGreaterȱFaltbushȱ 1080ȱMcDonaldȱAvenueȱ Unitȱ226ȱ Brooklyn,ȱNYȱ11230ȱ ȱ

ȱ vghruc

vafub,h

aekt uyrht cbuatho vkf,hho cbuatho uyrht aekt vbudgho kgbhbh ghruchi ccruekhi ghruchi kgbhbh vbudgho

cu do bfkk dha,u vnhujs, ak vnhujs, dha,u bfkk do cu vdtui vdsuk rch nav phhbayhhi zm"k phhbayhhi nav rch vdsuk vdtui

nf,cho uchrurho nf,cho

hu"k g"h hu"k ugs k,heui ghruchi k,heui ugs cafub, pkgycua rc,h pkgycua cafub, acy ,ax"v acy ȱ 28ȱ/ȱTHEȱCOMMUNITYȱERUVȱ SECTIONȱIȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ,”havzgc vghruc

vafub,h

aekt uyrht cbuatho vkf,hho cbuatho uyrht aekt vbudgho kgbhbh ghruchi ccruekhi ghruchi kgbhbh vbudgho

cu do bfkk dha,u vnhujs, ak vnhujs, dha,u bfkk do cu vdtui vdsuk rch nav phhbayhhi zm"k phhbayhhi nav rch vdsuk vdtui

hu"k g"h hu"k ugs k,heui ghruchi k,heui ugs cafub, pkgycua rc,h pkgycua cafub, acy ,ax"v acy