Posted to Communal Matters on

R’ Wosner: Saying Rebbe Opposed Eruv Is a Lie

Rabbi Bentzion Yaakov Wosner, Av Beis Din Shevet Halevi Monsey-Beit Shemesh, has come out with a second letter in support of the Crown Heights Eruv, laying down the Halachic basis for its validity, and going so far as to claim that “it’s impossible that the Lubavitcher Rebbe was opposed to the construction of an Eruv in Crown Heights, and that anyone who says so is being deceitful.”

A few weeks after the completion of the Crown Heights Eruv, during which several Rabbonim – including the members of the Crown Heights Beis Din, headed by Rabbi Avrohom Osdoboa, and Rosh Kollel Rabbi Yosef Heller – came out in fierce opposition to it, Rabbi Wosner released a letter in support of the authenticity of the Eruv and in defense of those who use it.

Following the release of that letter, two prominent Rabbonim – Rabbi Meir Weissmandl, Av Beis Din of Nitra Kehilah in Monsey, and Rabbi Leibel Zajac, director of Agudas Chasidei Chabad of Brazil – released harsh responses, castigating Rabbi Wosner for contradicting the ruling of the local Beis Din in their own jurisdiction.

In this second, more comprehensive letter, Rabbi Wosner elaborates on the Halachic sources that support the Eruv’s validity, and claims that the Lubavitcher Rebbe certainly would not have been opposed to its construction.

We present both the original Hebrew text of the letter, as well as a free translation.

[pdf-embedder url=”http://crownheights.info/assets/2016/07/DOC-20160727-WA0010.pdf”]

 

Free translation

Rabbi Benzion Y. Wosner

Rosh Beis Din Shevet Halevi Monsey – Beit Shemesh

With the help of G-d, 16 Tammuz (July 22), “Behold, I place before you My Covenant of Peace”, 5776 (2016)

Peace and great respect towards the Rabbis, The Torah Giants (May they live for many good years, amen), Community Leaders and all residents of Crown Heights (may G-d be with them).

Regarding the Eruv which was set up recently in your community, Crown Heights (built under the direction of a respected Rabbinical Court and supervised by The Rabbinic expert Rabbi David Aharon Tzubeli with other Rabbis), the Community is divided: some want it and are happy with the Eruv as it is, and some oppose it for various reasons. The two sides came to me, some in support of it, and some against. I, as is known, strongly side with its supporters, in line with Jewish Law.

Since then, it has become known to me that criminals have destroyed the Eruv, while nullifying the Eruv around the neighboring community as well. Besides the desecration of

G-d’s name and the holy Shabbos, they have committed theft and caused damage and distress to many, and in a manner that is impossible to [fully] rectify. Woe to us that such a thing happens in our days.

Since other Rabbis are not sufficiently addressing this issue, I find it necessary to speak my heart and mind, particularly to demonstrate and prove the mistaken stringency of those in opposition.

By way of preface, it has been more than 45 years since I had merited [to begin] a rabbinical apprenticeship with my father, the Baal Shevet Levi (may the memory of the righteous be for blessing). As is known, his decisions in Jewish Law were accepted by communities around the world. From him I observed and learned three essential [principles] in deciding Jewish Law:

▪ Do not deviate from the decisions in the Code of Jewish Law and that which has been established and practiced by the Jewish People, even to a hairsbreadth.

▪ Do not compromise in any matters relating to the Commandments of the Torah. Rabbis should bravely fulfill the directives of the Torah, “And do not be afraid of the face of any man”. And as the saying of King David peace be upon him, (Psalms 119) “And I will speak your statutes before kings and not be ashamed”.

▪ In addition, pursue compromise and peace with everyone to whatever degree possible; this is the approach of Torah Sages.

Since I have merited, with G-d’s help, to oversee the Kosher status of many Eruvin throughout the world, I consider it important and appropriate to lay out “general and foundational” words on the topic which are relevant to all Jews, and to Rabbis in particular.

In every generation there emerge individuals who are opposed to Eruv

The fact that there are some who oppose the Eruv, is nothing new. From the times of the early responsa on Jewish Law, pretty much in any place where an Eruv was set up, there would usually be found a handful of individuals who opposed its installation. This is a puzzling thing that we do not find by any other mitzvah of the Torah. In truth, all who are involved in this Mitzvah wonder why this is so.

The Depth [behind] King Solomon’s establishment of [the Mitzvah of] Eruv

There is a great light and importance in fulfilling the Mitzvah of Eruv. Because G-d created balanced oppositional forces in the world there is also a powerful opposition to it. For [the Mitzvah of] Eruv was established by King Solomon, the Father of Wisdom, as is stated in the Talmud (Shabbos 14b; Eruvin 21b). In my humble opinion, his primary intention was: since the [forbidden] Shabbos labor of carrying [in a public place] is a “unique labor” among the 39 [forbidden] labors, the [potential] to stumble in it is extremely common and likely. This is to such a degree that even those who are [otherwise] exemplary [can easily] stumble in it. As we learn clearly from the warning of Chananiah (Shabbos 12a) “one must examine his pockets before Shabbos”. Rav Yosef praised this, [calling it] “a major law for Shabbos”. Rashi explains that there is a major matter [at stake] here, “to distance people from transgressing a Shabbos prohibition”. This [forbidden] labor is common to the point that the Talmudic Sages deemed it necessary to convey an extreme warning, for even the best of intentions [can not fully ensure] that it will be avoided. The Chasam Sofer writes this clearly, (Orach Chaim chapt. 99). The reason is because it is a unique labor that is impossible to fully prevent through pre-Shabbos preparation (unlike trapping, building, writing, roasting and cooking etc.), for there is [very often] a need to carry on Shabbos itself. Therefore, Solomon used all his strength to seek a way to be lenient and to save the masses from sin. He examined and found with his great wisdom [a way] to allow carrying even from domain to domain and within alleyways; through installing Eruvin (according to the parameters spelled out in Jewish Law), which equalized big cities into private domains through partitions, doorway markers etc. This establishment caused such great joy on High and down below, that the Holy One, Blessed be He Himself, so to say, made known his agreement and joy via a Heavenly Voice (Bas Kol). “If My son is wise, My heart is exceedingly joyous”.

The benefits of Eruv generally and specifically

This joy [concerning the establishing of the Mitzvah of Eruv] applies to its use throughout history, even nowadays. There are three great benefits to it:

▪ Through Eruv people are prevented from transgressing the prohibition of carrying and transferring [from domain to domain] which is a frequent activity. (See below in the name of the Rosh and the Tashbatz; also in the writings of the Beis Yosef and the Bach in the Code of Jewish Law chapter 395).

▪ Eruv enables [fulfillment of the Mitzvah of having] enjoyment on Shabbos. As stated by the commentaries (Perisha on chapter 395), “It is a mitzvah to seek to install Eruvin… to bring enjoyment, in order to take walks or to carry food. And this is a mitzvah, as is stated, ‘…and call the Sabbath delight…’”.

▪ Eruv brings about increased peace between families, neighbors and friends. (See Tanchuma below, Rabbeinu Channanel {Eruvin 81a}, and the Chasam Sofer {Code of Jewish Law chapter 99}).

The bottom line is that there is a great light and importance in fulfilling the Mitzvah of Eruv. Commensurate to its importance there is also a powerful opposition to it. This is through the forces of negativity that arise in any given time and place to prevent its installation, often from behind a mask of piety and stringency. This is a general principle that can be observed by all mitzvos; when there is something great to be accomplished, there will be found opposition and obstruction in corresponding measure. (See Orach Chaim {Chukas, Tazria-Metzora})

One can observe that most opposition is based upon flawed logic, nondescript concerns or unsupported opinion. This opposition always causes suffering and quarreling within communities. As it was with Korach and his congregation, so it is in our time. They present a facade of zeal and piety, and concern for the holiness of Shabbos. Yet in truth, they act as agents of the forces of negativity, rebelling against the Torah of Moses, by disputing the words of the Sages as expounded in the Code of Jewish Law. Ultimately, they end up causing many Jews to violate Shabbos.

In order to apply a sense of order and equanimity between those supporting the Eruv and those against, it is necessary to preempt the objections to the Eruv, which generally fall in to one of three categories:

▪ Objections brought with support from the Code of Jewish Law and its commentaries.

▪ Objections with regard to what has been the customary practice.

▪ Objections based on other reasons and by inventing novel decrees. For the most part, these objectors, whether Torah Scholars or unlearned, are not experts in the Laws of Eruv. Nowadays this occurs very often in other areas of Jewish Law; these Rabbis [issuing decrees without expertise] are called “cleverly wicked” by the Sages of the Talmud. Once, when I was visiting Melbourne, Australia, I heard about events that involved the Chabad Community in Sydney and a heated controversy over the rebuilding of a old Mikvah (Ritual Bath). The question was whether to rebuild it according to a certain Chabad custom or not (with the water reservoir under the Bath or to the side of it). At the time the Rabbi of the community was my friend Rabbi Groner (may peace be upon him). For six months, as the controversy raged, he refused to share his opinion on the matter, until many demanded, “how can you remain silent?” One Shabbos morning, he stood at the lectern and said, “many are wondering about my silence on this controversy. I would like to ask, whomever among you who have learned the laws of Mikvah, and know the difference between having a water reservoir under the Bath or to the side of it, please raise your hands.” At this point, the room was quiet, and no one raised their hands. The Rabbi continued, “I will now share my opinion, but only on condition that whoever does not know the laws of Mikvah will remain quiet.” The same can be applied to our discussion: whomever is not an expert on the laws of Eruvin remain quiet, and not be “cleverly wicked”, in the words of the Sages.

Responses:

▪ Regarding objections brought with support from the Code of Jewish Law, for example, that there is a concern over a Public Domain [which could render the Eruv invalid]; that a certain road which passes through the area of the Eruv has all 5 conditions which would classify it as Public (as outlined in the Code of Jewish Law chapter 345). Or that someone observed that a certain pillar [that is part of the structure of the Eruv] is not pointing upwards properly, or is torn or is crooked etc. In all of these instances we are obliged to humbly listen to the objections and to clarify what the Code of Jewish Law indicates. If their observations were accurate, then each detail must be fixed according to Jewish Law.

There is no Public Domain nowadays

With regard to the objection which is commonly heard from the masses, who scream, “Public Domain, Public Domain, Public Domain [a designation with full legal strength] Scripturally” etc., anyone with a thorough familiarity of this law knows that this is complete ignorance. Because practically, nowadays there is no place on earth which can been classified as a true Public Domain, in which it is fulfilled all 5 conditions. As Reish Lakish says in the Jerusalem Talmud (Eruvin 8:8), “there is no Public Domain in this world or in this time.” Many early commentaries cite his approach and are lenient in this matter (the Rosh and Tosefos {Shabbos 64b}, Beis Yosef {chapter 303 et. al}, the Rema, the Taz, Magen Avroham {chapter 346 et. al}, and many others). This is even clearer when considering that there are many, many details that distance us from the Scriptural designation “Public Domain” which is exemplified by the camp of the Jewish People in the desert [in the time of Moses]. Particularly considering buildings and stores which can give large cities the designation “Private Domain” (Beis Ephraim, Chasam Sofer and other later commentaries). As the Chazon Ish writes, “… the conclusion: even large cities can be permitted [carrying] through making doorway markers.” He concludes, “this permission can be applied to the large cities of our times”.

2) Regarding objections with regard to customary practice:

If someone objects to making an Eruv due to the claim that it has been a custom not to make an Eruv in that place, we examine the source of this custom. As is stated in Tosefos (Bava Basra 2a), “There are

customs upon which we do not rely, even in those places where the Torah states that the Law goes according to the custom of the place.” Such is the case when one comes to prevent the installation of an Eruv based on the fact that there has not been one in that place before. Such a claim has no merit. There are many reasons why an Eruv has not yet been erected: 1) no one took the initiative to install it, 2) lack of funds, 3) neighbors objections, 4) opposition from the government or the municipality, 5) there was no one expert in the laws of Eruv present (as is known, there are very few who have mastered this area of expertise). If there is still a doubt, it is clear from many sources (the Talmud, the Rosh, the Tashbatz, the Chasam Sofer and many other later commentaries) that from the times of King Solomon until the era of the Talmud and beyond, it is the custom to make an Eruv in every city [as long as the government does not prevent it as is currently the case in many places].

3) Objections based on other reasons and by inventing novel decrees

Frankly, most of the objections to Eruv arise from reasoning not supported by Torah sources. Rather, they reflect reasoning and new decrees that are not authorized by our Torah tradition, the vast majority of which only reflect the feelings of individuals. For example, it happened once that my father was approached by certain zealous people who falsely claimed that Ocean Parkway [in Brooklyn] and Jabotinsky Street in Israel had 600,000 passersby every day. Based on this misinformation, he ruled strictly [to forbid Eruv construction]. As it turns out, there was not even close to that number of people per day. Nevertheless, they sought to forbid construction. The Eruv built in Chicago testifies to my father’s true perspective on the issue. These people were basing their convictions upon their personal feelings, not Torah learning. In truth, the general principle is that “the law is according to the lenient opinion with regard to Eruv.”

False Prophets

An additional point, since we observe that all the Sages of the Talmud, the Code of Jewish Law and its later commentaries speak about the tremendous obligation to actively seek [opportunities to install Eruvin]. Those who oppose it are plainly like “false prophets”, those who fraudulently speak in G-d’s name. The grave nature of such speech and its punishment is stated clearly in the Torah. The Rosh wrote concerning a certain Torah scholar who opposed Eruv that he be completely excommunicated, and that if this were the era of the Temple [in Jerusalem] he would be stoned as a Rebellious Elder, even though the scholar brought proof from the Talmud to accompany his reasoning.

New decrees disrespect and mock the Torah and the Sages

I have heard over the years many examples given as rationale for new decrees: 1) since nowadays people do not bring their dough to be baked in a communal oven, there is longer need for Eruv, 2) people will err regarding the boundaries of the Eruv, 3) perhaps the Eruv will become invalid on Shabbos, 4) people will come to carry even in places without Eruv, 5) people will play ball games on Shabbos, 6) people will ride bicycles on Shabbos, 7) the Eruv will cause men and women to mingle in the streets etc.

First of all, since the codification of the Talmud, we do not have the authority to create new Rabbinical decrees, as Maimonides and other commentaries confirm (among them the Rosh, who questions even the authority of the Geonim {Sages in the period directly after the Talmud}). Yet even more than this, we do not have the authority or permission even to suggest annulling a mitzvah, let alone to actually do so through new decrees. Such makes a mockery of King Solomon’s mandate, which was backed by the authority of the Torah and accepted by the Sages; as if they did not foresee and did not understand, from the beginning, that the Eruv would set up a stumbling block. A general principle has already been established in the Talmud, “the Torah did not instruct us in order to set up a stumbling block.” And the principle (the Ran {Nedarim 22a} in the name of the Jerusalem Talmud), “‘is it not enough for you what the Torah has forbidden,’ that you seek to add to it?” The bottom line is that we do not have permission to enact new decrees, rather we are commanded to do that which the Torah has instructed us. All the Sages of the Talmud, the Code of Jewish Law and the early commentaries, who guide our path until the coming of Moshiach, agree that we are required to set up [Eruvin]. All who scheme against them renounce many of the 13 Foundations of [Jewish Faith], “I believe…”, “that the Torah can not be exchanged…” etc.

The great importance of installing Eruvin in the view of Rabbinic Authorities

In order to remove any semblance of doubt that I may be exaggerating how important it is to install Eruvin, I will share a mere portion of the words of the great interpreters of Jewish Law on the subject. They are: the Rosh, the Tashbatz and the Chasam Sofer; from their words it is clear the degree to which this issue is held dear by the Jewish Sages.

Opinion of the Rosh

These are the words of the Rosh (principle 21), “In the days of our Teacher, my great-grandfather (may the memory of the righteous be for blessing), he had set up an Eruv for Jews to carry between their homes on Shabbos via the alleyways. One of his students came and forbade the Eruv using faulty logic. [My great-grandfather] wrote that the clear custom in most places to unify communities through Eruv, ‘is correct. This is the custom throughout the Diaspora.’ Do not think, ‘what will it matter if I rule strictly?’ On the contrary, ‘you will cause harm by preventing an Eruv…’”

The Rosh also writes,”I have already written regarding the topic of Eruv, that ‘it is the custom of Jews throughout the Diaspora to make allowances for streets that are shared with non-Jewish neighbors through the use of doorway markers.’ And, ‘you who forbid this are being rebellious and causing many to desecrate Shabbos… Unless you establish the Eruvin as I have outlined, I will be obligated to excommunicate you; if these were the days of the Great Rabbinical Court I would be obliged to apply capital punishment. For you will have come to ‘uproot the Talmud as compiled by Rav Ashi, and are quarreling with all the Great Sages from then until now.’ Repent, and do not renounce the Torah of Moses.”

Opinion of the Tashbatz

These are the words of the Tashbatz (sec. 2 topic 36), “If there is a concern that one transgressed in connection with installing Eruvin, G-d forbid, one can repent, still, ‘enthusiasm [in this mitzvah] is praiseworthy.’ Even more, regarding a Rabbi who could install an Eruv and does not… ‘Their heart is fearful,’ and are ‘simply ignorant or even touched with heresy.’ ‘It is a great merit to install Eruvin.’”

Opinion of the Chasam Sofer

These are the words of the Chasam Sofer (Orach Chaim chapt. 99), “I have been asked… to clarify the issue with quotes from our Sages, ‘It is fitting and proper for every Jewish community to build Eruvin…’ this issue does not need proofs and explanations, it is logical and clear from the words of our Sages. Great blessing is connected to the mitzvah of Eruv, in order to guard against inadvertent carrying which is truly impossible to completely prevent…”

Rabbi Chaim Vital writes (in Gates of Intention [on Shabbos]) concerning his teacher, the Arizal, that he would carry a prayerbook and prayer shawl on Shabbos morning to the ritual bath, without checking if the Eruv was kosher. This was also the custom of many of the righteous Jewish leaders, that they utilized the Eruv themselves, and made a point to do so publicly. So attest the Rosh, the Tashbatz, and the Chasam Sofer according to clear cases in the Talmud. Such was also the custom of the Bnei Yissachar, my teacher the Beis Yisroel, and my father the Baal Shevet Levi. My father sent me to Chicago in 1990 to erect and certify an Eruv. Besides from this he expressed his agreement and general stance concerning the importance of erecting Eruvin in his letters (Vol. 8 sec. 97). Also printed there is a letter I wrote (Ibid. 377b). I have heard that based on the principles laid out there, the Rabbinical leaders of Boro Park erected an outstanding Eruv which has been widely praised and benefits many, thank G-d.

Until this point I have written about Eruv issues of the past.   I will now address your particular case

The facts have been clearly established, neither you, your Rabbinical Court, or anyone else has the authority or the permission to forbid the construction of Eruvin. How much more so to forbid carrying in it, even a father to his son or a husband his wife (as is clear from Yoreh Deah chapt. 220). All who forbid erecting or carrying within an Eruv (as stated above in the name of the Tashbatz) are either ignorant or heretical. Basically, they are rebelling against the Torah of Moses; it is as if they would nullify another positive mitzvah like tefillin, tzitzis, the four species, etc. As is understood, the erecting of an Eruv requires a Torah Scholar who is expert in laws of Eruv in all its details. Such an expert erected it, and neither he nor the community needed special permission, or agreement from a Rabbi or Rabbinical court. Rather, all who rush to support it should be praised and rewarded with the great public merit.

When my father wrote in the introduction to his letter concerning the Chicago Eruv (vol. 8, sec. 177), that the issue of Eruv varies from place to place, his intention was not on the allowance to erect it (as he himself sent me to to erect the Eruv in the Greater Chicago Area), but rather on the details of its construction. One has to examine the particulars of the place to make sure all the details are constructed according to Jewish Law, for if even a single doorway marker is placed incorrectly, then the entire Eruv is invalid. But, to forbid the very act of erecting one at any given place, G-d forbid such a thing. As all the Rabbinic Authorities write, in particular the Chazon Ish, “even large cities…”

The view of the Lubavitcher Rebbe (may the memory of the righteous be for blessing)

I have not a shred of doubt that even your Great Rebbe, to whom all the treasures of Torah were revealed with utmost clarity, both its details and laws; G-d forbid to attribute to him a stance against the construction of Eruv, or that he instructed to forbid it in Crown Heights, this is not possible. One who says such a thing is being deceitful, is attributing nonsense words to his Rebbe, and is showing disrespect to a holy person.

Actually, I was recently sent many letters written by the Rebbe, which show that he was pleased and happy to support the construction of Eruvin. This is an obvious fact that needs no proof, for who would disagree with the Talmud and Code of Jewish Law and its commentaries; including the Alter Rebbe, author of the Rav’s Code of Jewish Law.

However, because of his respect for Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (may the memory of the righteous be for blessing), who ruled strictly on this issue, and in the spirit of peacefulness, the Rebbe remained cautious. However, since it has been revealed and publicized that R’ Moshe himself approved and supported the Eruv in Kew Garden Hills; and also wrote many times that one may not protest those who are lenient (as the Mishneh Berurah also wrote), from where comes the right to impose stringencies upon others? This has already been established by Rav in the Talmud (Beitzah 167b), regarding the Rabbi who was stringent with Eruvin, Rav said about him, “The first ruling of this Rabbi has been harmful.” Rashi explains, “Because he caused many to inadvertently transgress Shabbos by carrying.”

The beauty, the uprightness, the goodness of Lubavitch Chassidus

Besides the above, my beloved friends, honored Rabbis, it is a profound wonder to me that the community is at all unclear on this matter. It is known that you forever cleave to the direction of your Rebbe, to send emissaries afar to all corners of the globe; to strengthen the Jewish people, and to cause merit to our Jewish brothers by spreading Torah and Mitzvos. One must ask, how can it be that you treat your neighbors in Crown Heights in the exact opposite way? To keep the “Shabbos Queen” in the house, even to “trap” your neighbors and your Chassidim, precious mothers with babies and small children, including the old and infirm who are in need of an Eruv, to limit them to their homes. How can you prevent your neighbors from fulfilling the Mitzvos of the Torah and of the Sages? And what of the pleasure of Shabbos, and what do you expect of secular Jews in far away places, in particular when you hamper the enjoyment of Shabbos because you are unclear as to your Rebbe’s view?

I live in Monsey, and once emissaries of the Rabbis of your Crown Heights community, together with Chabad Chassidim from Monsey turned to me to oversee and certify the construction of a Ritual Bath in New City according to Chabad custom (with the water reservoir under the Bath). I responded that I am prepared to accept the responsibility on the condition that there also be a reservoir on the side of the bath, as has been the Jewish custom since the Torah was first given. The Rabbis replied that they wanted time to consider the matter. After a period of time, I received the answer of the elder Rabbis and the community. They had agreed to my condition, and they added that the Rebbe had instructed precisely such a compromise in many cities, even in the first place, in part as a way to avoid conflict between community members.

But, certain young people were against this compromise, and in the end they won out. “What the elders build, the young destroy.”

Such is exactly the situation with this Eruv issue, that they are the ones who lead the way in establishing law and custom. Woe to us that there is such a dynamic in our days.

Besides, you cause thousands of Crown Heights Community members, in particular the old and infirm, women, those celebrating special occasions, and the general populace to stumble and inadvertently transgress the Shabbos prohibition against carrying. The Talmud warns clearly that Eruv keeps the community from stumbling. And the Beis Yosef writes, “There is a great reason [behind Eruv], That no one should come to transgress by transferring domains.” There is particular emphasis in the words of the Chasam Sofer (see above), who informs us that in a place without an Eruv, “how is it possible that there are not many stumbling blocks?”

Warning of The Jewish Sages to antagonists

Who am I, and what is my right to presume to teach you? Nevertheless, it is because I truly care about you, and feel love for my fellow Jews with my heart and soul, that I sincerely seek only your peace and well-being, along with the honor of Shabbos. I humbly stand and request from you, without self-motivation, personal benefit nor honor, G-d forbid, do not try to be wiser than the Jewish Sages, particularly in this law. As the Talmud rules (Eruvin 46a) “The law goes according to the lenient view in Eruvin.” How much more so in our case where there is a widely known consensus of the Rabbis that all domains can Scripturally be considered Private Domains, and the Semi Public Domains (Karmelis) are from the Rabbis (as is written by the Rema (chapt. 346), the Taz (chapt. 345), the Magen Avrahom (Ibid.) {and there in the name of the Terumas Hadeshen who states that the view of most of the Rabbis is to be lenient})

Being that my entire purpose is only for the sake of heaven, I now come to warn against transgression especially those who scream in protest, and in particular the youths who destroyed the Eruv. Know you are transgressing, that you are playing with fire. Fear Divine Judgement and rebuke – “to cause the many to stumble,” like Yeravam ben Navat, and do not keep the community from fulfilling the mitzvah of Shabbos; in particular a mitzvah that we are commanded to “chase after.” Who is unmoved and undaunted by the Talmud’s warnings? As it states (Eruvin 21b), “Pay heed to the words of the Sages – more than to the words of Scripture.”; All who transgress the words of the Sages are deserving of death; One who mocks the words of the Sages is punished hereafter with boiling feces; In the words of the Mishnah (Ethics of our Fathers 2:16), “Be heedful of the embers of [the Sages] lest you be burned… for their hiss is the hiss of a serpent, and all their words are like fiery coals.”

These warnings are especially applicable to the Rabbinic mitzvah we are concerned with here; [as opposing Eruv] affects the community’s Shabbos observance, and negates the joy of G-d and man. This is particularly so nowadays, as evidenced by the widespread installation of Eruvin throughout the world among many Jewish communities; both in the Holy Land and in the Diaspora. Recently, even the community of Lakewood has erected Eruvin in many locales.

One door closes, another door opens

Cherished Rabbis, I know that it is difficult nowadays for a Rabbi to change his position and admit to the truth; even more, to publicly state, “I have been mistaken,” or, “I am retracting my ruling.” Yet Moses, our Teacher did so during the days of the dedication of the Tabernacle (Shimini). So did Beis Hillel, Rabbi Akiva, and many other Talmudic Sages (including Rav Nachman {Eruvin 16b} and his student Rava {Ibid. 104a, Chullin 56a, and Niddah 68a}), stand up publicly and say, “The words I have spoken were mistaken.”

This is what is proper, if you are men of truth, to stand up and publicly state, “I have been mistaken, I am retracting my ruling.” I know that this is unlikely to happen, yet I turn to you personally; are you not Rabbis who fear only G-d – and fulfill the dictates of the Code of Jewish Law, which is a lamp enlighten our path – undaunted by criticism and ridicule? Please take the time to privately examine the truth of my words, which are entirely and only the words of Torah, Jewish Law, which is the word of G-d.

I urge each and every one of you, separate yourselves from the convocation which is displeasing to G-d and harmful to man; bolstered by doubts and by foreign calculations not based upon traditional sources. Recall what happened (G-d have mercy) to the Great Rabbinical Court in the days of Shimon ben Shetach; when they failed to speak out and admit to the truth (Sanhedrin 19b).

I am for peace, but when I speak, they are for war

I will conclude with the words of the Jerusalem Talmud and the Midrash (Tanchuma {Noach chapt. 16}), “Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, ‘Eruv of courtyards was enacted solely for the sake of peace.’ How so? If a woman sends her son to deposit the Eruv and her neighbor is kind to him and kisses him, his mother will surely say to herself, ‘truly she must love him…’ and become fond of the woman… ‘Hence peace is achieved through the Eruv.’ The Holy One Blessed be He said, ‘I established peace in My world, but these wicked men arise to make conflict in it.’” Who are the wicked if not those against the Eruv, causing desecration of Shabbos and infighting. And who are they who make peace, if not the cherished rabbis who erect the Eruv and their supporters.

In my humble opinion, essentially, the erecting of Eruv causes greater Shabbos observance and enjoyment, as stated above. So too, there is no doubt that the Eruv also helps protect those who dwell within it both physically and spiritually. For there is no mitzvah in the Torah and the enactments of the Sages quite like the mitzvah of Eruv, which encompasses all the people who dwell in a city, along with their houses. It is a lamp of mitzvah and the illumination of Torah; light that encompasses and protects, a mitzvah that encompasses and protects.

And to those erecting the Eruv, its Rabbis and supporters, I say, “do not be faint of heart. For if those who cause destruction will repent, it will be because of you. Do not fear, do not be alarmed, be strong and strengthened… Hashem your G-d walks with you to save you. Each person should encourage his friend, and tell his brother, ‘be strong,’ for commensurate with the struggle is the reward. As the Sages said regarding Shabbos, ‘she has the ability to show compassion.’ And, ‘all who honor the Shabbos are given a boundless inheritance.’ This especially applies to you who are the ‘preservers of the [Eruv] boundary,’ measure for measure. Shabbos will most definitely will show you compassion and protect you now and in the times ahead. Amen, may it be G-d’s will.

So are the words of your friend, who seeks your welfare and the welfare of the Jewish people, Benzion Yaakov HaLevi son of The Rav Shmuel Wosner, the Baal Shevet Levi, May the memory of the righteous be for blessing.

Related Articles

124 Comments

  • Deceitful???

    In addition to the chutzpah of calling every Lubavitch Rov deceitful, I think the biggest deceit is claiming both sides cane running to HIM for his opinion.

  • What a low-life

    To say such lies and mask it falsely behind ‘torah’.
    I guess this is the only ‘rav’ the eruv ppl were able to bribe well enuf to say as they dictate.
    And if anyone believes him , go move to his neighborhood

    • how dare you!

      we both know that the rebbe wasn’t against the eruv on the grounds of hallacha. the rebbe had his own separate reasons for his opposition to an eruv in a large city. therefore, if an eruv does exist in a city, rather than falsely crying how the eruv is pasul, just don’t use it!
      this rabbi is a practicing rav and massive talmid chacham and he said the eruv is kosher — and rightfully so. and to accuse him of a biblical prohibition (accepting bribes) is extremely disrespectful and just makes you sound stupid. (read what the gemara says about those who disrespect talmidey chachamim…)

    • what?

      Bh

      We both know, that the rebbe’s issues were not halachik? I do not know that. As far as I know the rebbe said not to make a berocho on the eruv chatzeirois in manhattan, and the rebbe said that a frum jew should not really on the Eruv because of halachik issues.

      In general this statement must be said to any person who makes this false claim:
      Anybody who says the rebbe’s issues were not halachik, is either ignorant and has not gone through all the letters in regards to manhattan (including the letters written to the rebbe, to which he responded), or does not know how to learn, or is a straight outright liar.

      This includes millhouse, who in general states tons of things, without any basis, and then claims that it is the rabbonim who do not know what they are talking about.

  • Levi Reiter writes:

    Really?

    You know better about the Rebbe’s position on an Eruv in Crown Heights than Reb Yoel Kahn?

    How humble of you.

    • Talmid Chochom

      Rabbi Zinner built eruvim and always consulted and got the rebbes brochos including the rebbe contributing $18 towards Los Angeles Eruv..

      Rabbi Zinner agrees with Rabbi Wosner opinion and is the biggest expert on this topic.

      if Reb Yoel said something about this topic lets see the proof and details, so far its just propaganda of anti eruv

    • Yehuda

      Reb Yoel is a fallible human and the Rebbe was not clear about Eiruv as well as chilul shabbos in crown heights when it comes to farbrengen, i was Whitness.

      As well as Tzniyus

  • to shameless

    what a piece of garbage this so called rabbi is
    a must to check him out how “kosher” he is
    genug is genug
    in satmar he wouldn’t last long!

  • Chabad citizen

    Thanks rabbi wosner! To number one he was actually given all the rebbe letters regarding eruv contrary to reb yoel who was approached by anti eruv kabal and given selective letters

    • mz

      Reb Yoel wasn’t “given selective letters” he’s well versed in ALL of the Rebbe’s letters!

    • Pedant

      Reb Yoel knows what’s in igros better than those who approached him. You would know that if you were ever ‘chabad’ enough to have sought him out to learn something from him. Do what you wan’t but stop pretending you care about what the Rebbe wants.

    • Huh?!!

      What?!? And who exactly gave vosner the letters that the Rebbe talks about Eiruv?
      Then you write “unlike R’ Yoel” if I have explain you who Yoel Kahn is then there is no point in having a discussion.

    • Milhouse

      No, it’s quite apparent that he was only shown the pro-eruv letters, and can’t believe the anti-eruv letters exist. The fact is that the Rebbe had no halachic problems with an eruv anywhere in the world, but foresaw that building them would lead to problems that in his view outweighed the undoubted benefits.

    • to millhouse

      You are as usual wrong millhouse, the rebbe did have halachik issues.

    • Vos haks du

      What are u talking about?
      Reb yoel knows a lot more about the Rebbe letter then a non Chabad ROC in money
      Y
      He didn’t even quote a letter

  • confused

    Who is this Rabbi Bentzion Yaakov Wosner and who gave him smicha and shimush? And who asked for his opinion?

    • Milhouse

      Um, his smicha and shimush are from his father, the Shevet Halevi, one of the biggest poskim of our time. There are legitimate criticisms to be made of him, but that’s not one of them.

    • Chaim

      His reliability is very much in doubt.

      His opinions are questionable at best.

    • ha

      Oh right, when exactly did he become the posek hador? (A tzadik we certainly know he certainly is not)

  • Kahanovitch

    He has no business meddling with the Rebbe and chabad dayanim. Bottom line is we have our Poskim. The Rebbe is heads and shoulders above everyone and said no so leave it as such and find a way to enjoy shabos without it.

  • Cmon

    Why does crownheights.info do such a disservice to crown heights and gives this guy the time and day,and prints his stuff,
    Beyond my understanding,
    if rsbbis heller,osdoba ,schwei and yoel kahn opposed and we hear from them as well as from rabbi groner the rebbes position y is this continuing??

    • rsbbis

      did you ever get the concept of free speech ?
      the days of dictatorship and center Cabal ruling the people are over

  • To chabad- citizen...

    Ur honestly going to believe that this ignorant outsider knows better than the rebbes chassidim that spent yrs at his side?
    Or is it just about what u want to believe, and doesn’t matter who says it?

  • To be sure, this is a Pashkvil, not a Psak

    And not one of the more convincing ones…

  • Yitzchak Mordechai

    To comment #4, y do u say he wouldn’t last long in Satmar, Rav Wosner from Bnei Brak was very much respected by Satmar both in Wb (Williamsburg) & KY (Kiryas Yoel) so I really don’t get what u mean “In Satmar he wouldn’t last long” Y not, plz explain, Thank u

    • Anonymous

      This is not Rav Wosner from Bnei Brak, it’s his son.
      This Rav Wosner, isn’t very liked in any place, that’s why he keeps on moving from one place to another, in Monsey no one looked at his direction.
      And yes, if ANYONE – even the most respectful Rov – would come out and Pasken something which is believed by satmar to be against what their Rebbe said, he wouldn’t last long…

  • Yankel Todres

    Disgusting! He comes from another community and condescendingly tells us what our Rebbe must have said (as he believes he’s greater than the Rebbe and so can tell him exactly what to say). Than he goes on to tell us (the residents of the Rebbe’s community) not to listen to our Rebbe anyway, but to him! May the Al-Mighty bless and keep him – far away from us.

  • this zakein mamrei!

    High time to expose this rabbi’s “kashrus”
    c’mon fellows get to work

  • שטיק טינופת

    מחוצף שאין כמוהו
    מצוה לפרסם ערותו

  • Dayan

    His words are 90% correct.
    The Rabbonim should retract their statement that whoever uses the Eiruv is a Mechalel Shabbos CH”V.
    Instead, they should encourage Chassidim to take an approach of Prishus. Remember, the Rebbe did not storm against it. Even the Mishna Bruro, who rules against the Alter Rebbe and considers the Rambam’s opinion Ikkar, writes not to protest.
    The problem is no one bothered showing Rabbi Wosner the Rebbe’s letters stating that (although constructing and Eiruv is excellent, nevertheless) it would be better to refrain using it (or that the construction should be done secretly, not to be used). If he was shown this, he would have written slightly differently.

    • Larry

      The Rebbe did not storm against it .could you please clarify what they say that the Rebbe said you could not even make one in an area like his this. ‏as far as I am understanding from all this it’s not the issue if we hold buy it or not the question is if one could be made to begin with such a big area and still be kosher the Rebbe said not

    • not understood.

      Bh
      This is guy is not even 10% right, and you claim he is 90% right?
      The Rabbonim are in no need to retract their position, just because some guy, decided they have to, they are perfectly able to come to their halachik positions on their own.
      It is not clear which mishne beruro goes against the alter rebbe (I mean there are many in general in the full gamut of halocho, but are you talking about in regards to this issue), or what you are talking about.
      In addition the mishne beruro says the clearly that it is dependent on 600,000 people per city and not per the street. So again it seems like you are not really sure, you know what you are talking about.
      In addition the rebbe said, that the reason that he wanted it to be secret is, because he felt that there were halachik problems, plain and simple.

  • YMSP

    Reb Yoel brought sources from the Rebbe’s letters stating the Rebbe’s opposition. Is Rabbi Zajac (known by all as one of the most honest people around, even by those who disagree on issues)’s letter saying that Wosner’s father was almost in tears regarding his son’s lax actions regarding geirus also a “lie,” ch”v?

    If some misnaged wants to state his opinion, he’s free to do so (though it should be noted that Benzion Wosner makes his most of his money setting up and monitoring eruvin). But when he states what “the Rebbe’s opinion is,” hepech the Rebbe’s instructions and even letters, it becomes a sick joke.

  • He who slanders...

    Interesting. He writes that anyone who opposes a city eruv is in the category of apikores and min, especially if based on hashkafic reasons. and therefore it’s impossible that the Rebbe opposed making a eruv.

    Perhaps he forgets that the Rebbe opposed – in writing – an eruv in large cities (also) for hashkafic reasons. And Rabbi moshe feinstein oppsed an eruv in large cities. As did rabbi aaron kotler and rabbi elyashiv. Were they all chas veshalom apikorsim, or perhaps he is the apikores? (see encyclopedia talmudis erech apikores that anyone who slanders a talmid chochom is himself an apikores.

    Reading his letter in the original hebrew (didnt read the translation), you get the uncomfortable feeling that this guy is a little too sure of himself.

  • Rambling

    The letter seems to ramble. He also seems to admit that his father forbadean eruv when there are 600,000 people passing by in a day. While I never counted, it seems intuitive that well more than 600,000 people travel on Eastern Parkway on an average day. Especially if you include in the count all those on the 3 and 4 trains that run along Eastern Parkway.

    • Milhouse

      There are not even close to 600,000 people passing by daily on Eastern Parkway. Not even 100,000. Of course people passing along underground don’t count unless they get out on Eastern Parkway, and most poskim hold that people in cars also don’t count. But even counting them you don’t get close to 600,000.

      In any case, Brooklyn has walls around three sides, so there is no question that mid’oraisa it’s a reshus hayochid.

    • to millhouse

      Btw when did you calculate, the amount of people counting not only those who drive along the street, but those who cross (drive) over? Meaning someone going for instance from president to Lincoln. Of course mister eruv online decided that, that does not count, but we are now talking honesty sake (not something you or him are known for).
      When you count all that, then we shall talk about 600,000.
      In addition to say that most poskim do not count cars, is a lie. And as reb msohe writes is ludicrous. In any event, many many poskim discuss cars and clearly include him (See BTW the shevet halevi in orach hachaim nun gimmel, where he deals with those who make up that the maharsham would not count cars).
      In regards to three mechitzos, it is clear that you can’t decide that it is a clear thing, when this was one of the furious discussions (if you know how to read Hebrew I suggest you look at the or yisroel’s from the tof shin samach). That is addition to the alter rebbe having a problem with a pirtzo yeser mi’eser (unlike mister eruv online’s lies)

  • Rambling

    The letter seems to ramble. He also seems to admit that his father forbade an eruv when there are 600,000 people passing by in a day. While I never counted, it seems intuitive that well more than 600,000 people travel on Eastern Parkway on an average day. Especially if you include in the count all those on the 3 and 4 trains that run along Eastern Parkway.

  • he has to be a fool

    anyone dumb enough to mix into a schuna that is not his – right in the middle of a heated situation has to be a fool.
    He may be a rav and he may know how to learn but
    there is no smicha for the fifth shulchan aruch,you either have it or you don’t.

    • Pedant

      He is not the fool. He is a rosho.

      We are the fools.

      We are fools because we give this creature a voice, this creature, a notorious psak for hire, a charlatan responsible for countless fake yidden to spurn us for generations, a blight on his family name, a man who’s knows nothing and cares even less for the Rebbe’s inyonim, a creature with the chuzpa of a dog to bark at the choizer, vehamazkir, vehar moirah desasra — afra lepumei, and we give this creature space on our websites.

      We are the fools.

      He and his handlers need to crawl back down that hole they teemed out from, or least we need to have the self-respect to let this creature and his ilk bark at the moon without us.

  • Anonymous

    I dont have time to read this whole article, however, I am a young mother who lives in a place that has an unreliable eruv. I think that only people who are not disabled or bound to stay home because they have young children should really comment on the topic of eruv. It pains me to see the divide on this topic- and that chabad shluchim use this to their defense when they dont build eruvs for their community. I am not modern by any means, i do what the Rebbe would expect for his chassidim, but emotionally, and as a BT who did not grow up being stuck inside, I just must have a GOOD reliable eruv wherever I live. I am not “nusac ari” “chabad light” “modern chabad” whatever you want to call it. I wear a sheitel and dress tznuis always..I am tired of eruv being grouped in the same category as this…I hope at least one person reading this can become a little more sensitive and stop judging

  • To #5

    The Rebbe wasn’t against an Eruv. The Rebbe was against an Eruv in CH because it’s a rishus harabim. Rabbi Wosner could have all the Rebbe’s letters and Rabbi Kahn could have none, but a halacha is a halacha, plus Rabbi Kahn was very close to the Rebbe and would understand the Rebbe’s response to someone better than Rabbi Wosner could.

    • Milhouse

      The Rebbe did not write or hint anywhere that CH is a reshus horabim. It clearly is not; even if it fulfilled all the other criteria (which it doesn’t) it would still be a reshus hayochid d’oraisa because of the walls around Brooklyn.

    • to millhouse

      The rebbe did take it as a given that manhattan has an inherent nature of a reshus horabim, if not for certain things that can change that. Even then the rebbe was not sure it even helps, so why do you even claim the rebbe did not hint to anything?

    • Chaim Shapiro

      The rebbe was always in opinion to support a eruv… anybody that says otherwise is lying in the rebbe’s name

  • Rebbe's letter

    בכ”ז ברור לדעתי מוחלטת ותקיפה – שאין להדפיס, וגם לא לפרסם באופן אחר, שגמר הענין ותקן העירוב

    אגרות קודש חט”ז – ו’פד

  • @CHinfo editor

    Please don’t be a forum for this man’s trash. Many fools will read it and fall for his lies.
    By printing his you could CV”s encourage Hillul Shabbos.

    • Milhouse

      There is no question of chilul shabbos. Certainly mid’oraisa, but according to the vast majority of poskim even midrabonon. The only questions are of chumrah, hiddur, and public policy.

  • anon

    Bh

    I have recently seen the new letter from bentzion vosner.this author has recently had family circumstances which do not allow him too much time to put forth a professional piece, but in truth this shoddy letter from this individual does not deserve that much either.

    What I will try to do is the following, I will try to point out but a few points, which will show that this man while writing so sharp, has just no standing with which to write in the first place.

    There is a central theme that should be noted, there were many great talmidei chachomim over the decades who had great beki’us, but totally misused it, to distort things out of their context to further their own nasty agenda. This guy fits the bill very well. Naftali tzvi hertz wesseley was also a massive talmid chochom.

    The first point that should be noted is this:

    He claims to have worked with his father, however his father writes clearly in a teshuvo, that were a place to have 600,000 then it is a reshus harabim and one cannot make an eruv, he also writes there about Brooklyn that one can’t rely on an eruv there.

    Now here is the question: if he was so close to his father and really claims to follow in his path, how is it that he is claiming that his father’s opinion is one that is so so wrong, and is in cohoots with the soton?

    Then there is another point: he keeps on reminding us about his father teshuvo to him on Chicago.

    However anybody who reads the teshuvo will realize how incomprehensible the whole thing is:

    His father clearly states that the only reason he permitted it was because he was told by his son that in the city of Chicago there are only about 100,000 people and 3oo cars. This means two things a. the son lied to the father. And b. the father clearly says that when there are 600,000 that we can no longer make an eruv there. He actually says it a few times in the teshuvo.

    So vosner should be careful in referring to a letter that works against him.

    Also in his fathers teshuvo on Chicago, it seems like he is not completely ready to accept the chazon ish’s chidushim, but in the meantime if we do not accept it, then we are apikorsim gemurim, that is kind and sweet.

    Since he mentions his won teshuvo it does not hurt referring to a few things he wrote in his bombastic teshuvo he printed in regards to Chicago (this is only a few things).

    He admits in his teshuvo, that sechirus reshus at least does not help for the houses itself, and therefore no one should carry at all in the bouldings or courtyards with goyim (unless it has a separate sechirus reshus). In truth this is a separate issue, which has to be delat with at its time, but ddid our holy eruv guys even bring this up.

    Another thing is: that here we see a typical example where he will pick certain sources but will omit the same ahthors when it does not suit him. He will quote the alter rebbe’s opinion on osi rabim uimevatel mechitzo, but then will conveniently forget that the alter rebbe holds that we have a serious problem with rivers being a mechitzo.

    He also poo poo’s the issue of karfif, something that bothers the rebbe a lot in his letters.

    Another thing that should be pointed out is: that he admits that lechatchilo elevated trains lines should not be relied upon as mechitzois (this author contends it should not be relied upon be’dieved, but even according to him he admits it is not the best thing) So why are our eruv people not admitting it,?

    The last thing I will point out is: that if anybody is scared at the language of this boor, let him see what he writes about reb moshe and then we will see it is nothing to be afraid of, he did it before.

    These are a few small things for now.

    Here are some quotes from his father and him.

    Father:

    שו”ת שבט הלוי חלק ה סימן נג

    זה כמה שקבלתי מכתבו הארוך מו”מ בענין האיסור שלא לערב חלקים מעיר הגדולה ניו יורק ומחמת קוצר זמני לא באתי לידי תשובה עד היום שאני יושב בחו”ל זמן קצר ומעיין בכתבים ובמכתבים הנה עיקר דבריו במה שמשיב להה”ג ר”מ קליין כנים ואמיתים, וגם אנכי עני בדעה שאסור לערב כדעת הגאונים הצדיקים של שם.

    רק אחת אעיר בדבריו במה שהעיר הר”מ קליין דכיון דרוב העוברים בר”ה עוברים ע”י קארס והקאר עצמו רה”י א”כ אינם גורמים בקיעת ר”ה, וכ”ת דחה בצדק וכאשר דחה בפשיטות הרג”מ פיינשטיין שליט”א,

    It seems like his father works in conjunction with the sitro acharo.

    And here is the teshuvo on Chicago.

    So we see here who gave the father the info on Chicago:

    שו”ת שבט הלוי חלק ח סימן צז

    ותשובתי ברורה היתה אינו דומה שמיעה לראי’ ובקשתי מכבוד בני הרב הגאון המוסמך ר’ בנציון יעקב שליט”א רב ור”מ במונסי, לבקר שם ולראות במו עיניו במה הענין מדבר.

    And then he says what his son showed him:

    שו”ת שבט הלוי חלק ח סימן צז

    ולאחר עיונו היטב שם, ולאחר שקבלתי כל המפות מהשטח, בצירוף ידיעות מן העירי’ שם, ולאחר שראיתי גם מפה מדוקדקת שנעשית בצלום מן האויר אשר ניכר עליו כל דבר, אחרי כל זה ראיתי כי המדובר בשטח קטן באופן יחסי שגרים בה בערך מאת אלף איש, ויכול לבא ע”י עוברים ושבים עד כדי שלש מאות איש עם המכוניות וכו’

    And this:

    וכאמור למעלה המדובר בשטח קטן מן העיר, המוקף ג’ מחיצות ויותר מחיצות דאורייתא, וגרים בה כמאה אלף תושבים

    Very very strange indeed.

    In any event anybody who reads the teshuvo will see that there is the implication, that had there been in the city 600,000 people, that there would have been a serious problem.

    Now for a quotable quote from our great goen oilom veposek hadoir:

    שו”ת שבט הלוי חלק ח סימן קעז (ב)

    והאומנם ראינו בדברי הגאון הגדול מהר”ם פיינשטיין זצ”ל שכ’ בתשובתו (אג”מ ח”א סי’ קל”ט) כמה פקפוקים בכל תנאי זה דמכוונים, אבל כבר ידוע בבי מדרשא דתשו’ זו לית נגר ובר נגר דיפרקיניה ויבין דבריו, ובפרט מה שמשיג שם על כמה מגדולי הראשונים והאחרונים, שפירשו דבריהם היטב עפ”י פשטות דברי הש”ס, ולא זכינו לירד לסוף דעתו וכונתו שם, וצע”ג

    Now to deal with a few things from this rambling letter.

    As said above, the author does not have time to write a professionalio letter here, and as such this shall not be systematic.

    To start off with.

    This man pulls out the apikorsus card. The thing is: if I hold of the taz’s interpretation of things over the shach, I am not an apikores, as I am not denying the torah, rather I am going a according to a certain opinion in torah. No one denies that an eruv exists theoretically in certain cases, the question is in which cases. For someone to just call anybody who disagrees with him, in a legitimate arguement an apikorus, it just shows he is an irrational person who cares not for the objective truth, of what the torah actually says.

    So too, we have to understand that we are calling apikorsim some of the greatest poskim over the centuries including the last one. At that stage it becomes ludicrous.

    And here it is also important to point out, that when he claims that different opposition to the eruv is the work of the sitro achro he loses all credibility. Take for the example the mishkenois Yaakov: even if we do not follow him halocho le’maaseh, but to claim that he worked in cohoots with the soton, is plain outright cracked.

    In addition he claims that all the people opposing the eruv are am ahratzim who do not know hilchos eruvin (of course bringing up a story which sounds weird at best about rabbi groner from Melbourne, in regards to the mikvo there (it is weird because rabbi groner was intimately involved in the building of the mivo there). In addition we know what rabbi groners opinion in regards to eruvin were.

    In addition he makes the bizarre claim (which we will deal with soon) that basically there is no such a thing as a reshus harobim today and it can’t be.

    So he wants to say that all those who opposed the eruvin bichlal in the last century in certain places are am haratzim. This will include all of the chushuve names against the st. luis eruv the lower east side eruv and the manhattan eruv and yes the Brooklyn eruv. Many of them were top poskim of their time, to call them am haratzim is kind of funny. More so even the sherpser rov who mattered the lower east side eruv, assered the st luis one. And he himself wrote that 600,000 per city is a problem, he dealt with it, with other ways, which may or may not apply to Brooklyn. You will tell us he was also the sitro achro.

    For a final point let us hear what the maharsham said in his final letter on the lower east side eruv:

    Concerning my response regarding the eruv in New York, at the time I believed Rabbi Yehoshua Seigel, who signed his name as the Rav Ha-Kollel, and all the diagrams of New York that he sent me. Later, I received letters from several rabbis which contradicted his diagrams and explained that he was not the Rav Ha-Kollel and that many rabbis oppose his eruv….Therefore, I fear God and I retract my approbation in which I allowed carrying in this one part of New York City.‖

    We see from here the following: that if the facts would dictate this or that, then we can and will call it a reshus horabim. To say one opposing it is an am horetz or working for the sitro achro or that it can’t be, is stam narishkaiten.

    I am not sure who is the novi sheker here.

    There is one thing we have to point out: that he quotes certain rishoinim who were adamant to put up an eruv in this or that place, what he does not hint to us is this: that the actual cases in those teshuvois have nothing to do with the price of sheese in china of the case in Brooklyn or other places.

    Then he claims in the end of his letter, that others should give in and admit their mistake. Why should anybody admit their mistake, when the writer seems to be off the wall?

    In regards to his harsh words on the some of the practical or sociological reasons as why not to make an eruv (or why we do not need it today), it should be noted, that all of these reasons were brought up by gedolei yisroel including reb moshe rav henkin and the rebbe (As well as others). He ought to use a bit more of a humble tone when addressing their issue. In any event it is not clear why any lubavitcher should take his words over the rebbe’s (afro lepumo).

    Another thing is this: he brings up the great importance in making the eruv because of oneg Shabbos, so let us get a few things clear here.

    It should be noted the following:

    Among the great poskim of the previous generations: there seemed to be two ways how to go about the need to make an eruv. Many poskim like the avnei nezer and re tzvi pesach frank held one should make one only to hold back chilul Shabbos from those that carry anyways. Some a path clearly precludes the reliance on such an eruv by any frum jew. Others brought up oneg Shabbos.

    The rebbe in his letters does not make a hint of the issue of oneg Shabbos, on the contrary, he says the main merit of putting up the eruv is clearly for those who are transgressing Shabbos anyways, on the contrary the rebbe says that because of halochik issues any frum jew should not be made aware of the possibility to rely on such a hetter.

    It is clear that the issue of oneg Shabbos brought up by the perish is about eruvei chatzeirois and not out mechitzois.

    So again this guy screams and shouts, but goes against the poskim and mainly our rebbe.

    Another point: rav henkin wrote:

    “today there is no one rabbi over a city. Even if you have a committee of Rabbonim organizing an Eruv, if they are the minority Rabbis of that city, any Eruv constructed, so long as it does not have written approval of a majority of the Rabbonim in the city, can only be used in extreme cases.”

    And this guy is saying we must rely on it lechatchilo and everybody must allow its use? (this has nothing to do with Brooklyn only mahattan which had its unique issues).

    What is funny is, that this guy thinks that he is the one promoting peace when the opposite is true, to quote Rav Yonoson Shteif (one of the organizers of the Eruv in Manhattan),

    “In the Talmud Yerushalmi it is written ‘why did Shlomo Hamelech prescribe the Laws of Eruvim?’ The Gemoroh replies, ‘to bring peace’. The Korbon Eidah comments that it brings people together and they will proceed to talk to one another”. Rabbi Shteif concludes, “But if one was to make an Eruv in a city which will cause friction and create a rift in the community, then by constructing the Eruv you are achieving the direct opposite of what Shlomoh Hamelech wished to achieve.” Rabbi Shteif resigned from direct involvement with the Eruv in Manhattan when he realized that this was the course that was being followed.

    May vosner try to take heed of this, instead of being so high and mighty.

    Now in regards to the issue of shlomo hamelech making an eruv. I would never want to bring it up, as many other gedolei yisroel bring it up (in their cases). But since he makes a whole stink out of it, it must be pointed out, shlomo hamelech never made this eruv. It is not clear what vosner is talking about. He instituted eruvei chatzeirois, nothing to do with tzuras hapesach he wants us to use here in brooklyn and for sure nothing to do with how to deal with a place with 600,000 people. This guy is dreaming. This is kind of ridiculous.

    Then he says that when it comes to eruvin we all have to follow those that are lenient because of the Halachic axiom, Halacha Kedivrei Hameikal B‘Eruvin “Leniency is the rule with the laws of Eruvin”.

    The problem with all those that bring this up is, that this is not black and white as they make it.

    There are so many opinions in the rishoinim, that we have to mamash stretch this out to say what he claims: a.. many rishoinim say this only applies to a case where the poskim are split and not in case with rabim and miut, then

    b. there are rishoinim who say that we do not even say this applies to eruvei chatzeirois rather only to eruvei techumim.

    Fine most learn it in regards to eruvei chatzeirois, but c. most say it only has to do with eruvei chatzeirois and has nothing to do with mechitzois and certainly not a tzuras hapesach (see Rivash resp. 405, Rosh second chapter of Eruvin, 4, Ritvo page 89a S.V. veho detnan. Rashbo 80b. In fact the Talmud Yerushalmi quotes Shmuel as saying we are lenient regarding questions over Eruvin but not regarding mechitzos (Eruvin 2a) Ma’are Ponim ad loc. states that the Rambam, Rif and most poskim favour this opinion, Maharam psokim number 43, 44, yad malachi number 184. 2. Mordechai: Eruvin 482).

    d. however even if we will go according to the rishoinim that say that it applies to our type of mechitzois also, one still has to see. As many poskim say this is only in regards to a machlokes hatano’im some apply to amoiroim and some even stretch it to rishoinim.

    However when it comes to achroinim already it is utterly ridiculous to invoke this halocho. No one today, may liberally use the expression Halacha Kedivrei Hameikel B’Eruvin without first investigating whether or not it is appropriate.

    Now to some of his other claims:

    He claims that there is no such a thing as a reshus harabim today, and he wuotes many poskim who say that, and he goes back to reish lokish.

    First of all reish lokish said nothing about what the other posim said, reish lokish was talking about mefulosh and had his own reasons. So this is a whole mix up, as the reason the poskim said there is no reshus harabim was because of 600,00 people. In addition reish lokish is not brought lehalocho, at least according to his literal sense (the way vosner understands it).

    In any event if someone wants to get some understanding in reish lokish see this meiri. And this will shed light in general on his vosners bizarre statements that we can’t ahvea reshus horabiim today.

    בית הבחירה למאירי מסכת עירובין דף כב עמוד ב

    העיירות והמדינות שלא הוקפו בחומות אף על פי שהיו הרים או בקעות או ימים או נהרות מקיפים אותם לא הופקעו מידי רה”ר שאם כן אף העולם כלו מוקף בים אוקינוס ומ”מ מעלות ומורדות שהן קצרות ואין תשמישן נוח לבריות אינן רה”ר גמורה אלא רה”ר קרובה לכרמלית מפני שאינן כדגלי מדבר ויש מפרשים שלא אמרוה אלא לענין לשון ולא להפקיע חיובן על דרך שאמרו בתלמוד המערב בפרק [כיצד] משתתפין בשם ריש לקיש אין רה”ר עד שתהא מפולשת מסוף העולם ועד סופו וכן אין רה”ר בעולם הזה אלא לעתיד לבא שנ’ כל גיא ינשא וכל הר וגבעה ישפלו ואף על פי שאמרו קשיא מתניתי’ אדריש לקיש איזהו רה”ר וכו’ ומ”מ נראין הדברים שאף הוא לא אמרה אלא לענין לשון ומ”מ בסוף הסוגיא נראה שלענין חיוב נאמר ובארץ ישראל דוקא מפני שיהושע אוהב את ישראל היה וכל דניחא תשמישתיה מסרה לרבים דלא ניחא תשמישתיה מסרה ליחיד אף על פי שהיה ברה”ר אבל בחוצה לארץ הואיל ובקיעת רבים לשם רה”ר הוא אף על גב דלא ניחא תשמישתיה ברחבים שש עשרה אמה ושיש שם בקיעת רבים שאם לא כן אף בחוצה לארץ אינו רה”ר שהרי תל המתלקט נקרא רה”י וכל שהוא רה”י אין בקיעת רבים מבטלתו:

    In addition to the core claim being ludicrous, it also goes against what so many great poskim have written throughout the generations, even the beis efraim entertains the possibility of having a reshus horabim if certain conditions are met, and yet vosner claims it is impossible. Again his father thought that that idea was off, so did the maharsham and so did so many gedolei haposkim. Again we should point out that in yud beis tamuz mem hei, the rebbe beferush criticized such a concept.

    Since we mention this I will bring up this, another dishonest pro eruv guy wrote:

    Even though one may have questions on the feasibility of a shitamentioned in the Shulchan Aruch it doesn’t change the halachah. This difficulty is not a new one; the Aruch HaShulchan asked (O.C. 345:18) a similar question and then declared that in any case it would not make a difference. The accepted halachah is that the shishim ribomust traverse the street itself daily.

    This man quotes a half of an oruch hashulchon and that’s it. The oruch hashulchon clearly says that it goes according to the city. He was talking about the general opinion of 600,000. And even he brought up the claim against is a real one, only he said the halocho is not like that. But to stretch that to a case where the oruch hashulchon clearly has an issue with, is already funny.

    In any event it is clear from the oruch hashulchon where he brings that already in his day some big massive citied may have a problem with reshus harobaim, how much more so today?

    Then the joke is like this: that today it harder to call something a reshus horabim then before because of the chazon ish’s torah of oimed merubo al haporutz in regards to mechitzois (not just tzuras hapesach).

    So basically instead of it being a bigger issue of having more people it becomes very good. Oh and mind you does this guy follow all of the chazon ish’s chumrois. This is even assuming that we can stuff this shito in the alter rebbe. (Which I claim we can’t do, but is neither here or there).

    Then he brings up that the minhog not to make an eruv in crown heights lav davke has anything to do with accepted psak.

    That is why a real rov has to investigate before writing stupid letters.

    We have printed from Reb zalman shimon dvorkin in three places that an eruv in Brooklyn is chilul Shabbos (Some people claim it is forged, I won’t go there now, rather to say this guy most certainly has to discuss it), the rebbe sais that a frum yid should not rely on it in manhanttan (where they wanted to say there were mechitzois (much better then Brooklyn), and it is bichlal been the accepted minhog to treat the place like a reshus horabim for instance in regards to taking a baby to shul on Shabbos through a goy. So besides for dinei edus of the different people on what the rebbe sais, we have a chazoko he has to deal with here, and he does not discuss.

    Then he brings up the rebbe’s shito. He claims the rebbe could not have been against it. Though he never bothered to do through research. Here is a very short synopsis of what we do know.

    People wanted to make an eruv in manhattan. Some of those who agreed to make an eruv there held that it is really a reshus horabim de’oiraiso (like rav eisenshtat). Only they wanted to permit it based on certain specific issues that applied to manhattan. In any event the rebbe was asked about it. In shor the rebbe had big issues, and while he said it is a big suchus to put up a secret one, that the rov making the eruv chatzeirois should not say a berocho because of the halochik issues, and that no frum jew should rely on it, and and relying on it has to do with destroying yidishkait.

    So this vosner guy has no clue in what he is talking about. In addition, the rebbe calls those rabbonim who publish their heterim ra bonim, wicked sons. I am sure this is an apt description of this man.

    In addition he says that the rebbe relied on reb moshe, but now we know it is mistake so that is the end of it. So now he says the rebbe would change his mind, and then rebbe never had his own dea’h, such narishkaiten.

    In addition he gets high and mighty on the issue of mefulash.

    First of all one needs to learn the alter rebbe well, because it seems from him, that we only need a straight mefulosh when we have walls. In any event even iiof we do not learn it that way, it is not clear why vosner is getting so jumpy, rabbi akivo eiger on shulchon oruch already brings the shevisas (simchas) yom tov, who brings the known discussion if one even needs mefulosh in a place which has 600,000 thousand people. So he attacks reb moshe, who is mechuyov to go only according to his interpetations, and vosner is not obligated to explain himself?

    Then he brings the oft repeated claim that reb moshe did not really believe it because he permitted kew garden hills.

    Reb menashe klien already brought it up, but this is a mistake. First of all reb moshe wrote his teshuivois on Brooklyn afterwards. In addition in regards to kew garden hills, reb moshe explained that he has a reason, and that kew garden hills was a city on its own. Now reb menashe klien said it was a mistake. But if that is a mistake it is not a reason to permit the whole broolyn rather it was a reason to prohibit kew garden hills.

    Anyways he finishs off, that how come davke in crown heights we are not doing the real mitzvo of eruv. Nebach, and he ends off: hashofol

    hehe

    and then this:

    Bh

    I forgot many points, but for now I will mention three points (among many others).

    One:

    when the rebbe was asked by rabbi moscovitch for a haskomo to his work permitting an eruv in manhattan, the rebbe responded that he can’t for a number of reasons, one of which is: that he would have to go through the work thoroughly and he does not have time. Never the less, when the rebbe writes about using the Eruv for a regular frum jew, he says one should not use it in practice. He said this while not looking into it thoroughly, is that not clear his general take on the issue?

    This is besides for a feneral study that has to be done into the rebbe’s opinion. I am just pointing out, that vosner’s attitude on the what the rebbe could have said, is off the wall.

    Two:

    It should be pointed out the following: vosner is upset at poskim who give different oragmatic reasons not to make an eruv, and that they have no right to make new gezairois. It should be pointed out, that even if the Eruv would work in a place like new York, it would have to rely on a ton of kuilois. Therefore to say that one can’t say, that he does not want to make an eruv for certain reasons, is wrong. Because we are anyways talking about a pile of kuilois.

    Three:

    If we were to take reish lokish in the most simplistic level, and then we would say we pasken like him, then how come in his time and the time afterwards they were talking about a reshus horabim in na’hardo’o and pumpidiso? More so in regards to mechuzo the gemoro discusses making an eruv there, and there is a discussion in the rishoinim on the issue of mefuilosh, if we take reish lokish (who says that there is issue of mefulosh today), simplistically, and halocho le’maase, there should have been no problem.

    I want to mention two emails I got from two people. I think they are not terrible points, and would like to share it.

    One:

    What do you say about vosners moirdike chidush that the מנהג מאז מתן תורה is to build מקוה בור ליד בור?!!!! Such shtusim and am horatzus, the whole concept of using a mikve mei gshomim, is relatively new!!

    Two:

    This letter is Poshut disgusting. The Ga’aveh stinks.
    The Mechutzaf calls anyone who disagrees with him an am Ha’aretz or Min!
    He writes as a Davar Hapashut that there is not–and cannot be–a Reshus Harabim Bizman Hazeh. The Rebbe Beferush said this is a Ta’aneh of Amaratzus. When I originally heard this from the Rebbe I didn’t understand what he is saying, it is a Davar Hapashut and I couldn’t believe that anyone had claimed such a ridiculous thing. Now I see that this Shoteh says it a Davar Hapshut according to Shulchan Aruch that there can never be a Reshus Harabim!

    • Milhouse

      His father clearly states that the only reason he permitted it was because he was told by his son that in the city of Chicago there are only about 100,000 people and 3oo cars.

      Thank you for putting such a blatant lie right near the top of your screed, so I didn’t have to read the rest of it. You are lying through your teeth. The Shevet Halevi was not under any impression that the whole city of Chicago had only 100,000 people! How could you even expect people to believe such a claim? You simply made this up because you are a liar. The Shevet Halevi wrote clearly that his son told him that the area enclosed by the eruv has only about 100,000 people. This is true and uncontroversial. He was clearly aware that the whole city has many times that population, and held that it made no difference.

      Having seen this lie I will not bother reading whatever else you wrote.

    • to millhouse

      Do not read it, no one needs you to read it, you are anyways an ignorant boor. You would not know how to deal with the issues anyways (maybe ask eruv onine to help you, oh and ask him to do it on his communist blog where he can lock out dissenting comments).
      In any event, First of all you will never discount the wild point of 300 cars. Second of all, even the son in his own teshuvo writes to the people of Chicago that we are talking about 350,000, so it is clear, that for some reason he had no problem giving two separate numbers.
      Now in regards to your point: let me explain this statement “His father clearly states that the only reason he permitted it was because he was told by his son that in the city of Chicago there are only about 100,000 people and 3oo cars.”
      First of all it means clearly, that in a larger area with a larger amount of people, that we have a massive problem
      Second of all let me explain what I meant I admit this point was not written clearly (as I wrote I have had turbulent times in the family, and have not clear time), but let me explain: what I find strange and call a lie, is how he defined the area, where he played games with his father who was not in Chicago, to keilui make as if it is totally separate from the city, and a separate shetach.
      In any event I shall remind you, that it is clear from the fathers teshuvo to Chicago, that in a normal big city he is not meikel as he considers it a problem of a reshus horabim. This reminds ous of your lie, that most poskim have no problem with such a place.

  • This rav sounds like korach...

    May Hashem ‘take care’ of all those that start up with our Rebbe and the rabbonim here
    ….such arrogance clearly ppl should b able to see through….shocked that anyone still chooses to believe we can have a kosher eruv here when the Rebbe, the rabonim, great chassidim are all one side, and a few lame, money hungry, ignorant ‘puppet rabbis’ on the other….seriously eruv ppl, u pride yourselves on using your own mind to decide how to act, don’t make a fool of yourselves and insist on believing this fool.

    • YMSP

      יישר כחך אשר שיברתם!
      CH should give you a dedicated piece, ltoivas harabim and lhosir es hamichshol.

  • cute

    Very funny, according to vosner eruv is the biggest mitzvah of all. Cute.

  • קורי עכביש

    What a liar.
    He misquotes every single source. Including his own father! !

    The gemara in shabbos and eruvin that he quotes in the beginning day the exact opposite of what he claims! ! מגלה פנים בתורה שלא כהלכה

    The genara says that Shlomo hamelech was “gozer” eruvin and nitilas yadayim. Rashi explains right there in both places that Shlomo came to make a gezeira by making shabbos harder not easier.
    Before Shlomo you can carry anywhere you like add long as its not a reshus harabbim. Shlomo came and instituted many restrictions. Karmrlis, karfef, 2 reshus hayachids etc. And then he said of you make an eruv chatzeiros you can carry. That’s why G-d was happy, he made shabbos more defined. He know the true peshat very well. Add week as i do, he’s just lying to defend the indefensible.
    In addition his father writes 3 times in his teshuva that he should only do the eruv in Chicago with the approval of the local rabbonim. Then he tries to farentfur that they are just more knowledgeable of the topography, a lie, his father woes that he studied all the maps but you have to get local reshus and he even suggests getting advice of the poskim in Nyc.

  • A Lubavicher that visitted CKI

    We should organize a group of bochorim to daven in cki and take it over

    • Milhouse

      Are they also going to pay membership fees? How do you think davening there (nusach Ashkenaz, of couse, since it is forbidden by halocho to change a shul’s established nusach) will allow them to “take over”?

  • קורי עכביש

    Such chutzpah to the Rebbe.

    He goes and lists all the Rebbes concerns about eruv that he expressed clearly in the mammy letters on the subject and goes on to ridicule them even calling those who espouse these opinions names like נביא ש…. what a rasha. Whare is the outrage for calling or dear Rebbe such things.
    What about his joke about the Rebbe Rashab? He writes that he insisted that the mikva in New City be בור על צד בור because thats the way it wad done since moshe rabeinu!!!!
    מבהיל!!!!

    אוי לעינינו שכך רואות

    Besides for the fact that historically bor al gabei bor was done for centuries. Did the Rebbe Rashab deviate from Moshe rabbeinu.

    This guy is worse than Shach.
    His tefillin are probably posul as well if he even puts them on.

    מגלה פנים בתורה שלא כהלכה ולועג על דברי חכמים.
    ..שוטה רשע וגס רוח

    • mikvah

      actually, the whole concept of using a mikveh mei gshomim is relatively new. so obliviously it is am horatzus to say that mikve “bor leyad bor” was done since matan torah. it’s a joke.

    • Milhouse

      Yes, in Europe there were almost no rainwater mikvo’os until the 19th century. Everyone knew that in principle it was possible to make a mikveh from rainwater, but very few had actually seen one. That’s precisely why so many machlok’sn broke out on the topic in the 19th century; because that was the first time it became a practical question in Europe, and nobody knew how to build them. They had to figure it all out from scratch.

      The Rebbe Rashab came up with his design purely on practical grounds; it seemed to him that this was the way that would satisfy more shitos, and would be less likely to break, than any other design. Then in the 20th century archaeologists in Eretz Yisroel found rainwater mikvo’os, and lo and behold many were bor al gabei bor.

  • Mother, grandmother, human person.

    I wonder why he said Rabbi Groner was in charge in Sydney? Rabbi Wosner lived in Sydney, in the same street as Rabbi Feldman. They were not friends, but they were certainly able to identify each other correctly. To those above, nothing at all wrong with Rabbi Wosner’s semicha, and his yichus is esteemed and well known. Perhaps some Lubavitchers should not have been quite so nasty to him in years gone by… it all comes back.

    • Milhouse

      The issue with the mikveh was in Melbourne, not in Sydney. The old city mikveh, under Rabbi Groner’s supervision, was not bor al gabei bor, and when it needed to be rebuilt many Anash wanted to make it bor al gabei bor, but Rabbi Groner resisted for various reasons.

      However Rabbi Wosner is ignorant of how that turned out. He thinks the opposition to Rabbi Groner’s position was confined to those who didn’t know hilchos mikvo’os. This is not true. What ended up happening is that someone else, who was just as expert in the halochos as Rabbi Groner, built a new mikveh mehudar, bor al gabei bor, and all the women started using it, until eventually the city mikveh closed.

      After he saw that the new mikveh was successful, Rabbi Groner decided to give it a hechsher. To save face he asked for a few cosmetic changes to be made, that didn’t really affect its halochic status at all, but it gave him an excuse for why he changed his mind.

  • Dov

    In my humble opinion, his words are 90% correct.
    The Rabbonim should retract their shameful statement that whoever uses the Eiruv is a Mechalel Shabbos CH”V.
    Instead, they should encourage Chassidim to take an approach of Prishus. Remember, the Rebbe did not storm against it. Even the Mishna Bruro, who rules against the Alter Rebbe and considers the Rambam’s opinion Ikkar, writes not to protest.
    The problem is no one bothered showing Rabbi Wosner the Rebbe’s letters stating that (although constructing and Eiruv is excellent, nevertheless) it would be better to refrain using it (or that the construction should be done secretly, not to be used). If he was shown this, he would have written slightly differently.
    Another mistake he made was that he didn’t deal with the opinion that 600,000 people in the city (not just one road) make it a Reshus HoRabbim, as elaborated upon by R’ Sholom B Levine.
    But his main point stands: It’s insensitive and incorrect to speak against Yiddin who wish to use the Eiruv, since the Alter Rebbe says it’s Kosher and the Rebbe never published a decree that it not be used.
    We should pursue peace instead.

    In light of the above, I believe it would be a great Kiddush Hashem for Chabad Rabbonim to express a similar view to the one above.

    • Milhouse

      “Another mistake he made was that he didn’t deal with the opinion that 600,000 people in the city (not just one road) make it a Reshus HoRabbim, as elaborated upon by R’ Sholom B Levine.”

      There is no such opinion found in any source until the modern era. Suddenly in modern times people made up a new shita that no rishon or acharon ever heard of.

    • to millhouse

      Again you prove you do not know what you are talking about.
      First of all nobody talks about road or city till modern times. When the issue came up everybody spoke about it.
      In any event, the most famous rishon who talks the most at lenth about rashi’s shito is the ritvo in eruvin nun tes. There it is clear the number has to do with the city and not the road. That is also the same in many of the leshoinois in in the rishoinim all over, and is the same in rashi itself. This is foud in the mogen avorohom and other achroinim.
      And those people you claim made things up, include (but is not limited to), the tiferes yisroel, reb chaim ozer, the mishne beruro, all those who wrote agaisnt the st luis eruv, all those against the eruv in the lower east side, the maharsham, reb moshe, the minchas yitzchok, the shevet halevi, rav elyaashiv, the be’er moshe, and many others. So it is not clear how you think that all those people made things up.

      You prove again you do not know much.

  • MaddinBklyn

    If the detractors in comments 1-7 call themselves Chabad Chassidim, their attitude/reaction toward another Yid who gave his halachic opinion justify all reasons why the Eruv is 100% kosher and should be used and the only reason 90% of Crown Heightsers don’t use it is fear of some imaginary backlash and/or peer pressure.

    • I am number 1

      Question: Did he or did he not say that it is deceitful to claim the Rebbe was against an Eruv in CH?

      Question: Does that not mean he is calling Rabbis Groner, Osdoba, Schwei, Braun, Segal, Bogomilsky, Levine, Kahn deceitful?

      Question: Did BOTH sides of this conflict (one comprised of Rabbis, the other of laymen) come to HIM in Monsey to ask him to get involved and state his opinion as he writes?

      Question: What did I (or anyone here) write that would justify Chilul Shabbos?

      That’s a very juvenile way of thinking; he made fun of him (which btw, I didn’t), now I can eat treif!

  • Chosid

    The guy clearly knows nothing about the rebbe and his opinions, why would he? He’s doch a misnaged!

  • That is the way we do it Rabbi

    No 5 said it good, that Rov Wosner was in contact while the Rebbe was alive, Rov Wosner knows the neighbourhood. So carry on Shabbos already.

  • Respect

    Just because this rabbi had a different a opinion does not give anyone a right to call him names , nobody is calling dirty names the rabbis that are againts the eruv. This is a matter of opinion and people can choose who to support. Remember what the rebbe said about people who fight any rov.

    • Dov

      Well said.

      Please note today’s Rambam Hilchos Chovel Umazik ch. 3, Hal. 5-7.

    • this is crazy

      I assume you are trying to complain about the fact that this scoundrel is not showing proper respect to all the rabbonim who are against the Eruv. Because this guy deserves no respect. If you really mean him, then you are cute, because this guy goes on a total rant against rabbonim and calls them korach.

  • Milhouse

    His halachich arguments are strong, but the part highlighted in the headline — denying that the Rebbe held the position he is alleged to — is extremely weak. It’s clear from his language that he has not actually read anything the Rebbe wrote about the subject, but is convinced that the Rebbe couldn’t have been against an eruv, and therefore that he wasn’t and those who claim otherwise must be lying. He makes a wild guess that any opposiiton the Rebbe may have expressed to an eruv must have been in deference to Reb Moshe Feinstein’s unique halachic view.

    This is nonsense, of course. While the Rebbe had the greatest respect for Reb Moshe, he did not agree with his chiddush on eruvin. Pretty much nobody did; even R Moshe himself acknowledged that he was a daas yochid on this matter. There is no question that the Rebbe held an eruv can be made in a city with over 3 million people (which by the way Brooklyn doesn’t have), but that it shouldn’t be. Or rather, if possible it should be made in secret; in other words the Rebbe held such an eruv would be kosher, and would save people from chilul shabbos, but he was against making it public for non-halachic reasons, which he laid out on various occasions.

    • to millhouse

      Mister millhouse, as usual you just decide to make statements, as if it halocho lemoshe mi’sinai.
      Many comments are just whatever and nothing special, but there are plenty of comments that bring enough point, to refute anything vosner has written in his letter. There is nothing there. To claim it is mostly right besides for one thing, is dishonest at best.
      The only thing you got right was: that vosner madea wild guess, and a wrong one at that. But even here you made mistakes. Reb moshe has a chidush of 2.4-3 million (yes he writes 4 – 5 to 1 ratio and in general if you understood his yesoid you would understand what I mean), actually many poskim consider that a kuilo and do not agree with him at all. This includes rav Shmuel vosner, the father of this guy in our case. Meaning the poskim argue with reb moshe lechumro not lekuilo as you claim.
      And again, making an eruv would not exactly mean the rebbe holds that it is halachikally fine to use it at all, please actually learn what the rebbe wrote.
      Oh btw when was bor litzad boir used from time immemorial, if the whole concept of mei geshomim is relatively new? Do you not see this guy’s clear blatant am haratzus?

  • Cmon

    Rabbonim yoel kahn,heller,berele levine,are giants in torah
    Who r we to argue against them??
    Milhouse u r wrong,halachlically if ezstern pkwy leads you to large cities it cannot be included in an eiruv
    If kingston has stores thst is called a marketplace,again no heter to include those streets
    There must be a reason why the tiny village of lubavitch couldnt have an eiruv.

    • Milhouse

      Who told you Lubavitch didn’t have an eruv?! Where did you hear such a thing?

      Eastern Parkway doesn’t lead to any other cities. It starts at Grand Army Plaza and ends in a dead end at the cemetery on Bushwick.

      And no, a street with stores along it is not a market. There is a market at Grand Army Plaza every Shabbos, so if you want to raise this point you can do it there. But since the other criteria of reshus horabim are not fulfilled, and in particular since not only is Brooklyn surrounded by mechitzos but also the Park Slope Eruv is omed merubeh al haporutz, it’s just not an issue.

    • to millhouse

      The tzemach tzedek himself says that he would not let an eruv in lubavitch, so how do you ask such ignorant questions. So this person asks, if lubavitch can’t have an eruv you will allow one in Brooklyn?

    • Milhouse

      Where did the Tzemach Tzedek say that? How do you know there wasn’t an eruv in Lubavitch?

  • Why is this "Rav" so defensive and bored?

    This “Rav” obviously has an eruv in his community. He is embarrassed and mighty defensive that the Rebbe said that an eruv would not work in a large metropolis. Not to mention this “Rav” sure has a lot of time on his hands to mix into other people’s communities.

  • to #2

    stupid. reb yoel doesn’t need to be given the for-eruv letters or anti-eiruv. he knows his stuff better than anyoine else so keep quiet. who ever asked an OUTSIDER to tell ME what MY Rebbe said?

    • obvious

      Do not worry it is not the first time he did this, he has experience in this, remember he did this in Washington heights among other places.

  • R' Wosner

    1) one who has such dark backrgound is commenting on Reb Yoel’s words. it is ouriognht chutzpa if nmot worse.

    2) For all who are confused by this man’s statmemts or act as they are, we have already seen pictiures of his gerus on a Florida beach and how this “rabbi” was dressed etc

  • to 12

    if this R’ Wosner (from monsey) is posek hador. you are very ignorant of who he really is and very ill.

  • אמר רבי יהודה

    אמר רבי יהודה: לא חרבה ירושלים אלא בשביל שביזו בה תלמידי חכמים, שנאמר (דברי הימים ב’ לו): “ויהיו מלעיבים במלאכי האלהים ובוזים דבריו ומתעתעים בנביאיו עד עלות חמת ה’ בעמו עד לאין מרפא”. מאי עד לאין מרפא? – אמר רב יהודה אמר רב: כל המבזה תלמידי חכמים אין לו רפואה למכתו”. (שבת קיט ע”ב)

  • YMSP

    What does Rabbi A. L. Sharpton say? Why are the ramblings of this half-baked snag muppet (who makes money primarily from eruvin) being posted on Libavitch sites, as he claims to know the Rebbe’s letters better than Reb Yoel and as he announces that all past poskim who disagree are kofrim?

    Again – Is this a joke?

  • YMSP

    Interesting how he refuses to accept the Rebbe Rashab on mikvaos (refused to certify a mikvah built in only that way), but will dictate to Lubavitch the Rebbe’s view (and Reb Moshe’s – Kew Gardens is not Flatbush or Manhattan, as is obvious to everyone but the slippery eel who wrote this), against the Rebbe’s own letters.

    In truth, this is the least of the problems.

    To everyone considering his unprecedented insanity:

    Great news! If you listen to someone whose own father expressed shame at his half-done conversions and who just announced that the Rebbe’s clear letters against the eruv, the psak (ruling of religious law, based on sourced Torah) of Rav Moshe Feinstein, the psak of Rav Elyashiv, the psak of Rav Ahron Soloveitchik, Rav Hirschprung and other fall, in his sick opinion, into a category that I will not even write (not since those who wrote against the Baal Shem Tov and the Alter Rebbe has a term so shamefully been used), then you can carry on Shabbos!

    Korach didn’t even accuse Moshe of kfira.

    But if you want to follow someone who publicly implied that about your Rebbe and about all of the Sages of the last generation, please do so.

    When there’s a difference of opinion over a direct Torah law, we are halachically bound to follow the stricter opinion.

    However, here there’s no difference of opinion.

    We have a known fraud artist named Benzion Wosner, who makes all of his money erecting eruvin (and whose father screamed against his dubious and improperly done conversions of b people who had no intention of keeping mitzvos) against the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rav Hirschprung, Reb Moshe, Rav Elyashiv, Rav A. Soloveitchik and yblc”t Reb Yoel, R’ Berel Levin, Rav Heller and all other CH rabbonim.

    We also have in Benzion Wosner, a man who writes tons of inflammatory propaganda, but who won’t deal with the main issue, that CH is now a reshus harabim dOraisa (because tzidei reshus harabim are included, because Kingston is a platya by any modern definition, because there’s no barrier between Eastern Parkway and its connecting streets, which is exactly why Reb Moshe was more concerned about areas than artificially separated exact streets – and there are more reasons why every posek says the exact opposite of this bought and paid for fraud artist who has nothing of substance to say).

    So follow Wosner (who’d be a zoken mamreh if he wasn’t a thief and a shoiteh). But admit that you’re following someone who just implied worse of the Rebbe than even Shach’s insanities when you do so. And admit that he has nothing of substance to say on the main issue when you do so. Also admit that you’re following a man who makes all his money from eruvin, against rabbonim who have not made a cent and who are taking flack for sticking up for the truth.

    No need to sell one’s soul to the devil. The circus clown in Monsey will readily accept it in his place.

    • Milhouse

      Crown Heights has never been a rh”r d’oraiso, but even if you thought it had been, now that this eruv has been built you must admit that it is now at least a reshus hayochid d’oraisa.

  • Missing in transilation

    The letter finishes off him proclaiming himself to be “השפל” which got lost in the English translation. I believe it translates as “lowlife”!. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

    • YMSP

      Yes!

      Reb Volf used to say that Reb Yehuda Leib HaKoton (also HaKohen), who wrote the second haskoma on Tanya (after Reb Zushe), used to sign his name HaShofal BeEmes. A certain (snag) rov imitated this.

      It was said of him, Reb Yehuda Leib HaKoton is a shofel bemes, but this other is b’emes a shofal.

      Maybe he meant that he’s a shovel, or what a shovel is often used for.

  • David

    It would be like saying one must trust finkels butcher store, or he isn’t modeh in hilchos shechita.
    If one looks at mikvah.org the new city mikvah has a hechsher from rav hendel. Why would they be looking to wosner for his hechsher.
    All in all, there seem to be serious credibility problems with this wosner

  • just wondering

    rabbi wosners father disregarded his opinions and was not proud of his behavior

    he shouldn’t start with the rebbe and if his father wasn’t who he was he would never have a job

  • David

    It’s also interesting how he repeats the debunked lie, that the lubavitch mikvah is substandard, he probably doesn’t believe it’s kosher, is just to chicken to say so.
    Wouldn’t trust his hechsher on anything.

  • 8987

    he is mixing in to someone else’s minhagim.
    thats not so kosher
    it seems divisive.

  • אין פשוטע אידיש

    רופט מען אזא פארשוין א אויסווארף

  • CKI is in Crown Heights?

    I just learn that the CKI synagouge is NOT located in Crown Heights proper.

    There is NO  organized Kehila in the neighborhood that requested it. There is not even 1 ROV in the neighborhood who sanctions it.

    So what is going on? Some individuals can go behind the ENTIRE organised comunity and ALL local Rabbonim and hire someone who can write hit-pieces for the highest bidder? 

    Is this the way Judaism was practiced by our forefathers?

    (CHI is located in prospect height 11238)

    • Milhouse

      Of course CKI is not in Crown Heights. Why did you think it was? That’s the whole point. CKI expanded its eruv, as it has every right to do. It has members living in the area who wanted to be able to come to shul on Shabbos, so it expaned its eruv to include them.

      Crown Heights is not a separate city, it’s just an arbitrary area in New York City, and anyone has the right to live there and to consult his own rabbonim on all halachic issues. There is no exclusive jurisdiction as if it were a city surrounded by desert or forest.

      Anyone who lives in New York has the right to make an eruv, as big as they like, without consulting every rabbi who happens to live within its boundaries, just as Crown Heights rabbis would not have to consult CKI if they wanted to make an eruv. Suppose someone made an eruv for the whole Brooklyn; do you imagine they would have to consult every rabbi who happens to live there?!

    • Mr. Milhouse

      Judaism is not US law.

      in this great nation, you are entitled to do whatever you wish – so long you dont harm others.

      Hashem set up Am Yisroel with a distinct set of guidelines.

      1 central issue in Judaism is to follow the true Rabbonim of your time. Halacha tells us that a (true) Rov has JURISDICTION over his community and neighborhood.

      in some neighborhoods there are several DIFFERENT kehilos, and several diferent legitimate Rabbonim. that is a diferfent case.

      in Crown Heights – ALL Rabbonim are ADAMANTLY AGAINST IT.

      under Jewish law – the way it was practiced since Moshe Rabeinu – one may NOT undermine the local Rabbonim.

      you can scream as long as you wish – this was NEVER the way of legitimate Jews, Rabbonim and laymen.

      A layman had the utmost respect for the Rov.

    • to millhouse

      Let me teach a word, it is called krum. If it is outside the area and can do what they want, then it cannot expand into our area. And if it can expand into our area, then it has to listen to our rabbonim, who assered, and have the din of chochom she’ossar (run hard now to figure out how to deal with that).

    • Milhouse

      Again, New York is a city with (many more than) two botei din. There is no such thing as exclusive jurisdiction. There is no united rabbinic authority for the whole city, and there is simply no basis in halacha for drawing an artificial line on a map and saying that this area is its own city with an exclusive rabbinic jurisdiction. New York has multiple rabbinic authorities, and everyone is entitled to choose which one to follow.

      It’s especially strange for Lubavitchers to insist on their right to exclusive jurisdiction within Crown Heights, when they never submit to local rabbinic authority, piskei din, and minhogim when they move elsewhere. Why is it that a Lubavitcher who moves to a Modern Orthodox neighborhood, or even a truly separate city, doesn’t feel the need to submit to MO psak and practise, or to switch to Nusach Ashkenaz, but a MO person who moves to CH should do the reverse?

  • to 59

    עליו (שתמונה שלו מפיעה בכתבה) נאמר מאמר חז”ל (בב”ר יט, יב) על נטיית דקדוק לשונו של אדם הראשון: “ואוכל” (בראשית ג, יב) התחצף האדם “אכלתי כבר, ואוכל (עוד)” אשוב לאכול

  • Talmud Chochum

    מסכת דרך ארץ
    פרק ז, לז
    ר’ אלעזר הקפר אומר אהבו את השלום,
    ושנאו את המחלוקת, גדול השלום, שאפילו
    בשעה שישראל עובדין עבודה זרה ויש שלום
    ביניהם, אומר הקדוש ברוך הוא אין רצוני
    ליגע בהן, שנאמר חבור עצבים אפרים הנח לו,
    אבל בדבר מחלוקת מהו אומר, חלק לבם עתה
    יאשמו, הא גדול השלום, ושנואה המחלוקת.
    כיצד, עיר שיש בה מחלוקת, סופה ליחרב,
    ואמרו חכמים מחלוקת בעיר, שפיכות דמים.
    בית הכנסת שיש בה מחלוקת, סופה ליחרב.
    בית שיש בו מחלוקת, סופו ליחרב, ואמרו
    חכמים מחלוקת בבית, זימה.
    שני בתי דינין והם בעיר אחת, וביניהם
    מחלוקת, סופן למות, ואמרו חכמים מחלוקת
    בבית דין, חורבן העול

  • shlomo

    what problem? Rebbe o”bm was against eruv for chabadnikim, because he does not believe to CH people
    if it was eruv here they will go to feed swans in botanic garden, despite it prohibited in shabbos. look on CH resident and stop pretend ,that CH people it religious, it worse then reform jew and for sure than conservative. m.b instead looking for machlokes in every corner people should starts do what Rebbe o’bm request for THEM!!!

  • s33a

    just find a posuk which shows that this is simply hasagas gevul.
    who asked him? Why does he think his services are needed? What is his connection with Chabad, that he suddenly appears on the horizon now?
    it smirks of decisiveness, is what my sense is.

    • Milhouse

      “Find a posuk”?! There is no such posuk. There are no “boundaries” and “territories” in halocho. The Torah is not a franchise operation.

  • Rabbi?

    He is disgracing the l’vush he hides behind. He is nothing but a money hungry fool. He went against his own father for a buck, so if he gets big bucks from Ettelson and his gang he’ll even contest the Rebbe. he’s got to be either a total fool or an extremely money hungry fool to start up with the Rebbe.

  • באתרא דרב הלכה כרב  

    By religious jews there was always a  מרא דאתרא who was the sole authority of all local religious matters.  And no one has the right to go against. 

    באתרא דרב הלכה כרב

    And here in Crown Heights – ALL LOCAL RABBONIM area against this so-called eruv

    • Milhouse

      Crown Heights is part of the greater New York City, which is a city wit (many more than) two botei din, so there is no such thing as “moro de’asro”. Inside a shul there can be one authority. A community may accept one authority. But nobody owns the neighborhood.

  • traditional Judaism

    Traditionally religious Jewish life is conducted and guided by local Rabbonim.

    If one wants to establish a RELIGIOUS edifice, it must be done with the consent, direction and blessing of the LOCAL religious authorities.

    This always was the case with ALL parts of religious life.

    Here we have a strange thing: there is a large organized Jewish community in a neighborhood, with prominent Rabbonim, Morei Horaah B’poel, Gdoley Torah etc.

    Come along several individuals, buy houses in the neighborhood and say we can do whatever we want here.  Free county!  Yes, according to secular law you may have that right. But we are FRUM yidden, governed by Torah=Halacha.   And there is a JEWISH WAY of doing thigs – the way it has been done since Moshe Rabbeinu.

    When in our illustrious history did you have a situation where several LYAMAN – go behind the backs of ALL the Rabbonim, shop for a “rov” who will do anything for some kovod (hamedume) – and get this rov to establish RELIGIOUS edifices/establishments in this community AGAINST ALL THE LOCAL RABBONIM?

    Kindly point to which Godol B’yisroel from a previous generation did something like this?  That an outside rov will override all LOCAL Rabbonim (not ‘rabbis’)?

  • Crow heights resident

    Enough already the eruv is up if your Chabad then you don’t use it that’s all

  • jewish dude

    The eruv is kosher the Rebbe was not against it.
    Pure Gilul Hashem to even dare say this.

  • Disappointed

    “Ignorant outsider”, “Piece of garbage”, “Disgusting”, “Money hungry fool”…

    These are comments of childish, ignorant, evil people who probably have never even learned a page of מסכת עירובין before. As a Lubavitcher, I feel it is my obligation to distance myself from these people. You represent all that is wrong with Lubavitch today. There is no way that the Rebbe would have approved of this type of speech against any Jew, let a lone a תלמיד חכם.

    The time has come for Lubavitch to do some real soul searching and grow up.

  • ww3appl

    did we ever hear this person’s name before? did he do something for or with Chabad that we would know that he was involved and cared about us?
    seems actually that we can learn in life from what is NOT being done or said. we must look at the other side to learn about whats going on, to try and understand. This seems so grossly inappropriate, its hard to even believe that its in print.

  • emi

    just figure how generally, affairs are done. does anyone walk into another’s affairs? If so, then FOR WHAT AGENDA.
    lets understand what he is getting chayus from here.
    also
    please tell me….did this rabbi (I can’t use capital, since I don’t know if he is respectable enough) ever have a relationship with the Rebbe? What do we know about his connection with the Rebbe?????

  • CH Montgomery St resident

    rabbi(?) Wosner how much “shochad” did you take?
    Keep your big nose in Monsey and out of Crown Heights which is the Rebbe’s “shchuna”, not yours. Where is your “derech eretz” for the Rebbe? You must go to the “Ohel” and beg “Mechila” to both Rebbes especially when we are two months away from the “Yom Hadin”. Be careful, you’playing with fire!

    • Crown Street resident

      Rabbis Groner is playing with fire by lying in the rebbe’s name he should do everything you said mr. montgomery.

      Rabbi Wosner is a holy man!

  • to #119

    #119
    I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU.
    think about his kavana.
    WHY does he care, etc.
    doesnt seem like his intentions are really to help, or that they are for pure and holy reasons
    what connection has he ever had with Chabad or what connection did he have with the Rebbe???
    this is just odd

  • Efraim

    I just stumbled upon this site. And I wish to add my two cents.

    This issue while opposed by some, is clearly supported by some members of the community. Otherwise there would be no Eruv to begin with.
    Everyside has their reasons and justicatios.

    While the Eruv side has erected an Eruv to enable them to use it. The anti Eruv should counter by issuing an Issur – prohibition to use it.
    And let everyone follow his own Rabbis.

    It seems right now that since the community does not listen to you. You are trying to impose your side by force, shaming and terror.

    The language that I see in your responses is no different than what emanates in your nemesis in williamsburg.