First Chabad Rov Says Crown Heights Eruv Is Kosher

Rabbi Sholom Ber Shuchat, Crown Heights resident and Dayan on the Beis Din of Agudas Harabonim in New York, has inspected the Crown Heights Eruv and written a comprehensive Halachic pamphlet on its validity. He is the first Chabad Rov to publicly come out in support of the Eruv, albeit with the stipulation that it should be improved so that it complies with the Halachic approach of the Chabad Rebbeim.

“I checked the Eiruv on Sunday, I found out who built it, etc. and found it to be Kosher, and therefore no one who carried is a Mechalel Shabbos. Only after checking it did I sit down to write this Kuntres,” Rabbi Shuchat told

Rabbi Shuchat pointed out that this Kuntres is: 1. Entirely Halachic. It is a summary of the Psokim of the Alter Rebbe, the Tzemach Tzedek and the Rebbe, for all Halachos relevant to building a community Eiruv, with footnotes discussing various issues (This part is only in the Hebrew Kuntres). And, 2. Based on what is detailed in the Halachic part, contains a detailed plan on how to make a Mehudar Eiruv in Crown Heights which also deals with the various issues that the Rebbe mentions in letters, and presents a practical approach.

The Kuntres is presented in both Hebrew and English.



    • 2. Milhouse wrote:

      What about the Rebbe’s answer to Melbourne? The Rebbe’s answer, once the eruv was going to be made, was not to oppose it.

  • 3. Yossi wrote:

    he is the most learned guy i know.. and no nonsense or agenda like other Rabonim

    • 6. Yossi wrote:

      so far we only found publication of yes from the Rebbe and no printed proof of no…

    • 7. Jewish wrote:

      Are you even practicing Judaism? Just because the rebbe, who was a great rabbi no doubt, forbid an eruv once, we nullify the many halachot and writings given by holy rabbis for thousands of years?

    • 8. Milhouse wrote:

      The Rebbe was not just “a great rabbi”, to his chassidim his word is law. But nobody is nullifying any halachos or writings; they are simply saying that it doesn’t matter whether the eruv is kosher or possul, even if it was 100% kosher it shouldn’t have been made simply because it was against the Rebbe’s wishes.

  • 9. Amazing! wrote:

    Finally someone with actual knowledge of Eruvin giving a honest and straight answer based on Halach with out emotion/agenda one way or the other.
    Thank you for putting your name to this great thing.
    If only all the Rabbi’s in CH would do this it would be a better place and get rid of the mud slinging and baseless hate going around at the moment.

    Let the carrying begin!

    • 10. Milhouse wrote:

      No, let the carrying not begin, since the Alter Rebbe says one should be machmir like the Rambam, and this eruv is not kosher according to the Rambam’s opinion.

      Kol Israel could have made a Rambam eruv. It would have taken longer and cost more, but if they were making it for the use of Lubavitchers they would have spent that extra time and money. . They didn’t, because it wasn’t intended for Lubavitchers to use. It’s for their members and for those of the Prospect Heights Shul, and anyone would would like to attend one of those shuls. And since they’re not Lubavtichers or Temanim, they don’t need a Rambam eruv.

    • 11. Chaim H. wrote:

      Please do tell, what agenda to the other Rabbis have in regards to this issue?
      Whats their game plan?

      What agenda does Rabbi Heller have?
      What agenda does Rabbi Bogomilsky have?
      Even R. Braun (which I have no love for), in regards to this issue, what is the agenda?

    • 12. Kosher doesn't help wrote:

      With all due respect, Rabbi Shuchat was not elected by this community to be a Rav for this community. He must respect the elected Rabbonim just as we must, ESPECIALLY when they all agree. You can make the “eruv” as kosher as you want, it will not help, unless the elected Rabbonim agree to it. Do not under-estimate the power of a Psak Din by the Bais Din.
      Perhaps the following incident from the times of the Alter Rebbe will shed light on the issue: The parents of a small boy who overnight developed a severe learning disability in limudei kodesh were told by their Rabbi that perhaps he had eaten something not kosher. Their son told them the only time he had eaten out of the house was by a chasuna. the parents investigated and finally got the following info from the manager of the chasuna hall, that the meat for that wedding was 100% kosher, shechted by certified shochtim. However, when the Alter Rebbe found out there was a problem with the bride not being properly divorced, he paskened that if the wedding takes place, the meat shechted for it would be considered TREIF!
      A little boy ate 100% kosher meat – and poisoned his soul with Treifus!
      Analogy: Someone carried in the boundaries of a 100% kosher eruv – and poisoned his soul with the Sin of Chilul Shabbos!
      Torah is not in Heaven. The Bais Din Shel Maaloh must follow the Psak of The Bais Din of Kan Tzivoh Havaya Es HaBrochoh. Again, do not under-estimate the power of a Psak Din by the Bais Din of this community- for this community! Moshiach Now!

    • 13. Yossi wrote:

      the silence from CH rabbis opposed is deafening…
      i guess they ran out of steam

    • 15. Boruch wrote:

      If you see page 6, guidelines , a. Only use it in great need

    • 16. Milhouse wrote:

      “Kosher doesn’t help”, chasunah hall?! You imagine there were such things in 18th-century Liozna or Liadi?! Where did you read this story, and what makes you think it’s true?

    • 17. or wrote:

      Correction: Finally someone who thinks he has actual knowledge of Eruvin.

  • 18. משה הבר wrote:

    מעניין לדעת איפה הוא “רב” בדיוק השוחט הזה
    יש לו קהילה?
    בית כנסת?
    מי הם התלמידים שלו, או ההולכים לאור פסקיו??

    כל רבני קראון הייטס, פסקו שאסור. הם יודעים ללמוד שולחן ערוך אדמו”ר הזקן, קצת יותר שנים מהצעיר הזה שלא שמענו עליו עד היום.

    בדיחה אחת גדולה.

    מעניין אם הצ’ק שהוא קיבל היה גדול יותר מהצ’ק ששלחו לבנצי וואזנר בבית שמש…

  • 19. Milhouse wrote:

    Rabbi Schochet’s suggestion that a system be set up to notify people of breaches on Shabbos itself is a bad idea. It would be a gilt-edged invitation to would-be vandals.

    Far better is they system in place in every other eruv in the world, which is that it’s inspected weekly, and repaired if necessary, and then declared to be kosher for that shabbos. Once it’s been declared kosher there is no further inspection until the next week, and in fact one should avoid inspecting any part of it, so as not to find it down. Everyone who has ascertained that it was declared kosher has the right to rely on the chazakah and carry.

    If a vandal takes it down, the chilul shabbos that he causes is his aveira alone, not that of the people who carry beheter. And of course if he tells someone that he vandalized it he’s declaring himself to be rosho, and therefore not to be believed. Hopefully this would deter vandals.

    It should also be made very clear that one who vandalizes a public eruv is מיצר את הרבים, and it is permitted to masser him to the police.

  • 20. Milhouse wrote:

    Rabbi Schochet writes that the concept of “platya” (plaza) almost doesn’t exist today. He seems to be forgetting about farmers’ markets, such as the one at Grand Army Plaza every Shabbos. That would seem to fit the classical definition of a platya, and would be a reshus horabim if it were not surrounded by a proper eruv.

    • 21. Dovid wrote:

      Even if there is a platya in Brooklyn, it is only prohibited to carry in the platya itself and not in the rest of the borough since we are excluding any platya in the tzuras hapesachim encompassing CH (see Meiri, Shabbos 6a and Sefer Habattim, Sha’arei Issur Hotza’a 1:15).

    • 22. Milhouse wrote:

      David, the Park Slope Eruv includes the market at Grand Army Plaza, and Shabbos is davka the day on which the market is held! Lich’ora it’s not a problem, since it’s inside the mechitzos. But at any rate, my point was that Rabbi Shuchat seems to be unaware of these markets’ existence, since he says the concept of platya almost doesn’t exist nowadays. This is not a major flaw in his booklet, but it is a flaw.

    • 23. Dovid wrote:

      He is only referring to the CH eruv. As you said it makes no difference because it is enclosed by mechitzos.

    • 24. Milhouse wrote:

      No, he is not referring only to the CH eruv. He says the whole concept of platya almost doesn’t exist today.

    • 25. Dovid wrote:

      Correct, but under the heading The Eruv in Crown Heights he only mentions that Kingston is not a platya, since this is the only street that some have questioned if it is a platya.

  • 26. Can we get an ok for Cholov Stam? wrote:

    I really REALLY like Haagen daz Icecream.

    It would really make my shabbos more enjoyable to eat Haagen das!

    It also pains me greatly when I cannot have it.

    Any chance of getting an ok for using Cholov Stam?

    Maybe write a Kuntes about it.

    BTW – please make sure that the hechsher is also good according the the Rabbeiim because I want my Haagen daz to be l’chol hadayos.

    • 27. Milhouse wrote:

      There’s no such thing as cholov stam. If you want to eat Haagen Das you have a ready-made heter. Reb Moshe (the same one on whom you rely to forbid eruvin in Brooklyn) says that all commercial packaged milk is cholov yisroel.

      Unfortunately we don’t accept his opinion, on milk or on eruvin. But you’re entitled to accept it and nobody will have the right to treat you as a treif-eater for it, since you’ll be following a legitimate posek’s opinion.

    • 28. new on the market wrote:

      pittsburgh now has a ice cream that well surpasses haagen daz and is cholov yisroel also
      this ice cream will eventually make its way to new york in the near future
      Phils and Bills will make your shabbos morning more enjoyable with the super premium icecream that is cholov yisroel

    • 29. cholent mit kugel wrote:

      Chocolate chocolate chip in a sugar cone…mmm. Oh wait…is the cone Pas Yisroel ??

  • 31. Shloime wrote:

    I have looked everywhere, I can’t seem to find where the Rebbe said no. We know now that it is according to Halacha. Until we can get proof that the Rebbe said no 100%, I would have to side with the Eiruv. Enough with the broken telephone of what one person heard from another. Get us PROOF where the Rebbe said no!

    • 32. eli wrote:

      The Rebbe wrote that publicity of the Melbourne eruv would be a “takala ayumah” since it will make extra people carry. You can find this in shulchan Menachem chelek beis #183

  • 33. Izzy wrote:

    There are those who will bad mouth, use physical force, and even criminal actions to fight the eiruv, and strictly follow the Crown Heights Bais Din.
    Problem is , Crown Heights Bais Din are a bunch of guys who want your kabbolos ol, power, and money.
    I won’t give my life into some rabbis hands,
    Hashem wants us to worship Him, not some humans.
    Respect one another ” eilu v’eilu divrei elokim chaim”
    I will put my wife and kids as my top priority, not some rabbi with all his fancy credentials.

  • 34. We want Moshiach now wrote:

    I won’t use it, because the Rebbe said no but is the statement halachik? .Rebbe also said Moshiach is here i just have to open my eyes but I still fasted last Tisha b’Av

    • 35. Milhouse wrote:

      Since when did the Rebbe say not to use an eruv that was built against his wishes? Will your not carrying cause the eruv to fall down?!

  • 36. Anonymous wrote:

    if you really r Shuchat has good intention, why you will not talk to Rabbi heller before writing anything, you know very property he is against, and it is Rav in crown Height, not you

  • 37. haskoma of badats? wrote:

    why didnt he get haskomas from the badats of crown hights?

  • 38. WRONG wrote:

    he is wrong and writing misleasding info.

    if hes the most learned guy you know..your in trouble….

    • 39. Dovid wrote:

      I suspect that you don’t even understand what he is talking about. So don’t write that he is misleading. I would love to see your rebuttals.

  • 40. To Rabbi Shochat. wrote:

    You failed to include in your article why YOU feel that Rabbi Heller and Rabbi Osdaba are not correct with there statements in regards the the Eruv. Why do u feel that you are correct and they are not?? Please revise your article so that people can be more informed.

    • 41. Because wrote:

      Those Rabbis did not actually check the eruv, he did. Rav Heller merely spoke about the issue of carrying without knowing if there is in fact a kosher eruv. Rabbi Osdeba is clearly opposed to the Eruv for reasons that are not exclusively halacha based.

  • 42. Great Piece and thanks Rabbi wrote:

    I will definitely look at your work and decide.

  • 43. Toras Chessed .................. wrote:

    Correct me if I am wrong but in the kuntres Rabbi Sholom schucat writes that a “beis soasayim” or a “karfaf shelo hukof ldira” is about 2.25 km x 2.25 km. and therefor except for Prospect Park there is no “Karfaf shelo hukof ldira”.

    I think that a “karfaf shelo hukaf ldira” is about 35 metres x 35 metres, and therefor even Lefferts Park or Rutland St Park is also a “Karfaf shelo hukof ldira”.!

    Also, in his kuntres he writes that the LIRR train tracks that run along Atlantic Ave is a “tzuras Hapesach”. This is far fetched to just look at an existing structure and call it a “tzuras Hapesach”.
    This is against the Yerushalmi , and agaisnt the Magen Avraham and against the Toras Chesed.

    • 44. Milhouse wrote:

      Using an existing tzuras hapesach is not at all far fetched. On the contrary, not to use it is extremely far fetched, a wild sevara that almost nobody agrees with. Neither the Yerushalmi nor the Mogen Avrohom says such a thing. It’s the Toras Chessed’s own chiddush, and even he only suggests it as a possible sevara, which he uses as a snif. Lemaaseh nobody cares about it, and wherever such a structure can be used it is, without any hesitation. The Melbourne eruv uses it in several places.

    • 45. Milhouse wrote:

      You are wrong, he does not say that beis sosayim is 2.25km x 2.25km. He says it’s 2.25 km2. However, that too is obviously wrong. Beis sosayim is about 1050m2. I have no idea how he got his number.

      Nevertheless the whole problem is nonsense. Parks are not karpefim. This is not a “yesh lomar”, as he writes, it’s absolutely poshut lechol hade’os. Any area that is used by the public is not a karpef. That means the entire Lefferts and Rutland Parks are not a problem, and the only potential problem areas in Prospect Park are the lakes and the forested areas.

      Of course Prospect Park is surrounded by a wall, so it doesn’t affect the surrounding areas. And in the park itself, the forested areas where people can’t go are mostly surrounded by fences, and the big lake is used for boating so it’s OK.

  • 46. Make Crownheights great again wrote:

    To all those that keep saying Crownheights has rabbomin. This whole aruv controversy should serve as proof that Crownheights does not have rabbomin. For if we did people would be listening to them.

    While we as a community once did in fact have rabbomin. The current proclaimed Marah D’asra are not excepted by a large chunk (an ever expanding large chunk) of the community. They are not excepted, not because the younger generation is less frum than the previous generation. But rather because there is not much to respect in these individuals.

    The current Marah D’asra are plagued with intense fighting. Fighting not over halachic matters like our great sages once argued in the past. But over petty nonsense. They fight for the right to receive maftier in 770 and the exclusive rights to all weddings that take place rather than strive to create an environment where halacha can be followed more efficiently (aruv, kashrus, mikvah. etc.).

    If you look at the Chabad would. There is a tremendous amount of smart, torah educated rabbis who not only are fit to be the Marah D’asra of our community in an intellectual capacity. But also have the ability to execute, while putting the interests of the community rather than personal pursuits at the for front of their work. I believe Rabbi sholom ber shuchat is one example of said individuals and there are many more.

  • 47. Toras Chessed .................. wrote:

    Correct me if I am wrong. Rabbi Schuchat writes that a “karfaf” is about 2.25 sq. km. which is 2250 metres x 2250 metres. However since an amoh is less than 1/2 of a metre. This means that in every sq. metre you will have more than 4 sq amos. Being that a karfaf is 5000 sq amos. in metres it would mean that about 1250 sq metres would have more than 5000 sq amos. Which equals to about 35 or 36 metres x 35 or 36 metres. which is about 120 feet x 120 feet. is the amount of a karfaf shelo hukaf ldira. Which would make Lefferts Park and Rutland Ave Park both a karfaf shelo hukaf ldira. Not like Rabbi Shuchat asserted that only Prospect park would qualify as a karfaf shelo hukaf ldira.

    Also, Rabbi Shuchat asserts in his kuntres that Atlantic Ave LIRR line would be considered a tzuras hapesach. This is quite a stretch of ones imagination. and it is contrary to the opinions of the Talmud Yerushalmi, Magen Avraham (hilchois sukks siman 630) and the shut Toras Chesed siman 9.
    They say that you cannot use an existing structure and call it a tzuras hapesach. You can only use something which you put up by yourself. Including the amudim and the strings (koneh haelyona) have to be put up for the sake of an eruv.

    • 48. Dovid wrote:

      If Chabad wanted an eruv the Karfeifous can be taken care of. Your next argument is simply wrong

    • 49. Milhouse wrote:

      OK, you noticed your earlier error. Yes, you are correct that Shochet’s number for beis sosayim is ridiculously off. Beis sosayim is about 1050 m^2. But as I explained above Lefferts and Rutland Parks are not karpefim at all, because they are used by the public, and that’s what “dirah” means. There is no opinion that someone has to live there.

      On your second point you have no idea what you’re talking about.

      1. The Mogen Avrohom doesn’t even say anything about the subject; what you are referring to is the Toras Chessed’s own chiddush.

      2. You are grotesquely misrepresenting his words. He doesn’t say anything like what you claim. I would say go read it again, but I don’t believe you ever read it the first time. So go read it and inform yourself.

      3. Even what he does say (which as I wrote above is nothing like what you claim), he doesn’t claim is halacha, he just suggests it as a sevara, and uses it as a snif in his psak.

      4. In any case, nobody holds like it, so what he says is interesting torah but not relevant to any practical concern.

    • 50. Dovid wrote:

      Milhouse, your so right. We do not pasken like the Toras Chesed. Your right the guy never saw the Toras Chesed inside.

  • 51. Baffled wrote:

    I thought we already said, ברוך דיין האמת on the Eruv. Will there a new letter every day to foment machlokes and confusion.

    Good Shabbos to all.

  • 52. Anonymous wrote:

    Al-pi-din it is forbiden for anyone (even the bigest rav and lamden) to mix into halochos of a kehila which has rabonim. This is well known to anyone in the rabinic field. So what is going on here.

  • 54. new rov wrote:

    Next up Cong Ahavas Yisroel will elect R Shuchat as new Morah Deasrah of CH.

  • 55. The Jewish way? ! wrote:

    Is this the Jewish way for every shnuk who has smicho and a good pen should voice their opinion on serious halacha matters? 
    Especially when there are local morei horah b’poel who voiced clear opinions? 
    Where is basic dereach eretz to the morei d’asro? 
    Did he find an oportunity to get some name recognition? 

  • 57. Anonymous wrote:

    its right before gimmul tamuz and people are using the aruv when the rebbe said not to

    moshiach now

  • 59. if he doesnt understand the rabbnims psak... wrote:

    he should sit down with them so theyll explain it to him.
    publicizing his take on it when those greater in Torah knowledge than him said no is wrong, arrogant, and foolish
    who allowed him to pasken here anyway?

  • 60. Milhouse wrote:

    Note to all who are shouting “the Rebbe said no”: The Rebbe said not to build an eruv in Crown Heights. Very well, that means no Lubavitcher should build one. Well, guess what, no Lubavitcher has built one. Kol Israel is not under the Rebbe’s authority, and has no reason to obey the Rebbe’s wishes. He is not their boss, and they are 100% entitled to make their eruv as big as they like. And they didn’t even make it for Lubavitchers to use, or they’d have made a Rambam eruv.

    However now that it’s up the Rebbe’s opposition is irrelevant. Whether the Rebbe wanted it to be built or not, it has been built, and it now exists. The Rebbe never said not to carry in it, so all these people who claim that using the eruv is against the Rebbe’s wishes are simply spouting nonsense.

    The only reason not to carry in this eruv is because it’s not according to the Rambam, and the Alter Rebbe says that although the halocho is not like him we should be machmir. Anyone who considers himself a chossid of the Alter Rebbe, and relies on the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchon Oruc as his primary source of halocho, should not carry in this eruv.

  • 61. Milhouse wrote:

    Another thought occured to me: saying that since the Rebbe was against building the eruv therefore we should not carry there would be like saying that since the Rebbe was adamantly against the establishment of the State of Israel, therefore people should not move there or live there, serve in the army, pay taxes, accept funding, etc. In other words the Satmar shita.

    But as we all know the Rebbe, along with the vast majority of gedolei yisroel, rejected that shita. Until the state was established, almost all gedolei yisroel were against it; but once it was established almost all of them adapted to the new reality and agreed that since it exists it must be dealt with, and the fact that it shouldn’t have been established in the first place has become irrelevant. It’s done. The issue is now obsolete. The same should apply to the eruv.

  • 62. Yankel Todres wrote:


    Why did Rabbi Shuchat decide that it was his job to interfere with the conduct of a Kehilla Kedosha that has its own appointed Rabbonim? As we know from the time of the Gemara, the Chachomim publicly sanctioned extremely great Torah scholars (who may have been correct), when their ruling challenged the established Chachomim.

    There may not be even a perception of weakening the power of the established Rabbonim. No one may dare to challenge the power of the Rabbonim!

    As the Chachomim have stated, “Hakol B’yedei Shomayim, Chutz M’yiras Shomayim.)

    May the Al-Mighty grant that “Osah Shalom B’miromav Hu Yaaseh Sholom Aleinu”

  • 63. Malach Hamaves wrote:

    Perhaps if the actual Rabonnim of CH wrote a PROPER HALACHIC Teshuva as to why the Eruv is no good, why an Eruv cannot be made in CH al pi Halacha, and al smach ma they passul the wine of anyone who carries (especially by fact that most poskim say there IS no “Reshus HaRabim D’Oarisa” today, and as R Shuchat said in the article that putting up a Tzuras HaPesach makes it mutar D’Oarisa so we are left with at most a D’Rabannan issue which surely does not turn someone into an oived avoda zora) people would be more inclined to follow their “rulings”. But when it is all hearsay and hysterics how can they expect anyone to take them seriously? This is a TORAH argument, that needs to be based on TORAH sources, and written out in a clear concise manner as has always been done throughout history. I have no doubt that ALL of the Rabonnim on the Beis Din and of the schunah could write very educated informative teshuvos on the issue, so why has NO ONE done so? Why is everyone engaging in mudslinging worse than the upcoming Presidential election? As far as the Rebbe is concerned, does it not strike anyone as odd that there is not a single shred of conclusive evidence about what he actually said on the matter? Especially a matter of such importance? How can that be? What are we not being told here?

  • 64. Shuchats kunteress wrote:

    After reading the Rebbes letters in the kuntres that was put out on Shabbos {purportedly by the Kollel but you can see it is not by them because it is a pro eruv kunteres} with all the letters and they included Vosners letter to sneak it in. The reason they put out the Rebbes letters was to show that the Rebbe was pro Eiruv. It is clear that the Rebbe was pro eruv in the sense that it is done quietly to save people from carrying. It is also clear from all the letters that the Rebbe is totally against using the eruv for normal usage and to permit carrying. If it comes down to that the Rebbe is against making it even to save people that were carrying. In a place that it was already entrenched then the Rebbe at least urges the Rav to make it as kosher as possible but lechatchila to make one the Rebbe was totally against unless as he writes in the English letter it could be done strictly according to the din which is almost impossible in a big city

    In Shuchats kuntress he himself alludes to that in his points at the end. He also raises the many issues with problematic streets in CH and the difficulty in fixing them if you wanted to make this Eruv lechatchila.

  • 65. The proof is in the pudding wrote:

    I’m not a boki in the rebbes horaaos so I can’t cite where the rebbe advised against an Eruv in CH but what I do know is that there wasn’t a positive [kedusha] initiative on the planet that the Rebbe didn’t invest to see it fulfilled. Such as shuls, schools, mikvaos, etc.

    Don’t you think that over the years of the Rebbe’s life the opportunities to build an Eruv presented itself often? Don’t you think the requests to the Rebbe were numerous? Don’t you think if the Rebbe was for it the committee for Eruv would have a teshuva from the Rebbe, a dollar from the Rebbe given as hishtatfus etc.? Absence of evidence isn’t NECESSARILY evidence of absence but in this situation it seems abundantly clear that the Rebbe never gave encouragement or approval to an Eruv initiative in CH. To a chossid who cares what the Rebbe’s positions were, that should suffice.

    Perhaps live and let live and Kingston Pizza should sell non cholov yisroel ice cream and if you don’t wish to buy, then don’t! Perhaps CH should have restaurants that are non cholov yisroel and you should live and let live… The community is right to put it’s foot down and set it straight that CH isn’t Five Towns or Flatbush. If you want that lifestyle go live there. Don’t drag the Rebbe’s shechuna into places where the Rebbe near wanted it to go. And if you wish to purchase cloths that violate tznius standards, go purchase it elsewhere and don’t expect it to be on sale in Kingston Ave. Jewish shops.

  • 66. No bias? wrote:

    Iam sure he had no bias the last time he name was in the news. #cattleprod
    Al shlosha dvarim haolam omaid. KESEF, KESEF, KESEF.

    It was the case last time…

  • 67. Anonymous wrote:

    I wish lubavitch in Rousseau had shuchet he wood of be able to make an eruv even though the tzemach tzedek did not know how to make one

    • 68. Milhouse wrote:

      1.What makes you think Lubavitch didn’t have an eruv?

      2. Where did you hear that the Tzemach Tzedek didn’t know how to make an eruv? Not that it was his job to do so, but if called on of course he could have done it.

      3. Where did Rousseau write about Lubavitch?

  • 69. "First" Chabad Rov"?? wrote:

    “First” – what about Rabbi Chezzi Denninbaum Shlitah, Rov of CAY tat was first to say he will use the eruv?

  • 70. Basic halach wrote:

    hilchos eruvin siman 319 Halacha 8: “any street that had tar is a reshus harabim.”
    Hilchos eruvin siman 498 Halacha 7: “any reshus harabim cannot become kosher with an eruv tavshilin. Even for pesach or Yom kippur”.
    I rest my case.

  • 72. Crown Heights Resident wrote:

    Even if the Eruv is Kosher we shouldn’t use it. Until we learn all the Halachos of an Eruv. To make sure we use the Eruv according to Halacha

  • 75. just someone wrote:

    oh please, this is getting so old already.

    To the croakers stating over and over its what the rebbe said…when you do what the rebbe wanted in all your daled amos you can go on anonymously and croak to everyone else your nonsense.

    That said, the comment above about the rabbonim is sadly correct. I know fewer and fewer that have any respect for the rabonnim, sad fact but its a fact.

  • 76. stop the Machlokes wrote:

    You are guilty of a disservice to our Kehila for giving a platform to the writings of SB Schuchet.
    He just recently was involved in the great Chilul Hashem surrounding the issue of :Forced Gittin.
    He was also a major spokesman for Berel Shemtov in the Chillul Hashem of taking the Baley Batim of West Bloomfield to secular court.
    The Agudas Horabonimthat that he is part of is headed by Aryeh Ralbag who also heads the triangle K that most in our community would never take into their house.
    Why are you giving him a bima to spread Machlokes?

  • 77. Suri wrote:

    If Rabbi Shucht said that the eruv is Kosher then its good enough reason for me to carry,

  • 78. Learn to read. wrote:

    Shuchat himself says that it (the non-existent eruv) cannot be used the way it was constructed.
    So if u decide to use it pls carry a sign that says “not chabad” together with all the non essential stuff u lust after carrying.
    Then when frum children see you being mehalel shabbos, they will know that you are not part of the chabad community.
    Ps. If you are not frum yet and are visiting our community to see, grow, and/or learn, this note is not directed to you at all. It is only for don’t-wanna-be-chassidim-anymore dropouts from Chabad families who still proclaim that they are part of Chabad. So sorry you people are drifting away. Using the eruv is like punching a hole in your life-jacket even as you are drifting at sea.

    • 79. Milhouse wrote:

      What about people who are frum and are not Chabad? You seem to forget that most frum Jews are not Chabad, and have no reason to adopt strange chumros just because the Alter Rebbe recommended them, nor any reason to care about the Rebbe’s concerns about the effect of eruvin in modern society.

  • 80. YMSP wrote:

    Whoever wrote this supposed synopsis has done a great disservice to Rabbi Shuchat with this title and write-up. It is also a false presentation to the public as to what he says (even though I do not believe that what he says, which is far less than presented, trumps all of the gedolim of the previous generation, and I do believe that his understanding is overly pinpointed as opposed to the general view that they took of what constitutes a Reshus HaRabim).

    However….. The people attacking him viciously are part of the reason why I wrote not to make this about “kovod” “ha”rabbonim (some will also understand why I quotationed the parts that I did).

    In the end though, his arguments don’t stand up. All of the gedolim of the past generation made it clear that a Reshus HaRabim is to be considered by the amount of people (lenient view) and width of the area (strict view), not by its shape. They clearly viewed all descriptions of shape to be descriptions of how they actually looked at that time, not as qualifiers.

    The title is also a misnomer. He has learned 4 chelkei Shulchan Aruch and can be considered a dayan (and I might add, a much better and knowledgeable one than the person in Aus. who tested him). But, at least to my knowledge, he has no shimush and isn’t a “rov,” nor does he call himself one. Certainly, your approbations are a disservice to him, and are likely unwanted by him.

    He also writes that nothing that he writes is meant for practice and is just academic. His main point in writing seems to be that those who carry aren’t Mechalelei Shabbos lchol hadeios (breaking Shabbos according to all opinions). He writes explicitly that even according to his view, one should not use it except in case of great, great need and not at all according to the Alter Rebbe.

    The headline, not his pamphlet, is false and misleading and a great disservice to the public with regard to an isur dOraisa, that all rabbonim, not a yungerman with dayanus, held was a clear Torah prohibition for reasons enumerated clearly by Rabbi Berel Levin. I don’t find his arguments to be right for the reason above (reshus harabim defined by number of people according to the most lenient view and not by shape and symantics), but his pure intentions deserved to be portrayed in the way that he said them.

  • 81. Sad to say wrote:

    The sad situation out there today is that there are quite a few Yungerlite who believe that have what it takes to Pasken Halochos, they are very haughty and this is extremely disastrous.
    In truth they don’t even look into Sefarim when they Pasken (they don’t even know where to look) – they have total lack of Yiras Shomayim. It’s very scary.

  • 82. To #18 wrote:

    I get your comparison. Giving a Hechsher to something not Kosher so you can have your favorite brand of ice cream.
    It’s a shallow and self serving comparison.
    There are plenty of good ice creams. There is a new brand in Pittsburgh, Cholov Yisroel – it is amazing!!!

    But being trapped on Shabbos has no easy fix. I will copy and paste a comment I saw on FaceBook.
    This woman is not alone. She expresses the real reason we need an Eruv.

    … sometimes on Shabbos I feel like I’m going crazy and sometimes I just want to go on a walk with my husband and my baby and enjoy my family together outside where there is fresh air, not in my tiny cramped apartment. To say that the eruv doesn’t affect women is an absurd and ignorant comment…

    • 83. Can we get an ok for shaving? wrote:

      I really REALLY like to shave – this beard thing is driving me crazy.

      It would help me in my parnassa – that should be grounds for a hetter!

      It would really make my shabbos more enjoyable to be clean shaven l’kovod shabbos – that is also a reason to find a hetter!!!

      It also inconveniences me greatly to have a scruffy beard – tzar is a hetter too!!!.

      Also, my wife really doesn’t like the broom growing on my face – sholom bayis is a great reason to find a hetter to shave!!!

      Any chance of getting an ok for shaving? The beard affects my parnassa, my well being, my sholom bayis, my oneg shabbos!!!

      Maybe write a nice little Kuntes about it.

      BTW – please make sure that the hechsher is also good according the the Rabbeiim because I want heter for shaving to be l’chol hadayos.

      And after that, write another kuntras because I would like eating Lubavitcher Shchita Glatt pork.

    • 84. Milhouse wrote:

      There are plenty of heterim for shaving, as you well know. And guess what, nobody regards those who rely on these heterim as avaryonim. On the contrary, everyone knows that for centuries there have been great talmidei chachomim, giants in yir’ei shomayim, who were beardless because they held this was allowed. That we pasken differently doesn’t change that; they have the right to pasken as they do, just as we have the right to pasken as we do. We must respect the legitimacy of their psak, just as they do ours.

      Nevertheless, as you well know, we do not pasken like the matirim. We hold that shaving is ossur, mostly because of the Zohar’s position; so the only way you can remove your beard is by removing yourself from “we”. If you decide that you are no longer a chossid, and accept instead, as your rebbe and posek, someone who permits shaving, then you can shave. But you can’t be a פוסח על שתי הסעיפים.

    • 85. Can we get an ok for shaving? wrote:

      I want to shave with a full haskama u’bracha from OUR rabbonim.

      I don’t want to be one of “them” but remain one of “us”.

      I am sure some rov can write a kuntras allowing shaving “in times of need” – just like the eruv.

      And while you are at it, if Chazal were able to be mettaher a sheretz in 150 ways, surely someone is smart enough to be mattir eating pork (of course only if it is Lubavitch shchita).

      Interesting that the chazal about 150 ways of being mattir a sheretz is in ERUVIN 12b – 13a!!

    • 86. Milhouse wrote:

      You cannot get a heter to shave according to our psak, because we pasken that it’s forbidden. That is where your comparison to eruvin breaks down. The new eruv is 100% kosher, according to almost all opinions, including the Alter Rebbe. We do not pasken like the Rambam. We are machmir like him, but we hold that the halacha is not like him. Therefore although we should not carry in this eruv we still hold that it’s kosher.

  • 87. Rabbi Alan Betsalel Friedlander wrote:

    The Same Problem with the Crown Heights Eruv Still Applies

    Rabbi Sholom Ber Shuchat wrote as his first guideline for his heter: “Whoever uses the Eruv should do so only in great need.”
    In other words would seem to mean the rav is saying don’t use it really, only consider it bedieved or beshaas dochak, not lechatichilah / initially and in such a case, don’t consider a person who does as a violator of shabbos.
    The same reasons that I mentioned before still apply. Not attempting to undermine a bais din in a tight-knit kehillah, and not causing anguish to Jews who will never ignore the position of said bais din since it represents the majority opinion of the rabbanim of the kehillah.
    One should not risk hurting Jews in place of oneg shabbos if one has any alternative. Ahavas Yisrael should motivate us to avoid relying on leniency in the case of the Greater Crown Heights Eruv where at all possible, whatever the nuts and bolts of it technically.

  • 88. puzzled? wrote:

    1. We have a previous Psak From Harav Zalman Shimon Dvorkin against the Eiruv which was also signed by Other prominent Rabbonim. 2. Leibel Groner The Rebbe’s Mazkir said B’phairush that the Rebbe is against an Eiruv in Ch & probably has it in writing Is that not good enough for anyone anymore?3. The fact that The Ch Rabbonim are against it makes any argument irrelevant. It doesn’t matter why! There is a clear Halacha that the local Bais din or Rav of a Shechuna is the authority & he or they cannot be overruled! 4. The fact That Ra Heller says clearly That E.p. is a Reshus Harabim also brings the din of Meshulosh Streets that are connected to one also become a Reshus harabim as a result.5. very Likely at least Utica Avenue & Atlantic Avenue are in fact a Reshus harabim by themselves. I humbly submit that when The Alter Rebbe stated in Shulchan Aruch that there is no Reshus Harabim today he was not Zoicheh to see into this century & mass transportation Atlantic Avenue is connected with numerous major streets which clearly are a Reshus Harabim! Flatbush Avenue, 4th Avenue, Adams Street ( the one that connects to The Brooklyn Bridge), The B.Q.E., Court Street Nostrand Avenue Utica Avenue6. This so-called Rav in Monsey that is in favor of it & claims to be an expert is not using his father’s name & correspondence with the Rebbe means nothing He claims to be an expert in Stam &is not. He was taken to task on these subjects & more by a well known & respected Rav in Monsey no less. The so-called Eiruv Expert fromLakewood that claims he inspected the Eiruv etc. & is in favor of it can’t even get an Eiruv built in his own Community of Lakewood. Shochet as A Rav presumably knows all this & yet chooses to put his 2 sense in? He obviously has an agenda probably a paid one & therefore no business butting in. If anyone read the L’maan Yishamu of this past week in regards to respecting Talmidei Chachamim. There was the Maaseh of The 2 Geonim( don’t remember the names exactly therefore am stating Geonim) If anyone remembers the name Kol Hakavod to them that were walking along & came across two young men sitting on a park bench that did not stand up for them. One commented to the other we must be in the times before Moshiach since they are not standing up for us. The second one disagreed & said The sign will be when the young ones ask us to stand up for them & give them respect That is what is happening now Rav Osdoba & Rav Heller are senior Rabbonim who have been around a long time & after they were elected as The Rabbonim along with Harav Marlow Zatzal they were given the Koach By The Rebbe. Yet they are being disrespected by Younger people many of them who have no knowledge etc. Some even say that these who are now pushing The Eiruv are some of the very same disruptive students of yesteryear if you will that the Hnaholah refused to expel for causing trouble! If that is the case then that helps in part explain their actions today

    • 89. Yechi wrote:

      I asked my friend who is on the Eiruv committee and he said he didn’t pay Shuchat anything. And wasn’t even aware that his booklet was being written until it was finished.

  • 90. Moishy wrote:

    Fyi Rabbi Brauns father Harav Chaim Luzer Braun Ztzl Rav Of Sharei Tzion and famous author of Sheorim Hamtzionim Behalacha Signed a Kol Korah in Boro Park that you can carry Lekatchila on the Eruv. And that you should support it.
    I don’t see a difference Lehalacha between Crown Heights and Boro Park.

    • 91. You don't see wrote:

      You don’t see a difference Lehalacha between Crown Heights and Boro Park??? Even the name: Boro PARK implies a park – a karmalis vs CROWN Heights implies the KING’S Highway which is a Reshus Harabim. Isn’t that OBVIOUS?! But if you don’t SE the difference, can you at least not FEEL the difference?! That is how we should decide halcha: the way we SEE or FEEL or SMELL (I think it says somewhere that moshiach smells and paskens!).

    • 92. Milhouse wrote:

      Don’t be an idiot. There is no park in Borough Park, and no king in Crown Heights. There is no halachic difference between the two, and no serious person thinks there is.

    • 93. Toshov Hashchuna wrote:

      How dare you say that Kan Tziva is no different than BoroPark?! Only a menuval would equate the Rebbe’s Shchuna to other neighborhoods. Reminds me of the Tzionist menuval who equated Eretz Yisroel to Uganda.

    • 94. Parks-Ville wrote:

      What about Parksville.
      A Park I dont know, but what a King…
      And my oh my what a breeding ground…

  • 95. Suri wrote:

    The Rabbi that put up the Eruv did not put it up for the Chabad community, and not all Yidden that live in Crown Heights are Labavitch, so if you don’t want to use it because you think it is not Kosher than don’t but it is there for the people that do want to use it

  • 96. יחמיר לעצמו wrote:

    וכל בעל נפש יחמיר לעצמו – a “baal nefesh” should be machmir on HIMSELF, but NOT on his wife and children, and certainly not on neighbors and coreligionist.

    When you are machmir on YOURSELF, it is certainly INAPPROPRIATE to draw attention to yourself by proclaiming: “Look how super-frum I am!” It is NOT “chassidish” to announce: “Look how extra machmir I am!” IT is also not our derech to look down our noses at others who may not keep each and every chumra that one keeps himself.

  • 97. Cars wrote:

    A car, based on it’s dimensions, would be considered a reshus hayachid.

    When a street is filled with cars, the wide “street” is now a narrow laneway between the (moving) cars. It no longer has the 24 feet of open space.

    Also, the people in the cars are no longer part of the 600,000 people in the reshus harabim because they are in a reshus hayachid.

    The fact is that the major steets are often congested with multiple cars/reshus hayachids.

  • 100. Open Source Halakha wrote:

    If your going to accept the LIRR Hempstead line into tricking Hashkem to think it’s a doorway, your then going to have to accept the MTA number 3 train into the open-source halaklah discussion what the consensus by hand of raise would be it considered. And since Halacha according Milhouse is all about cheftza, in line with the rambam, we can toss the will of the gavra along with the rabbunim who wrote it in the first place.

    • 101. Milhouse wrote:

      Tricking Hashem?! What kind of apikorsus is that? If it has the shape of a doorway it is one, and min hatorah it is a mechitzah, which means Hashem says so and if you don’t like it then you’re an apikores.

      your then going to have to accept the MTA number 3 train into the open-source halaklah discussion what the consensus by hand of raise would be it considered

      Um, amost all the individual words in that seem to be English, but the arrangement is a word salad and I am unable to extract any meaning from it. Did you just pick about two dozen words at random from a dictionary and write them down?

      I have no idea what meaning the rest of this comment is meant to convey.


Comments are closed.