Unpacking the Iggerot: Brooklyn Eruv Battles
Read more about “Unpacking the Iggerot” and see the archive of all past columns.
Unpacking the Iggerot: The Battle for the Brooklyn Eruv/ Iggerot Moshe, O.H., vol. 4, #87
Summarizing the Iggerot
In Reshumei Aharon (vol. 2, p. 4), R. Aharon Felder describes a scenario in which two prestigious rabbis from the Flatbush neighborhood of Brooklyn met with R. Moshe Feinstein in an attempt to persuade him to authorize the construction of an eruv in their area. However, for similar reasons we reviewed in our column about the Manhattan eruv, R. Feinstein did not wish to support it, even as he reassured them that he would not publicly oppose it, as they had legitimate halakhic opinions to rely on. Nonetheless, these two rabbis had apparently misinterpreted R. Feinstein’s neutrality and proceeded to rally support for the Flatbush eruv, claiming that they had, in fact, received his full support!
It is within this context that he was forced to pen a 1978 responsum (Iggerot Moshe, O.H., vol. 4, #87) in which he issued to the Vaad HaRabbonim of Flatbush an unequivocal repudiation of this initiative:
I had stated that I did not want to involve myself in this matter, for there are many opinions as to what constitutes a public domain….. However, after a rumor had been spread that it was I who authorized this, based on what I had said, I am now compelled to address this and to clarify my reasoning in brief.
R. Feinstein proceeds to rehash some of the earlier analysis found in his original responsa on Brooklyn and Manhattan eruvin two decades prior. He notably rejects the novel leniency of the Arukh ha-Shulhan (O.H. 345:19-20) which posits that there can only be a Biblical public domain when there is a singular main thoroughfare that all the other streets are ancillary to. Such a position would essentially render city blocks a mere Rabbinical public domain, since, busy as they may be, they are not the only thoroughfare. (Within this broader topic, there is also a discussion about the nature of Ocean Parkway being a mavui ha-mefulash me-sha’ar le-sha’ar that is beyond the scope of our discussion.) The responsum concludes by reemphasizing its opening:
But now that there was a rumor that I was the one who permitted [the eruv], which is very much against that which I have written and reasoned in practice, I have been forced to write this letter which clarifies that which I have written—and also additional details, whether leniencies or stringencies, which I had not written in my original responsum because they were not necessary [at the time].
Once again, R. Moshe Feinstein attempted to recuse himself from the controversies of New York City eruvin, but in the words of another noteworthy New Yorker, “Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.” And, as we will see below this was not the last time that circumstances would force him to issue a public repudiation.
Connecting the Iggerot
One year later, in 1979, he was asked again to offer his perspective to the Vaad HaRabbonim of Flatbush, and he reiterated his opposition to the eruv (O.H., vol. 4, #88). In this responsum, he clearly states that in quantifying the 600,000 threshold for constituting a Biblical public domain, Brooklyn would be assessed separately from Manhattan as they are separated by the East River. Remarkably, R. Feinstein writes “that even if the truth is that afterwards they have determined that there is less than 600,000, an eruv should still not be constructed—for the masses are unaware of this.” However, he immediately writes that based on the information he received there are about three million residents plus another million commuters who pass through Brooklyn on a typical basis.
In a later 1981 responsum (O.H., vol. 5, #28:2), R. Feinstein provides a lengthy series of elaborations expanding upon his previous writings as well as introducing some novel rulings. For instance, he clarifies his position from the original Manhattan responsum, in which he inexplicably dismissed those who wanted to omit drivers from the 600,000 count, on the basis that they are contained within a vehicular reshut ha-yahid (an enclosed, private domain). Here, he explains that he objected to classifying the cars as a classic private domain since most vehicles do not serve as residences. He argues that halakha would conceptualize the driver as moving the vehicle rather than the vehicle moving the driver, so much so that driving would constitute a violation of hotza’ah, akin to pushing a cart or stroller (in addition to other violations of Shabbat).
We will return to this significant responsum soon, as it comes at the culmination of a controversy in another Brooklyn neighborhood: Borough Park.
Reception of the Iggerot
Like in our treatment of the Manhattan eruv, we noted that there is a large cast of characters who were involved in various capacities both for and against its implementation. And, unsurprisingly, there is some overlap when it comes to Brooklyn. However, nothing is as captivating as the peculiar and confounding exchange between Rabbis Moshe Feinstein and Menashe Klein about creating the Borough Park eruv. R. Klein is the author of the monumental Mishneh Halakhot, a pillar of 20th century responsa literature, whose contents on eruvin (primarily from vol. 8) were collated into a separate work aptly titled Om Ani Homa. These responsa are unfortunately undated, but it stands to reason that they occurred during the late 1970s (as R. Feinstein’s final response in the exchange is dated to 1981), around the same time that the Flatbush controversy was in full bloom.
Earlier in the work, R. Klein describes a personal conversation that he had with R. Feinstein, in which the latter had clarified that his qualms against the Manhattan eruv were exclusive, and that an eruv in Brooklyn was halakhically feasible. When R. Klein asked him to clarify his stance on Borough Park specifically, R. Feinstein responded that it would be acceptable, provided it could be done with a consensus of rabbis (p. 69).
Upon receiving apparent approval from his senior, R. Klein convened a council of local rabbis and proceeded with the project. However, some time later he was informed that R. Feinstein had publicly opposed this project. Confounded, R. Klein reports that R. Feinstein’s grandson, R. Mordechai Tendler, had called him and explained that R. Feinstein had decided to rescind his authorization. R. Klein proceeds to lament that he had only undertaken the project on the basis of R. Feinstein’s approval:
And why do I need this anguish, for it is known that I do not involve myself in issuing any kosher certifications, whether for meat, milk, salt, and sugar. With the aid of God, I just sit and study Torah, answer inquiries, and give lectures to students, as organized in our holy yeshiva. And to this matter I entered, as I was asked to join a gathering of rabbis. And now the Agudath HaRabbonim issues a letter signed by the king ,man malki rabbanan [i.e., R. Feinstein], that it is forbidden to construct an eruv in Brooklyn since it constitutes a public domain, and anyone who relies on it is considered a public violator of Shabbat, and those who construct the eruv are considered to be misleading the masses with transgressing our holy Shabbat (pp. 155-156).
He writes that there is a tape circulating that purports to be of R. Feinstein authorizing acts of vandalism and violence against the rabbis who have taken part in the Brooklyn eruvin projects (pp. 157-158), and further documents extremely disturbing instances such as one anonymous individual calling the house of a pro-eruv rabbi threatening his wife that they would dismember her husband’s hands and feet and render her a widow. One rabbinic family was forced to flee New York out of concern for its safety. R. Klein notes the twisted irony: Think of all the halakhic inquiries that went unanswered as a result of this terror campaign. Think of those who will observe this and infer that if this is the way of Torah then they want no part of it for them or their children. “Woe to the Torah if this is how it is meant to be honored!” (p. 269).
It is inconceivable to think that R. Feinstein (or R. Aharon Kotler, et al.) would have ever approved of any of these acts of perverse zealotry. Indeed, R. Klein claimed that he possessed an original copy of the public statement against the eruv in Brooklyn and R. Feinstein’s name does not appear on it (p. 352).
One of the most perplexing elements of this saga is that R. Klein had actually requested to meet in person with R. Feinstein, so that they can discuss and put the controversy to rest. However, he was reportedly rebuffed by R. Feinstein’s grandson on the basis of his deteriorating health and concern for further political involvement. It remains unclear to me whether they ever meet again in person after this point in time.
What we do know, however, is that R. Feinstein issued a written responsum in response to R. Klein. Returning to his aforementioned 1981 responsum (O.H., vol. 5, #28:20):
In any event, I have already explained the rationale not to construct an eruv in Brooklyn—not even within a one section of it…and even if I had once approved of it, then for practical halakhic purposes there is a necessary reason to rescind it. But HaRav HaGaon R. Menashe Klein shlit”a must know that I was not aware that our conversation [about the Borough Park eruv] was intended for practical implementation…
Reflecting on the Iggerot
Similar to the Manhattan eruv saga, the same trajectory can be observed in which R. Feinstein began with more laissez faire acceptance of the pro-eruvin camp, which, over time, appears to have developed into a more vocal opposition. This is, at least partially, due to his recusal being misconstrued by other rabbis as an approval, thereby necessitating him to make his opposing position on these matters publicly and clearly known.
Beyond the halakhic minutiae and rabbinic intrigue lies the broader social element and to what degree it was, or was not, factored into the eruvin analysis. R. Feinstein was unmoved by the argument to construct a eruv which relied on leniencies in order to save the habitual Shabbat violators (O.H., vol. 5, #28:22), but what of the plight of many ewish mothers confined to her homes with young children, unable to traverse their local streets due to the inability to carry their children or utilize a stroller? This line of argumentation was advanced by prominent rabbis, such as R. Moskowitz (in the context of the Manhattan eruv) and even later made it into the pages of the New York Times (“Symbolic Line Divides Jews in Borough Park; A Debate Over Strictures for Sabbath Observance” -[June 2, 2000]):
On the surface, the eruv debate is simply one of differing Talmudic interpretation. But over the last eight months, the controversy has tapped issues of culture and of gender, pitting friend against friend, Hasidim against Lithuanian Jews and women against men…”The eruv is the best thing to come along since instant chicken soup,” said Bassi Weber, a Hasidic Jew and the mother of three, including a 12-week-old boy…”The people seeing the biggest benefit are the young mothers who used to be locked up in the house,” said Rabbi Efraim Blumenberg, the president of the Eruv Society of Boro Park. ”Now you see them going out. The whole world is opened up for them. The benefit is so strong it overshadows everything.” Although it was men who put up the first small eruv in the neighborhood last year, it was women who pushed for its expansion and greeted it with enthusiasm. That includes Mrs. Weber, who says scholars can argue over the eruv all they want, but as long as her family’s rabbi continues to say it is kosher, she will use it…”Before they put up the eruv, by the time Saturday night came I wanted to run out of the house,” Mrs. Weber said. ”My kids would say, ‘Oh, no, not Shabbos again.’ Now it’s like, ‘Wow, it’s Shabbos. Are we going to go outside?’”
On the other hand, the rabbis who opposed constructing an eruv in Brooklyn objected to allowing the halakhic disagreement to be caricatured into a matter of whether one was sufficiently sympathetic of Jewish mothers:
”It cheapens the Sabbath, it makes it look like a weekday, and that is not something we want to see,” said Rabbi Shaul Bick, whose father, Rabbi Moshe Bick, was a leading opponent of an earlier proposal to build an eruv. ”People could abuse it.” Rabbi Bick said he did not want to appear unsympathetic to women with children, but he contended that part of keeping the Sabbath holy was to make sacrifices. The solution for homebound women is not to use an eruv and risk violating the Sabbath, but instead to make their husbands take over more care of the children, Rabbi Bick said.
This latter argument is more representative of R. Feinstein’s position. Returning to his later responsum against Brooklyn eruvin, he notes the significant inconveniences the lack of an eruv poses, but contends that “in contrast to this there is another consideration, that due to this everyone will not know of the prohibition to transfer [carrying outside of an eruv]—and it is certainly a very significant sin to cause the forgetting of Torah, even when we know that no mishap will occur from this” (O.H., vol. 5, #28:21). However, in the very next responsum (O.H., vol. 5, #29) he looks positively upon the prospective eruv in Detroit, explicitly noting “the women are deeply distressed” by its absence. For R. Feinstein, the social component is indeed a factor, but it is not the sole determinant. To adapt a pithy formulation: The social element has a vote, but not a veto.
Endnote: In the 1981 responsum which we have referenced throughout this column (ibid, #28:3), R. Feinstein directly addressed Hazon Ish’s remarkable and very questionable theory of using the buildings of the city to form a halakhically continuous wall. He notes that Hazon Ish’s approach runs contrary to the Mishna Berura whose words “are considered the standard position of all of the Jewish people.” This is a rather surprising assertion, as disciples of R. Feinstein, such as R. Michel Shirkin (Meged Givot Olam, vol. 2, pp. 83-84), note that their teacher preferred the Arukh ha-Shulhan to the Mishna Berura, as the former lays out the entire sugya and was also a communal rabbis with practical experience in day-to-day psak. We could potentially resolve this by noting that in a separate responsum, R. Feinstein permits relying on a lenient position of the Mishna Berura on the premise that “he is the master of the latter generations in rulings of matters of Orah Hayyim.” Perhaps he gave R. Kagan, the author of the Mishna Berura, more prominence in Orah Hayyim, which his work analyzes, and grants the Arukh ha-Shulhan priority in the remaining areas of halakha.
I have generally refrained from making this point throughout the series, but I think it might be helpful to note that these assertions concerning Mishna Berura appear in the eighth volume of Iggerot Moshe, which were posthumously edited and published by members of the family. This is notable, as there always lingers the question of whether something that R. Feinstein had communicated was subject to a degree of broken telephone. This is not an accusation, Heaven forfend, but a description of the difference between a ruling written by his own pen versus what was recorded by disciples. It is also noteworthy that the same grandson who served as intermediary between R. Feinstein and R. Klein was also the same individual who co-edited his grandfather’s response to R. Klein.
For further reading, see “A Chapter in American Orthodoxy: The Eruvin in Brooklyn” by R. Dr. Adam Mintz (Hakirah 14 [2012]) and “Kol Koreis Versus Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l’s Teshuvos” (eruvonline.blogspot.com) regarding his gradually more stringent stance.
Prepare ahead for our next column (June 5): What’s in a Name? On the use of Jewish and non-Jewish names / Iggerot Moshe, O.H., vol. 4, #66
Moshe Kurtz is the incoming rabbi of Cong. Sons of Israel in Allentown, PA, the author of Challenging Assumptions, and hosts the Shu”T First, Ask Questions Later.