B”H
13th of Tishrei 5782, Budapest
To the Rav Mottel Krasniansky
The Rav of Congregation Ohr Chodosh Melbourne, Australia
I read your letter attacking the kol korei that was published by sixteen Chabad Rabbanim, those who pasken, and roshei yeshivos, regarding the possibility and obligation to establish eruvin wherever you can make one properly according to the piskei HaShulchan Aruch, the Alter Rebbe and the Tzemach Tzedek, and our Rebbe zy”a, and you renounce their psak, in a strident manner, not the way a Torah scholar comports himself. And therefore, I am writing the following to strengthen the rabbanim’s psak, and to reveal your mistakes.
In order to make it easier for the reader I split this in to six chapters: First chapter why would you hide the details of the Melbourne Eruv whose details illuminate the Rebbes answer? Second chapter: It’s an explicit mitzvah to make an eruv everywhere. Third chapter: The Rebbes opinion that even in our generation we should establish eruvin in the big cities. Fourth chapter: An additional reason to make eruvin is, that women should not become dejected. Fifth chapter: When you have two letters of the Rebbe contradicting one another do we just delete the first one? Sixth chapter: Do we rely on rumors that are contrary to Shulchan Aruch and against the letters the Rebbe wrote and signed?
1
Why would he hide the details of the Melbourne Eruv whose details illuminate the Rebbes answer?
In his letter he brings the answer that the Rebbe gave regarding the Melbourne Eruv:
“My position is widely known” that making an eruv ” is a great travesty, since it is impossible that there will not be one Shabbos that the eruv will be possul…,” and then he accuses the rabbonim who signed the kol korei “that they don’t even have a scintilla of integrity” since they didn’t contact him to hear his opinion on the matter.
What a shock that he ignored the teachings of our Mishnah (Avos, 4:8) “don’t be a judge on your own etc, and don’t say except my opinion,” especially when all that he wrote here is mindboggling, and poorly explained, as we shall see later.
First of all, how can he deny the reality that one of the people involved with eruvin called him a few months ago in order to hear his opinion, and on most of the questions that he was asked, he didn’t have what to answer.
As to the actual matter at hand, the rabbonim that wrote the kol korei spent much time to understand this answer of the Rebbe to Melbourne, since multiple questions arise from this letter, the most crucial of them: (1) How an eruv made properly according to the Torah law can be deemed a travesty, just because there may be one Shabbos that the eruv will be invalid? (2) If the eruv is established according to Torah law, why is it impossible for it to never become invalid? It is possible to maintain its cheskas kashrus, just as the eruvin from Boro Park to Yerushalayim are always fixed and kosher in time for Shabbos.
Therefore, it makes much sense like the Rebbe wrote and emphasized many times, that every answer is directed at a specific circumstance, meaning the Melbourne Eruv, which seems to have had many halachic disqualifiers. Following this it makes sense why the Rebbe would say it’s a travesty.
We tried to find out the details of the Melbourne eruv. We looked at the kuntreis that you publicized in the as an halachic analysis of community eruvin, and was publicized as a teshura for the wedding of your son-in-law and daughter on the 19th of sivan 2006. We looked and we didn’t find all the details about the eruv that this kuntreis was written about. This was a mystery to us. But after much research and investigation we managed to acquire with G-D’s help the first edition of your kuntreis that we mentioned earlier which was published in 1988, and we realized that in the second printing you hid the pertinent details about the halachic disqualifiers present in the Melbourne Eruv, with which the picture was clarified.
And I will present here the details that you hid in the second printing of the kuntreis, which is the edition that everyone has (as the first edition wasn’t digitalized).
In the introduction of the kuntreis (second edition does not have the following):
Page 24 (in the second edition missing from page 26):
Page 28 (in the second edition missing from page 30):
Page 34 (in the second edition missing from page 36)
I don’t know what your goal was in hiding all the halachic flaws of the Melbourne Eruv in your second edition (and you didn’t even mention the fact that you took out crucial information in the second edition!) but now it’s easy to understand why this eruv was deemed” a travesty,” since for example there is a din that the ocean doesn’t qualify as a mechtizah according to rabbinical decree, as the waves may rise and push aside the mechitzah (Shulchan Aruch of Alter Rebbe, Siman 363:35 based on the Rema, ad loc sif 29). Furthermore, from others we heard regarding Melbourne Eruv, there were breaches in the mechitzos by the river whose gradient was not ten tefochim within four amos, so they needed to rely on the lenient opinions regarding this issue (Responsa Maharit, 1:94, and others)
From the above another detail is obvious, that the Melbourne eruv was not established with permission from the governments, rather they established the eruv based on existing mechitzos. Following this we can understand why it is impossible that the eruv will always be kosher in time for Shabbos, since if they didn’t have permission from the government to make an eruv, then even if they see something wrong with the eruv before Shabbos, they may not be able to rectify it.
It is amazing that you yourself when you spoke with the person involved with eruvin (like we mentioned previously that we had someone call you) you agreed that the Rebbe’s answer to Melbourne has to be understood for that specific place, and not as a general answer.
2
It is a undeniable mitzvah that you must make eruv wherever possible
There is a clear p’sak in Shulchon oruch (Orach Chayim, Siman 366:13) and the Alter Rebbe upholds the same (ad loc, sif 18) “It is a mitzvah to go out of your way to make eruvin in order that people shouldn’t come to carry against halachah” and the source of this p’sak is the Tur (Siman 395) and so too the Mordechai (Eruvin, Siman 515) based on the Gemora in Eruvin (68a, and the Rebbe mentioned this as well as I will elaborate later) and like the Beis Yosef quoted ad loc.
And in the responsa of the Tashbatz (2:37) he was asked “Is there a risk in making city eruvin that can lead to an aveira” and there he answered:
“G-d forbid whoever rushes to make eruvin is praised, on the contrary the Gemora is shocked at someone who can make an eruv yet doesn’t… and we learn from here that if not for the difficulties it’s the approach of a Torah scholar to establish eruvin, anyone who has misgivings in his heart about this demonstrates utter illiteracy – or he has become influenced by heresy. It is a great merit to build eruvin and in the second chapter of Beitza (16b) regarding making an eruv on Yom Tov, and we say there that someone who says you can’t make eruv on Yom Tov, is placing a stumbling block as people will come to carry without an eruv.”
And in the responsa of the Chassam Sofer (Orach Chayim, Siman 99) he wrote:
“I was asked by my friend rabbi N”Y to clarify for him with proofs from Chazal that it is befitting and appropriate for every community of Jews wherever they may reside to erect tzuras hapesachim on their street or other halchic adjustments [needed for an eruv] etc, in order that they will not come to carry inadvertently, carrying from domain to domain on Shabbos.
Response: This does not need any proofs as its logical and explained explicitly in the words of Chazal.
Logic dictates since its known that keeping Shabbos is from our most important mitzvos, and someone that doesn’t keep Shabbos properly is like a heretic and mumar in the entire Torah (as explained in Eruvin, 69a), therefore, every intelligent man will understand intellectually that it is utterly impossible for the communities of Jews to make sure that all their young household members, wives, and those of weak mind that they will not come to carry their keys outside, small things, hats, children, and how much pain and suffering will the adults endure those that are careful about not carrying…. Therefore, simple logic decrees that it is appropriate and obligatory to establish eruvin in our backyards and our streets that permits carrying… that you should not be lazy about establishing eruvin around your streets in order to prevent the community from ruined Shabbosim all year long. And this obligation lies on the rabbi Torah scholar of the city to make an eruv for the city, and if not the resulting issurim is on his shoulders (like we say in Eruvin 68a)
See the Gemara in Eruvin (21b) that when Shlomo Hamelech enacted eruvin, and washing ones hands, a heavenly voice called out and said if my son is smart I will also be happy.
And its obvious that that my dear friend Harav N”Y will try with all of his might to make an eruv for his community….”
And in the responsa of the Beis Av (2:1:24) he wrote:
“And certainly we shouldn’t be stringent not to make eruvin because of the fear of G-d with strange logic, saying that it will cause a disgrace in the holiness of Shabbos, and perhaps people will carry things that are muktzah, and similar concerns. And we can rely on the words of the Tashbatz who said that if he isn’t an utterly illiterate then he has become influenced by heresy, since he is arguing on the Talmud and poskim that permitted making an eruv without being concerned for these silly concerns.”
3
The opinion of the Rebbe is that also in our generation we should establish eruvin
The sources that I quoted above are some of the sources the Rebbe zy”a quoted himself in Igros Kodesh “in the matter that it is a mitzvah to make eruvin “(Chelek Tes, page 41-42, and page 165).
And this is what you took umbrage with in your letter: “The rabbonim stipulated that the Rebbe was pro establishing eruvin , basing it on the fact that the rebbe quotes this tashbatz” and this misleading to use this to convince people that it is a mitzvah to establish eruvin according to the rebbe even in our generation.”
And I don’t know whether you wrote this inadvertently because you didn’t read the Rebbes letters, or you intentionally meant to distort the words contrary to halachah. Because it was the Rebbe who wrote this in 1954 to Harav Hagaon Rav Menachem Tzvi Eisenstat and to the saint Harav Hagaon Rav Yosef Dovid Moskowits, who were establishing an eruv for the large city of Manhattan (see Minchas Tzvi chapter 4 and Kuntreis Tikkun Eruvin of Manhattan) and they asked the Rebbe whether it’s a mitzvah to establish eruvin, because there were rabbanim that wrote that in our generation in America “best to sit back and not act” and the Rebbe in his response refuted this opinion by quoting these sources we quoted earlier (and as he wrote in his kuntreis cited earlier page 67: “and this is a response to my question from him [the Rebbe] to know the proper and appropriate path in this matter”). So how can someone even entertain the thought that that according to the Rebbe the words of the Tashbatz were intended for the generation of Shulchan Aruch and Alter Rebbe but not for our generation, it is crystal clear from the Rebbes words that even in our time it is an obligation to establish eruvin in our large cities.
And I should add what the Rebbe said during the visit of the Chief Rabbis of Israel, Rabbi Shapiro and Rav Mordechai Eliyahu ob”m in their visit to the Rebbe on the 27th of adar 1986, when they spoke about establishing eruvin in our generation in America and Israel: “There are many that cast doubt on establishing eruvin, however it’s obviously a mitzvah according to the Gemara, and you must make a brocha etc etc, and we see that thru this people are saved from serious issues.” (I quoted this word by word from a recording of the Rebbe, however in the written discourse they don’t include these details about their conversation regarding eruvin – see Toras Menachem, 1986 second volume page 850)
4
An additional reason to make eruvin is, that women should not become dejected
We should mention another source as a reason that we must establish eruvin that is connected to our time right after Yom Kippur, the Alter Rebbe wrote in his Shulchan Aruch (88:2)
the women took upon a custom not to go to the synagogue, nor to see a Sefer Torah, while they have status of nidda, and also when they are praying they don’t stand next to their friends, and because of custom and respect they do this, and not because of the halachah… and in the days of the holidays from the first days of slichos and further, that many gather in the synagogue, they may go to the synagogue even though they have status as nidda, like the rest of the woman who are not in status of nidda, since it will be very depressing that everyone is gathering in the synagogue and they will not be able to attend…
So we see that he allowed the women to go the synagogue against their custom, since “it would be very depressing for them, since everyone is attending synagogue and they can’t participate” and this is relevant not only for the first day of selichos, rather even for the night of kol nidrei and neila etc, that the saintly women can’t go to the synagogue, since they are stuck at home with their babies. However if they establish an eruv, they will be able to attend synagogue for prayers in these holy days and all year round.
5
When two letters contradict one another – do we erase the first one?
You continued in your letter by quoting multiple letters that the Rebbe is not supportive of establishing eruvin, and you attempt to prove that this is the position of the Rebbe. In the end of your letter you plead with those that may have answers from the Rebbe to publicize them, “in order to stop those that want to explain the Rebbes position in a different manner.”
And again I can’t ascertain whether you said this inadvertently or on purpose. Did you not see all the letters of the Rebbe where he explicitly supports establishing eruvin?!
For example the letter to Moshav Bar Giyura in the year 1961 (published in Igros Kodesh volume 20 page 149 and page 306) where the Rebbe even sent his personal check as a symbolic partnership in the expenses of establishing the eruv there,” and there are other letters like this that were publicized.
Is this the way of our Torah when we have two contradictory letters, to erase and ignore one, and decide that only the other counts? Isn’t this a distortion and an embarrassment of our holy Torah?
If you approach this matter without any preconceived ideas, then our explanation of the Rebbes position as explained in the kol korei is satisfactory, that the Rebbe was against public eruvin: (1 When they are not kosher l’chatchila and, hence, they are a travesty. (2 When you don’t have permission from the government, so then many times you’re not able to fix the eruv even if you see that it’s breached. There is no contradiction between all the letters since they are all referring to different types of eruvin.
It’s extremely perplexing as to why you quoted what the Rebbe wrote in 1958 to the saint Hagaon Harav Rav Yosef Dovid Moskowitz (Igros Kodesh, volume 16 page 307 – 308) “and in my opinion it’s a great merit to you even if you say that according to some opinions there is room to argue on some halachic issues. With all this I am certain that you shouldn’t publicize the eruv” and you quote this as if we see from this that the Rebbe opposed using eruvin, while even according to the simple reading of these words the Rebbe was opposed to publicizing this eruv since it wasn’t kosher l’chatchilla. And whomever learns this letter carefully and the letter from 1954 will be certain that this was the only reason for the Rebbe opposing the publicity of this eruv.
And we must add and emphasize that for making an eruv there are two reasons: (1 what the Alter Rebbe wrote that we quoted earlier : “that they shouldn’t come to carry against halachah” (2 what the Prisha wrote there (395 first small sif) ” for the need of his enjoyment in order to go for strolls [eruvei techumim] or to bring the things that he wants to eat [eruv chatzeiros] , and this is a mitzvah like it says (Yishaye 58, 13) and we call Shabbos joyful” and the Rebbe quoted this Prisha (lkutei sichos volume 11 page 64). And eruvin that are done secretly and the people don’t know about them, certainly serves to save Jews from the transgression of carrying, however it is missing the added critical benefit of the joy of Shabbos. And because of this when we talk about making an eruv we are referring to an eruv that enables people to be able to carry as they choose.
6
To rely on rumors against Shulchon Aruch and against the letters that the Rebbe wrote and signed?
Again you brought the rumor that is said in the name of the gaon Rav Sholom Ber Chaikin in the name of the gaon Rav Yitschok Hendel ob”m, that the Rebbe said not to establish eruvin.
However against this rumor we have the testimony of the gaon Rav Yosef Yitschok Feigelshtok which he just testified to one of the rabbanim, and he said that he heard from Rav Hendel “that the Rebbe told him that it’s a mitzvah to make eruvin everywhere that it can be made according to all opinions.”
And why would we rely on rumors when we have explicit halacha in the Shulchon Aruch of the Alter Rebbe that it’s a mitzvah to go out of your way to make eruvin, and we have the letters of the Rebbe written and signed by the Rebbe! And the testimony of Ravi Feigelshtok that fits the p’sak of what the Alter Rebbe paskened , and the letters that the Rebbe wrote.
Summary
It’s an explicit halachah in the Alter Rebbe Shulchon Aruch “that it’s a mitzvah to go out of your way to make eruvin in order that people shouldn’t come to carry inadvertently ” and the Chassam Sofer wrote: “this obligation lies on the rabbanim scholars in the city to make the eruv, and if he doesn’t the responsibility of the bad that comes because of it, rests on his shoulders”. And according to the Rebbe zy”a this applies even in our generation in both big and small cities. The point of the eruv is that people shouldn’t come to carry inadvertently, and to increase in the joy of Shabbos thru enabling carrying. An additional benefit of the eruv is that way women won’t be depressed that they can’t attend shul etc.
Regarding the eruv in Melbourne the Rebbe wrote “it’s a travesty” and for many years we didn’t know details of how this eruv was established, and it seems that people tried to hide these pertinent details, however now we have ascertained that this eruv was not kosher l’chatchilla, thereby the Rebbes answer to this eruv is fully understood.
The in-depth analysis of the Rebbes letters regarding eruvin and in order that there shouldn’t be contradictions, proves that that the Rebbe held that it is a big mitzvah to establish eruvin when they are kosher l’chatchilla, however if they aren’t kosher l’chatchilla , there is still a benefit in saving Jews from carrying inadvertently , however you shouldn’t publicize it, that way people shouldn’t use the eruv in order to carry.
We should not rely on different rumors that are said in the name of the Rebbe regarding eruvin, since we have explicit instruction from the Alter Rebbe in his Shulchan Aruch, and from the Rebbes letters, and according to this we must conduct ourselves.
And I want to add one more important point that irks me tremendously: that shluchim and Chabad rabbis all over the world go on mesiras nefesh in order to spread Judaism in every way possible, and sometimes they must rely on leniencies that are only according to one lone opinion etc, in order to help Yiddin to be able to do mitzvahs, but to my great dismay there is a major weakness among them regarding making proper eruvin, despite the fact that it would certainly save many Jews from chillul Shabbos that is severe whether those that that are doing in on purpose that aren’t religious Jews, or inadvertently to the shliach himself and his family that sometimes forget things in their pockets. And in my humble opinion this is extremely strange, and I hope that this will be corrected.
Since I am busy preparing for Yom Tov I must be curt, and even so I wrote more at length then I intended originally, and I ask you that if you would like to respond to this, it would be prudent to to study the articles quoted by the rabbonim in the kol korei, and you should study them in depth in the way of Torah learning thereby it will clarify everything to you appropriately.
And I’ll end with this, wishing you a blessed Yom Tov
Boruch Oberlander
Av of Beis Din of Budapest
ישר כוח
he not our moroh d’asrah, so it is not for him to decide. if the c”h rabonim hold you can not make an eruv then it cant be made. eastern parkway is a reshus harabim min hatorah and since all the streets are connected it makes the whole thing one just becous some modern people decided we need to go against rabanim it dsnt need to be listend to
why was thr rebbe against an eiruv in crown heights?!
If the Rebbe was so pro-eiruvin, why didn’t he get ask to have it done in his own community Crown Heights? If the Rebbe would have given one hint of a request, an entire mehudar Eruv in Crown Heights would have been erected in one day.
Seems suspicious.
we learn that it is a mitzvah to make an eruv, from the fact that abaye and rova didnt make an eruv in their own place, the gemora asks how can it be that such great people like abaya and rova wouldnt make an eruv? and the gemora answers that since they were to busy teaching their students they didnt make it, from the fact that the gemora had to excuse it we learn that its a mitzvah. therefore it is silly to bring proof that the rebbe didnt want eruv in ch, because he never made one. additonally despite… Read more »
The rebbe was not chas vsholom against making a eruv in crown heights!
איפה שיש רה״ר מן התורה בעל נפש יחמיר על עצמו
ואיפה מצאו גדולי הרבנים בזמננו הנהגה הפוכה ממה שהי׳ עד עתה ?
it would be very difficult to find place which is a reshus harabim d’oiraisah these days
there is not one chabad POSEK that paskens about any place in our times that it has a din of a biblical reshus harabim
בזמן הזה אין רשות הרבים מן התורה כמו שפוסק אדמו”ר הזקן
האם למדת הלכות עירובין איפו שיש רשות הרבים מן התורה אסור לטלטל לכל אחד אין זה קשור לבעל נפש.
ולדעת אדה”ז והצ”צ אין לנו רשות הרבים בעיירות שלנו אפילו אם לא סומכין על ששים רבוי כי המבואות שלנו אינן מכוונים משער לשער וגם הרי יש לנו מחיצות עומד מרובה על הפרוץ.
בקיצור אני ממליץ שתלמד הלכות עירובין לפני אתה מקשקש מן הבטן עם סברות מוזרות נגד שש עשרה רבנים חשובים.
זה ע״ד למעט באיסור כמו האוכל ביוה״כ שיעורים
With all due respect, as someone who is familiar with the history of the Melbourne. I would like to make the following points. The answers of the Rebbe concerning the Eruv were about bichlal getting involved in making an Eruv. There were no plans or proposals presented. Therefore trying to say that the Rebbe’s response was because of specific details of a specific proposal which came later is incorrect. Rabbi Mottel Gutnick asked the Rebbe about making an Eruv in Doncaster which is a suburb of Melbourne which did not have any of the problems detailed in Reb Mottels publication… Read more »
perhaps you can bring some actual evidence, have you seen the letter written to the rebbe? when harav feitel levine managed to get the eruv kosher was after a year of hard work getting permissions, and that was in 1989 7 years after answer of the rebbe, when the rebbe gave that answer there was no way to make proper eruv, and the rebbe loshon that its impossible that one shabbos wont occur and eruv wont be fixed is clear that hes referring to eruv that cant be maintained, otherwise you cant say its impossible, as maintainted eruvin dont go… Read more »
From the new letter he is strengthening his original post
When Author is writing 1914 1918-21 etc he means
5714 5718 5621 etc
Very good work
Thank you very much rabbi oberlander. That was very well said and explained. I would like to hear what rabbi Krasnjanski has to say because it seems like he purposely twisted the facts for his agenda. Maybe I misunderstood but that is what it seems like is written here.
Chabad rabbis should use more refined language when discussing Torah. For them to put each other down like this is the opposite of ahavas yisroel. They can make the same points without resorting to ad hominem attacks.
Clearly, you haven’t learned Yore Deah with the Schach and Taz. Had you done so, you would know this is the normative language of rabbis when discussing intricate halachic matters.
Very true. The Rebbe spoke so much about Ahavas Yisroel and treating others with respect, so the tone of this debate seems really odd.
Can’t figure out what you’re talking about. This letter by Rabbi Oberlander comes across to me as a friendly, diplomatic and very polite rebuttal.
The Munkatcher/Minchas Elazar, whom the Rebbe held in very high esteem, would attack those he felt were wrong so sharply, that this letter is rather bland compared to the Munkatcher’s…
במקום חילול השם אין מחלקין כוד לרב וזה כלל ידוע, מעניין שלא שמענו ממך שהרב קראסיניאנסקי אמר שאין ניצות של ישרות לכל השש עשרה רבנים החשובים
interesting that we didnt hear you complain when rabbi krasniansky said that none of the 16 respected rabbonim, have even a scintilla of integrity.
there is a general rule that when there is a chillul hashem you don’t worry about respect.
Thank you Rabbi Oberlander!
The clarity of your writing and cutting through the contortion is appreciated beyond words. The zechus of clarifying the Rebbe’s position even further should bring berocho to your entire family.
CH resident
Just to point out: the case of when the Rebbe was mishtatef and gave brochos was a yishuv, which has (long term residents and) clear boundaries already, so someone will not mistakenly walk outside of the eruv’s boundaries.
Also, the Alter Rebbe’s eruv is to have a poll every ten tefochim or be completely gated (which would also likely result in people not walking out of it’s boundaries mistakenly.) It should be noted that this is not possible in most modern cities and neighborhoods. It would necessitate a poll in the middle of most streets, which would not be possible.
have you ever learned hilchos eruvin? yet youre arguing with 16 rabbonim talmidei chachomim? what youre referring to is a rambam eruv, which the alter rebbe didnt pasken like, he only said that its a good thing to do, the tzemach tzedek paskens three times that we dont go with the rambam on this, the eruv in kfar chabad which the rebbe said mazal tov and that it will help bring moshiach was not a rambam eruv, about ten years ago rabbi ashkenazi obm made it a rambam eruv. but most importantly in most big cities including ch you have… Read more »
This so-called letter to Horav Krasnjanski, addressed to him, but written about him, is misleading, disrespectful and raises red flags about the entire kol korei.
People seeking halacha clarifications must have respectful and honest debate without cheap pot shots at an opponent’s position, that distract from the issues.
This is embarrassing and unbecoming for a rov. Divrei chachomin b’nachas nishma’im.
This seems like a controversial issue regarding an eruv in a certain city. If I may comment, in reality if for any reason Robonim have decided to make an eruv, no one can fiscally stop them from proceeding with their plans. If according to their opinion it is permitted according to Halachah and/or the Rebbe’s directives they will do it. In this instance, the only thing that will come out of strong opposition to an eruv is a big machlokes and sinas chinam within the members of the community, bizayon talmidei chachamim and a chilul Hashem. Moreover, think of the… Read more »
Thank you Rabbi Oberlander.
B”H we have Rabbonim in Chabad that are able to clarify the Halacha according to the Alter Rebbe and Rebbe’s instructions. It is very obvious now that the Rebbe was not against Mitzvas Eiruvin in general, and only in situations when people were relying on the cities municipalities, was the Rebbe against it. We also know that the Rebbe sent Rabbi Tzinner to big cities such as L.A. to establish eiruvin.
Thank you for clarifying in such a clear and concise manner without cutting corners or bowing to fake pressure.
A lengthy response with little substance. Light in content, while heavy personal attacks. Not nice right after yom kippur.
Not one of the 16 Rabbonim has said whether or not the CH eruv is kosher, or can be made kosher according to Chabad custom.
To my mind, if it was possible to build an eruv in CH, the Rebbe, who lived here for 50 years, would have established one. Don’t forget, until the 60s/70s, there were a lot of non religious Jews living in the neighborhood (one of the resons given to build an eruv is that if people carry on shabbos, it shouldn’t be an isur).
From this here ignoramus. it has always perplexed me that everyone seems to know exactly what the Rebbes psak or the Rebbes opinion on various matters were. Eiruvin, college, secular studies. The list goes on. Letters are no basis upon which to base a psak. First, they’re written to individual people for individual scenarios. Second, perhaps more importantly, the Rebbe made it clear he’s not a Rov, and always referred these questions to Rabonim. The exception, I guess, are matters discussed at public farbrengens. Most egregiously, the Rebbe, who all you so called Rabonim portray as the ultimate arbiter of truth,… Read more »
I ask again, if what Rabbi oberlander writes is true why was the rebbe against an eruv in crown heights?
Rabbi Oberlander: divrei chachamim bnachas nishmaim
Thje rebbe Rayatz: A tomim trugt nisht
The 16 rabbis don’t seem to realize that they are trying to make a major CHANGE from what was already the accepted minhag. When you want to change what has become accepted, you need a much larger consensus of rabbis. And you need signatures of people who deal with halacha and paskening shaalos, not educators, and they need to be prominent. Where are the signatures of the Chabad rabanim who lead the communities in all major cities like Crown Heights, Miami, Montreal, LA, Chicago, Monsey? It is very suspicious. Get a consensus FIRST, and then you can avoid all this… Read more »
You haven’t addressed this. Why what it well known that the Rebbe wanted the eruvim to only be made in secret? Was everyone mistaken? Maybe that is the case. But you need to address this more clearly. And in order to make that case persuasively, you need support from more prominent rabbanim (not roshei yeshiva)
hmm so you understand better then all the rabbonim, and you know which rabbonim are more important? fact is that the rebbe supported many public eruvin, queens, miami, bnei brak, kfar chabad, moshav bar guria, beverly hills california. the reason for keeping eruv secret was when the eruv wasnt kosher lchatchilla.
For many decades and generations women have had real mesiras nefesh not to rely on eruvim. And here you are saying that they SHOULD have used the eruv. You are not just saying that they could have been lenient and used eruv, but that it would have been preferable to use eruv. I am not knowledgeable enough to know whether you are right or wrong, but it is a very bold claim.
It would seem that the reason R’ Krasniansky omitted details about Melbourne’s faulty eiruv, was because he knew that Oberlander would exploit them to further his point that the Rebbe’s response was directed exclusively at melbourne, although those familiar with the letter know that this is not the case. All the issues mentioned in the kuntres first printing came to light years after the Rebbe’s letter, and there is no reason to assume that the Rebbe’s decision to prohibit the eiruv was due to those problems; otherwise the Rebbe likely would’ve mentioned something to that effect in the letter itself.… Read more »
With all due respect, to Rabbi Oberlander and the other 15 esteemed Rabbis,, there is another fundamental core problem with the backbone of their Kol Koreh, which states that according to the Alter Rebe there is no “concept” of reshuas harabim nowdays. This statement is the core of problem and and the consequences of such a declaration are led by this erroneous statement. Whi,le true, that the Ar wrote that it is not “common” to have a reshus harrabim nowadays’ he did not write that the”concept” does not exist. In fact, he offered a reason for this statement’ namely THAT… Read more »
Is there a רשות הרבים דאורייתא in today’s day of age?
Listen to several minutes of this Sicha (starting form 28:15 minutes into
the sicha)
http://www.chabad.org/554143
(12 Tamuz 5745, sicha 4)