And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end (Ecclesiastes 12:12) A pdf version of this essay can be downloaded here [*] Years in brackets refer to an individual’s or book author’s year of birth Thought experiment for the day: Anyone born 1945 would be pushing towards 80 and mostly past their prime. So name any Charedi sefer written by someone born post war that has or is likely to enter the canon, be it haloche, lomdus, al hatorah or mussar. Single one will do for now — IfYouTickleUs (@ifyoutickleus) July 27, 2022 A tweet in the summer which gained some traction asked for a book by an author born from 1945 onwards that has entered the Torah and rabbinic canon or is heading in that direction. I didn't exactly phrase it this way and some quibbled about 'canonisation'. The word does indeed have a precise meaning though in its popular use it has no narrow definition. Canonisation, or ‘entering the canon’ is generally understood to...
And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end (Ecclesiastes 12:12) A pdf version of this essay can be downloaded here [*] Years in brackets refer to an individual’s or book author’s year of birth Thought experiment for the day: Anyone born 1945 would be pushing towards 80 and mostly past their prime. So name any Charedi sefer written by someone born post war that has or is likely to enter the canon, be it haloche, lomdus, al hatorah or mussar. Single one will do for now — IfYouTickleUs (@ifyoutickleus) July 27, 2022 A tweet in the summer which gained some traction asked for a book by an author born from 1945 onwards that has entered the Torah and rabbinic canon or is heading in that direction. I didn't exactly phrase it this way and some quibbled about 'canonisation'. The word does indeed have a precise meaning though in its popular use it has no narrow definition. Canonisation, or ‘entering the canon’ is generally understood to...
Meir says
ReplyDeleteThere is no reason why Stamford Hill cannot have one on the same terms meaning excluding the main road like Stamford Hill and Clapton Common.
Why is no one clamoring for this to be done.
While, on balance, this is almost certainly a positive development, it is at the very least distasteful that an individual who was the linchpin of support for a certain "rov" who must no longer be named is playing such a prominent role in its establishment.
ReplyDeleteThat said, given the fact that use of the NWL eruv is increasing as time goes on, it's very nice of R. Eisner and chums to provide a trial run for those who will only be willing to go the whole hog once that "rov's" father is no longer with us.
From what I've heard, the "baalei nefesh" involved in this eruv have decided that sechiras reshus from a local official was not sufficient for their purposes, so they've instead asked for all individuals living within its borders to agree to participate. If that is the case, then I presume they've appointed someone to monitor 'For Sale' signs to make sure nobody moves into their hallowed streets without them noticing.
The halachic principles upon which self-declared opponents of the NWL eruv on reshus harabbim grounds have approved this one seem rather curious - if one believes that according to R. Moshe Feinstein, GG is a reshus harabbim (as R. Eisner claimed in his anti-eruv pamphlet), then a tzuras hapesach would not suffice at the end of Sneath Avenue; rather delasos would be necessary.
That said, it won't be the first time that anti-eruv elements in GG have misunderstood (misrepresented?) R. Moshe's views on which roads require delasos when an eruv is constructed in a reshus harabbim - besides for the fact that the very idea that R. Moshe would have opposed the NWL eruv is misconceived, the letter forged in R. Eider's name contains exactly the same mistake. See here for more:
http://eruvonline.blogspot.co.uk/2008/06/case-of-missing-missive.html
Perhaps they've gone with the even more idiosyncratic 'omed leshimush harabbim' definition of what constitutes a reshus harabbim - which is the one adopted by Rabbis Eisner and M Halpern in their anti-eruv pamphlet (which in turn was largely plagiarised from "Eizehu Reshus Harabbim"). See here for details (and a comprehensive refutation):
http://eruvonline.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01/critical-analysis-of-london-anti-eruv.html
I'd be interested to know what the cut-off point is between a 'shimush harabbim' street (presumably Golders Green Road) and one that isn't (apparently Brookside) under this definition. I suppose once you're anyway inventing halachic concepts out of whole cloth it's not hard to come up with one.
I think you may find that the misnagdim's claim that one cannot have a nwl eruv is that GGR is mefulash to NCR which is a RH.
DeleteBrookside and all its satellites are certainly not a RH in anyone's book.
Of course, the limited range of the eruv will increase chillul Shabbos - for the people who walk around insisting there is no eruv - as it is quite inevitable that people will forget the boundaries and will venture out of its range whilst continuing to carry
Thankfully, Dayan E along with numerous other Rabbonim and askonim have prevented any genuine chillul shabbos of this nature by having erected an eruv which encompasses the entire area +, so that all those chasidei shtuss are protected from themselves.
Cos even if Padster let's you, he's likely to retract as soon as he comes across his iHavono X pressie
ReplyDeleteברוך שהחיינו והיגיענו לזמן הזה
ReplyDeleteWell done to the hard working crew for setting up this Kosher Eiruv.
I have lived in this area for nearly ten years, and have longed to be able to take my children for a stroll on Shabbos afternoons.
If one reads the letter properly, you will notice R' Eisner is not the Rov Hamachshir of thi Eiruv.
May the Eiruv and bring achdus in the community... after all it is setup to make the streets one reshus.
Mr T, any chance you will post the accompanying Eisner haskomoh?
ReplyDeleteAnd; does anybody know if this is affiliated or unaffiliated to the UOHC?
Rabbi m eisner gives his HASKOMOH In a letter using the letterhead as a" motz"of the union rabbinate But still strange that the moira desasro himself THE RADOMISHLA RUV or his son reb Moishe have not given a haskomoh even through its a private eiruv You would think its clever. To get a written Haskomoh From the ruv himself
ReplyDeletePart 1 -
ReplyDeletePi Ho’oson – The antis, as they have done since the eruv was first proposed in the 80s, make it up as they go along and use whatever argument they feel will best suit their purposes at any given moment. At first they didn’t have the chutzpa to claim that NWL is a reshus harabbim, seeing as R. Chuna had written explicitly that it isn’t (Sdeh Elchonon 24, which can be viewed on page 264 of this pdf: http://israel613.com/books/ERUV_BORO_PARK-H.pdf), so they said that they would be ‘mocheh’ and not allow themselves to be included in the zikui hapas (the process by which the public participates in the ‘eruv chatzeros’ ceremony) which (they hoped) would render the eruv invalid.
But, unfortunately for them, the Tzitz Eliezer wrote a teshuva to Rabbi Kimche (19:17) in which, besides for generally encouraging the construction of an eruv in NW London, he explicitly paskened that their opposition would not affect the eruv’s efficacy. So then they were forced to come up with something else to achieve their desired goal, and they picked R. Moshe Feinstein’s understanding of the ‘shishim ribo’ criterion.
It was conveniently forgotten that, just three years before the NW London eruv was established, R. Chuna’s son, had, with his backing, signed on the kol korei supporting the Boro Park eruv (see page 48 of the pdf linked above), which was the one place where R. Moshe had explicitly written that it was forbidden to make one (Igros Moshe OC 5:29)!
After the antis saw that this tactic was failing (there was, after all, no reason to think that NWL was any worse than Detroit, where R. Moshe had allowed an eruv in almost identical conditions, or Chicago, where his son R. Dovid did the same), they began to claim that the North Circular was ‘mefulash’, and hence eligible for their desired ‘reshus harabbim’ categorisation, again conveniently omitting that R. Chuna himself had written, in the aforementioned teshuva in Sdeh Elchonon, that none of the roads here fit that criterion.
They also argued that ‘sechiras reshus’ (the process by which usage of the streets is ‘rented’ from a local official), would not work in a democratic country such as the UK, again conveniently forgetting that R. Chuna had written explicitly that this was unproblematic, and that sechiras reshus had been sanctioned the world over in identical conditions.
However, to return to the issue at hand, if you take a look at Rabbis Eisner and M Halpern’s anti-eruv kuntres, you’ll see that they attempt to make the case that once a city has shishim ribo residents, then all its streets (provided they are 16 amos wide) are a reshus harabbim (although they seem to make an unsourced exception for streets which are not ‘omed leshimush harabbim’, which is presumably their hetter to make an eruv on Brookside). This is all the more true if they maintain that GG fulfils R. Moshe Feinstein’s criteria for a reshus harabbim, in which case every road that is not a ‘mavoy sasum’ (a cul-de-sac) is itself a reshus harabbim. To quote their summary of the Igros Moshe’s view:
כל רחובות העיר שרחבים ט"ז אמה מצטרפים, ונחשבים לרה"ר אחד גדול
Given that roads such as Alba Gardens and Brookside Road are not cul-de-sacs and are sixteen amos wide (the pavement is included), then if NWL is a reshus harabbim (as they claim R. Moshe would maintain), it would be forbidden to include them in any eruv.
if you take the three 'outside' roads of the broadside eruv, namely (as looking from gg road) the right side of Sneath Avenue, the brook side of Brookside and the left side of Highfield Road, you have a clear three walled area which makes that area into a 'mavoy sarum. That inside that three walled area are other streets and houses is immaterial.
DeletePart 2 -
ReplyDeleteThe North Circular ‘argument’ (and I use that term liberally) was a different one. Based on a misunderstanding of the Beis Ephraim, it was claimed that a street which ‘services a population of shishim ribo’ (which the part of the North Circular passing through NWL does) is a reshus harabbim, even if it does not have shishim ribo traversing it on a regular basis (which it doesn’t). Fortunately, this misunderstanding has already been corrected by none other than the Maharsham (3:188), the Minchas Elazar (3:4) and the Minchas Yitzchak (8:32).
For a lovely teshuva that systematically corrects the garbled misunderstandings of the London antis, see Shevet Halevi 8:177:2, where Rav Vozner brings his son’s detailed explanation of the halachic foundations of the eruv in Chicago (the same one sanctioned by R. Dovid Feinstein), in conditions that are virtually identical to NWL:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1418&st=&pgnum=166
Which asra is Reb Chuna moro of?
ReplyDeleteMeir.
ReplyDeleteNWL is fortunate that it has several highly respected, popular and learned Rabbonim (and, by definition, kehillos) that are entirely unaffiliated to the UOHC and therefore legitimately and halachicaly claim they are not bound by UOHC p'sokim.
Stamford Hill is 100% dominated by UOHC. Every single shul, and by inference, Rav is UOHC affiliated.
The titular head of UOHC is HaRav Ephraim Padwa whose strengths and weaknesses are well known from his "performance" in several recent high-profile affairs and several not so high-profile (His conduct was unbelievable, for example, just ask a few of the couples who had the misfortune to have their divorce {get} under UOHC auspices). I.E. We are stuck.
UOHC/Kedassia protect and defend their monopoly in Stamford Hill that would do credit to a tigress protecting her cubs. There are many incidents to confirm this. E.G. The milk or the Pesach foil dishes and many more.
The tzibbur suffers so that a few can get richer and more powerful.
Few things are more nauseating or obnoxious than vested interest masquerading as moral rectitude.
Oh! Pi Ha'osoin. I live in Stamford Hill and my children and grandchildren all go to local "heimishe" moisdois (Except the couple who are in Israel, in yeshiva).
Meir replies
ReplyDeleteStamford Hill is not really 100% 'dominated' by the union.
Satmar 26 one of the largest shuls and their many branches has its own rov and dayanim who do not take orders from them.
The Moshiachistim are not part of the union.
Belz with their own meat hecsher are also not really part.
R Y Gokovitski's shul and the one 'under' it are also not part.
There may be others I have not mentioned.
Everyone knows that Dayan Dunner is really also for an eiruv.
What it really needs is for someone to somehow ask the residents of Stamford Hill if they really want one. To get people to vote on it. If people were aware that it can be done according to halacha like it has now been done in Manchester and GG, and London is really no different to Yerusholaim which also has 600000 people, Dovid Frand would soon change his tune.
They have to service the tsibbur not just with kashrut and mikvaot. An eiruv is no less important.
Anon, if only you were right. Our institutions and leaders, such as they are, are congenitally unable to change and the past year's events are ample proof if proof were ever needed. The idea that public opinion or a survey would sway them is risible. They care for nothing but their own positions and their own narrow and petty range of issues. Tznius, worms and chodosh roughly sums it up.
ReplyDeleteThe only way to break the mould is by forming a group and raising the finance to submit a planning application for an eiruv encompassing north Hackney and south Haringey. No rabbis need declare their support publicly at this early stage but once it is in place and permanent no doubt supporters will emerge. It will take several years and support will snowball along the way.
An alternative may be to form small scale eiruvin like the Brookside eiruv with the hope that they will eventually come together to form a larger eiruv. It is cheaper and provides an immediate solution but I am not optimistic. There are already several eiruvin for 1 or 2 streets but they are not expanding. The Meilech Schwartz eiruv also showed that you can't put boards up on the streets willy nilly. The opposers need simply call in Hackney's planning enforcers or highways to take them down. They'll do this eagerly irrespective of the great love for planning enforcers round here.
Meir replies
ReplyDeleteManchester has now a huge eiruv up and coming. It has detractors mainly so called talmidai chachomim who have no idea of hilchos eiruvin. They invited the two world experts (who have written and printed huge seforim on the subject) to make a feasibility study. How any rov who has never written anything can say he knows better beats me. But that is the world today.
The same can be done in SH. Invite these two rabbonim and have them make a such a study. If the kedassia has money to waste to invite rabbonim to sort out the Halpern saga surely they also have for this much more important thing.
It is up to the delegates to press for it. If Dovid Frand has enough pressure he will give in. The amount of chillul shabbos in SH is increasing daily or should I say weekly. People are going already in wheelchairs who can walk without them. Instead of at least going to the nearest shul sometimes just opposite them they are going further afield and crossing the main roads of Stamford Hill and Clapton Common.
The laws of Eiruvin are open to a huge amount of 'interpretation'. And when they do it themselves everything is kosher and when others do it, its traifoh or posul even exactly the same thing. So whatever will be done will always have someone saying its posul unless he is 'also' invited to belong to those doing it.
The only way is like I wrote earlier to have the world experts doing it. If these two experts will agree that Stamford Hill can have an eiruv even a limited one not including the main roads I think the public would soon start to demand one.
One can also mention that very few rabbonim have any idea of Eiruvin and its much easier and simpler for them just not to have one.
Yes, but the main difference between Manchester, GG and SH is that the first 2 have a mixed crowd while the SH population is increasingly homogenic. School exclusions have of course played an important part in this ethnic cleansing.
ReplyDeleteThere are some balei batim who would support an eiruv project but without communal support or a prominent rov behind them it makes matters difficult. I doubt a couple of experts will change the situation and it is facts on the ground and on the walls not halachic discourses which will decide the issue. Meilech Schwartz was hailed a hero at the time but no communal support saved his skin.
Tha Brookside eruv doesn't have planning permission. We will see how long Barnet tolerate wires strung across the public highway. Once again, it's the typical (often seen in tax evasion) 'How will they ever find out?' Mentality.
ReplyDeleteMake good use of it while it lasts.
Belz do not have their own hechsher. In a recent controversial incident Belz sided 100% with the union against a long standing member of the Belz kehilla.
ReplyDeleteMoshiachisten are a rule to themselves. Not really part of any kehilla and even they, as far as I know, only eat Kedassia meat.
Dovid Frand has less influence than you or me. The reason he got the job is because he is a reliable poodle and can be depended on to always say the right things and not use his own mind (if he has one). I know him personally. He is a great talmid chochom and , I believe, an erliche yid but but brain power or iniative and sense of authority? NO NO NO.
Dayan Dunner pro eiruv? What is his signature doing on the Kol Koreh of 11th Tammuz 5768?
UOHC does not provide ANY services for the tsibbur. EVERYTHING is paid for.
Ask anyone who has had any financial dealings with any branch of UOHC e.g. Kedassia or Burial society etc. what he thinks of them.
Anybody know if they made a brocho on this Brookside eiruv? If the wider GG/Hendon eiruv is kosher, then of course this eiruv is unnecessary and so presumably it would be a brocho l'vatolo?
ReplyDeleteMeir Says
ReplyDeleteSo to SH educated. If its not D Frand running the union who would you say is really running it.
I am sure everyone would like to know. That is if you or anyone does know. Most likely a rich man using it somehow to kosher his money. That is a 'service' they surely provide. I have also had such 'dealings' with them but in the end they couldnt get me to pay.
How D Dunner's signature is on something he doesnt believe in is not really a good question. The opposite would be a better one.
The meshichistin want to belong to the union but unlike all the other split factions where both belong the other 'branch' have said they will quit the union if they are accepted. D Frand is scared of this happening and has therefore refused them although he is supposed to be using their vouchers.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteDon't worry about planning permission. Brookside lawyers are on the case and the argument runs something like this.
"Because Barnet are makir the grosser eruv, the kleiner eruv has no chalos in halochoh so its tzuras hapesachs don't have a metzius"
Apologies to those who don't speak Yeshivish.
Rebbele - Nice try. May I suggest you consult the helpfully named "Laws of An Eruv" by Rabbis Francis and Glenner of the Chicago Kollel. It might be an idea to get hold of a copy for your friend R. Eisner while you're at it.
ReplyDeleteIn footnote 48 on page 59 they state the following (please excuse the transliteration; English translation appears in the original):
"Shomanu be'sheim kamo talmidim d'ledaas HaGa'on R. Moshe Feinstein zt"l b'ir sheyesh lo din machaneh yisroel, kol harechovos, ve'af rechov lelo motzeh (dead-end street) dino k'reshus horabbim."
As far as I'm aware, R. Eisner has yet to retract his claim that London fits R. Moshe's definition of a 'machaneh yisroel'. So which one is it?
It turns out that one of the non jewish residents refused to do sechiras reshus so they had to fall back on the sechiras reshus of the main eruv!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous - Meir says.
ReplyDelete1. YF and RMS and a few rich vested interests.
2. Evading the question. Dayan Dunner has signed, together with most of the prominent UOHC Rabbonim, a Kol Koireh quite explicitly forbidding an eiruv in SH for all time. Did he lie? And if he did, what about the others?
3.You know very well that the moshiachisten are completely irrelevant in the bigger picture.
4. D. Frand is scared of only one thing. His dignity/kovod might be tarnished. Tell me one thing he has achieved SH chareidi life in his many years as titular Rosh Hakohol.
Why do you sound so shocked at the prospect that a dayan of the union might have lied? מעשים שבכל יום.
DeleteWhat dignity exactly does he have left after last year's events? His stupidity even earned him a dishonourable mention in the JC
ReplyDeleteThe OVERWHELMING majority of ordinary families in Stamford Hill don't read the JC. They have been indoctrinated that it is full of minnos, kefirah, anti-torah views and "dirty" pictures.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair in general, true..
Many don't even know it exists.
About 90% of the JC's readership have never heard of Dovid Frand.
They don't need to read the JC to know he's a twit. Anyone following this blog, or even just acquainted with the goings on over the last year would know that too.
ReplyDeleteThe dayanim of the union have taken upon themselves responsibility (in fact, sole responsibility) for all aspects of yiddishkeit in Stamford Hill. Including Kashrus, Chinuch, Tzenius and kedusha in general, taharas hamishpocho, kedushas Shabbos etc. among many others and you don't think I should be shocked, indeed outraged and not a little terrified, that so important a man is capable of lying?
ReplyDeleteThe dayanim of the union have not taken upon themselves any responsibilities at all.
DeleteThe union was established to have an umbrella kehilla organisation to cater for the - in modern parlance - charedi elements of society living in London in particular and the UK in general.
Kashrus, was a very big issue in the immediate post-war years and the kedassia Kashrus authority was established to provide a higher standard than was provided by the nationally encompassing lbd/bos. Over the years with the advances in technology and medicine, UK civil legislation and a massive growth in observance within the US community together with the drive by the LBD dayanim to enhance and heighten the standards of Kashrus, the difference has been eroded if not even reversed.
Over the same period of time, the union has seen fit, in the interest of "maintaining the highest levels of Kashrus", to become the sole buyer of chickens, run the abattoir, employ the shochtim, menakrim, etc, employ the mashgichim, paskan all sheilas, wholesale the slaughtered product and even have a share in retailing operations.
The union - particularly in the post-Schonfeld era - were very happy to muddy the waters so that the lines between union and non-union were undiscernable.
The editors of the Tribune, an Agudas Yisroel newspaper, run it as a union paper.
In the confusion, people make the assumption that the union encompasses every aspect. Yet an increasingly growing number of SH residents travel to nw11 to eat out in the KLBD restaurants on the one hand and on the other Satmar have their own shchita within the union to stop them from setting up on their own.
As for chinuch, precisely how many institutions has the union established? Excluding the Avigdor and Hasmonean schools.
I don't know to what you are referring regarding tznius (or was that a typo for znus) kedusha or shabbos - other than arranging the unenforceable and pretty much ignored tashlich arrangements. When you mention taharas hamishpocho, I nearly dropped my load. How many mikvo'os has the union built and maintain? In nw London it is a grand total of ZERO What the figure is for n London I don't hazard a guess.
The rabbinate is a useless and corrupted organisation, solely interested in jobs for the boys, kovod and money.
I doubt any of the dayanim would allow the small matter of telling the truth and not telling lies, curb their ambitions.
Pi Ho'Osoin
ReplyDeleteLack of time precludes me from writing a long answer.
I didn't say they provide these services. They don't. As you rightly say, Kedassia is a (highly profitable and not a little "dishonest")commercial operation and we have no more reason to be grateful to them than we are to say Sainsbury's or British Airways (who have competition and are accountable to their shareholders, customers and the government). Same for the Burial Society.
What I said was the UOHC Rabbonim have taken upon themselves these responsibilities and have set for their captive flock enormously high standards, with sanctions on whomever they can, me included, and the aforementioned flock are entitled at the very least to be sure that anything a UOHC dayan or other senior employee says is a true expression of what he firmly believes and has no negiah other daas toiroh and retzoinoi yisborach and sets the same high standards for himself. Because, if not, Hashem Yerachem. You see the implications.
For anyone who needs a reminder of what Padwa and his goons got up to last time an eruv in SH was proposed:
ReplyDeletehttp://eruvonline.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/stamford-hill-eruv-imbroglio-continues_1540.html
Just goes to show that Padwa is not weak at all. The fact that he couldn't give a toss about allegations of the most heinous sort against one of his rabbonim is simply a reflection of his moral turpitude.