.jpg)
In this day of multiple tragedies, both here and in Eretz Yisroel, a little humor won't hurt anybody, VeAderaba. The classified ad appeared in this week's נייעס באריכט/News Report, a Yiddish newspaper here in New York. Basically, what this landlord wants is somebody who's wife "is tied down with a kerchief, family doesn't go to a swimming pool, and does not carry in the "so-called" BP Eruv, even the very young children." Section 8 is welcome....
Happy Purim.
Commentary Mag on The Events
25 comments:
You couldn't wait until the graves were closed?
and that would accomplish what?
Let's put it this way. Would you have thought it in good taste if someone were peddling cheap jokes during the pogrom in Crown Heights? I think you would have rightfully interpreted it as a highly insensitive move.
so you use the עירוב in Boro Park?
very interesting...
Josh: why do you think it was the eruv that disqualified me?
I go to Madison Square Garden, but only for sporting events, not concerts, ch"v. Would I still qualify?
so you DONT use the עירוב in Boro Park?
are you some kind of yeshivish acolyte now?!
NO.
according to the SA HaRav one should not carry unless there's an eruv that has a Lechi every 10 amos.
I will be using it this shabbos
To go to the swimming pool
you didn't have the decency to leave out his phone number? cmon where is your ahavas yisroel?
Maybe some of the other readers here would like to move in.
"according to the SA HaRav one should not carry unless there's an eruv that has a Lechi every 10 amos."
Um, I think you mean according to the Rambam, in acordance to whos opinoin the SA Ha Rav follows
yes, Twisty, that is what I mean, but then again; we should never say according to the Mishnah Berurah so and so, since ultimately he follows the opinion of some other Rishon or Acharon. We would not Pasken according to the Rambam were it not for the SA Harav.
Hirshel,
Chabad don't always pasken like the SA HoRav, they will often pasken according to his Siddur. In this instance, even if there was a Lechi every 10 amos, I would venture to say that Chabad wouldn't pasken like the SA HoRav because Chabad hanhogo in Hilchos Eruvin is determined by the last Rebbe, not the first.
HT,
When something is a well know dispute amongst the Rishonim, one WOULD NOT say according to the MB, but that the MB follows the view of Rishon X. At least in Lakewood that is the way we talk.
Issac
The Rebbe has no hanoge that differs from the AR in Sidur or in his Shulchan Oruch
Anonymous: what are you talking about. The AR Siddur over-rides SA HoRav. On Eruvin, chabad follow the issur of the last Rebbe not the hetter from the SA HoRav. In context of BP, Hirshel stating that he would follow SA HoRav if there were Lechi's is (I would guess) therefore disingenuous.
Issac
You have no idea what you are talking about, The AR writes in SA that there is no Reshus Harabim Deoriaiso only in parenthesis, Harav Noeh writes that it was not in in the 1st print, so its ain't simple black and white his shita,
Anonymous: Note that the comment Re: Shulchan Aruch HoRav and Lechis was Hirshel's. I am not aware that Hirshel is wrong. As far as I know the accepted view is that SA Horav (Shulchon Oruch O.C. 62, 19) follows the Rambam on this, and the Rambam agrees it's okay provided it isn't omed merubah al haporutz. That's why the Lechis are less than 10 amos apart. This is contingent on it not being a Reshus Horabim D'orayso. That is another halachik quagmire which will depend on interpreting Shitas Rashi as it pertains to Borough Park and the various other problems that BP may present (I don't have any personal knowledge of BP aside from being there for a few hours once, and hearing there was a tumul a few years ago about building an Eruv there)
My comment was that even if it was muttar al pi SA Horav, then I would assume that Minhag Chabad is not to use it anyway, because the Rebbe had other reasons not to allow carrying in any Eruv (eg educational reasons, and in case they are damaged and people will continue carrying).
As far as I am aware, and I would be happy to stand corrected, that these reasons were not stated by the SA HoRav.
I am not aware of a difference between a first and subsequent prints and whether poskim practically hold that the SA Horav was more machmir than the Rambam.
PS. Here in Melbourne, some Chabadniks seem to follow SA HoRav and use the Melbourne Eruv (presuming it doesn't take in a Reshus Horabim D'Orayso RHD) others either believe it is a RHD or follow the views of the last Rebbe, or both.
As usual most people have no idea what they are talking about when the issue is eruvin. If the situation is that there are two mechitzos omed merubeh al haparutz then the Rambam agrees that there is no need for a lechi every ten amos. This is distinct from the issue of reshus harabbim. Boro Park is encompassed by multitudes of mechitzos that are omed merubeh and consequentially has a Rambam eruv. There is no reason why a Chabad Chassid can’t use the BP eruv. What the poster is referring to regarding Harav Noeh is that he states that the parentheses in the Shulchan Aruch HaRav, that a yirei shomayim should not rely on the criteria of shishim ribo, was not in the first print.
Issac
From the the tone of your argument it seemed, that the Rebbe is not following the Shulchan Aruch Harav
Anonymous (goodness knows which of you, why don't people use names?)
Of course the Rebbe wouldn't be maykel on the SAH but my two points were:
a) the siddur seems to take precedence in normative chabad hanhogo
b) the Rebbe was more machmir than the SAH on eruvin (yes, I expect some to say that the SAH would agree bizman hazeh) and accordingly, I wonder what Hirshel's hanhogo is: according to SAH or the Rebbe, given that Hirshel raised his hanhogo (what he does isn't my business of course)
if you took this news post from jewboys site on hydepark you should give him credit
Just what I was thinking!
I ahd it up a week before him. I clipped it, scanned it, and posted it. He copied from me.
if this is the case then he shuld give you credit
credit is rule # 1 of the internet
Post a Comment