11:30 AM
Gil Student
The following is an excerpt from a letter that R. Zvi Romm, rabbi of the Bialystoker Synagogue, sent to The Jewish Press in response to R. J. Simcha Cohen's column about carrying children in the Lower East Side. Let me just add that R. Romm is a jolly, gentle person - basically, Rabbi Smurf - and he does not have a bone of malice in his body.
The Jewish PressI find it difficult to argue with this logic. But Rabbi Cohen had no problem doing so. Here is an excerpt of his letter in response.
Feb. 13, 2004
A Community And Its Poskim
We in the Bialystoker Synagogue enjoyed a pleasant Shabbat Bereishit when Rabbi J. Simcha Cohen regaled us with a sparkling lecture, delivered with wit and aplomb. Apparently the experience made an impression on him as well, because Rabbi Cohen's most recent column ("Carrying a Child on the Sabbath," Jewish Press, February 6) makes reference to an incident he witnessed that Shabbat and uses it as a springboard to discuss some broader issues which he applies specifically to our community. Since our community and our synagogue had the honor of being singled out in Rabbi Cohen's article, I feel entitled to address some of the points he makes...
Rabbi Cohen then opines that the Lower East Side in particular is a neighborhood where "one certainly should not criticize those who carry children," because it lies within the confines of the Manhattan eruv, which was sanctioned by the Gaon Rav Menachem Mendel Kasher, zt"l. Here, too, one wonders how we transitioned from "what to do" to "what not to criticize." But the issue runs much deeper, and a bit more clarification is required than what Rabbi Cohen provides in his article.
Rabbi Cohen notes that at the time that Rav Kasher offered his support for the Manhattan eruv, "the Agudat Harabbanim and many roshei yeshiva disagreed with Rav Kasher." He fails to mention that among these many roshei yeshiva was an individual whose name on the Lower East Side is essentially synonymous with "rosh yeshiva" - the Gaon Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l, who respectfully but firmly felt that Manhattan by definition could not halachically maintain a traditional community eruv.
We are currently blessed on the Lower East Side with the presence of Rav Moshe's two sons, Rav Dovid Feinstein and Rav Reuven Feinstein, shlita, whose status as internationally consulted decisors of halacha makes them universally accepted as the poskim on Lower East Side community matters. They are both on record as affirming their illustrious father's pesak. The article's statement that "local rabbis have not formally sanctioned carrying in the area" implies that the position of the Lower East Side rabbinate is somehow equivocal. It is not. The rabbanim of the Lower East Side universally affirm the pesak of Rav Moshe and his sons and pasken for the balebatim that carrying on Shabbat on the Lower East Side involves a Torah prohibition.
That being the case, it would be incorrect to say that one cannot criticize those who carry a child on the Lower East Side on Shabbat. Whatever one affirms in the complex area of Hilchot Eruvin - and certainly many great and saintly poskim disputed and continue to dispute Rav Moshe's halachic conclusions - one fact is clear. One has no right to challenge a pesak of a community's recognized mara d'atra, the halachic "master of the locale." The Talmud relates (Shabbat 19b) that Rav Hamnuna excommunicated a student who paskened according to the normative halacha in the town of Rav, who was known for espousing an opinion that was stricter than the norm.
Other neighborhoods are certainly within their rights to follow the poskim who set halachic policies for their areas. We may, and should, follow ours.
Rabbi Zvi Romm
Rav, Bialystoker Synagogue
Rebbe, Isaac Breuer College, Yeshiva University
The Jewish PressHe just doesn't seem to get it. The Lower East Side is subject to R. Feinstein's ruling and he held that there is not currently and can never be an eruv there. It does not exist to residents of that neighborhood.
Feb. 20, 2004
Response To The Case Of The Crying Child
Rabbi Romm cites a Talmudic passage that condemns ruling according to normative halacha in an area that follows a practice stricter than the norm. This implies that the Lower East Side observes practices above and beyond normative halacha.
Which is it? What is to be halachic policy for a community? Normative, or stricter than normative, halacha?...
Coupled with this is the fact that the incident took place in an area ruled by a number of rabbis as permissible to carry, for it is included in the Manhattan eruv sanctioned by the major synagogues and rabbis of the Upper East Side. Of interest is how HaGaon Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l, would rule concerning the crying child in the street on Shabbat.
At issue is the local policy. Have all the local rabbis in fact actually ruled that it is proper to leave a child on the street crying on Shabbat? If so, then Rabbi Romm's premise may be correct. Namely, the local community has a policy stricter than normative halacha. That's a situation anyone and any community may observe. But it is quite harsh to maintain that those who follow another halachic perspective should be castigated, especially in an area included in the revised Manhattan eruv (revised years after HaGaon Rav Feinstein was niftar).
Rabbi J. Simcha Cohen
Vice Chancellor
Ariel Israel Institutes
