By Michel Levin

On February 27, 2026, Anash.org published an article with Rabbi Daniel Osher Kleinman’s findings regarding the so‑called “Brooklyn Eruv.”

Since Rabbi Kleinman’s shiur was posted online earlier last month, subscribers to the “Brooklyn Eruv” email list have received no fewer than eight messages — not addressing his claims, but attempting to discredit him: questioning whether the Igros Moshe would approve of his conduct, insinuating that he forgot what he once wrote, doubting whether his intentions were leshem Shamayim, mocking his scholarship as “am‑ha’aratzus,” and even placing the word “rabbi” in quotation marks.

But what were Rabbi Kleinman’s actual claims? As I understand them, he raised two central concerns:

Lack of transparency: Brooklyn rabbanim — who bear responsibility for guiding their communities — are not given access to the details of the eruv’s construction.

Discrepancies in the maps: Through his investigation, Rabbi Kleinman obtained internal maps of the “Brooklyn Eruv,” and upon inspection, some of the structures marked on those maps simply do not exist in reality.

One would expect a reputable organization to respond to such serious allegations with professionalism:
“We are looking into these allegations,”
or “we reviewed the claims and found them unfounded,”
or “we will re‑examine our transparency policies,”
or at the very least, not respond at all.

Instead, the email broadcast has offered a barrage of personal attacks — not a single substantive rebuttal. And we all know what such a response usually signals.

When criticism is met not with facts but with character assassination, it raises a simple question:
What are they so afraid of?

Koheles (10:3) says:
“…when a fool walks… he proclaims to everyone that he is a fool.”

When an organization responds to legitimate concerns with mockery instead of clarity, it risks revealing far more about itself than about its critic.