They are מחטיא את הרבים

We all already know it’s not reliable because so said our own Beis Din of C.H.

But why quote Someone’s Speach or oppinion, someone from Flatbush’s, oppinion, unless, his oppinion, himself, is considered reliable?

And if this person from Flatbush days, that he knows of which Rabbi had retracted his name from the “Brooklyn Eiruv” and YET, the Raabi from Flatbush is withholding THE name, of who has retracted, then how reliable or responsible is anyone who knows the name of a Rabbi who retracted yet fails to reveal his name?

ממה נפשך
?

However there are those who have spoken to one of rabbis who are deeply involved in the Brooklyn eruv, and they have described at length the entire supervision process regarding the Boro Park eruv. It is not practically possible to implement an identical process for the Brooklyn eruv, which is far larger in scope.

If so, then either that rabbi was not precise in his description of the process, or these backers are not being precise when they claim that they replicate exactly the same process for the Brooklyn eruv as well.

They also made a strange claim: that if someone truly believes there is a defect in a certain part of the eruv, he should personally finance the correction. According to this reasoning, someone who does not even want the eruv must either pay for its repair (or, as previously stated, support the eruv project in general), otherwise he has no right to raise the issue. This is certainly unreasonable.

What is particularly striking is that while discussing the matter and their conversation with that unnamed rabbi, they speak about him in a far from complimentary manner. Although at times they attempt to be somewhat more restrained in how he speaks about him (certainly more so than in their remarks about Rabbi Kleiman) there is a noticeable tone of condescension, as if the rabbi lacks sufficient understanding of the subject and they understand it better than he does.

If they indeed understand the matter better than the rabbi, why do they need him at all? Is the validity of the eruv dependent upon someone whom they themselves do not seem to hold in particularly high regard?

He also asserts that this other eruv proponent has no real understanding of the halachos of eruvin. This may be the one time we should consider taking him at his word.

A similar situation is happening here: there are issues with the eruv, and no one is really addressing them.

It’s essentially the same kind of situation.

Without getting into the substance of the claims raised in the response, it should be noted that beyond the fact that the points were sometimes presented in a confused or unfocused manner, and at times statements were attributed to Rabbi Kleiman that were not said by him in this video (apparently they were said elsewhere), they also did not address all of Rabbi Kleiman’s points. Some were deliberately omitted, or mentioned only in passing in order to dismiss them as nonsense, while other matters (for instance regarding their separate dispute with another individual) were introduced and an attempt was made to link the issues together.

For example, Rabbi Kleiman argues that there are several substantive problems (aside from the principle of “pi tikra” or the sidewalk question), yet they dismiss this offhandedly by saying that it is all nonsense and the like, or that he does not know what he is talking about (and similarly regarding the claim about the problematic use of using the beach as a Mechitza, which they call foolishness), without directly addressing the substance of the argument.

The response at the time was that the reports were inaccurate and that the eiruv had already been checked that week. After several such instances, it was stated that there was an additional outer eiruv. When clarification was requested regarding the precise outer boundaries, that information was not shared. Subsequently, the explanation shifted further: it was asserted that a broader Brooklyn-wide eiruv encompassed the area in question, and therefore the originally published boundary was no longer determinative. As a result, the previously documented breaches were described as irrelevant.

This occurred over a number of different weeks. Several times, after Shabbos, it was observed that the breaches had not been repaired. In at least one instance, what was documented appeared to be an improperly constructed section of the eiruv, and this as well was not corrected. Local rabbanim who were understood to unofficially be standing behind the eiruv were notified. No public notice was issued advising the community not to rely on it for that Shabbos. In some cases, the issues were reportedly still not repaired the following week.

I am not writing this to attack anyone. I am sharing this because transparency and clarity in something as sensitive as an eiruv are essential. When published maps are relied upon by some people, and documented concerns are dismissed or reframed without clear explanation, it understandably creates confusion and concern.

והאמת והשלום אהבו

“My view is well known, that in this generation, if a person or organization that people respect makes an Eruv, and he knows that in the end it will become public knowledge – it is a terrible stumbling block.

“It is impossible that it won’t happen on at least one Shabbos that the Eruv will become invalid. Once people become accustomed to carrying outdoors on Shabbos, no kind of proclamation or announcement that the Eruv has been invalidated and it is forbidden to carry will help to cause them to stop carrying.”

And in another response the Rebbe wrote:

“Oftentimes the eruv breaks, and we see clearly that an announcement about this (a) nowadays only reaches a minority of the community, and (b) few of those will abstain from carrying because of this, after having gotten used to carrying for many Shabbosos.”

If you can’t see the difference between an eruv in a village in Israel with no connection to a reshus harabim
and Brooklyn or Crown Heights, then you obviously lack the fundamental knowledge of what an eruv needs.