גריי מאטר א, הלכות שבת, הלכות הקמת עירובGray Matter I, Laws of Shabbat, Laws of Creating an Eruv

א׳

1 Defining the Four Domains

ב׳

2The construction of eruvin has generated much controversy in many Jewish communities. Our extended discussion seeks to shed light on the various opinions and practices regarding eruvin and thereby encourage mutual respect for the different practices regarding the use of eruvin today.

ג׳

3Disagreements about creating an eruv center around three primary issues: whether an area is suitable for creating an eruv, how to create the eruv, and how to rent the enclosed area in a democratic society. We will begin by discussing which areas are appropriate for creating eruvin.

ד׳

4The Four Domains

ה׳

5The Gemara (Shabbat 6a) delineates four domains (reshuyot) for the laws of Shabbat. A reshut hayachid (private domain) is surrounded by walls of a minimum height of 10 tefachim (about 40 inches),¹A tefach is a handbreadth, which is between three and four inches. See Encyclopedia Talmudit 20:659. and has a minimum area of four tefachim by four tefachim. Common examples of a reshut hayachid include buildings and fenced-in yards. One is permitted to carry within a reshut hayachid on Shabbat.²However, in certain situations, it is necessary to perform sechirat reshut and eruv chatzeirot, as is explained in part four of our discussion of the laws of eruvin.

ו׳

6A reshut harabim (public domain) is an area where carrying on Shabbat is forbidden, such as a city square or a street that passes directly from one end of town to the other. It must be at least 16 amot (about 28 feet)³For summaries of the various opinions regarding the size of an amah, see Encyclopedia Talmudit (2:28-29). wide, unroofed, and with less than three walls (see Shabbat 99a).⁴There is some debate regarding the question of whether such a street also makes all public areas in its town into a reshut harabim. This will be discussed when we address the various cities in which this issue arose. Rav Hershel Schachter points out that a reshut harabim must not be private property (The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, 5:12, based on Eruvin 59a). Some opinions maintain that 600,000 people must pass through it daily, and we will discuss this debate later. Additionally, some authorities consider any inter-city highway a reshut harabim, even if it does not meet all of the other requirements (Ramban, Eruvin 59a).⁵See Rav Hershel Schachter's essay in The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society (5:13). Rav Schachter has told this author that only a limited-access highway falls into this category. For example, Rav Schachter believes that New Jersey Route 34 (in the Matawan eruv) and Route 46 (in the Parsippany eruv) are not highways for this purpose. These roads may thus be included inside tzurot hapetach. Also see Teshuvot Bnei Banim (1:19, pp. 66-67) and Aruch Hashulchan (O.C. 345:26), both of whom rule more leniently than Rav Schachter. It should be noted that the Jerusalem eruv includes Israel's Route 1 (Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway). See The Contemporary Eruv (p. 54 note 119), where Rav Eliezer Waldenberg is cited in defense of including Route 1 in the eruv. Carrying four amot (about six to seven feet) within a reshut harabim on Shabbat is biblically prohibited, as is carrying from a reshut hayachid into a reshut harabim and vice versa.

ז׳

7A mekom petur (literally an "exempt site") is a place within a reshut harabim whose area is less than four tefachim by four tefachim (see Mishnah Berurah 345:30). It must also be either at least three tefachim high or enclosed by walls that are three tefachim high. One may carry into or out of a reshut harabim or a reshut hayachid from a mekom petur. Common examples include narrow garbage cans and fire hydrants. It is widely accepted that a mekom petur exists only in a reshut harabim.⁶The Rama (O.C. 345:19) cites two opinions regarding whether or not a makom petur can also exist in a karmelit. The Mishnah Berurah (345:87) notes that most Acharonim incline to recognize the status of mekom petur only in a reshut harabim, and the Aruch Hashulchan (O.C. 345:45) rules accordingly. Also see Biur Halachah s.v. V'yeish Cholkim.

ח׳

8The fourth and final domain is a karmelit. In this domain, it is rabbinically forbidden to carry. A karmelit is essentially any place that does not fit the descriptions of the other domains. This includes the sea and all public places that do not meet the requirements of a reshut harabim.⁷For a brief summary of the laws concerning these four domains, see Rav Shimon Eider's Halachos of the Eruv (pp. 1-4).

ט׳

9Converting into a Reshut Hayachid

י׳

10In order to facilitate carrying in karmeliyot and reshuyot harabim, these areas must be transformed into private domains. Since the prohibition against carrying in a karmelit is only rabbinical in nature, the rabbis made it relatively easy to change a karmelit into a reshut hayachid. Surrounding it with tzurot hapetach (doorframes) renders the karmelit an enclosed area. A tzurat hapetach consists of a horizontal wire (or pole) that passes over the tops of two vertical poles, forming the shape of a doorway.

י״א

11Rav Yehudah Halevi (Kuzari 3:51) explains why the rabbis provided a relatively simple way to remove the prohibition of carrying in a karmelit, by ruling that tzurot hapetach are sufficient to convert a karmelit into a reshut hayachid. He suggests that they made this enactment to prevent treating rabbinical restrictions with the same severity as the Torah's restrictions and to provide the Jewish people with some freedom of movement on Shabbat.

י״ב

12The conversion of a reshut harabim into a reshut hayachid is much more difficult, because the prohibition of carrying in a reshut harabim is biblical. A wall or fence must surround the reshut harabim in order to change its status.⁸A fence whose vertical and horizontal links are less than three tefachim apart is the halachic equivalent of a solid wall, based on the concept of lavud. This principle considers a gap of less than three tefachim to be closed off. If a reshut harabim is enclosed on all sides by doors at night, it ceases to be a reshut harabim.⁹While walls undoubtedly turn a reshut harabim into a reshut hayachid, it is unclear whether doors achieve the same result. The Avnei Neizer (O.C. 280) believes they do make the reshut harabim into a reshut hayachid. On the other hand, the Chazon Ish (Orach Chaim 78:1) argues that doors transform a reshut harabim into a karmelit, but all breaches still require tzurot hapetach in order to permit carrying within the enclosed area on Shabbat. The classic example of this phenomenon appears in Eruvin (22a), where the Gemara states that "had Jerusalem's doors not been locked in the evenings, the city would have been considered a reshut harabim." In a few locations in the United Sates, "doors" have been "installed" to encompass an area that might otherwise constitute a reshut harabim.¹⁰See Netivot Shabbat (Chapter 23) for a general review of the literature regarding doors that eliminate the status of reshut harabim.

י״ג

13Does a Reshut Harabim Require 600,000 People?

י״ד

14In light of the halachic differences between them, it is quite important to determine if an area is a true reshut harabim or merely a karmelit. The precise definitions of these categories have been debated since the time of the earliest Rishonim. The main point of contention is whether an area requires 600,000 people to attain the status of a reshut harabim.

ט״ו

15Rishonim

ט״ז

16The Rambam (Hilchot Shabbat 14:1) does not mention that 600,000 people must be present for an area to be considered a reshut harabim. Rashi (Eruvin 6a s.v. Reshut Harabim and Eruvin 59a s.v. Ir), however, writes that a city that does not regularly have 600,000 people is not a reshut harabim, because it has less population than the Jews' encampment in the desert. The practices and the activities of the Jewish encampment in the desert as recorded in the Torah serve as the paradigm for forbidden activities on Shabbat (see Shabbat 73b-74a). Tosafot (Eruvin 6a s.v. Keitzad) record that the Behag agrees with Rashi, whereas Rabbeinu Tam finds Rashi's opinion problematic.

י״ז

17A major problem with the opinion requiring 600,000 people for a reshut harabim is that the Gemara (Shabbat 6a) describes at length what constitutes a reshut harabim, without any explicit mention of requiring 600,000 people. Surely, the Gemara would not omit such a critical part of defining a reshut harabim. Rav Aharon Lichtenstein has told this author that he believes the opinion of Rashi and the Behag is among the most singularly difficult opinions of Rishonim in all of Halachah!

י״ח

18The Shulchan Aruch and its Commentaries

י״ט

19The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 345:7) cites (and presumably accepts) the view that an area is a reshut harabim even without 600,000 people, although he does cite the other view as a secondary opinion.¹¹The Shulchan Aruch's view is somewhat unclear, as he appears to contradict himself in Orach Chaim (303:18). There he writes that no places today qualify as reshuyot harabim. Presumably, his reason is that he requires 600,000 people for a reshut harabim. Regarding the practice of Sephardic Jews today, see Yabia Omer (vol. 4, Orach Chaim 47:4) and page 7 of Rav Mordechai Eliyahu's comments to Rav Zechariah Ben-Shlomo's Hilchot Tzava. The Rama (O.C. 346:3) indicates that he accepts the requirement of 600,000.¹²This is inferred from the Rama's statement that in our day there are no reshuyot harabim. While logic would dictate that the Rama is writing this because he believes that only a place with 600,000 people constitutes a reshut harabim, this inference presents a certain difficulty. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 303:18) also writes that there are no true reshuyot harabim, yet he appears to rule that 600,000 people are not required for a reshut harabim (O.C. 345:7). The Magen Avraham (345:7) points out this problem. Both the Magen Avraham (345:7) and the Taz (345:6) cite the view of the Ma'sat Binyamin (92) and the Maharshal (Yam Shel Shlomo, Beitzah 3:8), who rule that the presence of 600,000 people is not required. However, the Magen Avraham and Taz themselves disagree with these authorities and write that the majority view is that of Rashi, requiring 600,000 people. The Aruch Hashulchan (345:17) writes that the eruvin in the Jewish towns of Eastern Europe relied on this accepted leniency; otherwise, they could not have used tzurot hapetach.

כ׳

20The Mishkenot Yaakov's Criticism

כ״א

21In the early nineteenth century, the Mishkenot Yaakov (Orach Chaim 119-122) strongly criticized the construction of the Eastern European eruvin. His criticisms included the fact that their wires sagged,¹³Sagging wires are problematic, because a tzurat hapetach must be constructed in the same manner as people makes ordinary doorframes (ked'avdei inshei; see Eruvin 94b). We will address this at greater length in our third chapter about eruvin. and there were no places for hinges on the tzurot hapetach (as there are on true doorways).¹⁴See Eruvin 11b. Our practice is not to require a place for hinges; see Aruch Hashulchan 362:31. Most of all, tzurot hapetach were used to create the eruvin, since the towns and villages were seen as karmeliyot. He asserted that the opinions of many more Rishonim had been published since the time of the Shulchan Aruch.¹⁵See Rav Moshe Bleich's article, "The Role of Manuscripts in Halachic Decision Making" (Tradition 27:2:22-55), regarding the halachic weight of newly discovered manuscripts of Rishonim. The discovery that many of these Rishonim rejected Rashi's opinion rendered his opinion that requires 600,000 people a minority opinion, whereas it had previously been considered the majority view. He argued that even the small towns and villages of Central and Eastern Europe should now be considered reshuyot harabim.

כ״ב

22Reaction to the Mishkenot Yaakov's Criticism

כ״ג

23Halachic authorities expressed mixed reactions to the Mishkenot Yaakov's criticism. The Beit Efraim (26) defended the practice to rely on eruvin consisting of tzurot hapetach. The Aruch Hashulchan (362:18) wrote in the late nineteenth century that it was as if a heavenly voice proclaimed that the opinion requiring 600,000 people for a reshut harabim was [still] correct.

כ״ד

24The Mishnah Berurah¹⁶345:23 and Biur Halachah s.v. She'ein Shishim. strongly urges pious individuals (ba'alei nefesh) to be strict and refrain from carrying within an eruv that is based on the lenient opinion. However, he writes that one should not rebuke those who do rely on such eruvin. For a summary of this issue, see Rav Elimelech Lange's Hilchot Eruvin (21-28).

כ״ה

25It is interesting to note that even those who are strict and do not rely on an eruv might be permitted to ask a Jew who does use the eruv to carry for them (see Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, O.C. 1:186).¹⁷Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo 1:44) rules that one who embraces the strict opinion in a disputed area of Halachah need not refrain from causing others to follow their practice of relying upon the lenient view. However, he addresses a rabbinical prohibition, and he notes that this matter is subject to debate regarding biblical prohibitions. Regarding eruvin, authorities debate whether carrying in a reshut harabim enclosed by tzurot hapetach is a biblical or rabbinical prohibition; see Biur Halachah (364:2 s.v. Vehu and s.v. Ve'achar). Elsewhere (Minchat Shlomo 2:35:17), Rav Shlomo Zalman suggests that one who adopts a chumra (stringency beyond the letter of the law) can ask someone who follows the letter of the law to violate this chumra. However, if one is strict because he believes a more lenient view to be mistaken, perhaps he should refrain from asking others to violate what he considers an absolute prohibition. (Even in the latter case, Rav Shlomo Zalman does not issue a definitive ruling.) When Ashkenazic and Sephardic communities follow different opinions, Rav Shlomo Zalman implicitly compares such a situation to a chumrah, because the one who causes others to act agrees that Jews from the other community need not be stringent.

כ״ו

26List of Major Cities

כ״ז

27As we explained in the previous chapter, some Rishonim requirement 600,000 residents for a city to attain the status of a reshut harabim. While this position prevents most towns and cities from having to cope with the issues regarding a reshut harabim, larger cities might nonetheless face them. In this chapter, we survey the opinions of contemporary authorities regarding certain specific cities.

כ״ח

28Paris: Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinski and the Chazon Ish

כ״ט

29In the late 1930s, the rabbis of Paris asked Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinski (the leading halachic authority at that time) if they could construct an eruv consisting of tzurot hapetach (vertical poles with strings running atop them) around their city. This method would only suffice if Paris were considered a karmelit, as opposed to a reshut harabim.

ל׳

30Rav Chaim Ozer consulted with the Chazon Ish (one of the most respected authorities in the laws of eruvin)¹Rav Hershel Schachter and Rav Chaim Zimbalist have told this author that halachic authorities generally treat the Chazon Ish more authoritatively than even the Mishnah Berurah in the area of eruvin. as well as the rabbis who supervised the Vilna eruv. Rav Chaim Ozer (Teshuvot Achiezer 4:8) opens his responsum by noting that over 600,000 people reside in Paris, so seemingly all authorities would consider it a reshut harabim. Consequently, an eruv consisting of tzurot hapetach cannot render it a private domain.

ל״א

31However, he notes that walls surround Paris on three sides, rendering it a reshut hayachid on a biblical level. There are bridges that pass over the walls, constituting breaches (pirtzot) in them.²See Noda Biy'hudah (1:42) and Mishnah Berurah (Sha'ar Hatziyun 363:95). Nevertheless, Rav Chaim Ozer claims that Paris is a reshut hayachid on a purely biblical level, since the walls on these three sides cover most of the perimeter (omeid merubeh al haparutz). Rav Chaim Ozer argues that, while any breach over ten amot (roughly fifteen to eighteen feet) invalidates a wall on a rabbinical level, breaches are insignificant on a biblical level as long as the majority of each of three sides of the perimeter remains enclosed.³Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, Orach Chaim 2:90) also rules that a breach of more than ten amot constitutes a problem only on a rabbinical level. See, however, Mishkenot Yaakov (120) and Mishnat Rabbi Aharon (1:6:12), who disagree and claim that such breaches invalidate the wall on a biblical level. Since the breaches in Paris's wall are only problematic on a rabbinical level, the erection of tzurot hapetach suffices to permit carrying. Rav Chaim Ozer and the Chazon Ish thus conclude that tzurot hapetach suffice in Paris.⁴Also see Chazon Ish, Orach Chaim 107:5-7. He addresses a situation where buildings are close enough to one another that they occupy more space than the open gaps between them. After complex calculations, the Chazon Ish rules that, whenever at least one street ends or curves inside the city, it loses the status of reshut harabim. For an explanation of his reasoning, see Rav Hershel Schachter's essay in The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society (5:15-19) and Rav Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer's The Contemporary Eruv (pp. 56-66). See Beit Yitzchak 5753, pp. 61-69, for Rav Mordechai Willig's thorough analysis of this issue. Rav Willig notes that the Meiri (Eruvin 20a s.v. V'yeish) appears to agree with the Chazon Ish. For criticisms of the Chazon Ish, see Mishnat Rabbi Aharon (1:6:12) and Teshuvot Igrot Moshe (Orach Chaim 5:28:1:3). Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Minchat Shlomo 2:35:22) takes the Chazon Ish's view into consideration in case of great need.

ל״ב

32It is unclear if Rav Chaim Ozer based his ruling in Paris on this opinion of the Chazon Ish.

ל״ג

33Warsaw: Rav Shlomo David Kahane

ל״ד

34Rav Shlomo David Kahane (the Rav of Warsaw during the 1930s) faced an interesting problem with Warsaw's eruv. During its construction in the nineteenth century, Warsaw's eruv consisted of tzurot hapetach. It was effective because fewer than 600,000 people resided within it. However, in the twentieth century, Warsaw's population exceeded 600,000, seemingly invalidating the eruv. Rav Kahane (cited by Rav Menachem Kasher in Noam 6:34) rules that the eruv is nonetheless valid, asserting that the larger a city grows, the less chance there is for any one street to run straight through it, without curving significantly. One requirement for a reshut harabim is that a street must go straight through the entire city.⁵See Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 345:7) and Rav Mordechai Willig (Beit Yitzchak 25:63-65). Accordingly, Warsaw does not meet this requirement and is still not a reshut harabim. Rav Moshe Feinstein criticizes this approach (see Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, Orach Chaim 1:140), rejecting the argument that the street cannot curve. He claims that a street that runs from one end of town to the other turns it into a reshut harabim, curves notwithstanding, provided that it meets the other criteria for a reshut harabim. Thus, in a place that meets the other requirements for a reshut harabim, tzurot hapetach do not suffice.

ל״ה

35Flatbush: Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin and Rav Moshe Feinstein

ל״ו

36During the 1970's, the construction of the eruv in Flatbush (a neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York) aroused great controversy. To this day, its permissibility remains disputed. The Va'ad Harabanim of Flatbush permits carrying inside the Flatbush eruv, while many rabbis and rashei yeshivah there, such as Torah Vodaath's Rav Yisroel Belsky (personal communication), forbid its use.

ל״ז

37Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin (Kitvei Hagaon Rav Y.E. Henkin 2:25) strongly encourages the construction of eruvin in New York's five boroughs, including Brooklyn (whose population easily exceeded 600,000 already in his day). Although Rav Henkin does not explain why these places are not reshuyot harabim, a number of arguments have been offered to support his contention that Flatbush is not in this category. First, Rav Shlomo David Kahane's argument regarding the Warsaw eruv seemingly applies to Flatbush, too, because no street within the Flatbush eruv runs straight from one end of the city to the other.⁶Even Flatbush Avenue and Bedford Avenue bend at various points; Ocean Parkway does not extend from one end of Brooklyn to the other.

ל״ח

38Second, the ruling of Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinski and the Chazon Ish also seems to apply to Flatbush. The faces of the buildings and the fences along the Belt Parkway appear to constitute the majority of a wall on three sides.⁷The Chazon Ish (O.C. 107:5-7) requires that there be at least one street in the town that either bends or ends inside the town. Brooklyn meets this requirement, as we have explained in the previous footnote. (Ironically, this lenient consideration is most often applicable in densely populated urban areas rather than smaller suburbs, which frequently have much empty space between buildings.)

ל״ט

39Third, the Aruch Hashulchan's unique (but highly questionable) approach might be taken into account (Orach Chaim 345:19-24). In his opinion, a street must be the only inter-city thoroughfare or commercial center in that city to be a true reshut harabim, with all other streets being minor in comparison. Accordingly, only in the time of the Talmud did true reshuyot harabim exist, because it was common for a town to have only one main street.⁸The Aruch Hashulchan refers to the sratiya and platiya described in Shabbat (6a). It is unclear if the Aruch Hashulchan requires that a reshut harabim be both the only commercial center and the only inter-city route, or if he suffices with either condition. See his comments in O.C. 345:26, where it appears that he suffices with either condition. Nowadays, most towns and cities have more than one inter-city thoroughfare and commercial center, so we do not have true reshuyot harabim. Brooklyn certainly has multiple commercial centers and inter-city roads, so the Aruch Hashulchan would not consider it a reshut harabim.

מ׳

40Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, Orach Chaim 4:87) vigorously disputes the Aruch Hashulchan's argument, citing a proof to the contrary from the Gemara (Shabbat 96b).⁹The Gemara describes how carrying in a reshut harabim occurred during construction of the mishkan. This work was not done in the main thoroughfare of the desert encampment, yet the Gemara states that it was done in a reshut harabim. Rav Moshe thus concludes that a city, like the desert encampment, can have multiple public centers and still be a reshut harabim, thus disproving the Aruch Hashulchan's opinion. The Divrei Malkiel (vol. 3, p. 267) also writes that one may not rely on the Aruch Hashulchan's novel insight, since it does not appear in any earlier source. Rav Aharon Lichtenstein (personal communication) conveyed sentiments similar to those of the Divrei Malkiel and Rav Moshe. Moreover, a careful reading of the Aruch Hashulchan seems to reveal that he sought to use his novel suggestion only as an adjunct (senif) to the view that a true reshut harabim requires 600,000 people. He never suggests relying on his idea without other grounds for leniency. Accordingly, the Aruch Hashulchan's view cannot be relied upon as the sole reason for permitting carrying within an area that contains more than 600,000 people.

מ״א

41A fourth defense of the Flatbush eruv is the opinion of Rav Efraim Zalman Margoliot (Beit Efraim, Orach Chaim 26) that only pedestrians count when determining that 600,000 people travel in a street. He argues that the requirement for 600,000 people is based on a comparison to the encampment in the desert. The comparison can thus be made only to pedestrians, as the 600,000 people who were in the quintessential reshut harabim were all pedestrians. The Maharsham (1:162) and Rav Eliezer Waldenberg (cited in The Contemporary Eruv, p. 54 note 119) add that trains and cars are private domains unto themselves, so their occupants are not counted among the 600,000 people of a reshut harabim. Both Rav Moshe (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, Orach Chaim 1:139:6) and Rav Binyamin Silber (Teshuvot Az Nidberu 6:70) reject this argument, pointing out that wagons (agalot) were used in the desert encampment's thoroughfares.

מ״ב

42Despite all of the arguments in favor of being lenient, Rav Moshe did not endorse the construction of the Flatbush eruv (see Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, Orach Chaim 4:87-88). He explicitly rejects all of the arguments presented and rules that the 600,000 people who regularly travel the streets of Brooklyn render it a reshut harabim.¹⁰Rav Moshe's concern was not for 600,000 residents but for 600,000 people traveling the streets at any time (drivers and pedestrians) within an area that is twelve mil by twelve mil (approximately eight miles by eight miles). He thus requires that the population be so great that 600,000 people are regularly found in the streets. Rav Moshe estimates that this requires at least 2.4 million residents. Rav Moshe is the lone authority who requires such a large population, and even he (O.C. 4:87) expresses reservations about his view, noting that no other authorities mention it. Nevertheless, Brooklyn is so populous that even Rav Moshe considers it a reshut harabim.

מ״ג

43Kew Gardens Hills

מ״ד

44Although Rav Moshe did not approve of constructing an eruv in Flatbush, he did permit the eruv in the Kew Gardens Hills section of Queens, New York. Rav Moshe stipulated the following requirements for the eruv to be acceptable:

מ״ה

451) All highways (Grand Central Parkway, Long Island Expressway, Van Wyck Expressway) were excluded from the eruv, because many authorities maintain that highways always constitute reshuyot harabim.¹¹See Ramban to Eruvin 59a (s.v. Verash Atzmo), Mishnah Berurah (345:17), and Teshuvot Bnei Banim (1:17-20). Similarly, the eruv in Teaneck, New Jersey excludes Route 4 due to concern that it is a reshut harabim.¹²Route 4 also has the problem that it passes over the tzurot hapetach and is thus not encompassed by them (see Mishnah Berurah 363:118).

מ״ו

462) It was constructed in a manner that greatly reduces the possibility of breakage during Shabbat. A communal eruv that uses as many pre-existing components as possible, such as preexisting telephone poles and wires, fences, hills, and train overpasses (see, however,

מ״ז

473) An individual was appointed to inspect the eruv every Friday; it must be rigorously inspected before every Shabbat (see Teshuvot Doveiv Meisharim, 2:28, who disapproves of inspecting an eruv before Friday).

מ״ח

484) The rabbis of the community were required to approve of the eruv and mutually agree that it was built properly, as an eruv should promote peace and not be a source of tension within a community (see Gittin 59a).

מ״ט

49Regarding the issue of reshut harabim, Rav Moshe wrote that "Kew Gardens Hills is small regarding these issues and the reasons I wrote [for not allowing an eruv in other parts of New York City] do not apply here." Although the borough of Queens has more than 600,000 inhabitants, Rav Moshe apparently viewed Kew Gardens Hills as a separate entity. Tzurot hapetach thus sufficed, since fewer than 600,000 people resided in it.

נ׳

50Tel Aviv

נ״א

51Not all halachic authorities agree with Rav Moshe's ruling to view certain neighborhoods as distinct entities within a large city. Rav Shaul Yisraeli (Techumin 10:140) writes that a city constitutes one halachic entity for purposes of defining a reshut harabim. Moreover, the sole halachic criterion defining an area as a city is a contiguity of homes (see Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 398), but not municipal boundaries. Accordingly, he rules that the entire Tel Aviv metropolitan area (known as Gush Dan) should be viewed as one entity regarding the reshut harabim issue. Since more than 600,000 people reside in Gush Dan, it constitutes a reshut harabim.Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, Orach Chaim 1:138), has the greatest chance of remaining intact.

נ״ב

52The Tel Aviv eruv today consists of tzurot hapetach, so Rav Yisraeli offers a suggestion for how Gush Dan may yet be a karmelit. He explains that the overwhelming majority of the observant community in Tel Aviv relies on the eruv because it follows the Shulchan Aruch's presentation (Orach Chaim 345:7) of the view that requires 600,000 people for a reshut harabim. He implies that 600,000 people must pass through a particular street every day for it to be a public domain. Rav Yisraeli notes that the Mishnah Berurah (345:24 and Sha'ar Hatziyun 345:25) rules that 600,000 people need not pass through a particular street for the town to be defined as a reshut harabim. According to the Mishnah Berurah, anywhere with 600,000 residents is a reshut harabim.¹³Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, O.C. 4:88) requires that the 600,000 people be within an area which is twelve mil by twelve mil (approximately eight miles by eight miles).

נ״ג

53The residents of Tel Aviv thus rely on an extraordinarily lenient approach. They follow the lenient understanding (Shulchan Aruch, to require 600,000 on one street) of the lenient opinion (Rashi, that 600,000 people are required for a reshut harabim)! Rav Yisraeli explains that it is possible to be so lenient only because we follow the opinion of those Rishonim (cited in Biur Halachah, 364:2 s.v. Ve'achar) who rule that tzurot hapetach suffice on a biblical level for even a reshut harabim. Because tzurot hapetach are only invalid in a reshut harabim on a rabbinical level, it is possible to permit lenient practices that would otherwise be unacceptable.

נ״ד

54Rav Naaman Wasserzug (Techumin 11:163-169) provides a different defense of the Tel Aviv eruv. He argues that, on a Torah level, Tel Aviv is a reshut hayachid, because it is enclosed by "halachic walls" on three sides.¹⁴This is similar to the ruling of Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinski and the Chazon Ish concerning Paris. It has the sea on the west, the Ayalon Valley on the east, and the Yarkon Valley on the south.¹⁵The Halachah recognizes these places as valid walls; see Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 345:2 and 362:3). According to this approach, the residents of Tel Aviv are not relying on such a radically lenient ruling.

נ״ה

55Conclusion

נ״ו

56In addition to the issues discussed in this chapter, this author's experience indicates that virtually every community eruv encounters challenges and difficulties during construction and maintenance. Accordingly, before relying on any community eruv, one must consult a halachic authority familiar with both the laws of eruvin and the details of the eruv in question. Our discussion in this chapter only addresses certain issues of interest regarding each eruv, but we have not researched the eruvin sufficiently to ensure that they are fit for use on Shabbat. Furthermore, due to the difficulties in maintaining an eruv, no one can ensure that eruvin that are presently acceptable will remain this way in the fsuture.¹⁶See this author's article "Advice for Proper Eruv Maintenance" in Yeshiva University's Chavrusa (April 1993, pp. 5-6).

נ״ז

57Constructing the Tzurot Hapetach

נ״ח

58In this chapter, we will address several issues that arise during the physical construction of an eruv. Before beginning to build and eruv, it must be determined if the area is a reshut harabim or merely a karmelit. If the area is a karmelit, surrounding it with tzurot hapetach suffices, whereas a reshut harabim must be enclosed by a wall, or at least by doors (Shulchan Aruch, O.C. 364:2, and Mishnah Berurah 364:8).

נ״ט

59Constructing Tzurot Hapetach

ס׳

60Constructing a tzurat hapetach seems to be a simple and straightforward process. The Talmud (Eruvin 11b) states that a tzurat hapetach consists of two vertical poles with a horizontal pole directly on top of them (kaneh mikan vekaneh mikan vekaneh al gabeihen). However, the laws of tzurot hapetach are actually quite complex, particularly when constructing a community eruv. Community eruvin often use preexisting structures, which can significantly reduce the costs of building and maintaining an eruv. These structures, such as telephone poles, were not built for use in eruvin and often introduce halachic complexities.¹For an explanation of how such structures may be used as tzurot hapetach despite the fact that they were not constructed for this purpose, see Chazon Ish, Orach Chaim 111:5. See Mishnah Berurah (362:64) for more sources on this issue.

ס״א

61Must the Vertical Poles Extend All the Way to the Horizontal One?

ס״ב

62The Talmud (Eruvin 11b) records a dispute between Rav Nachman and Rav Sheishet about whether the vertical poles of a tzurat hapetach must extend all the way to the horizontal pole. The Halachah follows the opinion of Rav Nachman, that if the vertical poles are ten tefachim (approximately forty inches) high and are positioned precisely beneath the horizontal pole, the tzurat hapetach is acceptable. The horizontal pole need not touch the vertical poles and may be well above them (Shulchan Aruch, O.C. 362:11). The Mishnah Berurah (362:62) explains that the basis for this ruling is the principle of gud asik (literally, "stretch up"), which states that the Halachah views the vertical poles as extending upward to the horizontal pole.

ס״ג

63Gud Asik: Eyesight or Plumb Line?

ס״ד

64Although vertical poles of a tzurat hapetach need not touch the horizontal pole (or wire), they must be positioned directly underneath it. The poles cannot even be off by the slightest amount (see Mishnah Berurah 362:63). Halachic authorities debate how to determine the proper positioning.²Measurements for some areas of Halachah are estimated based on what appears correct to people, while other areas require precise measurements. For example, terumah (the fiftieth of grain which is given to kohanim) must be an estimate and may not be measured to precisely equal one-fiftieth (Terumot 1:7). On the other hand, techum Shabbat (the area that one may not leave on Shabbat) must be measured precisely (Eruvin 57b, 58b). In many areas, it is unclear whether an estimate or precise measurement is required. For example, the Chazon Ish (Hil. Tumat Tzaraat 8:1) writes that measurements for the spreading of a spot of leprosy are done by estimation. He bases himself on a passage in the Ramban's commentary to the Torah (Vayikra 13:5). However, the Chazon Ish does not mention that the Rosh (Tosafot Harosh, Mo'eid Katan 7a, cited in the Tur's long commentary to Vayikra 13:5) requires the use of measuring implements to determine the leprosy spot's growth. Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik (as reported by Rav Yosef Adler) and Rav Moshe Feinstein (reported by Rav Elazar Meyer Teitz, from his uncle, Rav Pesach Rayman) both felt that it is sufficient to estimate the poles' positioning with one's eyes. Rav Zalman Nechemia Goldberg (personal communication) also permits using eyesight, although he requires building very wide vertical beams to allow for a wide margin of error in their positioning.

ס״ה

65However, Rav Yitzchak Liebes, Rav J. David Bleich, Rav Hershel Schachter, Rav Feivel Cohen,³Rav Cohen believes that two sets of vertical poles must be constructed, one set that appears to be under the horizontal pole and one set that has been measured to be precisely under the horizontal pole (if the position determined by sight differs from the position determined by the plumb line). It is not clear, however, that Rav Moshe and Rav Soloveitchik invalidate an eruv that was measured by plumb line. It may be that they also recognize such an eruv but add that measuring by eyesight is also acceptable. Rav Shlomo Miller (in his letter of approbation for The Contemporary Eruv) presents an argument for why constructing an eruv with plumb line measurements suffices according to all authorities. and Rav Mordechai Willig (all through personal communication) rule that a plumb line (or other device for measuring verticality) is necessary to ensure that everything lines up appropriately. The Gemara (Eruvin 94b) requires constructing "halachic walls" (and presumably tzurot hapetach as well) in the same manner that people usually build walls (kede'avdei inshei).⁴The significance of kede'avdei inshei is particularly emphasized by Rav Shlomo Kluger (Teshuvot Ha'elef Lecha Shlomo 156, 157, 161, 170, 173, 174). Builders and carpenters have used plumb lines for thousands of years; they appear in Amos (7:7-8) and the Mishnah (for example, Kil'ayim 6:9 and Keilim 29:3). Accordingly, a plumb line must be used in constructing a tzurat hapetach. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach told this author that, while it is best to use a plumb line, one may rely on eyesight alone if it is "impossible" to construct the eruv otherwise.⁵Of course, the definition of "impossible" is debatable. Rav Hershel Schachter (in response to what this author quoted from Rav Shlomo Zalman) insisted that it is never impossible to measure precisely, especially with the invention of devices such as laser pointers. Similar to Rav Shlomo Zalman's ruling, the Rama (O.C. 456:3) permits estimating the measurement for separating challah when measuring precisely is not feasible (although he addresses a halachic impediment, rather than practical difficulty).

ס״ו

66Rav David Lifshitz (Rav of Suwalk immediately before World War II) told this author that a plumb line was used when constructing tzurot hapetach in Suwalk. Rav Ephraim Oshry (Rav of the Kovno Ghetto) told this author that in Kovno they relied on eyesight alone. Rav Yosef Singer (Rav of Pilzno prior to World War II) also reported that he believes the rabbis he knew in Europe relied on eyesight alone. Accordingly, this debate has raged for at least 60 years. Rav Meir Goldwicht informed this author that Israeli communities today also have divergent practices regarding this issue. In order to avoid this problem, many communities erect vertical poles that reach the horizontal wire or pole. This method avoids the need to estimate from afar if the pole is directly under the wire.

ס״ז

67Tachuv - A Horizontal Wire that Passes Through the Vertical Pole

ס״ח

68Another major area of debate in constructing tzurot hapetach is the status of "tachuv,” when the horizontal pole (or wire) does not rest atop the vertical poles, but is drilled through them instead. Cases of tachuv frequently arise today, as many wires on utility poles, especially those used for cable television, are attached to bolts that pass into holes in the poles. The issue of tachuv arises dozens of times in an average community eruv.

ס״ט

69The Gemara relates that, in a valid tzurat hapetach, the horizontal pole is placed atop the vertical poles. Furthermore, if the vertical poles are not under the horizontal one, but to its side (tzurat hapetach min hatzad), the tzurat hapetach is unacceptable (Eruvin 11b). The Talmud does not specifically address a situation in which the horizontal pole passes through the vertical poles.

ע׳

70The Acharonim debate the acceptability of such a tzurat hapetach. The Mishnah Berurah (362:64) notes that the Pri Megadim was uncertain regarding this issue and therefore was inclined to rule strictly. On the other hand, Rav Shlomo Kluger (Ha'elef Lecha Shlomo, Orach Chaim 164), the Aruch Hashulchan (O.C. 362:32), the Chazon Ish (O.C. 71:9), and Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank (Teshuvot Har Tzvi, O.C. 2:18:3) rule that such tzurot hapetach may be used. They argue that, as long as the horizontal pole passes through the vertical poles at a point higher than ten tefachim off the ground, the portion of the vertical pole that is above the horizontal pole is ignored.⁶The principle of ignoring what is unnecessary is known as dal meihacha. See, for example, Sukkah 2a. The Chazon Ish notes that if a horizontal pole was placed on top of a vertical pole and then another vertical pole was placed on top of the first one, the original tzurat hapetach remains acceptable. Similarly, a horizontal wire that passes through a hole in a vertical pole should be acceptable.

ע״א

71This issue has not been resolved; some rabbis rely on the lenient opinion, while others follow the strict one. Rav Dovid Feinstein has told this author that the leniency of tachuv should not be employed in community eruvin. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo 2:35:25) writes that tachuv is undoubtedly acceptable. Rav Yehuda Amital told this author that the practice in Israel is to be lenient on this issue.

ע״ב

72Obstructions Between the Vertical Pole and the Horizontal Pole

ע״ג

73The Acharonim debate whether an obstruction (and not simply an open space) between a vertical pole and a horizontal pole invalidates a tzurat hapetach. The Mishnah Berurah (363:112) cites the Taz as ruling that a tzurat hapetach is invalid if a roof interrupts between one of its vertical poles and the horizontal pole or wire. His reasoning seems to be that gud asik (the theoretical "stretching" of the vertical pole to reach the horizontal one) only applies when nothing obstructs between the poles. An authority cited by the Melamed Leho'il (1:66) and an authority cited by the Aruch Hashulchan (Orach Chaim 363:46) disagree with the Taz and see no problem with a tangible separation between the poles. The Melamed Leho'il himself argues that obstructions between the vertical and horizontal poles are only forbidden by the Taz when they have a length or width greater than four amot (six to eight feet).⁷The Taz's example of an unacceptable obstruction is a roof of a building, which is typically wider than four amot. The Melamed Leho'il argues that if there is a smaller obstruction, no one invalidates the tzurat hapetach.

ע״ד

74This question is of major importance when constructing a communal eruv, as telephone wires often do not pass directly over the telephone poles. In some communal eruvin, small beams are positioned under the desired wires and are then attached to the telephone poles. These poles often contain objects between the vertical beams or strips and the utility wire, such as boxes, campaign posters, and advertising billboards. Communities that attach wire molding to the telephone pole all the way up to the wire avoid this problem entirely.

ע״ה

75The Tapered Pole - The Chazon Ish

ע״ו

76Telephone and utility poles frequently have wires attached to their sides, rather than on top. It is thus important to determine whether one may use such a wire and pole as a tzurat hapetach without affixing additional materials to the telephone pole. One could argue that this would be acceptable, because telephone poles are often thicker on the bottom than they are on top. Therefore, a wire attached to the side of the pole on top passes directly over the extra thickness of the lower part of the pole. Perhaps this thickness constitutes a "vertical pole" of the tzurat hapetach. One must check, of course, that the extra thickness at the bottom sticks out under this wire for ten tefachim of the pole's height, for every vertical pole in a tzurat hapetach must be ten tefachim high.

ע״ז

77Despite the above argument, the Chazon Ish (Orach Chaim 71:12) invalidates a wire on the side of a tapered pole, without explaining his reasoning. He adds that if there is an indentation cut in the pole, perhaps this pole and wire may then be used for a tzurat hapetach. The indentation must be ten tefachim above the ground. The accepted practice is to follow the Chazon Ish's stringency.

ע״ח

78Placing a Tzurat Hapetach in a Reshut Hayachid

ע״ט

79Another important issue in eruv construction is whether a component of a tzurat hapetach may be located within a reshut hayachid (private domain). The Mishnah Berurah (363:113) cites the Mekor Chaim, who invalidates such a tzurat hapetach, and the Mishnah Berurah accepts his ruling.

פ׳

80There are two possible reasons for this strict ruling. One might argue that the tzurat hapetach is not noticeable (nikar) if it is situated within a reshut hayachid (such as a private yard). Alternatively, one might claim that the walls or fences that encompass a reshut hayachid are viewed halachically as extending "all the way to the heavens" (see Shabbat 7a), so the airspace above a reshut hayachid is halachically impenetrable. For example, a horizontal wire passing through a backyard enclosed by a fence would be invalid according to this opinion, as it is halachically blocked by the "upward extension" of the fence. Rav Hershel Schachter generally instructs eruv designers to be strict on this matter.⁸Rav Schachter discusses this issue in Be'ikvei Hatzon (Chapter 13).

פ״א

81Other Acharonim disagree with the Mekor Chaim's stringency.⁹The Aruch Hashulchan does not mention this stringency. Teshuvot Chatam Sofer O.C. 91 and 96 and Teshuvot Maharsham 1:207 rule leniently regarding this issue in certain circumstances. The Chavatzelet Hasharon (1:20) writes that the custom is to be lenient in this issue. He adds that his father, who was exceedingly strict concerning most halachic matters, ruled leniently concerning this issue. Rav Hershel Schachter (in a lecture at Yeshiva University) relates that Rav Mendel Zaks told him that the custom in Europe was indeed to be lenient. However, Rav Schachter strongly urges communities to be strict in this matter. This issue has not yet been resolved, and practices vary from community to community.¹⁰Rav Mordechai Willig once commented to this author that, in reality, all communities are lenient on this issue, because cars are considered reshuyot hayachid. Virtually every community eruv today uses tzurot hapetach that pass over cars, and the cars' walls should halachically block them, according to the stringent view. This point is also mentioned in The Contemporary Eruv (p. 79).

פ״ב

82Flimsy and Zigzagging Wires

פ״ג

83The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 362:11) codifies the Talmud's (Eruvin 11b) requirement that the vertical poles be sufficiently strong that they could theoretically support a door made of straw.¹¹The thin strips of wire molding used in many eruvin today meet this requirement according to most authorities by virtue of the fact that they are attached to the utility pole, which is sufficiently strong (see Sha'ar Hatziyun 363:22). The Shulchan Aruch adds that the horizontal wire connecting the vertical poles does not have to be as strong and can even be made from a very light material, such as reed-grass (gemi).

פ״ד

84Nonetheless, some suggest that the string may not be so flimsy that it sways in the wind. The Mishnah Berurah (362:66) presents two opinions regarding this issue. One focus of the argument is whether the horizontal wire has to be sufficiently sturdy that it can withstand "conventional" winds (omeid beruach metzuyah). He quotes the well-known rule that for a halachic wall (mechitzah) to be valid, it must be sturdy enough to withstand ordinary winds. This rule undoubtedly applies to the vertical poles of a tzurat hapetach, but one opinion claims that it does not apply to the horizontal strings (or poles). Another objection to flimsy wires is that normal doorframes are not constructed in such a manner (see Eruvin 94b). The Aruch Hashulchan (362:37) rules leniently regarding this concern, while the Chazon Ish (Orach Chaim 71:10) rules strictly.¹²The Chazon Ish invalidates the wire as long as the wind can move part of it outside a straight line between the two vertical poles. Rav Nata Greenblatt told this author that he constructed the Memphis, Tennessee eruv with unusually wide vertical poles in order that the wires do not sway beyond the width of the vertical poles. Common practice appears to accept the lenient approach.

פ״ה

85In a true doorframe, the horizontal beam goes straight from one vertical beam to the other. When constructing a tzurat hapetach, it happens sometimes that the wire will wrap around things, such as trees or poles, which it does not pass over. Consequently, the wire, which should parallel the top beam of a doorway, will zigzag between the vertical poles rather than going straight from one of them to the other. Rav Yehuda Henkin (Bnei Banim 1:19) suggests that the status of such a wire depends upon the same dispute as the status of a wire which is blown from side to side in the wind, for both wires move horizontally from being directly between the vertical poles. In defense of the lenient position, Rav Henkin claims that a minor zigzag is permissible, because the Gemara (Eruvin 11a) describes eruvin made of grapevines, which are not completely straight. Nonetheless, Rav Henkin claims that a curve of greater than twenty-two degrees invalidates the tzurat hapetach. Rav Yosef Adler reports that Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik also espoused this position. Rav Meir Arik (Teshuvot Imrei Yosher 2:133) claims that the wire is only valid if it does not sway or veer more than three tefachim in any direction.¹³For a criticism of this position, see The Contemporary Eruv (pp. 74-75). This author has heard that eruvin designed by Rav Shimon Eider (such as the eruv in West Orange, New Jersey) allow for almost no zigzagging. For a discussion of this issue, see Rav Mordechai Willig's article in Beit Yitzchak (25:99).

פ״ו

86Sagging Wires

פ״ז

87A related issue is whether the horizontal wire may sag. The Mishkenot Yaakov (111, cited by Sha'ar Hatziyun 362:56) and the Chazon Ish (Orach Chaim 71:10) rule that a sagging wire disqualifies a tzurat hapetach. If the wire sags, it probably sways in the wind, which is problematic according to some authorities (mentioned above). Furthremore a tzurat hapetach must be constructed in a manner that replicates the way people construct doorframes, and people do not manufacture doorframes that sag on top. Interestingly, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik (cited in Nefesh Harav p. 170) recalled from his childhood that he visited his grandfather, Rav Chaim Soloveitchik, in Brisk and went with the dayan (rabbinic judge) of Brisk to check the community eruv. During that trip, the dayan tightened all the horizontal wires so that they would not sag, apparently following the Mishkenot Yaakov's opinion.

פ״ח

88Despite these rulings, Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank (Teshuvot Har Tzvi 2:18:8) permits sagging, as long as a significant part of the wire (about ten inches) does not come within ten tefachim of the ground. In addition, the Aruch Hashulchan does not cite the strict ruling of the Mishkenot Yaakov at all. The practice of most communities in Europe reportedly was to follow the lenient opinion in this area.

פ״ט

89Communal practices today still differ in this area. Some communities follow a compromise approach that the horizontal wire may sag up to three tefachim (approximately 9-12 inches),¹⁴See Rav Shimon Eider's Halachos of the Eruv (p. 24). based on the concept of lavud, that a gap of less than three tefachim is considered closed.¹⁵Another common example of lavud is a chain link fence, which serves as a solid wall if the gaps between the links are less than three tefachim wide.

צ׳

90Slanted Wires

צ״א

91Because a tzurat hapetach should be built like a true doorway, a potential problem arises when one pole is taller than the other, putting the horizontal wire on a slant (even though it is taut). One could claim that this should be invalid, as most doorways are built with the horizontal beam perpendicular to the vertical beams. Nonetheless, the Mishnah Berurah (362:60) rules that even if the horizontal wire is slanted, the tzurat hapetach is acceptable. He cites (Sha'ar Hatziyun 362:46) the opinion of Rav Akiva Eiger, however, that an exceedingly slanted wire might disqualify the tzurat hapetach. Rav Aharon Kotler (cited in Rav Shimon Eider's Halachos of the Eruv, p. 23) rules that a slant of less than forty-five degrees is acceptable even according to Rav Akiva Eiger. The Netivot Shabbat (19:27 note 60) claims that a slant of more than twenty-two degrees is problematic.

צ״ב

92Conclusion

צ״ג

93We have reviewed some of the major issues concerning how to build a tzurat hapetach. While the laws of eruvin are extremely complex, it is an area where laymen can make a major contribution. Vigilant laymen who know the locations of their community's tzurot hapetach can help ensure its validity by notifying their rabbi whenever they notice downed or sagging wires. Similarly, people can help by noticing when telephone and utility workers make changes in the structure of poles and wires.¹⁶See this author's article, "Advice for Proper Eruv Maintenance," in Yeshiva University's Chavrusa (April 1993, pp.5-6).

צ״ד

94Issues Once the Eruv is Erected

צ״ה

95After constructing an eruv, three major issues remain: karpeif, eruv chatzeirot, and sechirat reshut.

צ״ו

96Karpeif

צ״ז

97A potentially major obstacle in creating a viable community eruv is the existence of a karpeif within the enclosed area. A karpeif is an area at least 100 amot (between 150 and 200 feet) by 50 amot (between 75 and 100 feet) that is not used for human habitation or other human needs.¹See Eruvin 23a-b and Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 358. Accordingly, sports fields, playgrounds, and lakes used for boating do not constitute karpeifiyot. Chazal forbade carrying within a karpeif even if it is located within a reshut hayachid created by mechitzot or tzurot hapetach. This is because the reshut hayachid must be encompassed by mechitzot or tzurot hapetach that were built for the purpose of human habitation (mukaf ledirah). A wall or tzurat hapetach built to surround an uninhabited forest is not built for the sake of human habitation, so it does not permit people to carry on Shabbat within that forest.

צ״ח

98Moreover, the presence of a karpeif forbids carrying in the entire enclosed area surrounding it, because an area's walls or tzurot hapetach must be erected purely for human habitation. If they also include a karpeif, however, they are erected for an area that is not entirely fit for human habitation.²For an analysis of the karpeif's impact on the walls, see Biur Halachah (358:9 s.v. Hazra'im). This author's experience indicates that this issue arises much more often in suburban and rural areas than in urban areas, as an urban setting contains fewer undeveloped areas. The Chazon Ish (O.C. 88:25) writes that the only way to prevent a karpeif from invalidating the rest of the eruv's area is to encompass the karpeif with either mechitzot or tzurot hapetach, thereby excluding it from the eruv. The community is then mukaf ledirah, while the uninhabited karpeif is severed from it.³Also see the Biur Halachah (358:9 s.v. Aval).

צ״ט

99The lenient positions of some authorities might also solve this problem. The Biur Halachah (358:9 s.v. Aval) cites one such approach from the Devar Shmuel. He rules that if a karpeif is situated within a city and is only a small part of the city, it does not prohibit carrying within that area.⁴Of course, the Devar Shmuel's leniency does not apply to eruvin that enclose very large forest areas, since his entire reason is that the karpeif is negligible compared to the inhabited area. When this author sought to construct an eruv in a certain summer community in Connecticut, Rav Hershel Schachter ruled that the eruv could not be built, because the tzurot hapetach would have had to encompass huge tracts of forest. Rav Schachter also did not permit relying on the extraordinarily lenient views of Teshuvot Divrei Malkiel (cited in Melamed Leho'il 1:65) and Teshuvot Even Yekara (O.C. 16), which would have facilitated constructing the eruv, as these views are not accepted by most halachic authorities. The Devar Shmuel reasons that, in such a situation, the karpeif is negligible compared to the rest of the city and may be ignored.⁵Although the Devar Shmuel speaks of a city surrounded by walls, his ruling appears to apply equally to a city surrounded by tzurot hapetach; see Melamed Leho'il (1:65).

ק׳

100Halachic authorities have reacted to the Devar Shmuel's leniency with mixed feelings. On one hand, the Chazon Ish (cited earlier) rejects this approach, as he sees no reason for a karpeif within a city to differ from one in a more rural area. The Biur Halachah expresses serious reservations concerning this leniency, but he seems to accept the conclusion of the Chacham Tzvi, that the Devar Shmuel's opinion may be followed where it is impossible to construct an eruv otherwise.

ק״א

101This issue remains controversial, as some communities rely on the Devar Shmuel while others do not. A number of Israeli rabbis have told this author that the practice in Israel is to follow the lenient opinion of the Devar Shmuel (except in Bnei Brak, where the Chazon Ish resided). This is hardly surprising, since eruvin in Israel often encompass entire cities.⁶For example, according to information received from the Jerusalem Rabbinate in 1991, the circumference of Jerusalem's eruv is approximately 110 kilometers. It is exceedingly difficult to exclude every karpeif within Israel's growing cities. Hence, in keeping with the approach of the Biur Halachah, they rely on the Devar Shmuel's lenient ruling.

ק״ב

102A number of authorities adopt a compromise approach that distinguishes between different types of karpeifiyot (plural of karpeif).⁷See Orchot Chaim (Chapter 358), Teshuvot Melameid Leho'il (1:65), and Teshuvot Har Tzvi (Orach Chaim vol. 2, Harari Vasadeh p. 249). If a karpeif beautifies the city, it does not forbid carrying. If, however, humans in no way benefit from the area, it must be excluded from the eruv.

ק״ג

103Eruv Chatzeirot

ק״ד

104Even after a proper community eruv has been constructed and the area encompassed is thereby rendered a reshut hayachid, one may still not carry within it on Shabbat. Despite the fact that it is biblically permitted to carry from one reshut hayachid (one's house) to another (in our case, the outside area enclosed by the eruv), the Rabbis prohibited this in many cases. Similarly, this rabbinical prohibition often precludes carrying from one household to another even within the same building.⁸If there is only one Jewish resident in the building, this prohibition does not apply (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 382:1). It also does not apply if all of the residents eat together or if the landlord stores property in all of the residences (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 370:2,4). Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, O.C. 1:141) rules that a landlord who rents out items (such as stoves or refrigerators) with every apartment is considering to be "storing" his property with the tenants, so no eruv chatzeirot is needed. On the other hand, the Chazon Ish (O.C. 92) and Chelkat Yaakov (1:207) require an eruv chatzeirot if the landlord's property in the apartments is rented to the tenants. The Devar Avraham (3:30) and Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik (cited in Nefesh Harav p. 170) also favor this opinion, although the Devar Avraham concludes that he is unsure of the Halachah in such a case. See The Contemporary Eruv (p. 110 note 231) for a defense of Rav Moshe's view. Rav Hershel Schachter (in a lecture at Yeshiva University) reported that Rav Moshe encouraged those who do make an eruv chatzeirot in such a situation to refrain from reciting a blessing, since he believed that this eruv is unnecessary. The Chelkat Yaakov also argues that the landlord's ability to unite all of the apartments by storing property in all of them only applies to observant Jewish landlords. Regarding non-observant and non-Jewish landlords, he claims that sechirat reshut must be performed even if the landlord stores his personal property in all of the apartments. Other authorities do not appear to accept this qualification. For example, this prohibition applies to an apartment building with at least two observant⁹If there are flagrantly non-observant Jews, sechirat reshut must be performed. We will discuss this procedure later in this chapter. The status of non-observant Jews today is somewhat unclear, as most of them desecrate Shabbat out of ignorance, not out of contemptuousness. See Eruvin (69a) and Chazon Ish (O.C. 87:14) for a discussion of this phenomenon. families. In such situations, it is required to make an eruv chatzeirot (referred to by Chazal as an eruv) in order to permit carrying.

ק״ה

105An eruv chatzeirot (literally "mixing the courtyards") is consists of every household in the reshut hayachid contributing some bread to the collective group of households. The bread is stored in one of the houses within the encompassed area. The Halachah then views the participants as if they all live in that one house, removing even the rabbinical prohibition against carrying (see Shulchan Aruch, O.C. 366:1).

ק״ו

106The Talmud (Shabbat 14b) records that King Shlomo instituted this requirement, and a heavenly voice acknowledged the profound wisdom in it. The reason for this rule, as explained by the Rambam (Hilchot Eruvin 1:4), is that otherwise people would become confused about the laws of carrying. The process of the eruv chatzeirot is designed to familiarize the community with the laws of carrying. This goal seems to be a reason for the time-honored practice of storing the eruv chatzeirot in the synagogue (see Rama, O.C. 366:3). Rav Elazar Meyer Teitz told this author that his father, Rav Pinchas Teitz (of Elizabeth, New Jersey), prominently displayed the eruv in a place within the synagogue where it was easily seen, noting that this was commonly done in Europe. Another advantage of storing the eruv in the synagogue is that community members have full access to the eruv, which is an important requirement (see Rav Moshe Shternbach's Teshuvot Vehanhagot 1:250).

ק״ז

107In practice, we do not require every household in a reshut hayachid to give some bread for the purpose of the eruv. Instead, everyone in the community is granted a portion of the eruv by the process known as zachin le'adam shelo befanav, acquiring something on behalf of another person (see Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 366:9-10,15). This is accomplished by one person handing another the eruv food¹⁰The practice is to use a box or two of kosher-for-Pesach matzah; see Rama, O.C. 368:5. and the second person lifting the eruv into the air.¹¹There is a dispute regarding whether it must be lifted one tefach (3-4 inches) or 3 tefachim; see Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 198:2 and Mishnah Berurah 366:51. It is lifted with the intention of acquiring the eruv on behalf of all present and future residents of the area encompassed by the eruv.

ק״ח

108A blessing ("al mitzvat eruv") is recited prior to the procedure of acquiring the eruv on behalf of the community.¹²For an explanation of why a blessing is recited on an eruv chatzeirot, see Teshuvot Chatam Sofer (O.C. 99). Then, the formula of "behadein eruva" is recited, explaining the eruv's intended purpose (see Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 366:15).

ק״ט

109Sechirat Reshut

ק״י

110The procedure of eruv chatzeirot is effective solely for Jews who believe in the Oral Law and thus believe in the efficacy of an eruv. However, one must rent the apartments, homes, and common areas (such as streets and parks) from every non-Jewish and non-believing Jewish resident of the reshut hayachid. This procedure is known as sechirat reshut.

קי״א

111Renting every non-Jewish house within the tzurot hapetach is a virtually impossible task to accomplish in a community eruv. Fortunately, Halachah provides an alternative method of performing the sechirat reshut (see Shulchan Aruch, O.C. 391:1). The Jewish community may rent the entire enclosed area from the head of the city (sar ha'ir) or from one to whom this leader has delegated his authority.¹³A representative may be used even if this representative knows he is acting against the will of the non-Jewish authority (Shulchan Aruch, O.C. 382:11). The Shulchan Aruch also discusses who qualifies as a representative. The Shulchan Aruch rules that the head of the city has the halachic ability to rent out not just the public property within the tzurot hapetach, but also the homes of its residents. His ability to rent out private homes stems from his right to quarter soldiers and military equipment in those homes during a time of war without consulting the residents.¹⁴The Biur Halachah (391 s.v. Bameh Devarim Amurim) adds that the leader must also be capable of deciding when to wage war. Otherwise, his power to quarter troops is irrelevant during times of peace. The United States Constitution (Amendment 3) forbids quartering soldiers under most circumstances. Nonetheless, the Tikvat Zechariah (pp. 39-40, cited in The Contemporary Eruv pp. 115-117), discussing the possibility of constructing an eruv in St. Louis in the 1890s, rules that a city government in America does have the right to lease private homes for sechirat reshut. He reasons that local governments may search and inspect private homes, in addition to maintaining the right to expropriate private land for public use (eminent domain).¹⁵Rav Hershel Schachter (in a lecture at Yeshiva University) stated that Rav Moshe Feinstein also permitted performing sechirat reshut from a democratically elected mayor based on similar reasoning. See Chazon Ish (O.C. 82:9) for an alternative explanation of why sechirat reshut may be done from democratic governments. Also see Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo (2:35:24), who writes that the sechirat reshut performed today "merits investigation" ("yeish ladun").

קי״ב

112Others, including Rav Hershel Schachter (in a lecture at Yeshiva University), strongly question this reasoning. They point out that the right of eminent domain is rarely used and is quite difficult to apply. According to their opinion, it is forbidden to carry on Shabbat (even within an eruv) from one's home to the private property of a non-Jew or non-observant Jew.¹⁶Netivot Shabbat (36:27). One could question why the presence of privately owned non-Jewish property inside the eruv does not affect the rest of the area. After all, we have already mentioned (regarding a karpeif) that a place where carrying is forbidden also prohibits carrying in the rest of the eruv, unless special tzurot hapetach are erected to separate the forbidden area. While walls enclose the houses themselves, their unenclosed front lawns should invalidate the eruv. See The Contemporary Eruv (p. 115). Nonetheless, they acknowledge that the mayor and police do possess the authority to close the public areas of the city. One should consult his rabbi regarding which opinion to follow.

קי״ג

113The Netivot Shabbat (Chapter 37, note 93) notes that all would agree that the mayor and police cannot rent out a foreign embassy located within a city, as international law recognizes it as sovereign territory of the nation it represents. Thus, it would be forbidden to carry into a foreign embassy even in an area encompassed by an eruv, such as Jerusalem or Washington, on Shabbat.

קי״ד

114It is often unclear who is the appropriate authority to lease the area from (see Mishnah Berurah 391:18). In order to avoid this problem, rabbis usually perform sechirat reshut from a number of local authorities, such as the mayor and the police chief. A particularly interesting situation occurred when Rav Barry Freundel of Congregation Kesher Israel (Washington, D.C.) established an eruv for his community. Due to the ambiguous nature of Washington's municipal authorities, Rav Freundel told this author that he performed sechirat reshut from United States President George Bush¹⁷Of course, had it been difficult to reach the President, sechirat reshut could have been done from a representative of his. and Washington Mayor Marion Berry, along with the heads of the police and city council.

קי״ה

115When expanding a community eruv, care must be taken to ensure that the sechirat reshut includes the expanded areas. In addition, sechirat reshut should not be allowed to expire.¹⁸For a discussion of how long a sechirat reshut may last, see the Mishnah Berurah (382:48) and Netivot Shabbat (Chapter 37:28 and note 20). Many authorities require renewing sechirat reshut when the non-Jewish official from whom it was performed leaves his office. The Netivot Shabbat (37:28 and notes 96-99) cites these authorities, but he argues that sechirat reshut remains effective in democracies even when the government changes. He reasons that a newly elected government is bound by agreements made by its predecessors. In practice, Jewish communities today do not renew sechirat reshut every time the town government changes (also see Har Tzvi, Orach Chaim 17).

קי״ו

116Conclusion

קי״ז

117We hope that this discussion of the laws of eruvin has shown how this area of Halachah is particularly complex. It should be emphasized that we have reviewed only some of these complicated laws. For further discussion of them, see Netivot Shabbat, The Contemporary Eruv, Rav Shimon Eider's Halachot of the Eruv, Rav Elimelech Lange's Hilchot Eruvin, and Rav Hershel Schachter's essay in The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society (5:5-24). When dealing with practical questions in the laws of eruvin, it is important to consult rabbis who have extensive experience in this field.