גריי מאטר א, הלכות שבת, הלכות הקמת עירוב ב׳Gray Matter I, Laws of Shabbat, Laws of Creating an Eruv 2

א׳

1List of Major Cities

ב׳

2As 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.

ג׳

3Paris: Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinski and the Chazon Ish

ד׳

4In 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.

ה׳

5Rav 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.

ו׳

6However, 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.

ז׳

7It is unclear if Rav Chaim Ozer based his ruling in Paris on this opinion of the Chazon Ish.

ח׳

8Warsaw: Rav Shlomo David Kahane

ט׳

9Rav 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.

י׳

10Flatbush: Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin and Rav Moshe Feinstein

י״א

11During 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.

י״ב

12Rav 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.

י״ג

13Second, 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.)

י״ד

14Third, 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.

ט״ו

15Rav 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.

ט״ז

16A 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.

י״ז

17Despite 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.

י״ח

18Kew Gardens Hills

י״ט

19Although 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:

כ׳

201) 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).

כ״א

212) 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,

כ״ב

223) 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).

כ״ג

234) 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).

כ״ד

24Regarding 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.

כ״ה

25Tel Aviv

כ״ו

26Not 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.

כ״ז

27The 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).

כ״ח

28The 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.

כ״ט

29Rav 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.

ל׳

30Conclusion

ל״א

31In 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).