Rav Jaffe set forth why he believed that an
eruv could not be established in St. Louis and in any other city in America. He stated that, according to the current city survey, the population of St. Louis was greater than 600,000.
[64] The city was 18 miles long and close to 12 miles wide, and the city was 150 streets lengthwise and 60 streets across its width.
[65] The streets were more than 16
amos wide, and some were even up to 60
amos wide. From one side of the city, all the streets intersected Broadway [the widest street] and from the other side of the city the streets ran parallel to Broadway. Broadway and all the streets in St. Louis were
mefulash from one end of the city to the other and they led into intercity highways. Rav Jaffe added that all cities in America were laid out in such a pattern.
Even if one claimed that there was no
shishim ribo traversing therein daily, Rav Jaffe stated that, according to many
Rishonim and
Achronim, the city would still have been classified as a
reshus harabbim. This is either because they did not require
shishim ribo traversing the street daily or because they did not consider
shishim ribo to be a condition of a
reshus harabbim. More so, even those who accepted
shishim ribo as a criterion of a
reshus harabbim would have agreed that an intercity highway that is 16
amos wide did not require
shishim ribo in order to be classified as a
reshus harabbim. Therefore, Rav Jaffe stated, the only way to rectify large cities in America in order to establish an
eruv would have been with
delasos neulos ba’laila [doors which are closed at night] or at least
reuyos linol [suitable for closing], which would have been impossible to erect since all the streets were open to the intercity highways and the trains were constantly running.
Rav Jaffe added that the streets could not even be classified as being encompassed by two
mechitzos since they were open by more than 16
amos along their length and breadth; accordingly, only
delasos would have sufficed. More so, according to those who did not require
shishim ribo, since every street was not only open to the end of the city but was also open to the next avenue by more than 16
amos, there is no doubt that it was a
reshus harabbim [and even according to those
poskim who required
shishim ribo bokim b’chol yom there was a possibility that they would also have considered the city a
reshus harabbim since at times there was
shishim ribo bokim].
An additional point set forth by Rav Jaffe was that even the
Rishonim who regarded
shishim ribo bokim bo as a criterion of a
reshus harabbim would nevertheless have required
delasos to facilitate carrying.
Rashi, who was the main
Rishon to uphold that
shishim ribo bokim is a criterion of a
reshus harabbim, nevertheless, only allowed that it removed the issur
d’Oraysa [
skilah and
chatas] but for a
heter tiltul [
d'rabbanan] he would have required
delasos. Rav Jaffe added that some of the largest cities such as New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago and even possibly St. Louis did, in fact, have
shishim ribo traversing therein and would definitely have required
delasos, according to all opinions.
Rav Jaffe continued that one should not accuse him of having only collected
chumras, since he had investigated the applicability of the
heterim of the
Maharitats[66] and the
Bais Ephraim[67] to ascertain if there could possibly not be a requirement of
delasos. However, Rav Jaffe declared, the
Pri Megadim[68] would have disagreed and would have required
delasos. More so, he stated, the
Maharitats and the
Bais Ephraim might not have required that the streets be closed with
delasos since there were
Rishonim who maintained that two
mechitzos would classify the area as a
reshus hayachid and because the streets were only open from two sides. However, since the streets of St. Louis were open on all sides along their length and width, it was possible that even the
Maharitats and the
Bais Ephraim would have required
delasos. Additionally, Rav Jaffe declared that only when it was not possible to erect
delasos would the
Maharitats and the
Bais Ephraim, as a last resort, not have required
delasos. More so, even if we could rely on the
Bais Ephraim’s heterim in this situation [St. Louis], since the matter was possibly a
d’Oraysa, the
tzuras hapesachim were required
m’dinah, and their establishment needed to be without
kulos.
Because of the way the streets were laid out in American cities, Rav Jaffe argued that, according to the
poskim, every street required a
tzuras hapesach from one side and from the other side, either a
lechi or a
korah. To erect
tzuras hapesachim, Rav Jaffe declared, would have been impossible because neither the populace nor the government would have allowed it.
Rav Jaffe then rebutted all of Rav Rosenfeld’s grounds for allowing an
eruv in St. Louis. He refuted Rav Rosenfeld’s claim that the telegraph poles and wires could have been used as
tzuras hapesachim. Telegraphs poles, Rav Jaffe declared, were not sufficient since they were classified as a
tzuras hapesach min hatzad [a doorway whose lintel rests on the sides of the doorposts]. Furthermore, as the gaps between the telegraph poles and the houses were more than three
tefachim, the
tzuras hapesachim were not actually enclosing the area. Additionally, Rav Jaffe contested Rav Rosenfeld’s assertion that since the telegraphs lines encircled the city they were sufficient even without the houses.
[69] Rav Jaffe brought support that it was not sufficient to use
tzuras hapesachim to circumscribe all sides of an enclosure.
In contesting Rav Rosenfeld’s utilization of the Mississippi River for one side of the St. Louis
eruv, Rav Jaffe argued that the other end of the street that led to the river required a
tzuras hapesach. Furthermore, he asserted that there was a concern that the riverbanks might later be obliterated by sediment and that the river might also freeze. Moreover, there were ships and bridges that negated the riverbanks. Additionally, according to some
poskim, in a city larger than
beis se’asayim [five thousand square
amos], riverbanks were not sufficient because they were
einam mukafim l’dira [not made with the intent to sustain habitation]. Furthermore, Rav Jaffe claimed that the way the city streets were situated more than 10
amos away from the river, they required a
tzuras hapesach. More so, if the
rabbim [masses] traversed therein, even a gap of four
tefachim needed to be rectified.
Rav Jaffe argued that the hills at the end of the city, which he had heard Rav Rosenfeld was using, were not sufficient as
mechitzos. He argued that even if these hills existed, the other end of the street that led to the hills required a
tzuras hapesach. Additionally, Rav Jaffe claimed the city streets were situated more than 10
amos away from the hills. More so, if a
rabbim traversed therein, even a gap of four
tefachim needed to be rectified. Furthermore, according to some
poskim, natural walls would not be sufficient in a city that is larger than
beis se’asayim because they are
einam mukafim l’dira.
Despite Rav Rosenfeld’s claim that an
eruv could be built in all cities in America because the streets were built on inclines,
[70] Rav Jaffe asserted that none of the streets were built up 10
tefachim over a four
amos area because the trolleys would not have been able to travel such inclines. Rav Jaffe added that even if there had been a street with such a gradient, it would have flattened out by the next street, and a
tzuras hapesach would have been needed at the intersection. Additionally, he claimed, these inclines are
einam mukafim l’dira according to the
Magen Avraham.
[71] Furthermore, according to the
Magen Avraham,
[72] if there was a
rabbim traversing these inclines, we would say
asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta. Even though the
Magen Avraham considered a
rabbim to only be
shishim ribo, many
poskim disagree with him regarding this issue.
Consequently, Rav Jaffe argued that we could not be lenient and allow an
eruv for St. Louis and other large cities in America since it was a
safek d’Oraysa. All the criteria of
reshus harabbim were met besides for the possibility that there was no
shishim ribo traversing therein, which many
Rishonim and
Achronim did not accept as a criterion at all. More so, some of the large cities did have
shishim ribo bokim.
Additionally, Rav Jaffe refuted Rav Rosenfeld’s claim that the roads were not considered 16
amos wide since the streets and the sidewalks were not considered one contiguous 16
amos. He argued that the sidewalks were created for the general public, and as one could not demarcate the sidewalk from the street, they must be included with the streets as one contiguous 16
amos. Additionally, Rav Jaffe added that there were streets that were 16
amos wide even without the sidewalks.
Rav Jaffe disputed Rav Rosenfeld’s argument that, even though Washington Avenue was wider than 16
amos, since there were pillars across the width of the street,
[73] it was not classified as a
reshus harabbim.
[74] Rav Jaffe claimed that this
heter only affected Washington Avenue, and since the avenue was open at its intersections to many streets that were wider than 16
amos, the
heter was irrelevant. Additionally, he argued, the pillars were too far apart to be considered
mechitzos.
Rav Jaffe contested, as well, Rav Rosenfeld’s claim that the manhole covers for the underground waterworks could be considered
delasos when they were open, and therefore, the street was not classified as a
reshus harabbim.
[75] He argued that, nevertheless, the city as whole did not lose its status as a
reshus harabbim.
Following the above, Rav Jaffe stated that even if St. Louis was a small city and a kosher
eruv of
tzuras hapesachim was established, we would still not be able to carry therein. The majority of the population in American cities was non-Jewish and even the Jewish population consisted mostly of
mechalelei Shabbos so renting of the
reshus would not suffice. Rav Jaffe scoffed at Rav Rosenfeld’s renting of the rights to carry in St. Louis from a policeman. He claimed that through this means Rav Rosenfeld wanted to allow the rental of the
reshus for Baltimore, as well.
[76] Rav Jaffe argued that the policeman was, at most, the representative of the mayor, and in a country such as ours, where the government is elected by the populace and only represents the people, the mayor and even the president himself did not have the right to evict anyone from his home. Rav Jaffe added that in this country even the privileges to the streets were shared equally by all, and the government could not remove people or change the streets as it pleased. Consequentially, even the renting of the
reshus for the street would not suffice.
Rav Jaffe summarized that there were no
delasos, no
tzuras hapesachim, no
koros, no
lechayayim, no
tikun reshuyos, and no
sechiras reshuyos but there was a possibility of an
issur skilah and
kares and all would agree that there was an
issur me’divrei kabalah.
He signed this
teshuvah, on January 9, 1894, as the
Av Bais Din of St. Louis.
[77]Rav Jaffe appended this
teshuvah to a letter
[78] he wrote to Rav Shmuel Salant (1815-1909),
[79] Rav,
Ravad of Yerushalayim regarding
mikvaos. He asked for a
haskamah from the
rav regarding his
issur on the
eruv that the recently arrived
rav had established since the whole foundation of Yehadus was in peril because of it, and he mentioned that other
rabbanim from here [America] agreed with him as well.
[80] Rav Jaffe then sent his
teshuvah to his friend Rav Eliezer Zalman Grayewsky (1843-1899)
[81] in Eretz Yisroel asking him for his opinion since Rav Grayewsky knew the layout of St. Louis.
[82] Rav Grayewsky agreed with Rav Jaffe and declared that an eruv could not be established.
[83] Rav Grayewsky published Rav Jaffe’s
Sho’el Ka’inyan and included a
haskamah dated [5]655
[84] and his own glosses dated July 5, 1894.
Additionally, Rav Jaffe received the following
haskamos:
Rav Shmuel Salant, who stated that while he did not have the time to peruse the
sefer, he knew Rav Jaffe from before as a
gadol b’Torah. Rav Salant added that he was delighted to know and see that in America, too, there now existed
rabbanim of great scholarship. If only, he states, their numbers would increase in all the cities of America.
Rav Shaul Chaim Hurowitz (1828-1915),
[85] of Yerushalayim
[86] dated December 19, 1894. Rav Hurowitz mentioned that Rav Grayewsky had asked of him to examine the
sefer Sho’el Ka’inyan and to comment on it. He then deliberated some points regarding other halachic issues that Rav Jaffe discussed in his
sefer.
Rav Naphtali Herz HaLevi Vaidenboim (1852-1902),
[87] Ravad of Yafa,
[88] dated December 14, 1894. He stated that Rav Grayewsky asked him for a
haskamah on the
sefer Sho’el Ka’inyan. After examining the
sefer Rav Vaidenboim wrote that, on the whole, he agreed with Rav Jaffe regarding the
eruv. However, he disagreed with him regarding the right to rent the
reshus from a policeman and even from the mayor. The mayor, Rav Vaidenboim argued, was an employee of the inhabitants of the city and renting from him was no less than renting the
reshus through
sechiro v’lekito [an employee or a seasonal worker] of
sechiro v’lekito. He then included some points regarding additional halachic issues that Rav Jaffe had discussed in his
sefer.
