Continued from The Achiezer Explained Part I
Additionally, some declare that the reason the Achiezer allowed the bridges to be rectified with a tzuras hapesach was because the pirtzos were only ten amos wide, but if they were sixteen amos (according to Rav Avrohom Chaim Noeh, that is approximately 24 feet and according to the Chazon Ish, about 32 feet) he would require delasos. This is fiction. If a pirtza of sixteen amos would have been of concern to the Achiezer he definitely would have mentioned that an eruv was allowed because there were no pirtzos sixteen amos wide either. More so, there were bridges in Paris that were much more than sixteen amos such as: Pont d'Austerlitz, 98.4251969 feet; Pont Saint Louis, 52.4934383 feet; Pont du Carrousel, 108.2677165 feet, and Pont d'Iéna, 114.8293963 feet. Most importantly, this assumption is not an issue at all since no one paskens that pirtzos of sixteen amos negate a mechitzah because it is not a shiur pirtza only a shiur reshus harabbim (see Pirtzos, Biblical or Rabbinical proscription?).
Some assert that since the Chazon Ish was involved in the Paris eruv and the Achiezer did not employ the Chazon Ish’s chiddush it is proof that the Achiezer did not agree with him. This is indicative of the length the anti-eruv group would go to invent stories. The Achiezer didn’t live in Paris, so in all probability he only knew what they told him. The most logical thing he would have wanted to rely on was facts like mechitzos (mechitzos ha’yam and mechitzos b’y’dai adam) not a chiddush in mechitzos like the Chazon Ish’s. Additionally, the objective in Paris was to make an eruv for the entire city so to have utilized the Chazon Ish’s chiddush he would have had to know exactly the metzios of the mechitzos habatim there. It is not a given that the Chazon Ish’s chiddush would facilitate an eruv for the whole city. It could very well be that at the outskirts of the city even the Chazon Ish’s chiddush wouldn’t be of much help.
Some even go so far and claim that since the Chazon Ish was involved in the Paris eruv and the Achiezer didn’t employ his chiddush it is proof that the Chazon Ish himself retracted his chiddush (Kovetz Bais Yitzchok, 1996). This is totally unsubstantiated. Nowhere do we see in the Chazon Ish’s writings that he retracted his chiddush. More so, the Chazon Ish employed his chiddush even after the issue of the Paris eruv in 1938. Additionally, even today all of the Chazon Ish’s talmidim uphold his chiddush which is proof that he did not retract at all (Shoneh Halachos, siman 363).