The First St. Louis Eruv
In 1896, Rav Zecharia Yosef Rosenfeld
zt”l published his arguments for an
eruv in a
kuntres called
Tikvas Zecharia.
[75] He stated in his introduction:
[76] I was driven out of the country in which I was born by the fury of my oppressor,
[77] a country where Torah and greatness completely enveloped me. I arrived in this country and observed that even many of the religious Jews permitted carrying on the Shabbos [without an
eruv]. A religious Jew, a Jew for whom all is holy, is not embarrassed to carry his
tallis to
shul in public and then to envelop himself in it during prayer. I said to myself, what could I do for the sake of my people to remove this major sin? If I raise my voice in public to express the severity of the prohibition, I know very well that my words will not make an impact because people have already become accustomed to carrying. Furthermore, the many preachers of this country have used all the means at their disposal to rebuke the public, yet they have been unsuccessful and their words have been ignored.
Rav Rosenfeld then states: When I was appointed as a rabbi in the Agudas HaKehilos of St. Louis, I wasted no time, and I examined the configuration of the city and labored over the halachic issues.
Baruch Hashem, I found that there is an acceptable way to permit carrying in St. Louis on Shabbos. He then adds that he hopes that others will be energized to do likewise in all communities, to seek an acceptable means to permit carrying in order to remove this major sin.
Rav Rosenfeld then states that since his proposal to establish an
eruv had never before been implemented in this country,
[78] he sent his
kuntres to Rav Yitzchok Elchonon Spektor to secure a
haskama. Rav Spektor answered that it was difficult for him to be involved from such a great distance in a complicated halachic issue like this since he was unfamiliar with the configuration of American cities. Rav Spektor directed Rav Rosenfeld to turn to Rav Yaakov Josef, Chief Rabbi of New York, for a
haskama since he would be more familiar with the cities of America. Rav Rosenfeld states that he followed this suggestion and indeed secured a
haskama from the Chief Rabbi. He then signed and dated the introduction on Feb 24 (or April 20), 1896.
In his preface, Rav Rosenfeld cites sources that require the establishment of an
eruv for all cities and consider it the responsibility of the
rabbanim to rectify their city.
Chapter One – Rav Rosenfeld establishes that there is a requirement for
shishim ribo to traverse an area daily in order to classify it is as a
reshus harabbim. He adds the
Eshkol,
Piskei Rid, and
HaAgur to the
Bais Ephraim’s list of
Rishonim who maintain
shishim ribo is a fundament.
[79] Additionally, Rav Rosenfeld argues that even according to those who posit that a street which supports
shishim ribo is classified as a
reshus harabbim, nevertheless at least one street would actually need to contain
shishim ribo traversing therein. Only then would all the streets leading to it be considered as supporting
shishim ribo and, therefore, classified as a
reshus harabbim.
Section One – Rav Rosenfeld maintains that even though we include all the inhabitants of the city towards
shishim ribo – since all the streets open into each other – if a
karmelis such as a roofed area bisects the city, we would not tally the now divided population as a unified total to render the city a
reshus harabbim.
[80]Section Two – Rav Rosenfeld opines that since telegraph lines bisect the city and their wires are spaced less than three
tefachim apart from each other on their crossarms, which project on both sides of the poles more than an
amah, the wires halachically create a roofed area. Consequentially, the streets beneath them would be classified as a
karmelis, and the city is bisected into parts of less than
shishim ribo.
Chapter Two – Rav Rosenfeld upholds that a city encompassed by
mechitzos would be classified as a
reshus hayachid, notwithstanding the
platyas contained therein, since they are not
mefulash.
Chapter Three – Rav Rosenfeld argues that water does negate the riverbanks; only the riverbanks that are above the water line can be used as
mechitzos. Additionally, he states, that if the riverbanks are ten
tefachim above the waterline, we are not concerned that they may later be obliterated by a build-up of sediment.
[81]Chapter Four – Rav Rosenfeld discusses the concern that the riverbanks may later be obliterated by a build-up of sediment.
Chapter Five – Rav Rosenfeld maintains that telegraph lines serve as a halachic
tzuras hapesach. He disputes the
Toras Chesed’s[82] four reasons
[83] why telegraph lines are not considered halachic
tzuras hapesachim: 1) Rav Rosenfeld advocates that wires affixed to brackets are not considered
tzuras hapesach min hatzad. Additionally, he declared that he only made use of telegraph lines where the wires were affixed to insulators that were attached to the top of the poles. 2) He demonstrates that the
poskim would allow that a structure meant to resemble a doorway could serve as a
tzuras hapesach even if not expressly constructed as one [as opposed to an area requiring only minimal rectification – a
heker]. Additionally, the fact that telegraph wires, in order to allow passage beneath them, are intentional placed high up on poles and are never placed in middle of the street, proves that they were designed as doorways. 3) He argues that we are not concerned that the distance between the telegraph poles and the houses is more than three
tefachim since the poles are running along the sidewalk, parallel to the streets. Since the opening between the telegraph poles and the houses is only on the side, Rav Rosenfeld states that that the gap can be up to ten
amos. Additionally, Rav Rosenfeld notes that in a situation where the telegraph lines and the
mechitzos are joined together without any gaps between them, it does not concern us that there are gaps between the poles and the houses. 4) He maintained that only when the
tzuras hapesachim are less than three
tefachim apart is there a dispute that this is not the way a doorway is constructed. In fact, the telegraph poles are more than four
tefachim apart.
Rav Rosenfeld notes that the crossarms on the telegraph poles project more than an
amah on both sides and the wires generally are spaced less than three
tefachim apart from each other on the crossarms. Therefore, he reasons, since we view the space between the wires as halachically connected, we could then apply the principle of
pi tikra yored v’sosem [we regard the edge of a roof as extending downwards, forming a valid partition], and the telegraph lines can be regarded as
mechitzos.
Chapter Six – Rav Rosenfeld argued that even those
poskim who maintain that, for an observant Jew, the renting of the
reshus through
sechiro v’lekito [from an employee or seasonal worker] is not effective would allow that it is effective for a non-Shomer Shabbos Jew.
Chapter Seven – Rav Rosenfeld cites the
Teshuvos Rivash[84] that it is possible to contract
sechiras reshus from the city’s mayor, because he can place objects in the homes of the city’s residents as he pleases. Another rationale cited by the
Rivash is that, since the mayor has the authority to alter the major thoroughfares as he pleases and to offer the residents an alternative route, he obviously has the right to remove all the non-Jews from the thoroughfares. Since he may expel them, he may sell their jurisdictions over the streets as well. The
Rivash notes that the second reason will not suffice to permit carrying into the streets from the houses that belong to the non-Jews. He therefore concludes that in order to satisfy both reasons, it is best to refrain from carrying in and out of the houses of non-Jews and to limit one’s carrying to taking objects from houses owned by Jews into the streets and vice versa.
Citing the
Pri Megadim[85] Rav Rosenfeld writes that, as far as we are concerned, each reason is sufficient by itself. Therefore, when the mayor is authorized to quarter soldiers in private homes, one is allowed to carry even to and from non-Jewish homes. If, however, the mayor is not authorized to do so, one may only carry into the streets from Jewish homes. Thus, according to the laws of this country that authorize the authorities to condemn private homes in order to construct roads, marketplaces, or for other public benefit when they deem necessary, the
Rivash’s second reason will allow carrying even into the streets from non-Jewish homes.
Rav Rosenfeld continues that according to the laws of this country, magistrates can issue warrants allowing the police to enter any house. Detectives may enter houses even without the knowledge of homeowners. The officials in charge of hygiene and health may enter any house at anytime to inspect the cleanliness, the water pipes and other matters, and then require the homeowners to work and fix any violations in accordance with their directives. If the homeowner does not fulfill their directives, they may send workers with tools into the homes to make the necessary repairs at the owner’s expense. If he does not reimburse the authorities, they have the right to sell his house. According to Rav Rosenfeld this suggests that one may contract the
sechiras reshus from the mayor of the city. Furthermore, since the officials, the police officers, and all the city authorities involved in municipal matters, such as preventing harm, maintaining roads and preserving sanitation, are not appointed by a government, but rather elected by the inhabitants of the city that in turn are the sole source of their salaries, the municipal authorities and workers are thus no less than
sechiro v’lekito of the inhabitants of the city, or at the very least, they should be considered
sechiro v’lekito of
sechiro v’lekito.
[86] To be continued.
_____________________________
[75] Introduction p. 6.
[76] Page 3.
[77] See note
32.
[78] See note
58.
[79] This was the first
teshuvah to mention that, besides for the
Bais Ephraim’s list, there are additional
Rishonim who support
shishim ribo. By 1906, Rav Rosenfeld’s addition was being quoted by others; see Rav Avraham Aharon Yudelovitch,
Bais Av (2:5:2). As Rav Rosenfeld sent a query to Rav Yudelovitch (ibid., 3:30), I would venture to say that he sent him his
kuntres as well. How else can we explain how Rav Rosenfeld’s
kuntres reached Rav Yudelovitch who was in Manchester at the time?
[80] This
chiddush in the name of Rav Rosenfeld was mentioned, as well, by the
Bais Av (2:5:10) who did not agree with him. See the article by Rav Avraham Aharon Price
zt”l regarding the Toronto
eruv in
HaPardes (25th year, vol. 4 pp. 11-38) where he defends Rav Rosenfeld (p. 21); see also note 89.
[81] Rav Rosenfeld extensively reworked this chapter at a later date. Hence some editions are paginated as folios with a different type from p. 13-18 (see
Hebrew Printing in America 1735-1926, p. 974).
[82] Rav Shneur Zalman Fradkin of Ladi, 1830-1902.
[83] O.C. siman 9.
[84] Siman 427.
[85] Mishbetzes Zahav,
siman 391:6.
[86] I have cited many of Rav Rosenfeld’s arguments regarding
sechirus reshus as they are pertinent to contemporary American
eruvin. Besides for some of my own insertions, the above paragraphs regarding
sechirus reshus [chapter seven] were taken from
The Contemporary Eruv, p. 115.
