Part 13 - Lakewood Eruvin: The Truth

› 8 š

The Kuntres: The Outstanding Quality of Small Local Eiruvin

The problems of a large eiruv are specific to a large-scale undertaking. It should be noted that in almost all cases a small local eiruv in Lakewood can be constructed in a manner that is halachically tenable according to all opinions, and virtually problem free.

Rebuttal: I reiterate, the community wide eruv is not considered a large city eruv, and if, “a small local eiruv in Lakewood can be constructed in a manner that is halachically tenable according to all opinions, and virtually problem free,” then a community wide eruv can be virtually problem free, as well. 

The Kuntres: {Footnote 5 - Even a small eiruv that includes “thoroughfare streets" has the same issue as a large eiruv that includes such streets. However small local eiruvin can often be constructed in a manner that avoids thoroughfare streets. [A Rav should be contacted to verify the status of a given street].}

Rebuttal: Now the Baal Hakuntres is modeh al haemes, that small and large eruvin in Lakewood can share the same properties.  As mentioned above, even if we would accept that some roads in Lakewood are classified as sratyas, the overwhelming majority of poskim would require that they would need to fulfill the criterion of shishim ribo to be classified as a reshus harabbim.

The Kuntres: These eiruvin afford us with a commendable extra measure of oneg Shabbos, without lowering anyone's standards.

Rebuttal: How much more so would a community wide eruv afford us an extra measure of oneg Shabbos without lowering anyone's standards?  

The Kuntres: {Footnote 6 -  It is important to point out, that any eiruv large or small cannot be relied upon, unless it was constructed and is maintained under the guidance of a Rav Hamachshir, who is properly versed in the halochos of eiruvin and their practical application.}

Rebuttal: Correct. This is required for all hechsherim. However, it would be much easier to have one eruv under the guidance of one Rav Hamachshir.  

The Kuntres: The Problem of Inadvertently Carrying Past The Eiruv Boundaries of a Small Eiruv

As mentioned earlier, an argument has been put forth, that chilul Shabbos can easily occur when people inadvertently walk past the boundaries of their neighborhood eiruv.

This problem, is caused by the fact that people are supposed to find out about the boundaries of the eiruv from an "eiruv map", that is placed in shul, or given out to all families that live within the eiruv. This is highly inadequate because many people are not proficient at "reading" and memorizing maps. An effective way to familiarize people with the eiruv, is by having every head of household show his family where the tzuros hapesach of the eiruv are, and educate them minimally as to how the eiruv works. This "eiruv awareness" can be accomplished on one Shabbos walk and will certainly greatly reduce inadvertent" carrying" outside of the eiruv.

Based on all of the above, it seems clear, that there are tremendous halachic advantages to smaller eiruvin that avoid the abovementioned issues over larger eiruvin.

Rebuttal: A much simpler idea would be to establish a larger eruv, in which case there would be no danger that people would carry out of the boundaries. Furthermore, it would negate the issue of people, after having left the boundaries of their local eruv, realizing that they overlooked something in their pockets. Therefore, there are clear benefits and no downsides to a community wide eruv.

The Kuntres: As far as the possibility of maintaining both one large eiruv and many small ones, if families contribute to the maintenance of a large eiruv, they will often not contribute toward the construction of a local eiruv as well.

Rebuttal: No harm will be done if the small eruvin are discontinued. In any case, those who believe that a small eruv is more scrupulous would no doubt find a way to finance them.

The Kuntres: In summation: A) We mustn't lose sight of the fact that an act of ho'tza'ah is a full-fledged act of chilul Shabbos; a very severe issur. As mentioned earlier, carrying in a street that is not enclosed with a valid eiruv is an act that can very easily be ho'tza'ah de'oraysa.

Rebuttal: And regarding this issue, we gain nothing from a small eruv and only gain with a larger one. Moreover, according to the majority of poskim, once a tzuras hapesach is erected the matter is only d’rabbanan.

The Kuntres: B) There is certainly room to argue, that one may construct and carry in large eiruvin even today, based on the minhag. However, as we have demonstrated, there is clearly very good reason, based on sound halachic grounds, to avoid constructing and using them today, whenever possible.

Rebuttal: This Kuntres demonstrates that the author is grasping at straws. The same halachic grounds that allow the neighborhood eruvin would allow the community wide eruv. They are both small by large city eruv standards. 

The Kuntres: C) In Lakewood today, it is generally possible to construct small local eiruvin that will allow us to enjoy the outdoors on Shabbos in a halachically "mehudar" fashion, without having to compromise our standards in any way.

Rebuttal: The larger eruv would allow even greater oneg Shabbos without any compromise since there is no halachic differences between the large and small eruvin.

The Kuntres: D) When weighing the halachic advantages of smaller eiruvin over larger ones, it seems difficult to argue, that the halachic benefits of the larger eiruvin versus smaller ones, outweigh the severe halachic limitations that are inherent to the larger eiruvin.

Rebuttal: There is no halachic advantage of smaller eruvin over larger ones in Lakewood; even the larger eruv is small by large city eruv standards.  There are clear benefits to a larger eruv as outlined in Section One, 1.

The Kuntres: E) The clear directive of, the Shulchn.n Aruch Harav, Cluzyai Adam, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, and Mishna Brura is that "a G-d fearing person should be stringent in this matter" [to consider a street a reshus horrabim even if it does not service 600,000 people]. As mentioned earlier, this directive was given even in Europe when this presented great difficulty. We can fairly assume, that the abovementioned Poskim would strongly encourage this attitude as much as possible, in our situation in Lakewood today. May we be   זוכהto be  מקיים the  mitzva of שבת  properly, and thereby be  זוכהto be mekabel .פני משיח צדקינו במהרה בימינו אמן

Rebuttal: I reiterate, the Shulchan Aruch Harav did not write these words, and these poskim would probably admit that since we now know that the overwhelming majority of Rishonim uphold the criterion of shishim ribo there is no doubt that we can rely on this fundament l’chatchilah. Moreover, these poskim would allow that we can rely on the criterion of mefulash u’mechavanim l’chatchilah. In any case, besides for establishing eruvin due to great difficulties, there are additional rationales (as I have mentioned in Section One, 1), and there are no halachic grounds to object to a community wide eruv.     

The Navi states v’karasa L’Shabbos oneg, and as the Perishah posits, the ability to utilize eruvin is a matter of oneg Shabbos.  May we be zocheh to fulfill the mitzva of oneg Shabbos properly.

Part 12 - Lakewood Eruvin: The Truth

› 7 š

The Kuntres: Other problems with a Large Eiruv

It is also important to stress several points that are well known to anyone who has dealt with the practicalities of constructing and maintaining a large-scale eiruv.

Rebuttal: As I mentioned in the preface, the opposition to eruvin has created an atmosphere where rabbanim are uncomfortable giving hechsherim even on neighborhood eruvin. As a matter of fact, there are much larger eruvin than the community wide Lakewood Eruv, such as in Eretz Yisroel, and most people utilize the eruv, v'ein pozeh peh umetzavtzeh.

The Kuntres: 1) Large eiruvin generally rely extensively on tzuros hapesach for the necessary enclosure. Even one damaged tzuras hapesach will generally invalidate the eiruv entirely!

Thus, the argument that a large eiruv clearly helps to reduce chillul Shabbos is far from a convincing argument. Very often, the opposite can be true. If even one damaged tzuras hapesacli goes unnoticed, large numbers of people can be mechalel Shabbos inadvertently. This is a fact that can be attested to, by anyone involved in eiruvin today. As a matter of fact, many eiruvin that have large amounts of tzuros hnpesach need some level of repair on an almost weekly basis!

[Although some eiruvin are constructed in a manner that avoid this issue, by the use of utility poles, this often comes with certain halachic leniencies upon which need to be relied].

Rebuttal: Actually, the neighborhood eruvin require much upkeep and suffer from considerable neglect. It would be much better to have one community wide eruv under one hechsher. The argument that one downed tzuras hapesach will generally invalidate the entire eruv is inane. In such a situation, even a neighborhood eruv would be nullified. Moreover, if a neighborhood eruv does not have to rely on any leniencies, so too a community wide eruv would not need to rely on leniencies.     

The Kuntres: 2) The eiruv must undergo, weekly, a thorough and professional inspection. Furthermore, a mashgiach who is well versed in the relevant halachos must be the one to conduct this inspection. A Torah scholar who is qualified for the task must be paid in a manner commensurate with his expertise, and effort. This can prove to be a formidable cost. Very often, in the long run, the eiruv inspection is given over to unpaid/unlearned volunteers. The halachic risks of this are obvious.

Rebuttal: This actually is an argument for one community wide eruv under one hechsher since it would be much easier to monitor.  In any case, the Baal Hakuntres is trying to distinguish eruvin from other hechsherim, insinuating that eruvin is some kind of unique inyan that requires special care unlike other hechsherim. In fact, there is no difference between a hechsher on eruvin and other hechsherim; they all require diligence.  

The Kuntres: 3) Last minute shailos

When making sure that the eiruv is valid for use on Shabbos, last minute shailos are asked and a pressured decision must be made. Oftentimes, kulos and halachic "bidieveds" are followed, or the decision is made to rely on a" chazakah" which may not be halachically viable.

Rebuttal: Again, this actually is an argument for one community wide eruv under one hechsher since at least it is monitored and the shailos will be observed.  Unfortunately, no shailos are asked regarding many of the neighborhood eruvin.

The Kuntres: 4) Renting from Non-Jews

A large eiruv, runs into the problem of non-Jews who live within the eiruv. In order for the eiruv to be valid, the non-Jews' property must be properly rented by the Jewish residents. In large eiruvin where it impossible to rent from them individually, some sort of rental agreement with the local government, or with local utility companies is executed. The process by which this is accomplished today is far from agreed upon by prominent Poskim, for several reasons, and is a major reason why prominent Poskim strongly encourage a ben-torah to refrain from using such eiruvin.

Rebuttal: This issue is most definitely a matter of a d’rabbanan, and thus, according to all, we employ the maxim halachah k’divrei hameikil b’eruvin. It is ironic that concerning the ability to enact these agreements, those who are machmir regarding eruvin seek stringencies, when all along we were told that the reason for their vociferous opposition was because the matter is a d’Oraysa. Apparently, the search for stringencies on the topic of eruvin is now even regarding matters of d’rabbanan. Even if it was true that these issues, “are far from agreed upon by prominent poskim,” since others disagree, we would then say halachah k’divrei hameikil b’eruvin, and can follow those poskim who are mekil.

In fact, the streets of the neighborhood eruvin also require some sort of rental agreement so bnei-Torah should refrain from using these eruvin, as well. All I can say is good luck. [It should be mentioned that a sefer will be published shortly that will set the record straight regarding these issues.]    

The Kuntres: 5) Karfef

Another problem which is prevalent in large eiruvin is the issue of "karfef', which means, that if there is an area inside the eiruv which is not available for residential use, it may invalidate the entire eiruv. For example, an area with overgrowth often presents a problem of "karfef' in large eiruvin.

Rebuttal: This is not a new issue, and to quote Rav Fishel Hershkowitz zt”l, every city in Europe had an issue with karpeifos, but the poskim always found a way to allow an eruv. As a matter of fact, some of the neighborhood eruvin also contain karpeifos.

The Kuntres: 6) Sratia Me'ir Le'ir [Intercity roads]

A final problem, which is common to many large eiruvin, is the inclusion of roads that are used to travel from city to city. According to the Ramban (ערובין נ"ט ע"ב) the authorities that are of the opinion, that a road must service 600,000 people to qualify as a reshus harrabim, are referring to a city street [which is a local travel route]. However, an intercity road [i.e. a road that is used to travel from city to city] does not need to actually service 600,000 people in order to qualify as a reshus harrabim, as it is considered an "intrinsically public road" [i.e. a road that services "all people"]

Rebuttal: As I mentioned (note 6 and 18), while some Rishonim may label a road as a sratya even though it is inside of the city limits, the Rishonim (Ramban, and Piskei Rid) who maintain that a sratya would not need to fulfill the criterion of shishim ribo clearly state that they are referring to a sratya that is an intercity road outside of the city boundaries. The few Achronim (Bais Yaakov and Yeshuos Malko) who follow these Rishonim are also referring to an actual intercity road outside of the city limits, and only those roads would not need shishim ribo traversing therein to be categorized as a reshus harabbim. However, those poskim who refer to the main road inside of the city limits as a sratya (Bais Ephraim and Avnei Nezer) uphold that it would need to fulfill the criterion of shishim ribo to be classified as a reshus harabbim (besides for maybe Rav Chaim Volozhiner).

Moreover, the overwhelming majority of Rishonim and Achronim disagree with the Ramban and Tosfos Rid and maintain that there is no difference between roads inside of the city and those that are outside of the city limits: both would need to fulfill the criterion of shishim ribo to be classified as a reshus harabbim.          

The Kuntres: This Ramban is brought down in Biur Halacha (סימן שמ"ה ס"ז בסו"ד) Furthermore, Rav Chaim Volozhiner [in the abovementioned recently published teshuva] says unequivocally, that "there is no room for leniency in this matter"

Rebuttal: The Ramban clearly states that a sratya is an intercity road which is not within the city limits. Hence, even if we were to pasken like the Ramban that a sratya does not require shishim ribo to be classified as a reshus harabbim, the roads in Lakewood proper would not be categorized as sratyas.  It is important to note that Rav Chaim Volozhiner most probably did not see the Ramban (we know that his talmid the Mishkenos Yaakov was made aware of the Ramban after the Bais Ephraim pointed it out to him), and if he would have seen that the Ramban said clearly that a sratya is outside of the city limits, he possibly would have agreed (while it is beyond the scope of this article, there is what to discuss regarding what Rav Chaim Volozhiner was referring to by a sratya included in the city). In any case, Rav Chaim Volozhiner would not categorize Rt. 9 as a derech hamelech/sratya, since it is not mainly used by Lakewood inhabitants for intercity travel.

[While the Baal Hakuntres mentions in his Kuntres HaDoreshes Masa'as Shabbos (vol. 2, anaf aleph; where he describes the classification of a sratya) that the Rivash maintains that a sratya is outside of the city boundaries, he fails to mention there that the Ramban, whose shita he is trying to convince the world to follow, also upholds that a sratya is outside of the city limits. Hence, it is incongruous to object to an eruv because of the Ramban’s understanding of shishim ribo and sratya, when he clearly maintains that those roads inside the city limits are not categorized as sratyas and would unquestionably require shishim ribo to be classified as a reshus harabbim.]

The Kuntres: Therefore, although there are great Poskim that rule leniently in this matter as well one cannot ignore the added seriousness involved in the decision to construct and use an eiruv on such a road, especially when there is a lack of true necessity.

Rebuttal: The Rama (357:3) maintains that a sratya even outside of a city requires shishim ribo to be classified as a reshus harabbim. We, Benei Ashkenaz, follow the Rama. The overwhelming majority of poskim uphold the Rama’s opinion, so there is no doubt that we, “rule leniently in this matter.” Furthermore, the Bais Ephraim, whose opinion regarding eruvin are the ones we rely on, clearly maintains that a sratya included in the city requires shishim ribo to be classified as a reshus harabbim.

Part 11 - Lakewood Eruvin: The Truth

› 6 š

The Kuntres: The Reality in Lakewood Today

Considering what we have seen, let us revisit the question: "Can the minhag in pre-war Europe encouraging the construction of a large eiruv, serve as a clear agreed upon precedent to our situation in Lakewood today?"

An honest observer, cannot ignore the following two points: A) The hardships that can affect a city without a large eiruv are not present in today's Lakewood, nor is there a concern that our community will succumb to temptation and be mechalel Shabbos, chas ve'sholom, if a large eiruv is not constructed. Even the "temptation" of bygone years to lock one's home and carry one's house key is largely a relic of the past. In Lakewood's many completely religious neighborhoods, many people are comfortable leaving their homes unlocked during the day; in addition, many people have "Shabbos locks" on their doors.

Rebuttal: As we wrote in Section One, the Perishah and the Chasam Sofer are still pertinent today. We also explicate additional motives why a community wide eruv would be ideal and should be encouraged. Furthermore, there is reason to believe that even Rav Moshe would agree that the construction of an eruv in Lakewood is meritorious. Most importantly, there is no halachic reason not to establish a large community wide eruv.  

The Kuntres: B) Furthermore, the snifim that we have seen in the above Poskim do not apply in Lakewood today:

Rebuttal: As we shall see, this is not entirely correct. However, we do not need to rely on snifim; we have two criteria that would allow a community wide eruv l’chatchilah, just as they allow the smaller neighborhood eruvin. 

The Kuntres: 1. Rightful Public Access

Our roads are public areas, that are not properly "owned" by any individual, or even any government entity. Anyone who is legally allowed into the United States has automatic legal access to any public road, street or highway.

Rebuttal: As I mentioned, this is not at all clear as the Baal Hakuntres is suggesting. In any case, there is no difference between the neighborhood eruvin and a community wide eruv, regarding this issue.

The Kuntres: {Footnote 4 - Even federal and local governments are severely limited in their power to restrict travel [see the decision of the Third Circuit, in Lutz vs. City of York, 899 F .2d 255 (3d cir. 1990).}

Rebuttal: This footnote is simply inane (notwithstanding the seemingly erudite citation). The fact is the government retains the right to close streets when they want to (police powers). They also have rights to change the roads when they feel a need to. This power is more than sufficient to deem government agents halachically as baalim.  Moreover, any sixteen amos wide street would share this issue; hence, there is no difference between the neighborhood eruvin and a community wide eruv.

The Kuntres: 2. Wagon Breaching

Th Beis Ephraim's suggestion that vehicular traffic does not create a "bitul mechitzah" is based on the fact that those seated in the wagons of his day were seated higher than ten tefachim. This is not the case with our modern day vehicles. With the exception of commercial trucks and buses, and some larger vans, the passengers in the great majority of our cars are seated within ten tefachim of the ground.

Rebuttal: As we mentioned previously, there are three independent rationales why traffic does not nullify a tzuras hapesach according to the Bais Ephraim. The tzuras hapesach is not breached when: 1) The traffic is traversing above the first ten tefachim of the ground. 2) The traffic is travelling in a reshus hayachid (this is also the argument of the Yeshuos Malko, siman 26-27). 3) The traffic consists of pedestrians (holchei regel; this is the approach of the Maharsham, 1:162 in his understanding of the Bais Ephraim). Numbers two and three are pertinent to vehicles as much as they apply to wagons.

Furthermore, most poskim maintain that the occupants of a car are not tallied in the shishim ribo, either because of rationale two or three. So, yes, we can rely on this snif if we choose to, just as the Bais Ephraim suggested for his times.

The Kuntres: 3. Mefulash

Many roads in our cities meet the criteria of mefulash, The Rosh Yeshivah, zatzal, notes that as well, as mentioned above.

Rebuttal: As mentioned previously, the criterion of mefulash is not a snif but only a fundament of a reshus harabbim. In any case, the poskim do not agree with the Rosh Yeshivah (such as the Magen Avraham, Olas Shabbos, Tosfos Shabbos, Elya Rabbah, Prei Megadim, Shulchan Aruch Harav, Mishnah Berurah, and Aruch Hashulchan), since these poskim assert that mefulash m’shaar l’shaar infers mefulash u’mechavanim m’shaar l’shaar. This is clearly in opposition to the Rosh Yeshivah, as he argues that the criterion of mefulash is distinct from the added requirement of mechuvanim which is only conditional of mechitzos, a walled city. [The Baal Hakuntres, in his Kuntres HaDoreshes Masa'as Shabbos, vol. 2, attempts to fit the Rosh Yeshivah’s interpretation of the criterion of mefulash u’mechavanim into the words of the Magen Avraham. However, he is unconvincing. The notation of the Magen Avraham on the words mefulash m’shaar l’shaar: pirush mefulash u’mechavanim m’shaar l’shaar is explicating that the word mefulash indicates mechuvanim; thus if mefulash is required, shearim mechuvanim would also be mandatory even if the city is not walled. This is clearly in opposition to the Rosh Yeshivah’s reading of the criterion of mefulash u’mechavanim since he accepts that mefulash is a criterion of a reshus harabbim, but the added requirement of mechuvanim is only conditional of mechitzos, a walled city.]

Furthermore, the Rosh Yeshivah’s teshuvah is unfinished. Moreover, when the Baal Hakuntres deems it worthy, he cites Rav Shlomo Dovid Kahane (to prove that the heter in pre-war Europe was not only because of shishim ribo), but then he omits the fact that Rav Shlomo Dovid Kahane would allow our eruvin because there is no difference between our streets and Warsaw as they both do not meet the criterion of mefulash u’mechavanim. This demonstrates that the debate is not about halachah but only about thwarting any additional eruv.

The Kuntres: 4. Sixteen Amos Wide

Virtually all modern day streets, and specifically the streets of Lakewood, are wider than 16 amos, even according to the larger shiur of the Chazon Ish.

Rebuttal: And that includes many of the roads in the neighborhood eruvin. So if neighborhood eruvin are allowed, so too is a community wide eruv.

The Kuntres: To summarize, 1) In the absence of a truly pressing need, and in the absence of the mitigating factors mentioned in the Poskim, it is difficult to say that the practice of constructing a large eiruv would be encouraged today, especially where smaller eiruvin that meet a far better halachic standard are a viable option.

Rebuttal: This is incorrect. The community wide eruv of Lakewood would halachically be considered, “smaller eiruvin,” and are no different than neighborhood eruvin.  

The Kuntres: 2) The clear directive of, the Shulchan Aruch Harav, Chayai Adam, Kitzur Shulchan. Aruch, and Mishna Brura is, that "a G-d fearing person should be stringent in this matter". It is worthwhile to note, that this directive was given even in Europe when this presented great difficulty.

Rebuttal: As mentioned previously, this is incorrect. The Shulchan Aruch Harav did not write, "a G-d fearing person should be stringent in this matter.” In any case, these poskim would probably admit that since today the overwhelming majority of Rishonim maintain that shishim ribo is a criterion of a reshus harabbim, we uphold this fundament l’chatchila. Moreover, according to these poskim we can rely on the criterion of mefulash u’mechavanim l’chatchilah.

The Kuntres: Let us now go back to the last two questions raised in the beginning of this essay.

1) Is there another side to the question of "What could be wrong with making an eiruv available to the general public, when individuals who wish to be machmir can do so for themselves?"

2) Can we say that the benefits of a large eiruv in Lakewood today over smaller eiruvin, outweigh the hnlachic risks?

Rebuttal: Pay attention to this argument from the Baal Hakuntres; his hemming and hawing illuminates the weakness of his rejoinder.

The Kuntres: Many are of the opinion that a community stance against the eiruv is unwarranted since those who do not wish to rely on the eiruv can be machmir for themselves. In truth, however, it is worth noting, that a large eiruv that is rejected by a large segment of the community, can lead to a set of problems that need to be considered.

Rebuttal: This is a straw man’s argument. To begin with, the Baal Hakuntres created the problems, and then he argues that the eruv is rejected by a large segment of the community. Do not create problems, and then no one will reject the eruv. In any case, as we shall see, there really are no problems to talk about.   

The Kuntres: Here is one common scenario. Every Shabbos in Lakewood, bli ayin hora, there are countless family simchos where entire extended families come together for Shabbos. Of course, hosting scores of guests at one home is not practical, and the standard practice is to place one's Shabbos guests at various homes near the home of the ba'al simchah.

In a community that has a large eiruv that is not universally accepted, it is common for some members of a family to rely on the eiruv, while others do not. If the ba'al simchah is one of the former, he will oftentimes make his guests' accommodations accordingly, placing people with babies, etc., in places where they will have to use the eiruv to join the simchah. Thus, those who wish to be machmir can find themselves faced with a difficult choice; either they must refrain from joining in their close relative's simchah, or they must run the risk of causing a "mini-machlokes" in their own families over the eiruv. Very often, in order to maintain peace, the machmirim are forced to lower their own standards, and to carry in the large eiruv.

It is easy to visualize other scenarios that will invariably come up when a community-wide eiruv is not universally accepted. This can cause conflicts within the community, and can cause a situation in which people are forced to lower their standards on serious halachic issues.

Rebuttal: If people are so weak that they, “lower their standards on serious halachic issues,” then maybe there is no difference after all between pre-war Europe and contemporary Lakewood.

In any case, this entire rejoinder is illuminating. It is those who oppose eruvin who are usually vocal about their beliefs since they do not accept the fact that others disagree with their opinions. On the other hand, those who make use of the eruv just want to be allowed to carry and go on with their lives. No one who utilizes an eruv would be mocheh if one does not make use of the eruv. On the contrary, they would accept the fact that there are dissenters and gladly accommodate those who are machmir.  No doubt, if the situation was reversed, the baal simchah who was opposed to the eruv would not allow those who utilize the eruv to do so for his simchah.

As it is doubtful that the Baal Hakuntres did not realize the above, it is evident that he is concerned that those who are sitting on the fence may come to the realization that there is on whom to rely and make use of the community wide eruv.