Part 6: Chukei Chaim: Eruvin Rebuttal

 

Chukei Chaim: Issue 317

Chukei Chaim: Some Halachos of Eiruv Walls

Walls

1. We mentioned previously (Issue 315, par. 33) that an eiruv chatzeiros can only be made in an area considered a reshus hayachid. When an eiruv is made in a reshus horabim, e.g., in a city, the area must first be enclosed by kosher walls, thereby giving it the status of a reshus hayachid. Then, an eiruv with bread can be made. However, not every wall helps in a true reshus horabim, as we will explain after an introduction with several rules.

Gap

2. A real wall with a gap in it more than ten amos wide [about 5 m/16 ft] is posul; it is not considered a wall. Mid’oraisa, if an area is enclosed on all four sides and the walls have wide gaps, they are not posul since the gaps are viewed as entrances, provided that there is a certain amount of wall on either side of the entrance. Mid’rabanan, though, any entrance wider than ten amos should be fixed with a צורת הפתח. If it was not, the entrance is considered a gap which makes the wall posul (ערוך השלחן סי' שס''ב סכ''ו). Some hold a gap of ten amos makes a wall posul d’oraisa.

Rebuttal: It is important to explicate that the overwhelming majority of the poskim maintain that a pirtzas esser only prohibits me’d’rabbanan. It is clear we follow this majority.

 

 

Chukei Chaim: Is a “Wall” Nullified by People Walking through It?

פסי ביראות

12. With respect to פסי ביראות, which are not full walls but are considered walls according to Chazal (above, 9), the Tannoim, Rishonim, and Acharonim argue about the halacha when a public path goes between the partitions around the well that constitute the “walls.” Does this remove their status of walls, leaving the area as a reshus horabim, or do they still have the halachic status of a wall even if many people walk through, making the area within them a reshus hayachid?

13. “אתו רבים ומבטלי מחיצתא.” R’ Yehuda holds “many people come and nullify the wall.” The purpose of a wall is to demarcate an area and separate it from another domain. When many people walk through something that is not actually a wall but that Chazal gave the status of a wall, it is not called a wall anymore. Thus, if many people walk through the פסי ביראות “walls,” they are no longer considered walls, and the area has the status of a reshus horabim.

14. The Chachamim hold people walking through do not nullify the wall. Even if many people walk through the halachic walls on a public path, they still have the d’oraisa status of walls, and the area within the partitions has the status of a reshus hayachid.

Halacha

15. Rishonim. Some Rishonim pasken like the Chachamim, that people coming through פסי ביראות do not nullify the walls (רמב''ם פי''ז שבת ה''ג, הג' מיימונית שם). Other Rishonim pasken like R’ Yehuda, that many people coming through פסי ביראות nullify the walls (רמב''ן מלחמות עירובין כ''ב, רשב''א ו:, ריטב''א כ''ב., ר''ן כ''ב. ד''ה הכא, מאירי י''ז: ד''ה ר''י).

Rebuttal: From the meager list that Rav Bleier enumerates of those Rishonim who follow the Chachamim, it is apparent that he only knew the Rishonim who accept Rav Yehuda l’halachah. However, the majority of Rishonim maintain that we pasken like the Chachamim, lo asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta. The following is a complete list (since we pasken from the Achronim, it is irrelevant to enumerate here, however, I will nevertheless do so to demonstrate that Rav Bleier did not present the full picture): 1) Tosfos, see Bais Ephraim, p. 39b and Avnei Nezer 276:2. 2) Rabeinu Chananel, see Ravyah p. 321. 3) Rambam, Mishnayos Eruvin 2:4, Yad 17:10, 17:33. 4) Maggid Mishnah, ibid., 5) Hagaos Maimones, ibid., Basra 9. 6) Ravyah, p. 270. 7) HaEshkol, Eruvin siman 55. 8) Sefer HaBattim, Perek 13. 9) Tosfas Yshanim, Shabbos 6b. 10) Or Zarua, Eruvin 33b. 11) Mahrach Or Zarua, Piskei Eruvin, Perek 2 ois 57. 12) Ramak, as cited in Hagaos Ashri, 20b. 13) Rabeinu Chananel Ben Shmuel, Eruvin 22a. 14) Rivevan, Eruvin 22a. 15) Rid, Tosfos Eruvin 22a, Piskei 20a. 16) Ri’az, Piskei 2:1:6. 17) Sefer HaMeoros, Eruvin 17b. 18) Baal Hamaor, see Bais Ephraim p. 39b.

Chukei Chaim: 16. Acharonim. Many Acharonim are meikel and pasken like the Chachamim (בית אפרים סי' כ''ו, מג''א סי' שס''ג סק''מ, שו''ת חתם סופר או''ח סי' פ''ט, הנודב''י הובא בשו''ת תשובה מאהבה סי' קי''ב, אבנ''ז סי' רע''ג ורע''ו חזו''א סי' ק''ז סק''ד ועוד), and the general minhag is to rely on the meikel opinion. However, it is not so clear-cut, as most poskim are machmir and cite R’ Yehuda (ביאה''ל סי' שס''ד ס''ב ד''ה ואחר).

17. However, many Acharonim are machmir and pasken like R’ Yehuda (משכנות יעקב סי' ק''כ קכ''א, ביאה''ל שם).

Rebuttal: No, it is clear cut. As will be demonstrated by the subsequent list, there are very few poskim who maintain that we pasken like Rav Yehuda. There is no question that shitas Chachamim was accepted l’halachah. The following is a (partial) list of the overwhelming majority of poskim who maintain that we pasken like the Chachamim, lo asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta: 1) Chacham Tzvi, siman 5, 37. 2) Knesset Yechezkal, siman 2:3. 3) Mayim Rabim, siman 34-36. 4) Maharit Tzahalon, siman 251. 5) Tosfos Shabbos, siman 363. 6) Chavas Daas, Nachlas Yaakov, Eruvin. 7) Pri Megadim, Rosh Yoseph, Shabbos 6b. 8) Even HaOzer, Eruvin 6b, 22a. 9) She’eilas Yaavetz, siman 7 and Mor U’Ketziyah, siman 363. 10) Keren Oreh, Eruvin 7a. 11) Noda B’Yehudah, O.C. Mahadura Tinyana, 42 and Teshuvah M’Ahavah, siman 112. 12) Gaon Yaakov, Eruvin 11a, 21a. 13) Michtam L’David, siman 1. 14) Shulchan Aruch HaRav, O.C. 363:42, 364:4 and Kuntres Achron, O.C. 345:2. 15) Tiferes Tzvi, siman 11. 16) Bais Ephraim, O.C. 26 (the Chevrah Hilchos Issurei Eruvin argue that the Bais Ephraim only maintains lo asu rabbim in a situation of shem daled mechitzos and not in a situation of three mechitzos; this is hevel, as the Bais Ephraim’s diagrams prove otherwise, and in due time, I will demonstrate the speciousness of their arguments). 17) HaEleph Lecha Shlomo, siman 181. 18) Aishel Avraham, siman 345. 19) Chai Adam, klal 71:15 and Nishmas Adam 71:9. 20) Chesed L’Avraham, siman 39. 21) Chasam Sofer, O.C. 89. 22) Maharham Shick, O.C. 171, 181. 23) Bais Shlomo, siman 43, 51. 24) Tzemach Tzedek, Shabbos 100a and Eruvin, the end of Perek 5. 25) Nefesh Chayah, siman 25. 26) Shaar HaZekeinim, p. 116b. 27) Chazon Nachum, siman 36. 28) Rabeinu Yosef M’Slutsk, siman 11. 29) Maharia HaLevi, siman 94. 30) Maharsham, 3:188, 9:18. 31) Yeshuos Malko, siman 21. 32) Sharei Tzion, siman 4. 33) Avnei Nezer, siman 268:4, 276:1, 279:2. 34) Harei B’samim, 5:73. 35) Imrei Yosher, siman 102 and Minchas Pitim, siman 364. 36) Kaf HaChaim, O.C. 364:12. 37) Divrei Malkiel, 3:10, 14. 38) Rav Chaim Berlin in Tikkun Shabbos Odessa, p. 28 and in Nishmas Chaim, siman 29. 39) Achiezer, 4:8. 40) Aruch HaShulchan, O.C. 364:1. 41) Even Yikrah, siman 58. 42) Chazon Ish, O.C. 74:10, 107:4.

Furthermore, Rav Bleier misunderstood who the Mishnah Berurah accepts l’halachah, the Chachamim and Rav Elazar [lo asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta] or Rav Yehudah [asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta] and Rav Yochanan [delasos neulos].  Rav Bleier argues that the Biur Halachah, 364:2, is proof that the Mishnah Berurah’s opinion is in accordance with Rav Yehudah, since he argues that most poskim do not accept the Rambam who argues that we follow Rav Elazar who upholds lo asu rabbim of a tzuras hapesach on a d’Oraysa level. Hence, the understanding is that the Mishnah Berurah maintains that a tzuras hapesach is not sufficient to encompass a reshus harabbim on a d’Oraysa level; only delasos would be effective, as set forth by Rav Yochanan.

However, this is incorrect. The fact is the Mishnah Berurah in Shaar HaTziyun, siman 363:94 maintains that we pasken lo asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta even in a situation of mechitzos b’y’dai shomayim [natural walls, whose efficacy is halachically inferior than mechitzos b’y’dai adam, man-made walls] (see also Biur Halachah, ibid., 36). It follows that the Mishnah Berurah in 363:118, 156 argues that it is halachically sufficient if a mechitzah consisting of a tel hamislaket [a slope with an adequate halachic gradient] encompasses an entire city and does not mention that a Baal Nefesh should be stringent because there may be roads that are wider than 16 amos [hence, the Mishnah Berurah must be relying on lo asu rabbim of the tel hamislaket].

Why then does the Mishnah Berurah in the Biur Halachah, 364:2, accept Rav Yochanan who requires delasos me’d’Oraysa? Subsequent to what I argue above [that the Mishnah Berurah upholds lo asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta], there is no doubt that the Mishnah Berurah is only following those poskim who maintain that Rav Yochanan can also be in agreement with the Chachamim, and they would in certain situations ― such as in an area which is encompassed by tzuras hapesachim or only two mechitzos ― require delasos [actually, this is the Bais Ephraim’s and Chazon Ish’s argument, and in fact, both the Ravyah (p. 270, 276) and Eshkol (siman 64-65) quote Rav Yochanan yet pasken like the Chachamim which buttress’s the Bais Ephraim’s and Chazon Ish’s assertion]. This is further evident from the fact that the Mishnah Berurah (Biur Halachah, 364:2) only affirms that the Rif and the Rosh follow Rav Yochanan regarding delasos neulos but does not articulate that they accept Rav Yehudah l’halachah.

In short, the Mishnah Berurah maintains lo asu rabbim in accordance with the Chachamim and in a situation of three mechitzos would not require delasos even me’d’rabbanan. However, if an area is encompassed by tzuras hapesachim or only two mechitzos, he would require delasos me’d’Oraysa pursuant to Rav Yochanan [however, it should be noted that many poskim maintain that a tzuras hapesach would be sufficient me’d’Oraysa; see above]. This follows why the Mishnah Berurah asserted that it is only the Rambam [according to his understanding] who maintains lo asu rabbim on a d’Oraysa level even in a situation of tzuras hapesachim encompassing an area.