Part 8: Chukei Chaim: Eruvin Rebuttal

 

Chukei Chaim: Issue 318

Chukei Chaim: Mattersdorf Eiruv

41. In the Mattersdorf neighborhood of Yerushalayim, there is a high-level eiruv with full doors and a צורת הפתח(22) that are closed for a few hours (18) on Shabbos night (16). Hence, they are doors according to all opinions (12). [Rav C.P. Scheinberg once stated that if one does not carry in this eiruv, he may not carry in his house either!] The eiruv in Ramot Polin in Yerushalayim is also this way.

Rebuttal: Rav Scheinberg maintains that there is no reshus harabbim today (Kovets Oraysa, 17), and probably considered the machmirim as being absolutely ridiculous. So, if he said anything, he argued that there was no need for these so called high-level eruvin, as the larger ones are more than sufficient (see later what Rav Yisroel Yaakov Fisher declared). 

Chukei Chaim: Golders Green, London Eiruv

42. The consensus of most poskim is that London is a reshus horabim d’oraisa, as more than 600,000 people live there (שו''ת בית אפרים סי' כ''ו, שו''ת מנח"י ח''ב סי' קי''ד אות ט', בעל חשב האפוד, הגר''א היילפרין). Accordingly, most poskim hold one may not rely on an eiruv of צורות הפתח alone if the eiruv is not upgraded. As we mentioned (Issue 316, par. 34), they did this in Tottenham, London by setting up an eiruv within three walls.

Rebuttal: This is simply incorrect. All those mentioned on the list would not be opposed to an eruv in London. The Bais Ephraim maintained that streets in London possibly fulfilled the criterion of shishim ribo, hence he argued that they were not a reshus harabim either because they did not satisfy the criterion of being sixteen amos wide, or that they were not mefulash u’mechuvanim. In fact, even regarding his understanding of the criterion of shishim ribo, the Bais Ephraim would allow an eruv in London. The simple understanding of the Bais Ephraim is (Maharsham, 3:188 and Minchas Yitzchak, 8:32) that the shishim ribo would need to traverse the street itself for it to be classified as a reshus harabbim (the only question regarding his position was whether the requirement of shishim ribo traversing the street is every day or would many/most days suffice). There is no doubt that the streets in any of the neighborhoods that have erected an eruv do not contain anywhere near shishim ribo. Hence, the Bais Ephraim would allow an eruv in any part of these London neighborhoods, either because the streets do not fulfil the criterion of shishim ribo, or they are not mefulash u’mechuvanim, or they are making use of mechitzos which are omed merubeh al haparutz. 

In light of the above, let us explore the opinion of the Minchas Yitzchak regarding shishim ribo, and what he would possibly maintain regarding eruvin. When Rav Weiss posits that the circumstances in London would not allow us to include shishim ribo for any heter since the city contains shishim ribo, it was not because he made a survey of London and consequentially came to this conclusion, but rather he was just quoting the Bais Ephraim. However, the Bais Ephraim assumed that there were streets and marketplaces that possibly contained shishim ribo (since he is basing his estimation on the Chacham Tzvi), and therefore, he referred to London as a reshus harabbim of shishim ribo. Additionally, the Minchas Yitzchak himself understood the Bais Ephraim’s shita in shishim ribo as applying to a street (Minchas Yitzchak, 8:32). Consequently, if we now know that there is no street in London that ever has shishim ribo traversing it, even Rav Weiss would admit that no reshus harabbim exists therein, and an eruv of tzuras hapesachim can be erected. Clearly there is no street in Golders Green or Stamford Hill that has anywhere close to shishim ribo traversing it. Moreover, if the Minchas Yitzchak was asked about establishing an eruv in London, it is probable that he would argue that we follow the Shulchan Aruch HaRav that a tzuras hapesach reclassifies a reshus harabbim into a reshus hayachid, and only me’d’rabbanan, do we require delasos. [Since the requirement is only me’d’rabbanan, we can be lenient and apply any additional heter to remove the obligation of delasos.] Additionally, Rav Weiss could allow an eruv based on the Chazon Ish’s chiddush. Furthermore, since Rav Weiss followed the Bais Ephraim ─ who maintains lo asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta, and that pirtzos esser is me’d’rabbanan ─ there is no doubt that he would allow the eruv since it consists of mechitzos. [The reason why the Minchas Yitzchak did not rely on the Chazon Ish or mechitzos (habattim) to downgrade London to a reshus hayachid in his teshuvos was simply because he was not erecting an eruv, so he did not evaluate the possibility of using mechitzos.]    

Regarding Rav Elchanan Halpern, there is no doubt that he maintained that London is not a reshus harabbim as he wrote in his teshuvah (S’dei Elchanan, siman 24; this teshuvah was published previously in his Yagdil Torah). More so, it is a well-known fact that Rav Halpern allowed his family to use the Boro Park Eruv, and (if not for political reasons) why should London be any different?

From the Cheishev Ho'ephod (2:11:2) it is clear that he maintained that, according to the Shulchan Aruch, only when shishim ribo actually traverse the street on a daily basis is the criterion fulfilled.  Hence, his objection to a London Eruv cannot be predicated on the issue of reshus harabbim. In fact, all of the Cheishev Ho'ephod’s letters opposing a London Eruv confirm that Rav Padwa zt”l had no halachic objection to the eruv. This follows what Rav Ephraim Padwa, mentioned to the Chernobyler rebbe of Boro Park (when he visited London in 2001) that there are no halachic issues with a London Eruv, and that his father had ancillary reason for objecting to one. Therefore, all other arguments such as reshus harabbim, karpeifos and sechiras reshus (which Rav Padwa allowed for Amsterdam; see Noam 11, 1979) should be discounted for they were only added afterwards by people whose ulterior motives were to negate the eruv at all cost, even if it takes the rewriting of what some of those objecting today wrote themselves.

Chukei Chaim: 43. Doors. As of late, some Rabbanim have been involved in setting up a new eiruv in Golders Green that will be based on צורות הפתח (22) and will not include North Circular Road, the main road traversing London, which is almost certainly a reshus horabim d’oraisa. In addition, they plan to put up folding doors kept in a permanent closet (above, 30) on both sides (15) of the main roads; these will have the status of closeable doors. As we mentioned (13), this is at least helpful according to the poskim who pasken like the Chachamim. According to R’ Yehuda and the Mechaber, who require doors that are actually closed at night, this does not help. Hence, there is obviously always room to be machmir. Nevertheless, in this aspect, it is much better than a simple eiruv based on צורות הפתח alone. Every person should follow the opinion of his Rebbeim and certainly not object to those who are meikel (Issue 315, par. 11).

Rebuttal: This is called hijacking halachah. It is likely that the entire North Circular Road would not be classified as a reshus harabbim, but there is no doubt that the part of the North Circular Road included in the eruv is not ordered as such. We pasken like the Chachamim, period. Hence, the areas that have erected eruvin in London are not classified as a reshus harabbim for a multitude of reasons. 1) There is no shishim ribo traversing any street. 2) The streets are not mefulash u’mechuvanim. 3) The area is encompassed by mechitzos omed merubeh, which would classify the neighborhood as a reshus hayachid min haTorah. Therefore, in regards to hilchos eruvin, since all criteria have to be met for the area to be classified as a reshus harabbim, even if we were to employ a shitas yachid regarding reshus harabbim that would then disqualify the eruv based on only one criterion, the other conditions would not be met and an eruv would be permissible l’chatchilah. Consequently, to invalidate an eruv, one would have to selectively choose from disparate shitos yachida’os ― which in many cases are contradictory ― and that is clearly an unjustifiable approach to halachah. The reality is that if someone learns hilchos eruvin with an open mind, he would realize that since it is almost impossible to meet all the criteria of a reshus harabbim, creating an eruv l’chatchilah is a real possibility.

Of course, it is always possible to cite shitos yachida’os to prohibit everything; however, ruling according to shitos yachida’os is not the correct approach in halachah. [The Chasam Sofer writes (Yoreh De'ah 37) that if we were to collect all the shitos ha’ossrim we would not be able to eat bread or drink water.]

Moreover, even if one would allege that according to some Achronim (and contrary to the overwhelming majority of poskim) the above fundaments would not allow an eruv, nevertheless, they would have to agree that each issue is still at the very minimum a safek. Consequentially, we are left with a sfek sfek sfeika, and we would therefore go l’kula even if the matter was a d’Oraysa. Lest one think that sfek sfeika is not utilized in these situations, one should peruse the Yeshuos Malko (O.C. siman 21); Avnei Nezer (O.C. 273:16, 279:2), and Levush Mordechai (4:4).

I believe that the retort of Rav Yisroel Yaakov Fisher zt”l (Even Yisroel, 8:36) to these “baalei chumras” succinctly sums up who they are. He basically told them that the large Yerushalayim Eruv is just fine, and does not require their rectifications, and that he was not keen on the neighborhood eruvin at all.