The Bais Ephraim Revisited

 

As I have written on numerous occasions the argument that the Bais Ephraim maintains that pirtzos esser [breaches of ten amos wide] is on a d’Oraysa level in a situation of three mechitzos, as opposed to pasei bira’os [an enclosure consisting of four two-sided posts of at least an amah wide in each direction forming the corners of a square] is hevel. Those making this argument are either menuvalim breshus haTorah, or simply am haratzim.

However, I would like to revisit this debate, due to an additional argument set forth by these yungerleit, which I feel I should address. The added argument is as follows: The Bais Ephraim would only allow three mechitzos in a situation where the mechitzos are complete without any pirtzos, as depicted by the letter bais in the second diagram of the Bais Ephraim’s teshuva. In essence those making this claim utilize the second diagram, which seems to portray three continuous mechitzos, as proof that the Bais Ephraim maintains that in a situation of three mechitzos, gaps of ten amos are on a d’Oraysa level (and hence tzuras hapesachim to close the breaches are not sufficient), as opposed to pasei bira’os, in which case pirtzos esser prohibits only me’d’rabbanan (therefore, tzuras hapesachim to close the gaps are acceptable).

Let us explore why this claim is simply another excuse to prohibit eruvin:

To begin with, in my post, Part 3: The Truth Regarding The Stamford Hill Eruv, I state that the entire teshuvah of the Bais Ephraim demonstrates that pirtzos esser in a situation of three mechitzos [not unlike pasei bira’os], is only proscribed me’d’rabbanan. In fact, the Bais Ephraim argues that the reason pasei bira’os are suitable to demarcate a reshus harabbim is because otherwise asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta. According to these yungerleit, the Bais Ephraim’s argument should have been that pasei bira’os are needed because otherwise pirtzos esser would be on a d’Oraysa level.

Now that we know that the Bais Ephraim always maintains that a pirtzos esser is only proscribed me’d’rabbanan, we can explain why he used the letter bais as the diagram for three mechitzos, which seems to suggest a requirement for three continuous mechitzos without any breaches, as these yungeleit argue.

These are the diagrams as depicted in the original print of the Bais Ephraim (1818), published during his lifetime (O.C. siman 26):

The Bais Ephraim was referring to two towns whose homes formed mechitzos [mechitzos habbatim], and where the circumstances were either that the major road [derech hamelech] ran through the middle of the city or where the road ran at the edge of the city.  Hence the use of a bais and a flipped backwards bais to depict a road that bisected the middle of the town, leaving the area encompassed with pasei bira’os. Or to illustrate a city whose main road ran at the edge of the town, thus detaching the fourth wall, they employed a bais and a flipped backwards vav, which denotes three walls [without closed corners on the fourth side], and an additional wall for the fourth side. The Bais Ephraim allowed all the breaches to be closed with tzuras hapesachim in these conditions, as the breaches are only proscribed me’d’rabbanan.

These diagrams are comprised of enlarged Hebrew letters, since at the time it was difficult to insert diagrams, and so the printers resorted to using the Hebrew alphabet in lieu of actual illustrations.

The argument that the fact that the Bais Ephraim employed the letter bais to represent three mechitzos (in the second example), is proof that the mechitzos would need to be without a breach of ten amos is wrong on a few counts.

Firstly, the letter bais was only used to depict three mechitzos consisting of houses, because it was difficult to insert an actual diagram. However, it is a given that there are breaches of ten amos between the houses, as the Bais Ephraim states (Teshuvos HaBach HaChadashos, siman 3) that it was common for the pirtzos between the homes to be closed with tzuras hapesachim.

Secondly, the example given by the Bais Ephraim was that there was a major road ten amos wide, bisecting the three walls from the fourth wall. The breaches formed by the main road running through two of the towns’ mechitzos habbatim were at least ten amos wide, and nevertheless the entire area included in the omed merubeh of the four mechitzos habbatim, even the unenclosed area adjacent to the breaches, was classified as a reshus hayachid me’d’Oraysa according to the Bais Ephraim.

This is proof positive that even in a situation of three mechitzos omed merubeh al haparutz, the Bais Ephraim maintains that pirtzos esser is only a proscription me’d’rabbanan. 

The above demonstrates that those making this argument are misguided yungeleit who never learnt properly, and were never meshamesh rabbanim.