Part 1: REBUTTAL TO THE LAWS OF AN ERUV

 

Preface

The fact that hilchos eruvin is one of the most complicated sugyos of the halachic corpus poses a great challenge to the many laypeople who establish eruvin (e.g. between neighbors, and to enclose their property). Consequentially, there is no doubt that there is a tremendous need for an English sefer elucidating the applicable laws of eruvin. From its numerous diagrams to the many practical examples given, the sefer The Laws Of An Eruv by Rabbi Shlomo Francis and Rabbi Yonason Glenner meets this need in an exemplary manner. Having said this, there are some shortcomings to this sefer; however, I will only elaborate on the issue of reshus harabbim, which would incipiently proscribe an eruv.

Over the years, I have perused just about every sefer that discusses city eruvin, and I have come away with little expectation that any of them would demonstrate an unbiased view of the underlying issues. Following this, it was with great premonition that I examined the sefer The Laws Of An Eruv. Alas, my intuition was unfortunately correct in regards to the authors’ partiality regarding city eruvin. While the authors demonstrated some original insight, they failed to apply it practicably. Instead, they repeat the extremely partial reid of some yungerleit [Chevrah Hilchos Issurei Eruvin] who have no inkling of the halachic process. Most egregiously, they fail to mention established arguments by Gedolei HaPoskim to allow city eruvin [especially in the English text]. Furthermore, in order to negate some established criteria [such as the use of mechitzos] they promote original concepts that they invented out of whole cloth. It is a pity that the authors waded into this issue and ruined an otherwise fine sefer.

I never understood why it is common in English seforim that the footnotes are written in Hebrew. Is it that the footnotes are not intended for the layman? Or is it that the authors believe that some Hebrew in their sefer would lend credibility to it? One thing is for sure, it makes it difficult to rebut in a coherent manner since, oftentimes, it would not suffice to only refute the English text without the sources included in the Hebrew footnotes. Hence, for the efficacy of the reader, I will rebut the chapter regarding reshus harabbim including the Hebrew footnotes only in the English language.

Soon after the sefer was published, I was going to write a rebuttal; however, I was unable to do so at the time. Lately, I was made aware of an article that the authors wrote in the Chicago Community Kollel publication, Encounters (December 21, 2018), entitled City Eruvin, and I resolved to write a refutation of both the sefer and the article.

This kuntres consist of three sections. Section One (pp. 3-24) is an overview of the pertinent halachos demonstrating that there are more than sufficient grounds to allow city eruvin. Section Two (25-70) is an analysis and a refutation on the subject of reshus harabbim (Chapter Three, Section lll, pp. 54-60, and Chapter Nine, p. 150) in The Laws Of An Eruv. Section Three (71-83) is an analysis and a refutation of the Chicago Community Kollel’s Encounters written by the authors of The Laws Of An Eruv. I apologize in advance for any repetition, but this is the nature of any critique, and I have no choice but to follow their lead. 

 _______________________________________________________

Of course, it is always possible to cite shitos yachidos to invalidate an eruv; however, ruling according to shitos yachidos 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.] Even more so in 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 yachidos ― which in many cases are contradictory ― and that is 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.