Wednesday, September 30, 2020

Part 26: REBUTTAL TO THE LAWS OF AN ERUV

The Sefer – Page 150 (continued):

Hagaon Rav Aharon Kotler was of the opinion that considering the many Rishonim who do not mention the requisite of 600,000 people, the previously accepted custom of considering only an area that has 600,000 people or more to be a reshus harabbim should not be relied upon in America.

Rebuttal: Actually, the authors misunderstood Rav Aharon’s teshuvah.  Rav Aharon argues (Mishnas Rav Aharon, siman 6:10) that the Mishnah Berurah did not want to rely on shishim ribo at all, and, therefore, Rav Aharon reasoned that the heter (l’chatchilah) to establish eruvin in pre-war Europe was the criterion of mefulash u’mechavanim.  [However, Rav Aharon subsequently argued that only in very specific cases can we rely on the criterion of mefulash u’mechavanim.] Hence, Rav Aharon is not arguing that in pre-WWII Europe they relied on the criterion of shishim ribo, but only that they relied on the fundament of mefulash u’mechavanim. Following this, we can conclude that, according to Rav Aharon, there is no difference between pre-war Europe and America; we never relied on the criterion of shishim ribo. Clearly the world did not follow Rav Aharon regarding this matter.

 

The Sefer – Page 150 (continued):

Hagaon Rav Moshe Feinstein, unlike Rav Aharon strongly believed in upholding the previously accepted minhag ha’olam.(2)

Rebuttal: It is worth mentioning again Rav Moshe’s statement (ibid., 4:87) that since, historically, eruvin had been erected in cities with populations exceeding shishim ribo, one could not classify a city as a reshus harabbim solely on the basis of the existence of a population of 600,000. There is no doubt that Rav Moshe tried to base his chiddushim in eruvin on precedent.

 

The Sefer – Footnote 2:

היינו לההמון עם, אבל לבני תורה אפילו באירופא לא הקילו ברחוב שהיה בו ט"ז אמה,

Rebuttal: This is simply incorrect, and I believe a purposeful perversion of Rav Moshe’s teshuvah.  This is what Rav Moshe stated (Igros Moshe, O.C. 5:24:10):

"דבמקומותינו נוהגין בהחלט כרש"י ,שליכא דין רשות-הרבים כשאין בוקעין ס' רבוא, שהרי נוהגין להתיר לטלטל בצורת-הפתח, שאין מועיל להתיר רשות-הרבים בצורת-הפתח דבעינן דלתות. והוא משום, דבכל מקומותינו נוהגין כרש"י בדין וודאי, ורק שאיכא יחידים מת"ח שמחמירין לעצמן, ולאחרים הן עצמן עוסקין לתקן כל צורות הפתח שהיו בכל העיירות, כדי להתיר הטלטול, משום שהיה הכרח גדול, ונעשה כן בכל בעיירות, אף שהיו הרחובות רחבות הרבה יותר מט"ז אמה. הרי שנוהגין כרש"י בהחלט אף לקולא"

In all our areas, the custom was to follow shitas Rashi unconditionally; however, there were a select few talmidei chachamim who were stringent on themselves,”

Hence, either most talmidei chachamim were not on the level of Bnei Torah or the majority of Bnei Torah did avail themselves of their town’s eruv. In short, according to Rav Moshe, most Bnei Torah did make use of their town’s eruvin.

 

The Sefer – Footnote 2:

ושמענו בשמו דמה שנהגו להקל דאין רשות הרבים בלא ששים רובא אינו מנהג גמור, דלעולם החמירו הרבנים על עצמם, וא"כ יש מקום לבעל נפש להחמיר.

Rebuttal: So let’s try to understand what the authors are suggesting. There are three categories of people: laymen, Bnei Torah/talmidei chachamim, and rabbanim. The authors agree that all laymen carried in pre-war Europe; however, as I demonstrated above, their claim that Bnei Torah/talmidei chachamim did not carry is false as Rav Moshe said clearly that only a select few talmidei chachamim were stringent regarding this matter. We are only left with one category (which the authors are referring to in the above quote), the rabbanim did they or did they not carry? Maybe the authors are suggesting with this quote that when Rav Moshe stated that only a select few talmidei chachamim were machmir, he meant that it was the rabbanim who were stringent? However, this would mean that Rav Moshe was inferring that besides the rabbanim all Bnei Torah/talmidei chachamim did carry. Following this, one cannot argue that it is the rabbanim who establish the minhag for a Baal Nefesh, when all the Bnei Torah/talmidei chachamim did avail themselves of their town’s eruv. Bnei Torah/talmidei chachamim, are definitely categorized as Baalei Nefesh; hence, the authors’ entire argument is negated and should be classified as unreliable hearsay.         

In any case, Rav Moshe stated repeatedly in this teshuvah that without a doubt the custom was to follow shitas Rashi, and he never mentioned that a Baal Nefesh should be stringent. Why should we believe what people say in his name when there is no written teshuvah to suggest otherwise? 

Tuesday, September 29, 2020

Part 25: REBUTTAL TO THE LAWS OF AN ERUV

The Sefer – Page 150:

I. Issues Relating to Community Wide Eruvin

It is beyond the scope of this sefer to fully address all of the issues that relate to communal eruvin. The objective of this chapter is to review the halachic underpinnings that affect the kashrus of community wide eruvin.

Rebuttal: However, the authors did a good job in sowing doubt regarding city eruvin until now. Clearly the authors have an agenda.

 

The Sefer – Page 150:

It should be noted that the discussions in this chapter refer to cities that have less than 600,000 residents. The clear tradition of establishing communal eruvin in European cities originates from the smaller cities that were common in those times. There is less of a precedent for establishing eruvin in larger cities. Additionally, there may also be questions of a Torah prohibition in large cities. A discussion regarding the establishment of eruvin in large cities is beyond the scope of this work, and nothing stated here or in Chapter Three should be construed as a halachah l’maaseh statement regarding this serious topic.   

Rebuttal: How very interesting; however, Rav Moshe stated (Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:87) that since, historically, eruvin had been erected in cities with populations exceeding shishim ribo, one could not classify a city as a reshus harabbim solely on the basis of the existence of a population of 600,000. Evidently, Rav Moshe maintained that there was precedent to establish eruvin in large cities.  

Moreover, the Divrei Malkiel (4:3) stated when writing to the people erecting an eruv in the city of Odessa, which had approximately shishim ribo, that, “the minhag is to erect eruvin even in the largest of cities, and it does not concern us that they contain shishim ribo since the shishim ribo is dispersed over all its streets.”  So who are we to believe, the authors who state, “There is less of a precedent for establishing eruvin in larger cities, “or the Divrei Malkiel who bore witness to the minhag of pre-WWII Europe and stated that “the minhag is to erect eruvin even in the largest of cities.”

Furthermore, there are additional reasons besides shishim ribo why eruvin were established in large pre-WWII European cities, including mefulash. As Rav Shlomo Dovid Kahane zt”l (Divrei Menachem, O.C. vol. 2, pp. 42-43 posited, the heter to erect an eruv in a large city such as Warsaw was universally accepted as the streets were not mefulashim u’mechuvanim m’shaar l’shaar. [Actually, the Bais Ephraim stated that one of the heterim in large cities was the criterion of mefulash, as well.]

The above is proof positive that the authors are incorrect, and there was precedent to establish eruvin even in the largest of cities. 

The Sefer – Page 150 (continued):

A. The concept of a citywide eruv

It has been universally accepted for hundreds of years that eruvin can be built to enclose entire cities. In pre-WWII Europe, it was considered the responsibility of every Rav of a community to ensure that his city had a valid eruv.

Rebuttal: In fact, until sixty years ago, there never was a question if an eruv should be established even in large cities containing shishim ribo only how to establish an eruv. Today, with the Chevrah Hilchos Issurei Eruvin,” the question is how not to establish/allow a city eruv.


The Sefer – Page 150 (continued):

Interestingly, many Rabbanim (1) in America were opposed to the establishment of citywide eruvin.

Rebuttal: As usual, the authors use the word “many” when in fact there are very few rabbanim who opposed eruvin in America.    

Let’s explore the reasons given to establish eruvin (in pre-WWII Europe):  

1) To begin with, it is a mitzvah to erect an eruv (Tur and Shulchan Aruch, O.C. 366:13, 395:1; for proof that it’s a requirement for a city as well, see BeHag, Perek Hador and Chasam Sofer, O.C. 99).

2) The Chasam Sofer (O.C. 99) states that it is not possible for an individual to ensure that all the members of his household do not carry inadvertently on Shabbos.

3) It helps to minimize chilul Shabbos by our Jewish brethren who are unfortunately not religious and carry on Shabbos without an eruv (Nefesh Chayah, siman 25, and Bais Av, 2:1:25).

4) Additionally, an eruv helps to increase our oneg Shabbos, e.g. the ability to take leisurely strolls and bring needed food (Perishah, O.C. 395:1; see also Emek Sheilah, Parshas Kedoshim, ois 10).

I will add some select quotes from the poskim of the previous generations:

1) וז"ל שו"ת מהרי"א הלוי ח"ב סימן קח: עלינו לחפש בחורין וסדקין אחרי פתח היתר כדי שינצל מחילול שבת ח"ו.

2) ועיין בבית מאיר סימן שפ"ד סעיף כ' שכתב, דעתה ששכיח דדיירי ישראל עם עכו"ם במבוי וחצרות היה אפשר לומר דמותר לערב בלא שכירות, אמנם חלילה להקל וכו', אלא בשעת הדחק טוב יותר לערב מכל מקום בלא שכירות משלא לערב כלל ולנהג איסור בטלטול, דממש קרוב לודאי שרוב המון עוברים ומטלטלים בלי עירוב כלל.

3) וז"ל שו"ת הרי"ם סימן ד: איני יודע למה רום מעלתו מחפש אחר חומרות בדבר שהעיד מהרי"ט שנהגו היתר וכו' אין להחמיר רק כשאפשר לתקן בנקל.

4) וז"ל שו"ת ישועות מלכו או"ח סימן כה: יש להורות לעת הצורך בפשיטות כדברי מהרי"ט, בפרט שנהגו כן אחריו כל החכמים שהיו אחריו והגאון בעל נה"מ ובעל בני יעקב והגאון המל"מ והכנה"ג חלילה להרהר אחרי הוראתם בשעת הדחק, כי ידוע כי קלקול העירוב מביא לידי עבירות חמורות.

5) וז"ל הרה"ג ר' חיים בערלין (שהיה בנו של הגאון הנצי"ב ז"ל חתן הגאון ר' חיים מוואלאזין ז"ל) בריש תשובתו לענין העירוב באדעסא (בקונטרוס תקון שבת): ונתתי שמחה בלבי על אשר שמו על לבם לעסוק בתקון גדול כזה בעירם, וכן ראוי והדור לנו, וכמו שאמר רבב"ח לאביי בעירובין ס"ח ע"א "מבואה דאית ביה גברי רברבי כרבנן לא להוי בה לא עירוב ולא שיתוף?", והמקום יהא בעזרם ותבא עליהם ברכת טוב.

6) וז"ל שו"ת שערי דיעה חלק ב' סימן יח: אין לגבב חומרות בדיני עירובין, שהלכו בהם להקל.

7) ועיין בשו"ת זקן אהרן (להרה"ג ר' אהרן וואלקין אבד"ק פינסק) ח"ב סימן יז (ומובא בספרו של השואל שו"ת חלקת יעקב ח"א סימן קפג) שכתב: כבר ידוע שרבותינו הראשונים והאחרונים צעקו ככרוכיא על אלו שמחטטים לחפש חומרות בהלכות עירוב. וע"ש ריש סימן יח וסוף סימן כ.

8) ובספר רחובות העיר (אנטווערפען תשמ"ט) עמוד יח מביא בשם הגאון ר' יחזקאל אבראמסקי ז"ל (אודות העירוב באנטווערפען) שאמר לו: תעשו עירוב בלי חומרות (פירוש, שלא יפריע לכם מלעשות עירוב בגלל איזה חומרא שאינו מעיקר הדין).

Is America so different from pre-WWII Europe that the above motives do not apply anymore? The real question is why should America be any different?

 

The Sefer – Footnote 1:

גם הגר"י קמנצקי התנגד לעשיית עירובין בכל העיירות באמריקא מטעמים אחרים, (כך שמענו מהג"ש פורסט ששמע מפיו, וכן הוא בספר אמת ליעקב ריש סי' שס"ג).

Rebuttal: I do not believe a word attributed to a gadol when the issue is eruvin.

First of all, the statement in Emes L’Yaakov is siman 345 (note 402), and was not written by Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l but was only word of mouth. While the authors cite others who claim to have heard from Rav Yaakov about his opposition to eruvin in America, besides the statement in the Emes L’Yaakov, it is probable that the source of this note is one and the same since he was involved in publishing Emes L’Yaakov (see the hakdamah). 

One of the issues that Rav Yaakov had with large city eruvin stated in this Emes L’Yaakov, namely tznius, (mingling) is a case in point. How can one make such an argument when, in fact, the Perishah states that an eruv helps to increase our oneg Shabbos by allowing one to take leisurely strolls! Moreover, why was pre-WWII Europe any different than America regarding this issue? Hence, it is more likely that it is unreliable hearsay.  

Furthermore, one should always doubt the veracity of statements that are said in the name of gedolim when we do not see that the issue at hand ever concerned these gedolim at all. This argument sounds more like something emanating from Chassidshe rabbanim and not from those of the Lita. In any case, this argument is in fact a blanket statement against all eruvin – since these issues can be problematic with eruvin in both large and small cities and even with eruvin in bungalow colonies – and it would be better to discount its veracity than to believe that it originated from Rav Yaakov. 

Moreover, see the introduction to the Deal NJ eruv sefer (p. 7) where we see that Rav Yaakov agreed that an eruv should be established. It follows that all the statements said in the name of Rav Yaakov are specious.

Monday, September 28, 2020

Part 24: REBUTTAL TO THE LAWS OF AN ERUV

The Sefer – Page 60 (continued):

Private roads and roads less than sixteen amos wide

Occasionally, in housing complexes there are private roads that are only open to members of that particular complex and their guests. Such roads are similar to the muvaos in the time of Chazal and may be enclosed with an eruv according to all opinions.  Similarly, alleyways within the public street system usually serve only local traffic, and they may be enclosed with an eruv according to all opinions. There may be rare instances where a mavoi too can become a reshus harabim if the public traffic uses the mavoi as a shortcut. A city street that is less than sixteen amos wide is not a reshus harabim according to all opinions.  

Rebuttal: This is obvious and does not require commentary.

 

The Sefer – Page 60 (continued):

There is a question, however, whether the space where the cars park in the street can count towards the required sixteen amos.(55)

Footnote 55:

כך שמענו ממו״ר הגר״ד צוקער שליט״א ומהגר״ש מילר שליט״א שמקום שחונים שם ה cars אינם בכלל הט״ז אמה. אבל שמענו מהגר״י בלסקי ומתלמידים אחרים שלדעת הגר״מ פיינשטיין זצ״ל הכל נעשה לצורך ההילוך של הרבים ונחשבים כחלק של הרה״ר.

Rebuttal: I am impressed that the authors would mention this machlokes, but I think that the authors should have mentioned a more essential disagreement, if we include the occupants of a vehicle in the tally of the shishim ribo.

Many don’t realize that most poskim maintain that the occupants of a vehicle are not tallied in the shishim ribo (Bais Ephraim, O.C. 26; Maharsham, 1:162; Yeshuos Malko, siman 26-27; Harei B’samim, 5:73; Bais Av, 2:9:3; Mahari Stief, siman 68; Satmar Rav, Kuntres Meoz U’Mekedem p. 27; Divrei Yatziv, 2:172:13; V’yaan Yoseph, 1:155:1; Kuntres Tikkun Eruvin Manhattan, siman 12 p. 105; Kinyan Torah, 4:40:6, and Rabbi Eliezer Y. Waldenberg zt”l, author of the Tzitz Eliezer, as cited in The Contemporary Eruv, 2002 p. 54 note 119). The reason is either because a vehicle itself is considered a reshus hayachid and therefore its occupants are not incorporated in the count or because we only include pedestrians (holchei regel) who traverse the street in the tally.

It is important to note that the concept that only holchei regel creates a reshus harabbim is already mentioned in the Rishonim (Or Zarua, Hilchos Erev Shabbos siman 4, and Rabbeinu Avraham ben HaRambam in Birchas Avraham, siman 15).

However, I must say that I am pleased to hear that Rav Zucker shlita and Rav Miller shlita maintain that the space that parked cars occupy is not included in the width of the criterion of sixteen amos. I would add that Rav Yaakov Blau zt”l mentions this argument as well (Nesivos Shabbos, Perek 3 note 2). Regarding Rav Moshe, if the authors would have learnt through Rav Moshe’s teshuvos, they would have realized that there is no need to quote what others have to say in his name. Rav Moshe wrote himself in Igros Moshe, O.C. 5:28:8 that cars do not minimize the criterion of sixteen amos.

 

The Sefer Page 60 (continued):

Application: One would like to make an eruv using tzuros hapesach on the side street in front of his house. If the street is less than sixteen amos wide, such an eruv may be possible; as above, it is questionable if the parking spots are measured as part of the sixteen amos needed to create reshus harabim. If the streets are wider than sixteen amos, than a ba’al nefesh should avoid using such an eruv.

Rebuttal: No, a Baal Nefesh can rely on our eruvin, either because we uphold the criterion of mefulash u’mecahvanim or the criterion of shishim ribo l’chatchilah. Moreover, once a tzuras hapesach is established, the issue of delasos is only d’rabbanan, and then there is no doubt that we can rely on the criterion of shishim ribo to remove this proscription. Moreover, many cities can rely on mechitzos, in which case the encompassed area is classified as a reshus hayachid.  

 

The Sefer – Page 60 (continued):

 However, there is basis to be lenient, even if the city has a population of 600,000.

Rebuttal: It is not a leniency to rely on the criterion of shishim ribo; it is halachah p’suka. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of poskim maintain that the criterion is not conditional of the population of the city, but only of 600,000 people actually traversing the street.

 

The Sefer – Page 60 (continued):

If however, the density of the city is such that 3,000,000 are present in an area twelve mil by twelve mil, Hagaon Rav Moshe considers every street a reshus harabim, and an eruv should not be made. In general an eruv should never be attempted on a street or sidewalk without the guidance of an expert in the topic of eruvin.

Rebuttal: In most cities there is no 8.1 by 8.1 mile area encompassing a population even close to three million; no doubt, Rav Moshe would allow an eruv anywhere in these cities. Moreover, Rav Moshe would allow most city eruvin if they are making use of mechitzos (see Section One, 3:2). 

Saturday, September 26, 2020

Part 23: REBUTTAL TO THE LAWS OF AN ERUV

The Sefer – Page 59 (continued):

However, private roads that are designated for members of a residential development, and are not intended for the general public, have a status of a mavoi.(49)

Footnote 49:

כך נראה שהרי יש רשות להבעלים לשנותו אם יסכימו כולם והו״ל כהמבואות שבימי חז״ל. וכן שמענו מהגר״מ רוזנר בשם הגרי״ש אלישיב זצ״ל דרחוב דשייך לשכונה לא צריך להחמיר וכ״ש בזה.

Rebuttal: See my previous rebuttal.

 

The Sefer – Page 60:

According to the Rishonim that requires shishim ribo, there are various ways to understand this requirement, as explained above. There are those who understand that any city whose population exceeds 600,000 people is considered a reshus harabim. According to this understanding, there are strong grounds to argue that only main streets are associated with the full population of the city and are considered to be reshuyos harabim, and the side streets are not accorded the same status.(50) According to the opinions that the road itself must service 600,000 individuals either occasionally or every day, the side streets obviously do not meet this criterion.

Rebuttal: I reiterate, none of the Rishonim maintain that shishim ribo is conditional of the city. A city containing shishim ribo is only an example as to how a thoroughfare can support such a population. Furthermore, there is almost no posek who upholds that the criterion of shishim ribo is conditional on a street that services shishim ribo. Shishim ribo would actually need to traverse the street (at least occasionally) to be classified as a reshus harabbim.

 

The Sefer – Footnote 50:

כך שמענו מהגר״מ ברלין, אולם שמענו מהגר״מ רוזנר ששמע מהגרי״ש אלישיב זצ״ל שאם יעלה מספר התושבים בירושלים ליותר מששים רבוא שיש לאסור הטלטול בכל הרחובות אפילו הקטנים ביותר, אבל רחוב ששייך לשכונה בודדת שהוא מנותק מעיקר העיר אינו בכלל זה.

Rebuttal: I reiterate, there is almost no posek who upholds that the criterion of shishim ribo is conditional on a street that services shishim ribo. Shishim ribo would actually need to traverse the street to be classified as a reshus harabbim. [I doubt that Rav Berlin maintains otherwise.]

Regarding Rav Elyashiv’s opinion, as mentioned previously, this source is unreliable. In fact, what I wrote previously regarding Rav Elyashiv (in my rebuttal of footnote 44) is proof positive that this source is not to be trusted. Rav Elyashiv is quoted in his sefer Ha’aros on Maseches Shabbos (6b) as advancing numerous reasons why Yerushalayim does not fulfill the criterion of shishim ribo (e.g. we require that the shishim ribo traverse therein the entire day, that we do not include in the tally non-residents, women, children, infirm, and non-Jews).   Clearly, this source made up out of whole cloth his claim that Rav Elyashiv would object to the Yerushalayim eruv today.

Moreover, Rav Elyashiv allowed an eruv in Toronto, a city containing shishim ribo, since it consisted of mechitzos, omed merubeh al haparutz. In any case, most people carry in the Yerushalayim eruv notwithstanding the fact that the city contains a population greater than shishim ribo.

 

The Sefer – Page 60 (continued):

According to Hagaon Rav Moshe Feinstein, if the city has the density to be considered a machaneh Yisroel, as explained above, every street even the dead-end streets(51) become part of the machaneh Yisroel and it is forbidden to enclose them.

Footnote 51:כך שמענו מכמה תלמידים

Rebuttal: I reiterate, to suggest that even dead-end streets are included in the reshus harabbim is absurd. Even according to Rav Moshe’s shitos in eruvin, to claim that a street in machaneh Yisroel which was enclosed by three mechitzos would not have been classified as a reshus hayachid is incongruous. This is clearly in opposition to the Rambam. Those arguing this should learn through the inyan prior to making such ignorant statements in the name of Rav Moshe.

Friday, September 25, 2020

Part 22: REBUTTAL TO THE LAWS OF AN ERUV

The Sefer – Page 59 (continued):

If the population of the aforementioned city would be larger, and it would have a population of three million people living in an area approximately 8.5 by 8.5 miles, then Hagaon Rav Moshe Feinstein would consider the entire city a reshus harabim. Rav Moshe terms this concept, where an entire neighborhood, not just a single street, becomes forbidden, as machaneh Yisroel — a Jewish encampment (similar to that of the desert). Within such an area even side streets are forbidden.

Rebuttal: However, it is important to note that while Rav Moshe maintained that if an area of twelve mil by twelve mil contained a population of three million, the entire area is classified as a reshus harabbim; nevertheless, we see that he allowed eruvin for Kew Garden Hills, Queens (Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:86); Oak Park and Southfield, Detroit (ibid., 5:29), and the Jewish quarters in Europe (ibid., 5:28:5). Rav Moshe allowed these city eruvin despite the fact that these cities were part of a twelve mil by twelve mil area, which Rav Moshe considered a possible reshus harabbim. The reason Rav Moshe allowed for a neighborhood of these large cities to be demarcated with a tzuras hapesach was because it encompassed less than shishim ribo. In his teshuvah regarding Detroit, Michigan, the Debrecener rav (Kenesses Yecheskel, vol. 1, 2009) stated that he understood that Rav Moshe’s shita was that one can demarcate a neighborhood from a large contiguous built up city even though it’s under the rubric of a metropolis. [On the other hand, regarding Boro Park and Flatbush, Rav Moshe was led to believe that they independently contained populations greater than shishim ribo; therefore, he argued that a tzuras hapesach could not demarcate these Brooklyn neighborhoods (Igros Moshe, O.C. 5:28:5 and Addendum to O.C. 4:89).]

Lest one think that a tzuras hapesach could not demarcate a reshus harabbim, I would note that there are Rishonim and Achronim who maintain that it is sufficient if a tzuras hapesach encompasses less than shishim ribo (see Tosfos Rid, Eruvin 22a; Or Zarua, Eruvin 22a; Rav Yonasan Stief zt”l in Mahari Stief, siman 68; Rav Chaim Michoel Dov Weissmandel zt”l in Toras Chemed, p. 93, and Rav Elya Meir Bloch zt”l in Kol Tzvi number 7).

Consequentially, Rav Moshe would allow almost all city eruvin as long as the tzuras hapesachim did not include a population of shishim ribo.


The Sefer – Page 59 (continued):

Main roads and side streets

As mentioned previously, in the times of Chazal, cities were typically comprised of alleyways and a single main road. At present, cities consist of a complex grid of side streets and main streets; it is important to determine which current day streets are comparable to the reshus harabim of ancient times.

Rebuttal: The answer is none. As I mentioned previously, since the populace of today’s cities utilizes many thoroughfares, none of the streets are traversed by its entire population. Consequentially, even if a city today contains a population of shishim ribo, no street would be classified as a reshus harabbim since they are not traversed by the city’s entire population.

 

The Sefer – Page 59 (continued):

According to the Rishonim mentioned earlier that do not require shishim ribo, the Poskim agree that it is prohibited to enclose even the side streets of such a city if they have a width of sixteen amos.

Rebuttal: Yet again I must state that we do not pasken like these Rishonim. Furthermore, there are additional factors that would allow eruvin in most of our cities, even according to these Rishonim, such as mefulash u’mechavanim m’shaar l’shaar and mechitzos

 

The Sefer – Page 59 (continued):

Contemporary side streets are not similar to the muvaos of the time of Chazal. The muvaos are private property, which belonged to the residents of the mavoi. By contrast our streets are public property and serve as an auxiliary to the main streets.(48) 

Footnote 48:

כך שמענו מהגר״ש מילער והגר״מ ברלין ועוד כמה פוסקים והטעם דלא דמי למבואות שבזמן התלמוד דבאמת היה שייך רק לבני המבוי.

Rebuttal: But Rav Shlomo Miller shlita (see footnote 39) maintains that we follow the Rishonim who uphold the criterion of shishim ribo. So why are the authors even mentioning this issue in the name of this posek here?

 

The Sefer – Footnote 48 (continued):

ויותר מזה שמענו מכמה תלמידים דלדעת הגר״מ פיינשטיין זצ״ל בעיר שיש לו דין מחנה ישראל (כמו שבארנו בפנים) כל הרחובות ואף רחוב ללא מוצא (dead-end street) דינו כרשות הרבים. וטעמו משום דלא דמי למבואות שבימי חז״ל שלא היה שייך כל כך לרבים, אבל הרחובות שלנו שייכי ממש לרבים והוה כקרן זוית דאי לאו דלא ניחא תשמישתיה נחשב כרשות הרבים עצמו.

Rebuttal: The above is total fiction, and there is no way that Rav Moshe would have said this. You see, dear reader, these arguments are made by people who are simply trying to fit Rav Moshe into their own agenda but do not know hilchos eruvin very well, which proves their undoing in the end. The argument that a dead-end street could be halachically categorized as a functional keren zavis, which is classified as a reshus harabbim, is total am haratzus. The Rambam (Shabbos 14:4) explicitly states that a keren zavis in three mechitzos is classified as a karmelis. Consequentially, since all dead-end streets are inherently enclosed with three mechitzos, if we would seal the fourth side with a tzuras hapesach, it would be classified as a reshus hayachid l’chol hadeios [just as a house situated in the twelve mil by twelve mil area is classified as a reshus hayachid]. Therefore, there is no doubt that Rav Moshe would not have said that a dead-end street cannot be demarcated. 

In any case, Rav Moshe should not be included in this footnote. Rav Moshe maintained that, without a doubt, we rely on the criterion of shishim ribo (Igros Moshe, O.C. 5:24:10, and see also 3:94:3; 5:19).

Furthermore, this entire argument regarding the difference between the public’s rights to the mavo’os in the time of Chazal and their rights today is spurious.  In fact, local community members [as opposed to the general public] currently do maintain jurisdiction over their thoroughfares regarding many matters. It is important to note that the Avnei Nezer (O.C. 273:5) declared, regarding this matter, that one should not make this distinction as there was no difference between Chazal’s era and today. 

Thursday, September 24, 2020

Part 21: REBUTTAL TO THE LAWS OF AN ERUV

The Sefer – Page 58 (continued):

This position represents both a great leniency and a great stringency. On the one hand, a street is not a reshus hrabim unless 600,000 people travel the street every day.  On the other hand, in a city with the necessary population density where a reshus hrabim would be assumed, every side street is also considered part of this reshus harabim.

Rebuttal: Rav Moshe’s position is not a leniency at all. There are few poskim who maintain that the criterion of shishim ribo is conditional of a city [which according to Rav Moshe is an area of twelve mil by twelve mil]. The overwhelming majority of poskim follow the simple reading of the Shulchan Aruch that the criterion of shishim ribo is conditional of the street. Only if 600,000 people would actually traverse the street itself on a daily basis would it be classified as a reshus harabbim (see also Section Three). Moreover, Rav Moshe admits that his shita is a chiddush that is not mentioned in the Achronim (ibid., 139:5, 4:87). Consequently, Rav Moshe’s shitos are not leniencies since the simple understanding of the criterion of shishim ribo is that it is conditional of the street. 

 

The Sefer – page 58 (continued):

Application: A large city with a population of two million people has a busy main street that is used, at least occasionally, by half of the city’s population.  This street meets the criterion of being wider than sixteen amos. In terms of the traffic criterion, this main street would be considered a reshus harabim according to many Poskim, since the city’s population is more than 600,000 and the street itself services 600,000 people occasionally.

Rebuttal: It is not “many poskim” but only one or two poskim. The overwhelming majority of poskim maintain that the criterion of shishim ribo is conditional on 600,000 people actually traversing the street. The authors continuously confuse this issue.  The one or two poskim who argue that the fundament of shishim ribo is conditional of the city maintain that if the city contains a population of 600,000 people the entire city would be classified as a reshus harabbim and not just the main street. On the other hand, for the one or two poskim who uphold that the criterion of shishim ribo is fulfilled if a street services 600,000 people occasionally, the city’s population would not play a role in the tally; only the number  of people who actually traverse the street itself (at the minimum occasionally) would be included in the tally.      

 

The Sefer – Page 59:

However, according to the opinion of Hagaon Rav Moshe Feinstein, the street is not a reshus harabim, since it is not traveled by 600,000 individuals on a daily basis. The entire city would not be considered a reshus harabim because it does not have a density similar to the density of the Jewish encampment in the desert, since the entire population is only two million people.

Rebuttal: The authors got this right. It should be noted that even with all of Rav Moshe’s chiddushim in regards to eruvin, few cities would be classified as a reshus harabbim since they do not meet all of his criteria.   

 

The Sefer – Page 59 (continued):

Many Poskim would not construct an eruv that includes a street that services 600,000 individuals unless there are additional halachic considerations that would provide a basis for leniency.  An eruv that excludes the main streets is a much better option, since the side streets do not service 600,000 people even occasionally.

Rebuttal: I reiterate, it is not “many poskim.” The authors have a tendency to use the label “many poskim” when in fact the term should be “one or two poskim.” On the contrary, there are almost no poskim who maintain that a road would be classified as a reshus harabbim if it just services shishim ribo without actually having 600,000 people traversing it within a day or, at the minimum, on occasion.  Moreover, an eruv would be allowed in most modern day cities since they do not meet the criterion of mefulash u’mchuvanim m’shaar l’shaar, and most cities would be able to make use of the Chazon Ish’s shita in mechitzos, as well, which the authors conveniently omitted in the English section.

 

The Sefer – Page 59 (continued):

However, some Poskim(47) would object to this as well, since the city has a total population of more than 600,000 individuals.

Rebuttal: As we shall see in the source mentioned in the following footnote (47), there really is only one posek who maintains as such.  

 

The Sefer – Footnote 47

כך שמענו מהגר״מ רוזנר בשם הגרי״ש אלישיב, שבעיר שיש בו ששים רבוא כל הרחובות אפילו הקטנות אם שייכים הם להרבים, אין לתקנם, בצוה״פ.

Rebuttal: The person who the authors cite as the source for Rav Elyashiv’s shita is also a member of “Chevrah Hilchos Issurei Eruvin” and cannot be trusted (see Or Yisroel, no. 44 pp. 55-72, no. 45 pp. 130-144, for a rebuttal of much of what this source alleges in his sefer). 

PART 3: THE TRUTH REGARDING THE STAMFORD HILL ERUV

Their argument: But the Mishnah Berurah argues that most poskim uphold asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta , so according to most poskim the...