Section
Two
What Follows is an Analysis and a Refutation in a Linear
Fashion of Chapter Three (Section lll, pp. 54-60) and
Chapter Nine (p. 150) in the Laws of an Eruv
The Sefer – Page 54:
III. Contemporary Domains / A. Reshus harabim: Public
thoroughfares / Shishim ribo
As mentioned earlier, a conventional eruv comprised of
tzuras hapesach cannot be constructed to enclose and allow carrying in reshus
harabim.(36) Therefore, it is essential to determine what constitutes a reshus
harabim.
Rebuttal: This is a case in point of why it is only fitting to write the
footnotes in the same language as the text. Footnote 36 expounds on how we
classify the proscription of carrying when a tzuras hapesach is being
utilized. As I will enumerate below in my analysis of the references cited in
footnote 36, many poskim maintain that me’d’Oraysa a tzuras
hapesach would reclassify a reshus harabbim as a reshus hayachid
(see below regarding the requirement of delasos me’d’rabban; see also Section
One, 2:1). This point cannot be stressed
enough; according to many poskim, once a tzuras hapesach is
erected, the enclosed area is never classified as a reshus harabbim me’d’Oraysa.
The Sefer – Footnote 36:
אם
מהני צוה״פ ברה״ר להתיר טלטול מדאורייתא, ע׳ במחבר סי׳ שמ״ה סעיף ז׳ דברה״ר צריך דלתות
נעולות (דאל״ה אתי רבים ומבטלי מחיצות) ולכאורה אי סברת כמ״ד דאתי רבים, פשוט ל״מ
צוה״פ שהרי אתי רבים ומבטלו להו. וע׳
בבה"ל סי׳ שס״ד סעיף ב׳ ד״ה ואחר, דלהרמב״ן דס״ל
דלא אתי רבים מהני צוה"פ ברה״ר להתיר האיסור דאורייתא...
Rebuttal: As it is the opinion of many poskim that [even according
to the Mechaber] me’d’Oraysa a tzuras hapesach would
reclassify a reshus harabbim as a reshus hayachid, why was this
only relegated to the footnotes? [Correction, the Biur Halachah states
that it is the Rambam who maintains lo asu rabbim of a tzuras
hapesach and not the Ramban.]
The Sefer – Footnote 36 (continued):
...וכן כתב האבני
נזר בסי' רע״ט אות ב׳, דאי סברת לא אתי רבים (ולדידיה
באמת קי״ל כן) מהני צוה״פ מדאורייתא. אבל ע׳ בשו״ע הרב
סי' שמ״ה בקונטרס אחרון ס״ק ב' דקי״ל כרבנן דלא אתי רבים, ועי בסי' שס"ד סעיף
ד׳ שכתב דצוה״פ מהני מדאורייתא אף למ״ד
דצ' דלתות נעולות אבל בסי׳ שס״ד פסק דצ׳ דלתות נעולות
והיינו כמ"ד דס״ל דאתי רבים. ...
Rebuttal: The above statement suggesting that there is a contradiction in
the Shulchan Aruch HaRav demonstrates that the authors are not cognizant
of what they wrote. The authors established from the Kuntres Achron in siman
345 that the Rav maintains lo asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta
(the authors failed to note here that in 363:42 the Rav reiterates this
as well). Hence, it follows that if the Rav affirms in siman
364:4 that according to the man d’amar that requires delasos neulos
a tzuras hapesach is sufficient on a d’Oraysa level, the Rav
upholds, as well, that even according to the man d’amar that maintains lo
asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta, we would necessitate delasos neulos
me’d’rabbanan in a situation of tzuras hapesachim. [In other words,
these sugyas ̶ if the rabbim is mevatel the mechitzos
and if we require delasos neulos ̶ do not have to be dependent on each other. Hence,
even if one maintains lo asu rabbim, he can uphold, as well, in a
situation of tzuras hapesachim, that there is a requirement of delasos
neulos me’d’rabbanan.]
Following
this, when the Rav posits that we require delasos neulos for a reshus
harabbim, he is clearly referring to a situation of an area encompassed on
at least two sides by tzuras hapesachim, and me’d’rabbanan, the Rav
requires delasos neulos at the pirtzos. However, there is no doubt that since the Rav
upholds lo asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta in a situation of three mechitzos,
delasos would not be required at the pirtzos even me’d’rabban;
tzuras hapesachim would suffice (see also Section One, note 2 regarding
the Mishnah Berurah).
The Sefer – Footnote 36 (continued):
...וכן מבואר
בערוך השולחן בסי' שס״ד סעיף א'. והאגרו״מ או״ח
ח״א סי׳ קל״ט ענף ג', דאפילו למ״ד דלתות נעולות מ״מ מהני צוה״פ מדאורייתא. אבל
ע׳ בחזו"א עירובין סי׳ י׳ ס״ק י'
ובית אפרים סי׳ כ״ו שכתבו דאף למ״ד לא אתי רבים צוה״פ גרעו אתי
רבים ומבטלי להו לצוה״פ וגרע מפסי ביראות. ...
Rebuttal: It is [just about] irrelevant that the Chazon Ish [in
conclusion] maintains that a tzuras hapesach is not sufficient on a d’Oraysa
level since [he upholds that a tzuras hapesach is a mechitza
me’d’Oraysa and] he follows the Magen Avraham which states that in
order to negate a tzuras hapesach, we would require shishim ribo
to traverse through it (Chazon Ish, O.C. 108:12).
Consequentially, if an area is enclosed by tzuras hapesachim pending shishim
ribo traversing through it, the area would be classified as a reshus
hayachid [the Bais Ephraim would also agree to the above].
Additionally,
while the Bais Ephraim throughout much of his teshuvah (siman
36) upholds that a rabbim does negate a tzuras hapesach me’d’Oraysa,
at the conclusion of this teshuvah he asserts that since according to
the Rashba (and Hagahos Ashri) a
tzuras hapesach would suffice in a reshus harabbim, the
establishment of tzuras hapesachim should not be abolished.
The Sefer – Footnote 36 (continued):
...ואף דלדעת
המקילים מ״מ יש חיוב מדרבנן להצריך דלתות מ״מ יש לסמוך על הנ״ל
כסניף להתיר. ...
Rebuttal: Besides the above mentioned poskim who uphold that a tzuras
hapesach is sufficient on a d’Oraysa level: 1) Shulchan
Aruch HaRav. 2) Avnei Nezer. 3) Aruch HaShulchan,
the following poskim also maintain as such: 4) Pri Megadim,
Rosh Yosef, Shabbos 6b. 5) Rav Chaim Volozhiner, Shu"t
Nishmas Chaim, p. 1. 6) Tzemach Tzedek, Eruvin the end
of Perek 5. 7) Aishel Avraham, siman 345. 8)
Gaon Yaakov, Eruvin 11a. 9) Yeshuos Malko, O.C.
21. 10) Kanah V’Kanamon, 5:56. 11) Levush Mordechai,
4:4. 12) Kaf HaChaim, O.C. 364:12. 13) Bais Av,
2:9:3. Certainly, if the authors would have done their research, they would
have realized that many poskim maintain that a tzuras hapesach
would be sufficient on a d’Oraysa level.
Consequentially,
even in an area classified as a reshus harabbim, it is more than just a snif
l’heter to make use of tzuras hapesachim to remove the issue of a d’Oraysa
since we are following the majority of poskim. {In regards to delasos — once a tzuras
hapesach is established for an area classified as a reshus harabbim,
we can be lenient [safek d’rabbanan l’kulla] and apply any additional heter
to remove the requirement of delasos since the requirement of delasos
is only me’d’rabbanan — Yeshuos Malko, O.C. siman
21; Avnei Nezer, O.C. 273:16, 279:2; Kanah V’Kanamon,
5:56; Levush Mordechai, 4:4, and Bais Av, 2:9:3.}
No comments:
Post a Comment