Part 15: REBUTTAL TO THE LAWS OF AN ERUV

 The Sefer – Page 55 (continued):

It should be noted that private roads, such as roads that are designated for residents of a residential development, are similar to muvaos in the time of Chazal and are clearly not reshuyos harabim. One should also note that an eruv constructed using the principle of omed merubeah, where three sides of an eruv are constructed using the physical partitions that comprise a majority of their respective sides, is superior than the typical eruv of tzuros hapesach, and perhaps ba’alei nefesh may use it, as well.

Rebuttal: The statement that perhaps even a Baal Nefesh can rely on an eruv employing the principle of omed merubah demonstrates that the authors’ ultimate goal is to sow doubt regarding all city eruvin. There is no doubt that even more than relying on the criterion of shishim ribo, just about all poskim would allow eruvin consisting of mechitzos that are omed merubeh al haparutz (there are even situations in which case the Mishkenos Yaakov would allow such eruvin). While there is no need to explicate what is a given, I will just cite a few of the poskim who maintain that mechitzos are superior to the criterion of shishim ribo, Bais Ephraim (p. 49b); Bais Shlomo (siman 51); Avnei Nezer (O.C. 279:2), and Chazon Ish (siman 107:7). [See more about this issue in Section Three.]

 

The Sefer – Page 55 (continued):

Additionally, wherever there is even a slight chance of an actual reshus harabim, every effort should be made to attempt such an eruv as there are opinions that such an eruv may not be subject to the limitations of tzuras hapesach.(40)

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.  It is not just “opinions” that an eruv consisting of mechitzos is superior to tzuras hapesachim; it is the overwhelming majority of poskim who maintain as such. 

 

The Sefer – Footnote 40:

מהלך זו נבנה על כמה יסודות אבל אין כולם מוסכמים לדעת כל הפוסקים. ...

Rebuttal: 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 (Y.D. 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.

 

The Sefer – Footnote 40 (continued):

...הא' שקי״ל לא אתי רבים ומבטלי מחיצות וא"כ בכה״ג כשיש שם ד׳ מחיצות אפשר להקל, כדאיתא בעירובין כב. וכן הוא דעת כמה אחרונים דקי״ל לא אתי רבים והרי הם החזו״א עירובין סי׳ מ״ג ס״ק ה׳ וסי׳ י׳ ס״ק י', והבית אפרים סי׳ כ״ו שהוכיח כן מהמג״א סי' שס״ג ס״ק ל', וכן דעת התוספת שבת שס"ג ס״ק פ״ב. וגר"ז סי' שמ״ה בקונטרס אחרון ס״ק ב', ובסי׳ שס"ג מ״ב, אבני נזר סי׳ רע״ט אות ב', וחת״ס סי' פ״ט, וערוך השולחן סי׳ שס״ד. ...

Rebuttal: The authors cite a number of Achronim who pasken lo asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta; however, in addition to the above mentioned Achronim, the overwhelming majority of poskim maintain lo asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta (see Section One, note 2).

While there may be a few poskim who posit otherwise, since it is the overwhelming majority of Achronim whom maintain lo asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta, there is no doubt that this is the way we pasken.

The Sefer – Footnote 40 (continued):

...ומאידך דעת המ״ב סי' שס"ד בבה״ל סעיף ב׳ ס״ל דקי״ל דאתי רבים וכן הוא דעת המשכנות יעקב סי' קכ״א, ...

Rebuttal: There is a major misunderstanding regarding whom the Mishnah Berurah follows, the Chachamim and Rav Elazar [lo asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta], or Rav Yehudah [asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta] and Rav Yochanan [delasos neulos].  From the above cited Biur Halachah, the authors argue that the Mishnah Berurah follows Rav Yehudah, since he argues that most poskim do not accept the Rambam who follows Rav Elazar who allows a tzuras hapesach on a d’Oraysa level. This is incorrect. The fact is the Mishnah Berurah in Shaar HaTziyun, siman 363:94, maintains that we pasken lo asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta even in a situation of mechitzos b’y’dai shomayim [natural walls] (see also Biur Halachah, ibid., 36). It follows that the Mishnah Berurah in 363:156 argues that it is halachically sufficient if a tel hamislaket [a slope with an adequate halachic gradient] encompasses an entire city and does not mention that a Baal Nefesh should be stringent because there may be roads that are wider than 16 amos.

Why then does the Mishnah Berurah quoted by the authors (Biur Halachah, 364:2) accept Rav Yochanan who requires delasos neulos? Subsequent to what I argue above [that the Mishnah Berurah upholds lo asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta], there is no doubt that the Mishnah Berurah is only following the majority of poskim who maintain that Rav Yochanan can also be in agreement with the Chachamim, and they would in certain situations require delasos [actually this is the Bais Ephraim’s and Chazon Ish’s (and as mentioned above in my rebuttal to note 36, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav’s) argument, and in fact, both the Ravyah (p. 270, 276) and Eshkol (siman 64-65) quote Rav Yochanan yet pasken like the Chachamim which buttresses the Bais Ephraim’s and Chazon Ish’s assertion]. This is further evident from the fact that the Mishnah Berurah (Biur Halachah, 364:2) only affirms that the Rif and the Rosh follow Rav Yochanan regarding delasos neulos but does not articulate that they pasken like Rav Yehudah.

In short, the Mishnah Berurah maintains lo asu rabbim like the Chachamim, but in a situation of only two mechitzos, he requires delasos like Rav Yochanan. This follows why the Mishnah Berurah asserted that the Rambam [according to his understanding] who maintains lo asu rabbim of a tzuras hapesach on a d’Oraysa level is in disagreement with most poskim who follow the Chachamim as they would require delasos like Rav Yochanan in a situation of only two mechitzos, and a tzuras hapesach on a d’Oraysa level would not be sufficient.

 

The Sefer – Footnote 40 (continued):

...וכן הוא דעת כמה ראשונים הרי הם הרשב״א והריטב״א דס״ל דאתי רבים, וכן דעת הרי״ף והרא״ש. ...

Rebuttal: It is interesting that the authors only mention those Rishonim who psaken asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta, but they fail to mention any of the Rishonim who maintain lo asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta. In fact, the overwhelming majority of Rishonim pasken lo asu rabbim (see Section One, note 2).

Furthermore, I am surprised that the authors failed to mention that the Even HaOzer, Shulchan Aruch Harav, Bais Ephraim, Avnei Nezer, and the Chazon Ish (among others) argue that even though the Rif and the Rosh quote Rav Yochanan, they could pasken like the Chachamim (as I mentioned above). 

 

The Sefer – Footnote 40 (continued):

...ולמעשה שמענו מרב א׳ ששאל מהגרי״ש אלישיב והשיב דקי״ל למעשה דלא אתי רבים. ...

Rebuttal: I appreciate this piece of information; however, it has been mentioned previously in the name of Rav Elyashiv zt”l regarding the Toronto eruv that he upholds lo asu rabbim (The Toronto Community Eruv, p. 15).  In any case, where do you think that Rav Elyashiv came up with this p’sak? No doubt because this is the opinion of the overwhelming majority of poskim.  

 

The Sefer – Footnote 40 (continued):

...והב׳ דלשם ד׳ מחיצות מספיק ג׳ מחיצות ול״צ ד׳ מחיצות (ודלא כהאבן העוזר דמצריך ד׳ מחיצות). ...

Rebuttal: Actually, the Even HaOzer is referring to shem gimmel mechitzos and not shem daled. In fact, the Even HaOzer clearly maintains further on lo asu rabbim in a situation of gimmel mechitzos.  In any case, even if there is a posek that requires daled mechitzos, we do not accept his opinion l’halachah. Therefore, it is not as if we are mekil if we do not follow this shitah yachida’ah.