The Sefer – Footnote 40 (continued):
...והג'
ודלא כהבה״ל דס״ל דאפילו אם יש שם ד׳ מחיצות צריך דלתות מדרבנן. אבל ע' בסי׳ שס״ד
סעיף ב׳ ד״ה והוא שננעלות בלילה, וד״ה ואחר, ואפשר דיש מעלה בעומד מרובה שהוא עדיף
משם ד׳ מחיצות כדמבואר כחזו״א עירובין סי׳ מ״ג, וכן באחיעזר בחלק א׳ סי׳ ח'. ...
Rebuttal: See
above where I clarify that the Biur Halachah maintains lo asu rabbim;
hence, there would be no benefit of mechitzos consisting of omed
merubeh over shem daled mechitzos. Therefore, there is no doubt that
the Biur Halachah maintains that we require delasos only when
rectifying a reshus harabbim which is not encompassed at the minimum by shem
daled mechitzos. However, in a situation of shem daled mechitzos, tzuras
hapesachim to close the breaches in the mechitzos would be
sufficient. In any case, the Bais Ephraim [and all the Rishonim
who pasken like the Chachamim] would not agree that omed
merubeh is superior to shem daled mechitzos. [It’s important to
note, that the Chazon Ish ultimately (see the end of 112:5 in the
letters) cites Rabeinu Yonasan that
me’d’Oraysa there is no shiur pirtzah in a situation of shem
daled mechitzos, as well as omed merubeh. Furthermore, the authors
are incorrect as the Achiezer does not mention shem daled mechitzos
at all.]
The Sefer – Footnote 40 (continued):
...וכן
יש משמעות בראשונים שעומ״ר עדיף ומהני אפילו לר״י דס״ל אתי רבים. ע׳ ברמב״ן מלחמות
עירובין דף כב, ומאירי עירובין דף כ', ובגאון יעקב עירובין דף כב. ...
Rebuttal: It
is fascinating that the authors would cite this opinion of these Rishonim.
However, they are missing the main point. As I mentioned above, the
overwhelming majority of Rishonim uphold lo asu rabbim umevatlei
mechitzta, but there are six Rishonim who explicitly maintain
otherwise: 1) Ramban, 2) Rashba, 3) Ritva, 4) Meiri, 5) Ran, 6) Hashlamah,
(and maybe the Rivash).
The
authors mention that in a situation of mechitzos that are omed
merubeh al ha’parutz (as opposed to shem daled mechitzos), the Ramban
and Meiri uphold that even Rav Yehudah would agree that we pasken lo
asu rabbim. However, we can add that the other Rishonim who maintain
asu rabbim would also agree with the Ramban and Meiri: see
Rashba (22b, who quotes the Raved), and Ran (22b), [see
also Rabeinu Yonasan (6a in the Rif’s pagination].
Following
this, besides the Ritva who clearly upholds asu rabbim even in a
situation of mechitzos, there are no other Rishonim who clearly
maintain asu rabbim when utilizing mechitzos. Therefore,
it is undoubtable that we are not mekil if we sanction lo asu rabbim umevatlei
mechitzta, l’chatchilah.
The Sefer – Footnote 40 (continued):
...והד׳ אפשר דתלוי אם פרצת י׳ הוא מדרבנן, וכן
הוא משמעות החזו״א והאחיעזר הנ״ל. ...
Rebuttal: It
is not just mashmah from the Chazon Ish and the Acheizer
that pirtzos esser is a matter of a d’rabbanan, they say it
clearly. Moreover, besides the Chazon Ish and the Achiezer, nearly
all poskim maintain
that pirtzos esser is me’d’rabbanan (see Section One, note 3).
The Sefer – Footnote 40 (continued):
...אבל
אין זה מוכרח שהרי י״ל דאפילו פרצת י׳ מדאורייתא מ״מ אם תקנו בצוה״פ, הוה כאילו
העמידו על פחות מי׳. וכן משמע מהריטב״א עירובין כב. שבירושלים היה עומ״ר אע״ג דהיה
לו פרצת י׳ ולפי האחרונים שס״ל דפרצת י׳ מה״ת צ״ל דיש מעלה בעומ״ר. ...
Rebuttal: The
justification that the authors are suggesting is incorrect. Those who maintain
(Mishkenos Yaakov and Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l)
that pirtzos esser is a matter of a d’Oraysa would argue that
even though (according to their opinion) a pirtzos esser is regarded as
minimized when sealed by a tzuras hapesach, nevertheless, it would be
breached by the rabbim traversing therein (and they do not accept the
definition of a rabbim as being shishim ribo). Therefore, the
authors need to face the facts; there is no alternative to allow pirtzos
esser according to those who propose that it is a matter of a d’Oraysa
(only in select cases would they be lenient, such as at the Brooklyn waterfront
where there is no rabbim bokim through the pirtzos at all). The
authors should stop trying to excuse our reliance on mechitzos that are omed
merubeh; it is simply because we do not accept the Mishkenos Yaakov’s opinion
regarding this inyan, and we follow the overwhelming majority of poskim
who maintain pirtzos esser is only a matter of a d’rabbanan.
The Sefer – Footnote 40 (continued):
...וכן
משמע בשו״ת רע״א חדשות סי׳ ו׳ וע׳ בספר האיר יוסף עירובין סי׳ ל״א בסוף הספר מש״כ
בזה. ...
Rebuttal: The
authors are incorrect and should relearn this Rav Akiva Eiger. Rav Akiva Eiger
is arguing that [according to Tosfos’s first rejoinder] a tzuras
hapesach is effective, not because it minimizes the pirtzos (as
understood by the Mishkenos Yaakov), but only because it negates the
effect of the multitudes traversing [rabbim bokim] in a shiur reshus
harabbim, a sixteen amos wide road. Rav Akiva Eiger’s understanding
of Tosfos’s first rejoinder is similar to the Bais Ephraim’s
understanding of Tosfos and is in opposition to the concept that tzuras
hapesachim effectively minimize pirtzos.
The Sefer – Footnote 40 (continued):
...וכן
שמענו מרב עקיבא שטיינמטץ שהגר״ש מילר סומך על מהלך כעין מה שכתבנו להתיר הטלטול
בעיר טורנטו.
Rebuttal: You see, dear reader, the need for these justifications is because Rav Shlomo Miller shlita, as a talmid of Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l (who followed the Mishkenos Yaakov) upholds asu rabbim umevatlei mechitztah and that pirtzos esser is a matter of a d’Oraysa. Therefore, the authors needed to propose a litany of reasons to allow eruvin even according to this view. However, this is all extraneous, as we follow the Bais Ephraim and the overwhelming majority of the poskim who maintain lo asu rabbim and that pirtzos esser is only a matter of a d’rabbanan. It is about time that people accept the fact that those who maintain asu rabbim umevatlei mechitztah and that pirtzos esser is a matter of a d’Oraysa are a small minority of poskim, and the halachic process does not require us to accommodate their view.
No comments:
Post a Comment