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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment