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?