Encounters:
Does
the Accepted Practice Follow Rashi or the Rambam?
In
Europe, most cities did not have populations of 600,000 people, and it was
definitely the accepted practice to have an eruv, following the opinion of
Rashi.
Rebuttal:
However,
there were some large cities with populations greater than 600,000 people that
established eruvin in pre-war Europe, and most of the population did
make use of it (Warsaw, Lodz, and Odessa). Hence, nearly a million Yidden made
use of their town eruvin, and as the Divrei
Malkiel (4:3) wrote “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 of its
streets.”
It
should be noted that the authors omitted that some poskim relied on the
criterion of mefulash u’mechuvanim m’shaar l’shaar to allow eruvin
in pre-war Europe (Mahari Asad, siman 54; Divrei Malkiel,
4:3, and Rav Shlomo Dovid Kahane zt”l, Divrei Menachem, O.C.
vol. 2, pp. 42-43).
Encounters:
It is
important to note that in litveshe communities, the baalei nefesh, the
scrupulous individuals, would not carry.
Rebuttal:
This
sentence is pure fiction. The few Baalei Nefesh, from Litveshe
and Chassidishe communities alike, who were stringent did so mainly because of
issues with the tzuras hapesachim. It is possible that a few rabbanim
did not carry because they did not want to rely on the criterion of shishim
ribo.
There
is no doubt that, even in Litveshe communities, the vast majority of people
carried in their town eruvin, and hence, were relying on the fact that
there was no shishim ribo traversing therein (e.g., Minhagei Lita:
Customs of Lithuanian Jewry, 2008, Page 72; I personally spoke to many
Yidden from the heim, even from Litveshe communities, and all were in
agreement that almost all townspeople carried; this is supported as well by the
many Yizkor books, even of Litveshe communities, which mention the use of their
town eruvin).
Furthermore,
(as mentioned previously,) Rav Moshe admitted (Igros Moshe, O.C.
5:24:10) that only a select few talmidei chachamim were stringent
regarding the criterion of shishim ribo. Hence, either most talmidei
chachamim were not Baalei Nefesh or the majority of
Baalei
Nefesh
did avail themselves of their town eruv. In short, according to Rav
Moshe, most people did make use of their town eruvin in the Lita.
[In fact, there was an eruv in Radin where
it seems that the Chofetz Chaim may have even carried at times; see Dugmah
M’Darchei Avi, p. 31. There was no greater Baal Nefesh than the Chofetz
Chaim.]
In
any case, there is no reason for a Baal Nefesh to be stringent today,
either because we now know that the overwhelming majority of Rishonim
uphold the criterion of shishim ribo (and it is halachah p’suka,
as well), or because we can rely on the criterion of mefulash u’mechavanim,
or we can rely on the fact that most cities are classified as a reshus
hayachid me’d’Oraysa, since they are encompassed by mechitzos.
Encounters:
R'
Moshe Feinstein zt"l points out that the original minhag was to follow
Rashi albeit with reservation.
Rebuttal:
There
is no such statement by Rav Moshe. On the contrary, Rav Moshe stated (Igros
Moshe, O.C. 5:24:10, see also 3:94:3; 5:19, as mentioned above) that
only a select few talmidei chachamim were stringent, but he insists that
we follow shitas Rashi without reservations.
Encounters:
We
must therefore be very hesitant to take the minhag beyond its original limits.
Now that some cities are larger, and we have a second debate about how Rashi
would calculate the 600,000 people, we must gravitate toward the more stringent
calculations, to avoid taking an extremely lenient position.
Rebuttal: This argument
is not the opinion of any posek of stature but only of some yungerleit
[Chevrah Hilchos Issurei Eruvin] who have no inkling of the halachic
process.
As
I mentioned previously, this argument is inane. If we were to accept the
opinion of any posek regarding how the fundament of shishim ribo
is fulfilled, one could not then apply the uncertainty that there are Rishonim
who do not allow for this criterion at all since the principle of shishim
ribo has been accepted by that posek, and the overwhelming majority
of poskim as halachah p'suka. To them, it is no longer a matter
of debate either because it is the minhag or because we now know that
the majority of Rishonim accepted the criterion [this argument is
elementary to those who know anything about the halachic process, and was
argued emphatically by Rav Fishel Hershkowitz zt”l].
Encounters:
In
Europe, many chasidim seemingly followed Rashi without reservation. Perhaps R'
Moshe's argument would not apply to those who follow the chasidish tradition.
Rebuttal:
While
Chasidim may have been major promoters of eruvin (witness all the Rebbes
who advocated for the eruv of Manhattan), it wasn’t just Chasidim who
relied on shitas Rashi; even those from Litveshe communities did so (as
I mentioned above, and even Rav Moshe subscribed to the criterion of shishim
ribo l’chatchilah).
No comments:
Post a Comment