Encounters:
Utilizing
Omed Merubo
According
to some poskim, there is perhaps an option for enclosing larger cities. We
previously explained that the issue with enclosing a reshus harabim is the
concept of asi rabim umivatlei mechitzos, the abundance of people negates the
partitions. What if a superior mechitzah is used in place of the typical tzuras
hapesach? If yes, which mechitzos can be used to enclose a reshus harabim? The
Gemara (Eruvin 6a & 22a) states that a reshus harabim may be enclosed with
doors that are locked at night. Actual doors have two benefits: they are
perhaps superior mechitzos, and they actually stop the flow of traffic when
they are closed. It is therefore questionable if we could use other superior
mechitzos that do not actually stop traffic.
The
possible alternative to tzuros hapesach is omed meruba, a majority of fence.
This means that if a fence encloses the majority of each side we view the side
as if it is completely enclosed. In the picture below, there are ten standing
pickets, bordering a space of nine missing pickets. In this case, the smaller
open section does not invalidate the larger partition, due to the concept of
omed meruba.
Rebuttal:
So
is it, “questionable if we could use other superior mechitzos that do not
actually stop traffic,” or is it the, “possible alternative to tzuros
hapesach is omed meruba, a majority of fence … if a fence encloses the majority
of each side we view the side as if it is completely enclosed.” The answer
is if you are machmir in all things regarding eruvin then of
course nothing would be sufficient. However, if you understand the halachic
process and learn through the inyan, you would know that the
overwhelming majority of poskim (I listed previously in Part One over
forty Gedolei Haposkim) maintain that mechitzos, which are omed
merubeh, are more than sufficient to enclose a reshus harabbim (and delasos
would not be needed to close the pirtzos; tzuras hapesachim would
be sufficient). Hence, while there may be a few poskim who posit
otherwise, there is no doubt that this is the way we pasken since it is
the overwhelming majority of Achronim who maintain lo asu
rabbim u’mevatlei mechitztah.
Encounters:
In
London, where the population exceeded 600,000, they constructed an eruv, with
the approval of R' Chaim Ozer Grodzinski and the Chazon lsh. The reasoning for
this leniency was the fact that the city was enclosed by channels on three
sides. The benefit of these channels is that they comprised three walls of omed
meruba, as opposed to typical tzuros hapesach. At the time the eruv was made,
there is not much record of anyone voicing a dissenting view to R' Chaim Ozer's
leniency.
Rebuttal:
First
of all, it seems as if the authors never read Rav Chaim Ozer’s teshuvah.
The city that was under discussion was Paris and not London [and the eruv
was never finalized because they were unable to close the pirtzos with tzuras
hapesachim (Divrei Menachem, O.C. vol. 2, p. 39, note 2)].
Furthermore,
the reason why there was no dissenting view (besides for which they were from
the Gedolei Hador) was because Rav Chaim Ozer’s and the Chazon Ish’s
opinion was the accepted halachah p’suka by the overwhelming majority of
poskim (hence Rav Chaim Ozer stated his opinion without any
qualifications). In fact, the majority
of dissenting views are a modern day phenomenon by some yungerleit [Chevrah
Hilchos Issurei Eruvin]. Hence, the implication that Rav Chaim Ozer was
relying on some kind of leniency is nonsense. It is not a leniency when it is
accepted halachah p’suka by the overwhelming majority of poskim.
Encounters:
However,
R' Moshe Feinstein takes a dissenting approach, and upon analysis, R' Chaim
Ozer's opinion is actually predicated on four assumptions, each of which is
debated by various Acharonim. In Eretz Yisroel, following the Chazon lsh, the
poskim are very inclined to allow questionable reshuyos harabim to be enclosed
with omed meruba. In America, where R' Moshe Feinstein was the posek hador,
there is much reservation to following this leniency on its own. However, even
R' Moshe agrees that three partitions are sufficient to enclose a reshus
harabim at least on a d'Oraisa level. For this reason, even in America, three
partitions provide a tremendous benefit in any area which may have 600,000
according to some opinions.
Rebuttal:
This
is basically nonsense. Rav Moshe’s only dissenting approach was regarding the chiddush
of the Chazon Ish ― that the omed creates a mechitzah and
would usually classify the entire city as a reshus hayachid even if only
one street was enclosed by three mechitzos, ― which few city eruvin
would need to rely on since they can make use of three rows of mechitzos habatim
for every street. In fact, the authors admit that, ”R' Moshe agrees that
three partitions are sufficient to enclose a reshus harabim.” However, what
the authors added, that Rav Moshe would only agree to mechitzos on a d’Oraysa
level, suggesting that me’d’rabbanan delasos would be required to close
the breeches, is simply incorrect. The authors are referring to Rav Moshe’s teshuvah
regarding Manhattan (Igros Moshe, O.C. 1:139:3, and referenced in
5:28:5) where he discusses the bridges leading from Manhattan ― which were open
along their sides and hence, were not enclosed by three mechitzos ― would
possibly according to his opinion need to be rectified with delasos.
Nevertheless, Rav Moshe states clearly (ibid., the end of anaf gimmel)
that if the tzuras hapesach is erected in a reshus hayachid [in
Manhattan proper, which is encompassed by more than three mechitzos, as
opposed to the bridges, which are not], it is sufficient. Many cities can
establish their tzuras hapesachim in an area that is encompassed by
three mechitzos (a reshus hayachid), and even me’d’rabbanan,
delasos would not be needed according to Rav Moshe and the overwhelming
majority of poskim.
Instead
of the authors admitting that the reason why Rav Chaim Ozer allowed the Paris eruv
without hesitancy was because he supposed that these, “four assumptions,”
are in fact halachah p’suka, they argue that these four assumption are,
“debated by various Acharonim.” It
is about time that they accept the fact that the Mishkenos Yaakov’s (and
Rav Aharon Kotler who agreed with him) opinion has not been accepted by the Achronim.
These debates were settled by the overwhelming majority of Gedolei Haposkim
years ago [and they just about unanimously posit lo asu rabbim umevatlei
mechitztah, pirtzos esser is only me’d’rabbanan, and that a karmelis
does not require delasos (these actually are the main assumptions)].
In any case, in order to object to these eruvin, one would need to maintain that shishim ribo is conditional of a city, that mefulash u’mecahvanim is conditional of a walled city, that we pasken asu rabbim umevatlei mechitztah, and that pirtzos esser is d’Oraysa. This dear reader is what I am referring to when I state that those who do so have no inkling in the halachic process [I am not arguing that no posek, namely the Mishkenos Yaakov and Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l who followed him, had objected to all these criteria, but only that to expect that the world follow them is halachically unseemly].
No comments:
Post a Comment