Encounters:
Is
It Practical to Enclose a City with Partitions?
Surprisingly,
many cities have been successful in creating enclosures with three actual
mechitzos. Common mechitzos include existing structures such as water channels,
elevated tracks with steep inclines or walls, or fences along interstate
highways, cemeteries, or train tracks.
Rebuttal:
Why
is this surprising? Is it because it allows these cities to establish eruvin
that the machmirim have less to be stringent about? Is it because to negate these eruvin
one would need to be creative in their chumros?
Encounters:
Uneven
Mechitzos
The
Opinion of the Chazon lsh
To
create a reshus hayachid utilizing the benefit of omed meruba, three out of
four mechitzos must be solid partitions, while the fourth side may be made of
tzuros hapesach. The biggest challenge is that city enclosures aren't typically
shaped as perfect squares. What if a city has seven sides with two sides that
are not comprised of omed meruba? The Chazon lsh presents an approach where
every enclosure is viewed as a theoretical square, and each side is somehow
classified as a segment of one of the four sides. The challenge is that there
is an infinite number of possible shapes, and it is not always possible to
determine how the theoretical square should be formed. (Try figuring the
theoretical four sides in a pentagon.) While the application of the Chazon
lsh's opinion isn't always clear, in general the Chazon lsh is much more
lenient in formulating a valid omed meruba in uneven enclosures.
Rebuttal:
The
authors are incorrect; no one argues with the Chazon Ish regarding this
issue, and this entire paragraph is an invention of the authors. Since the
authors do not expound on this issue here, but only in the Hebrew section of
their sefer (pp. 321-338), I will not negate their fabrications in this
rejoinder; instead there will be a standalone Hebrew rebuttal.
Encounters:
The
Opinion of the Acharonim
Many
other authorities understand that for omed mernba to be effective, the open
area must be substantially in line with the actual partitions. This means that
even if the city is enclosed primarily with actual partitions, if there is a
slight deviation in shape it will invalidate the omed meruba benefit. The city
shown is enclosed primarily with mechitzos, on the west, south, and east side and
with tzuras hapesach on the north side. At first glance it would seem like a
three-mechitzah enclosure. Yet there are a few sections of tzuras hapesach on
the west and east sides that are not aligned with the mechitzah (these sections
are marked by yellow arrows), and according to most American poskim, it would
not have the benefit of omed meruba on three sides.
Rebuttal:
There
is something sinister going on here. The authors know that they are on shaky
ground so they conflate and obfuscate. You
see, dear reader, the implication here (and even more so in the Hebrew section
of their sefer, p. 332) is that Rav Moshe’s opinion is included in these
Achronim who oppose the Chazon Ish’s shitos because, “the open
area must be substantially in line with the actual partitions.” In fact,
Rav Moshe never mentioned a word about this issue, and the, “many other
authorities,” that the authors claim to be in opposition to the Chazon
Ish’s shitos, [besides the four previous poskim who the authors
assert would agree to their inventions] is actually only one poesk,
namely Rav Shlomo Miller shlita [Rav Dovid Feinstein shlita mentioned
there agreed with the Chazon Ish albeit for an alternative reason].
Apparently,
the reason why the authors mentioned, “In America, where R' Moshe Feinstein
was the Posek Hador, there is much reservation to following this [Chazon Ish’s]
leniency on its own,” is because they know that the only opposition to the Chazon
Ish’s shitos that people in America would recognize is that of Rav Moshe’s.
The
authors’ entire argument illuminates their quest to find fault with every
possible motive to establish city eruvin. The fact that mechitzos can be used in
many cities should have satisfied the authors’ quest for stringencies [notice
how the authors express surprise that many cities can make use of mechitzos],
but instead they invented a way to negate eruvin, even those that make
use of mechitzos.
As to the merit of the authors’ argument, it is basically nonsense. As I mentioned above, the authors only expound on their fabrications in the Hebrew section of their sefer, so there will be a standalone Hebrew rebuttal, as well.
