Part 33: REBUTTAL TO THE LAWS OF AN ERUV

 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.