Rav
Moshe Feinstein zt”l and an eruv
in Lakewood
While, according to Rav Moshe zt”l,
we would not be able to rely on the criterion of mefulash u’mechavanim,
there is no doubt that he would allow that we can rely on the fundament of shishim
ribo.
Let’s explore Rav Moshe’s shitos regarding the criterion of shishim ribo:
Like most poskim, Rav Moshe
originally maintained (Igros Moshe, O.C. 1:109) that the
criterion of shishim ribo was dependent on the street having shishim
ribo traversing it. However, he later (ibid., 1:139:5) formulated
his chiddush in which shishim ribo, when applied to a city, was
not dependent on a street but over a twelve mil by twelve mil
area [approximately 8.1 by 8.1 miles]. Rav Moshe added that the criterion of shishim
ribo ovrim bo would require a sizable population living and commuting into
the twelve mil by twelve mil area so that it could physically
satisfy the condition of 600,000 people collectively traversing its streets.
When these criteria are met, the area would be classified as a reshus
harabbim and a tzuras hapesach would not be adequate; delasos
at the pirtzos would be needed. However, at this time, Rav Moshe did not
quantify how many people would be required to live in this twelve mil by
twelve mil area.
In the first teshuvah
quantifying how many people would be required to live in this twelve mil
by twelve mil area, Rav Moshe stated (ibid., 4:87) that since in the
past 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. He then added that,
although the actual number of inhabitants could possibly vary according to the
city, Brooklyn would most likely require four to five times shishim ribo.
In the final two teshuvos which followed regarding Brooklyn, we see that
Rav Moshe codified his chiddush that the requirement is, "just
about three million people," (ibid., 5:28:5) or, "at least five times
shishim ribo," (ibid., 5:29) which could amount to even more than
three million people. Consequently, in the Chicago eruv pamphlet (West
Rogers Park Eruv, 1993 p. 23), it is stated that Rav Dovid Feinstein zt”l
was in agreement that according to his father's shitah there must be a
minimum of three million people in order for the city to be defined as a reshus
harabbim.
[It’s important to
note that Rav Moshe maintained the above regarding shishim ribo only as
it applied to a city. However, with regard to a sratya (intercity road),
Rav Moshe stated (ibid., 1:139:5, 4:87, 5:28:16) that the shishim ribo
would need to traverse a particular section of the road on a daily basis to be
classified as a reshus harabbim.]
As there is no 8.1
by 8.1 mile area in Lakewood encompassing a population even close to three
million, no doubt Rav Moshe would allow an eruv consisting of tzuras
hapesachim anywhere in Lakewood, even if it included the segment of Rt. 9
running through the city.
In
Summation
1: The segment of Rt.
9 that runs through Lakewood, even if it would be classified as a sratya,
would need to fulfil all criteria of a reshus harabbim.
2: Rt. 9 as it runs
through Lakewood is not mefulash u’mechavanim m’shaar l’shaar and,
therefore, is not classified as a reshus harabbim; tzuras hapesachim
to close the breaches would be sufficient.
3: Additionally, Rt.
9 does not fulfill the condition of shishim ribo and, hence, would not
be classified as a reshus harabbim; tzuras hapesachim to close
the breaches would be sufficient.
4: Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l
would not consent to almost all eruvin in Lakewood, not just one that
would encompass Rt. 9. Hence, the fact that there are many eruvin in
Lakewood demonstrates that we do not follow his shitos in eruvin.
Therefore, there is no specific reason according to Rav Aharon not to include
Rt. 9 in an eruv.
5: Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l would allow an eruv of tzuras hapesachim anywhere in Lakewood, even if it included the segment of Rt. 9 running through the city, since Lakewood does not fulfil his understanding of the criterion of shishim ribo.
No comments:
Post a Comment