Chukei
Chaim: Big Cities
Yerushalayim
Ir HaKodesh
20. In the times of the Gemara. Yerushalayim of old was a reshus
horabim d’oraisa. The Gemara says (עירובין ו: כב., קא.)
that were the doors of Yerushalayim not closed at night, one would be chayav
for carrying in a reshus horabim. According to the Rishonim who require 600,000
people for a reshus horabim, the Old City of Yerushalayim alone must have had
600,000 people. Although it is unlikely that 600,000 people lived there [as
there is no room – today the Old City only has about 40,000 residents], at
times, tens of thousands of people came from outside, for a total of 600,000
people inside.
Rebuttal:
It’s possible
that when the Yidden were oleh l’regel, there were 600,000 people
traversing the main artery of Yerushalayim. It’s hard to speculate how many
people could have been contained within the walls or on a street of
Yerushalayim. Besides the Midrash Eichah (1:2) which states that there
were vast numbers of people living in Yerushalayim, the Gemara in Gittin
(57a) declares that there were many cities on Har HaMelech containing shishim
ribo or more. As the Gemara mentions there, the Tzedokim didn’t
believe that such a population was possible, and I think this is ironic given
what is known about the Tzedokim that they were einoh modeh b’eruv.
Chukei Chaim: 21. Yerushalayim over the years. Over the years, even when the new
Yerushalayim metropolis extended to the neighborhoods outside the Old City
walls and the eiruv was constantly expanded as neighborhoods were added,
Yerushalayim did not have 600,000 residents. This is what the geonim and
Rabbanim of Yerushalayim relied on to authorize an eiruv of tzuros hapesach
alone: Yerushalayim was not a reshus horabim d’oraisa according to many
opinions. We heard from multiple poskim of Yerushalayim that the day the
population of Yerushalayim reaches 600,000, we must reconsider the heter of
carrying in the Yerushalayim eiruv (מו”ר הגר''מ בראנדסדארפער בשם המנחת יצחק, הגריש''א).
Rebuttal: Everything is hearsay when the issue
is eruvin. In fact, the Minchas Yitzchak (8:32) clearly maintains
that only when shishim ribo traverse the street itself is it classified
as a reshus harabbim (the only question regarding his position was
whether the requirement of shishim ribo traversing the street is every
day or would many/most days suffice). Clearly, this story regarding the Minchas
Yitzchak is specious. Rav Elyashiv is quoted in his sefer Ha’aros on
Maseches Shabbos (6b) as advancing numerous reasons why Yerushalayim
does not fulfill the criterion of shishim ribo.
Chukei Chaim: Yerushalayim Today
22. About a million residents. Currently [5784/2024], the residents of
Yerushalayim number close to one million – it is the biggest city in Eretz
Yisroel. Accordingly, the shaila arose whether and how it is possible to rely
on an eiruv of tzuros hapesach alone in a reshus horabim d’oraisa.
23. Arabs are not included. The poskim reasoned that the Arabs in East
Jerusalem and other Arab neighborhoods are not included in the number of
600,000. The reason is that the main roads which serve the Jews in the center
of the city do not serve the Arabs of East Jerusalem, and we generally do not
use their roads due to the danger to life. Thus, they are not counted as
residents of Yerushalayim for the purposes of eiruvin. According to the
statistics, they make up 40% of Yerushalayim’s population. However, according
to this calculation, Yerushalayim is still left with about 600,000 Jews,
leaving the question in place.
24. Ramot and the like are not included. To this, some poskim explain
that some neighborhoods in Yerushalayim, e.g., Ramot, which has over 50,000
people, and other neighborhoods counted as part of the city’s population for
official records, are not part of the city for the purposes of hilchos eiruvin,
as they are not connected to the rest of the city with a continuous row of
houses, and there is a big enough gap to define them as outside the city. [See
what we wrote (Issue 30, par. 18) regarding Purim in Ramot.] Thus, there are
not yet 600,000 people; there is still time before that happens.
Rebuttal:
All of the above
is irrelevant, and excuses after the fact. Only when shishim ribo
traverse the street would Yerushalayim be classified as a reshus harabbim
of shishim ribo. Moreover, the fact is that the eruv in
Yerushalayim does not only rely on the criterion of shishim ribo, it
relies on the criterion of mefulash u’mechuvanim, and the Chazon
Ish’s shita as well (Orach Dovid, ois 188, Kinyan Torah,
4:40, and Even Yisroel, 8:36). It’s about time people stop denying that
there is more than one reason why Yerushalayim is not classified as a reshus
harabbim.
Chukei Chaim: 25. Kosher when originally established. Another rationale said about
Yerushalayim is that since there weren’t 600,000 people when the eiruv was
established, and it was kosher, it is hard to challenge an established eiruv.
Thus, we use a combination of all sorts of heteirim to keep its kosher status.
For example, on Shabbos itself there are not 600,000 people on the streets;
even during the week there are not 600,000 people on the streets, as there are
elderly people and young children who do not go out (see Igros Moshe quoted in
Issue 316, par. 21); the streets do not go all the way through from the city’s
entrance to its exit; even during the week, no one street has 600,000 people;
and the like. But it is true, bnei Torah and people who are meticulous in mitzvos
should know the issues and decide for themselves if they want to carry in the
eiruv, and those who are meikel have basis to rely on. Thus, there is plenty of
room to rely only on neighborhood eiruvim (תשוה"נ ח''ה סי' ק''א).
Rebuttal:
This is simply an
excuse after the fact. If the matter is of a d’Oraysa, there would be
strong reason to negate the eruv, and many people would agree that it
should not be relied on. However, the entire anti-eruv enterprise is
being foisted on others by misguided yungeleit who never learnt
halachah, and never were meshamish rabbanim. To those who do not accept
the arguments of these yungeleit it is clear that the issue is not a
matter of a d’Oraysa. Moreover, there are other criteria, and not heteirim,
that are being relied on to establish an eruv in Yerushalayim.
Actually, Rav
Elyashiv is quoted in his sefer Ha’aros on Maseches Shabbos (6b)
as advancing numerous reasons why Yerushalayim does not fulfill the criterion
of shishim ribo (e.g. we require that the shishim ribo traverse
therein the entire day, that we do not include non-residents, women, children,
infirm, and non-Jews in the tally). Consequently, it is possible that Rav
Elyashiv would agree that most large cities do not fulfill the criterion of shishim
ribo and an eruv of tzuras hapesachim can be established. It
should also be noted that Rav Elyashiv was only referring to an eruv
consisting of tzuras hapesachim. However, he certainly would have
allowed an eruv formed by mechitzos that are omed merubeh
to be established (see The Toronto Community Eruv, p. 15).
Chukei
Chaim: Brooklyn
26. Reshus horabim d’oraisa. For many
years, there was no eiruv in Brooklyn – not in Boro Park, and not in Flatbush –
due to the psak of the gedolei and poskei hador. This was primarily because it
is a reshus horabim d’oraisa, as its resident’s number over 2.5 million. They
held that all the borough’s streets have the d’oraisa status of reshus horabim
since they serve all the borough’s residents. Thus, an eiruv cannot be made
with tzuros hapesach alone (הגר''מ פיינשטיין באג''מ או''ח סי' קל''ט, הגר''י שטייף, בעל דברי יואל ועוד).
Rebuttal:
Huh? This is
based on hearsay. Rav Yonason Steif maintained that there is no reshus
harabbim today, and supported eruvin in Manhattan and Brooklyn. The
Satmar Rebbe (Vayoel Moshe) upheld that there is no reshus harabbim
today. Even regarding Rav Moshe it is
questionable
whether he would be opposed to a Brooklyn eruv in their current
construct.
Chukei
Chaim:
27. Meikel opinion. However, about
25 years ago, some choshuve rabbanim established eiruvim in Boro Park and
Flatbush based on tzuros hapesach alone. They primarily relied on the fact that
the 600,000 people are not on the streets included in the eiruv themselves (שו''ת עמק התשובה ח''א סי' כ', ח''ג סי' ט''ו, שו''ת משנה הלכות ח''ח סי' ס''ב עד קע''ט, שו''ת חוק חיים -יאקא ח''ד סי' ט''ז).
Rebuttal: They did not, “primarily
rely on the fact that the 600,000 people are not on the streets included in the
eiruv themselves.” In fact, they relied on the criteria of mefulash
u’mechuvanim, and mechitzos, as well as shishim ribo. Rav
Bleier simply does not know what he is talking about, and the fact that he
ignores these criteria demonstrates a bias.
Chukei Chaim: 28. Three walls. Some claim Boro Park is
surrounded by three walls, so an eiruv can be made even though it is considered
a reshus horabim. They also claim the train bridges in Boro Park divide part of
the streets and constitute walls based on the halacha of פי תקרה (שו''ת משנה הלכות ח''ח סי' ע'' ט). However,
others argue and do not accept these rationales (שו''ת אג''מ או''ח סי' קל''ח, יציאות השבת סי' י''ג, קונטרס פירצות העיר נדפס בסוף ס' יציאות השבת, ס' וכיצד אין מערבין).
Rebuttal:
Huh? Those who
argue against the mechitzos which encompass Brooklyn are simply eino
modeh b’eruvin. One cannot argue regarding facts. Brooklyn is encompassed
by multiple layers of mechitzos. Additionally, Rav Bleier should get
with the program. No one utilized the train bridges as a heter for the current
Brooklyn eruvin, and these was never used as more than a snif l’heter.
Chukei
Chaim: In Practice
29. We
previously wrote (316, par. 42) that most poskim hold one should not carry
l’chatchila in eiruvim in big cities with more than a million residents, e.g.,
New York, London, Paris, etc., that are based on tzuros hapesach alone, without
any upgrades – especially those who are meticulous in mitzvos (above, 7).
Examples of effective upgrades are three real walls (316, par. 33); three walls
consisting of more wall than gap (317, par. 22); closed doors (318, par. 3); or
at least doors that are able to close (ibid., 13). As with all halachic
matters, each person should consult with his rav who is proficient in the
topic.
Rebuttal:
This is simply
fiction. There are multiple reasons to allow an eruv, l’chatchilah,
consisting of tzuras hapesachim, even in these large cities, and
even a “Baal Nefesh“ can rely on them.
Chukei
Chaim: Eiruv Increases Peace
Prevent
Machlokes
30. At the close of the eiruvin
series, and with the hope that everyone enjoyed the halachos we set forth on
eiruvin and accumulated more information on the “closed alley” of eiruvin, we
will conclude with the Yerushalmi (עירובין פ''ג ה''ב, פ''ז ה''ט): Why do we make eiruvei chatzeiros? To
promote peace [דרכיה שלום].
As the posuk says (משלי
ג'),
“דרכי דרכי נועם וכל נתיבותיה שלום.” The prepared roads and paths cause an
increase of peace (פני משה).
This way, neighbors can speak to each other and everyone can blend together and
be considered like one person (קרבן
העדה).
31. The Gemara also says (עירובין דף מ''ט ע''א): R’ Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel,
“If one is particular [מקפיד] about his eiruv, his eiruv is not an
eiruv. What is it called? An eiruv. ([Implying] that everyone should be in
harmony [מעורבין] and satisfied with it; one should not protest against his
friend. Rather, [it should be a] pleasant, harmonious partnership [רש''י ד''ה עירוב שמו].)
32. Sadly, we see that much machlokes
breaks out over eiruvim in many places. Therefore, let us improve in the
matter. On the contrary, let us increase peace among us, especially among
talmidei chachamim, who increase peace in the world, until we are zocheh to
live within the walls of Yerushalayim Ir HaKodesh; as the posuk says, “ה' עוז לעמו יתן, ה' יברך את עמו בשלום.”
Rebuttal:
Rav Bleier’s
newsletters did a tremendous disservice, by
giving a widespread platform to these yungeleit.
The
Navi states v’karasa L’Shabbos oneg, and as the Perishah posits,
the ability to utilize eruvin is a matter of oneg Shabbos, a d’oraysa.
May we be zocheh to fulfill the mitzva of oneg Shabbos properly.
