Part 1: Chukei Chaim: Eruvin Rebuttal

 

While Rav Chaim Bleier shlit”a’s Chukei Chaim weekly Torah newsletter demonstrates that the author is an erudite talmid chacham, his series on eruvin (issues 315-322) exposes a deep bias, and is megala tefach u’mechaseh tefachayim. This is clearly illuminated with Rav Bleier’s continuous claim that Rabbanim and Poskim have decided to be stringent on these matters. However, when one digs deeper, they would find that these chumros are not cited from rabbanim of stature, but only by misguided yungeleit who never learnt properly, and were never meshamesh rabbanim.

Even when Rav Bleier’s reference is from a posek of importance, he constantly ignores that if one were to follow this posek (besides maybe the Mishkenos Yaakov) who is stringent regarding one criterion of reshus harabbim he would find that the posek is mekil regarding other criteria. Hence, regarding hilchos reshuyos and eruvin, since all criteria have to be met for the area to be classified as a reshus harabbim, even if we were to employ a shitas yachid regarding reshus harabbim that would then disqualify the eruv based on only one criterion, the other conditions would not be met and an eruv would be permissible l’chatchilah. Consequently, to invalidate an eruv, one would have to selectively choose from disparate shitos yachida’os ― which in many cases are contradictory ― and that is an unjustifiable approach to halachah. The reality is that if someone learns hilchos reshuyos and eruvin with an open mind, he would realize that since it is almost impossible to meet all the criteria of a reshus harabbim, creating an eruv l’chatchilah is a viable possibility.

As these newsletters are popular, I feel there is a need to expose the biases contained therein. While there is what to say regarding almost every line that Rav Bleier wrote, I will only focus on his main point, that our streets should be classified as a reshus harabbim. [Since with this debate they are trying to negate an eruv entirely.]

I apologize in advance for any repetition, but this is the nature of any critique, and I have no choice but to follow their lead.

Chukei Chaim: Issue 315

Chukei Chaim: City Eiruv: Pros and Cons

Complex, Sensitive Topic

1. Hilchos eiruvin are some of the most difficult halachos of Shabbos, even for talmidei chachamim and poskim, and certainly for the general public. Because of this, many people know nothing about these halachos. On the other hand, much has been said about whether it is worthwhile to set up a city eiruv, and whether it is even possible to set up a city eiruv. The foremost poskim of the previous generation and our generation have discussed this, and there are many differences of opinion on the topic, both from the angle of strict halacha and the angle of hashkafa. Unfortunately, there is accordingly much machlokes in Klal Yisroel about this topic. We are not, ח"ו, inserting ourselves among the mighty giants of halacha, but rather laying out the topic to the public in order to magnify and glorify the Torah and to give a behind-the-scenes glimpse as to the considerations for whether or not to build an eiruv.

Rebuttal: It is laudatory that Rav Bleier wrote that hilchos eruvin is extremely difficult even for talmidei chachamim and poskim. Most people do not realize that few poskim really know the inyan very well. However, Rav Bleier is incorrect when he claims that, “The foremost poskim of the previous generation and our generation have discussed this, and there are many differences of opinion on the topic, both from the angle of strict halacha and the angle of hashkafa.” The only one of the foremost poskim of our generation who discussed this issue and prohibited an eruv was Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l, and he only objected to an eruv in Manhattan and Brooklyn. All the other disagreements are by mecharcherei riv, who dragged the name of Rav Moshe and other poskim into the fray. Moreover, to prohibit an eruv in the name of hashkafa is a modern-day invention and has only been bandied about by those of no stature (see more later).     

Chukei Chaim: Keeping and Honoring the Shabbos

2. Prevents issurim. On the one hand, the poskim praise the advantage of an eiruv, and it is a mitzva to try to make eiruvei chatzeiros (שו''ע סי' שס''ו סי''ג) in places where it is possible to do so, as this generally saves the public from chillul Shabbos through carrying (מרדכי עירובין דף ס''ח, שו''ת דברי חיים או''ח סי' ל''ג). It is very hard to keep all of one’s small family members from carrying, and the adult members are also pained when they accidentally violate the issur of carrying (מ''ב סי' שס''ו סקע''ח). The bracha on an eiruv is “על מצות עירוב” because the setting up of an eiruv itself is a mitzva for these reasons (שו''ת חת''ס או''ח סי' צ''ט).

3. Honor of Shabbos. Also, there is often a mitzva of kavod and oneg Shabbos not to have one’s hands tied and unable to carry things in or out (פמ''ג סי' ר''ס א''א סק''ג). An eiruv enables one to bring his seuda needs from one house to another, to stroll with his small children who are in strollers, and the like. This falls under the posuk of “וקראת לשבת עונג” (פרישה סי' שצ''ה סק''א). It is certainly a big help to the elderly and ill who can gain much from leaving the house.

Pitfalls

4. Concern for mingling. On the other hand, there are sometimes pitfalls that can come about from having an eiruv. With an eiruv, women stroll on the streets much more often with their strollers, and men and women gather outside the shuls and simcha halls, leading to mingling and violation of issurim.

Rebuttal: This argument is simple apikorsus, and should be called out as such. No one of stature ever made this claim. We are not smarter than Chazal (and it is simply not believable that the claim made in Emes L'Yaakov was uttered by Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky zt”l). After the Munkatcher Rebbe demonstrated to a local rav that there is no halachic argument to prohibit the establishment of an eruv, this rav argued that there are haskafic reasons not to allow an eruv, such as the issue of tznius. The Munkatcher Rebbe retorted that the only pritzus that Chazal addressed regarding eruvin were the pirtzus in the mechitzos, and not the pritzus outside. This is a wonderful lesson to those who have the temerity to think that they can proscribe a mitzvah with arguments that have no standing in the words of Chazal. 

Chukei Chaim: 5. Eiruv boundaries. High-level eiruvim usually enclose neighborhoods or specific areas of cities, not entire cities. People sometimes cross the boundaries due to lack of awareness or forgetting. Guests are also unaware of the boundaries. This can easily lead to the issur of carrying.

Rebuttal: In fact, the way to rectify the issue of people carrying out of a neighborhood eruv is to establish an eruv for the entire city. Rav Bleier is simply not following his own arguments. The term ‘high-level eruvin’ is a misnomer; there is no such entity. Many eruvin today are built on a higher level than those established years ago. Almost all chumros that Rav Bleier associates with high-level eruvin are either incorporated in many eruvin today, or are chumros that Rav Bleier and his ilk concocted, and are not halachah p’suka.     

Chukei Chaim: 6. Constant oversight. Also, eiruvim must have constant oversight. They usually consist of many tzuros hapesach [doorframe-shaped structures] made with string that can easily become posul during the week, e.g., by tearing due to weather conditions, local construction, and the like. Even a high-level eiruv built in the best possible manner by talmidei chachamim with yiras Shomayim may not be relied on whatsoever without ongoing supervision each week. Thus, even when an eiruv is built, it must be done in a way that it can easily undergo constant supervision.

Rebuttal: With today’s construction materials, there are eruvin that last for many months without needing any rectification, but there is no doubt that an eruv requires ongoing supervision. 

Chukei Chaim: From the Halachic Angle

7. The main halachos of eiruvin were relevant to the olden day layout of houses, courtyards, alleys [מבואות], and streets. There used to be several houses in a single courtyard and several courtyards in a single alley, making it easy to set up a high-level eiruv according to all opinions. Today, however, most houses are on streets; streets are much wider and bigger than they once were; and there are major roads that go through entire cities and are traversed by 600,000 people, constituting a reshus horabim d’oraisa according to all opinions, which an eiruv does not help whatsoever. This is besides the discussion of whether it is even possible to make an eiruv in a large city with a population of 600,000. בעזהשי"ת , we will cite the opinions on this in the coming issue.

Rebuttal: There are many issues with the above paragraph. To begin with, Rav Bleier jumps from the period of the Mishnah to the present day. The fact is, many Jews in pre-WWII Europe lived in large towns that are not unlike our cities today. All the issues that we have with eruvin, including the possibility of a reshus harabbim, they had as well. Later on, Rav Bleier writes that in Chutz L’Aretz we do not have the ability to erect high-level eruvin as established in Eretz Yisroel, because of the issue of sechirus reshus. There is no doubt that the eruvin in pre-WWII Europe had this problem as well, as they definitely did not have the same level of cooperation from their governments (and it is incorrect to argue that the governments had more rights than they have today). Hence, it is obvious that the poskim who established these eruvin in pre-WWII Europe were not concerned with these issues, and allowed their eruvin because this was the accepted minhag. This begs the question, why did most Jews rely on their city eruvin in pre-WWII Europe? The answer is simple: the concept of high-level eruvin is a modern-day invention, to include stringencies not utilized previously. Additionally, as we shall see later, it is a modern-day argument that the criterion of shishim ribo is conditional on the city.      

Chukei Chaim: 8. Also, an eiruv usually spans a large area that includes big open areas not meant for residence [called קרפפים; singular is קרפף]. Because of all this, it is almost impossible to build a high-level eiruv that will satisfy all opinions.

Rebuttal: This is simply untrue. In pre-WWII Europe the issue of karpeifos was much more problematic, as it was harder to obtain permission from city governments to enclose the karpeifos with a tzuras hapesach. Nevertheless, karpeifos did not stop the establishment of eruvin in almost every town and city in pre-WWII Europe, and almost everyone carried. Karpeifos are a matter of a d’rabbanan, and there is no doubt that we maintain halachah k’divrei hameikel regarding this issue. The fact that those seeking stringencies regarding eruvin do so in regards to this issue as well is proof that all their stringencies emanate from a misplaced antipathy towards the mitzvah of eruvin.       

Chukei Chaim: 9. Despite this, rabbanim responsible for building high-level eiruvim will search for all tactics to satisfy as many opinions as possible and not rely on a lone opinion or questionable logic. Still, the reality is that some opinions of the Rishonim must always be compromised. Thus, there is always some room to be machmir even when there is an eiruv.

Rebuttal: The argument that we do not follow every shita when establishing eruvin, and hence it is a compromise to rely on our eruvin is specious. There is no other inyan where we follow every shitas Rishonim. We follow halachah p’suka, and eruvin is no different. This was conveyed on numerous occasions by Rav Fishel Hershkowitz; people just do not realize that all these issues are not new, they have already been decided.