Part 11: Chukei Chaim: Eruvin Rebuttal

 

Chukei Chaim: Issue 322

Chukei Chaim: Summary of the Halachos of a City Eiruv

1. In the recent issues (315-321), we discussed at length the halachos of city eiruvim. We went through many fundamental principles so that the general public would have basic, essential information. Now, at the end of the series, we wanted to summarize the halachos and rules in a practical way for several types of eiruvim in existence.

Levels of Care in Mitzvos

2. Klal Yisroel is made up of many types of Jews. Even among those who are classified as Torah and mitzva observant, there are multiple levels of observance and care in mitzvos. The level of a person’s care in mitzvos generally depends on multiple factors, e.g., family background, upbringing, character, location, level of yiras Shomayim, profession, community affiliation, degree of connection with Hashem, and the like. What everyone has in common is that we are in the world to constantly grow, improve, and become more and more connected to Hashem throughout our lifetime.

3. The differing levels of care in mitzvos are expressed in many areas of Torah, but specifically in the topic of eiruvin. The kashrus of an eiruv consists of many components and parts, and each part is subject to many conflicting opinions and questions that aren’t paskened one way or the other. There are all sorts of kulos and combinations of factors, and things depend on each person’s outlook.

4. Example of half a cup of water. This can be illustrated with a cup half-full of water sitting in front of a thirsty person. On the one hand, it is half-full and can quench his thirst somewhat; on the other hand, it is only half a cup and will not quench his thirst completely. The thirstier he is, the less his thirst will be quenched with half a cup.

Four Levels

5. Laid-back/lite. Some people are laid-back and have the perspective of being minimally yotzei. As long as there is a lone posek or opinion to rely on, they are happy to rely on it. After all, it is the opinion of one of the gedolim; if it is good for that gadol, it is good for them too.

6. Ordinary. Other people are more careful and do not rely on a lone opinion. However, whenever there is a balanced machlokes with poskim who are meikel and poskim who are machmir, they do not aim to be among the machmirim. As long as there are enough poskim to rely on, they are content relying on the meikilim even though there are also poskim who are machmir.

7. Meticulous in mitzvos. There are also people who are classified as meticulous in mitzvos who yearn for closeness to Hashem, e.g., bnei Torah and respected balabatim, who will follow the poskim who are machmir in a balanced machlokes and will not suffice with the half-full cup. They will search for a cup that is more than half-full, and they will not be meikel unless most poskim are meikel on the matter.

Rebuttal: What cannot be stressed enough is that those who are machmir are really not following any posek of stature. Most of the stringencies are promulgated by misguided yungeleit who never learnt halachah, and never were meshamish rabbanim.  

Chukei Chaim: 8. Exceedingly machmir. Then there are people who are exceedingly machmir. They are concerned for even a lone machmir opinion, and in practice, they will not act against even a lone machmir opinion.

Rebuttal: There are clinical labels for such people. The real question is how many people who are machmir regarding eruvin are as machmir regarding other issues. If one were to be so stringent regarding other issues and collect all the shitos ha’ossrim, as the Chasam Sofer writes (Yoreh De'ah 37) they would not be able to eat bread or drink water. Furthermore, if one was to be so machmir regarding eruvin, he would in essence be negating all eruvin. These people should then be labeled as eino modeh b’eruvin and apikorsim. 

Chukei Chaim: Various Levels of Kashrus of an Eiruv

9. Area of the eiruv. There are also multiple levels of kashrus of an eiruv; this depends on multiple points, as we will explain. One point is the area size of the eiruv. The greater the area of an eiruv, the harder it is to initially set it up. There are more tzuros hapesach, walls, and gaps to oversee and fix. Thus, a neighborhood eiruv, which encloses a much smaller area, has a great advantage over a city eiruv.

Rebuttal: Actually, this is not always the case. At times larger eruvin have the ability to utilize more walls and fewer tzuras hapesachim (witness the Boro Park Eruv, as opposed to the Brooklyn Eruv). Many of these neighborhood eruvin were established with unnecessary chumros, by yungeleit who never learnt halachah, and never were meshamish rabbanim.   

Chukei Chaim: 10. Size of the city. Similarly, the size of a city is an important factor in the establishment and kashrus of an eiruv. If a city does not have 600,000 residents, there are fewer opinions that hold it is a reshus horabim where an eiruv cannot be made. If a city has 600,000 residents, there are more opinions that hold an eiruv cannot be made, especially on the main roads used in the city (see Issue 316).

Rebuttal: No one of stature maintains that, “if a city has 600,000 residents, there are more opinions that hold an eiruv cannot be made.“ This is the opinion of misguided yungeleit. The criterion of shishim ribo is conditional on a street, which is traversed, at least many times a year, by 600,000 people. Moreover, there is almost no street that would fulfil the criterion of mefulash u’mechuvanim. Additionally, many cities can rely on the Chazon Ish’s shita, or that they are encompassed by mechitzos omed merubeh. Hence, there is no reason to be machmir at all.      

Chukei Chaim: 11. Permits from the authorities. Even when there is a desire to set up an eiruv of the highest level, sometimes people struggle to get permits from the authorities to put up walls, tzuros hapesach, doors, and the like to satisfy the level of kashrus necessary for the benefit of the community. Eiruv committees should be active and solicit the authorities to set up the highest level eiruv that is realistically possible.

Rebuttal: In fact, b”H an eruv has never been restricted because of the authorities. Even when frum misguided individuals act like the anti-semites and try to negate an eruv, the authorities realize that an eruv harms no one, but only helps people, and allow tzuras hapesachim to be erected.  

Chukei Chaim: Population within the Eiruv

12. Sometimes, the level of an eiruv’s kashrus also depends on the varying levels of Jews living within the eiruv area or in the community setting up the eiruv. It is up to the judgment of the city Rabbanim or the community leaders in each place to determine whether to set up an eiruv and what its level will be. Also, when a different community sets up an eiruv, one must use their judgment as to how to pasken for each person within their community, all in accordance with the character and type of Jews they serve. We will give some examples.

13. Majority laid-back, some ordinary. If most of the community is laid-back (5) and there are some ordinary people (6), the eiruv committee would likely suffice with an eiruv whose kashrus is good enough for the majority of the community. It will be a basic level eiruv.

14. Majority ordinary, some machmirim. If living within an eiruv’s area are a majority of ordinary people and a minority of machmirim (7), they would likely suffice with the level of the ordinary majority, i.e., the eiruv would be kosher according to many poskim who are meikel, even while there are many poskim who are machmir. It is about this level that the poskim say a scrupulous person should be machmir personally but one should not object to those who are meikel (מ''ב סי' שמ''ה סקכ''ג). I.e., there is certainly room to be machmir, and that is appropriate for meticulous people to do, but at the same time, the ordinary ones who are meikel have basis to rely on. Therefore, one should not object to them, as objections should only be made when someone is clearly doing an aveira. When many poskim are meikel, one should not object.

Rebuttal: There is no reason to be machmir. There is no other issue where there are so many reasons to be mekil, and to argue that one should nevertheless be machmir is simply beyond the pale of halachah. 

Chukei Chaim: 15. Common practice. It should be noted that even when there is a balanced machlokes, sometimes the poskim [even the machmir ones] attest that the common practice is to be meikel and rely on the meikilim. In such a case, there is certainly room to rely on the meikilim, especially for people who lead their lives according to the mesora they have from previous generations and reinforce the practices instituted by Rabbanim from earlier generations. However, even when a city has an eiruv grounded in common practice, there is always room for a meticulous person to be personally machmir since there is no chiyuv to use an eiruv – even one on the highest level.

Rebuttal: The fact is that there are many reasons why one can rely on most of the current eruvin, and therefore, there is no room to be machmir. Furthermore, with the current trend to be machmir in eruvin, one should purposefully make use of their city eruvin, as argued by the Bnei Yissaschar, in order to distinguish one's self from the eino modeh b’eruvin.

Chukei Chaim: Cities without 600,000 People

Reshus HoRabim D’oraisa

16. 16 amos, 600,000 people. We cited (Issue 316, par. 6 and on) the machlokes Rishonim and poskim whether a reshus horabim d’oraisa requires two conditions, i.e., more than 16 amos wide and also 600,000 people passing through, or whether any place 16 amos wide is a reshus horabim d’oraisa even if it does not have 600,000 people, in which case an eiruv with tzuros hapesach alone cannot be made according to most poskim.

Rebuttal: According to the overwhelming majority of poskim, we accept the criterion of shishim ribo l’chatchilah, and tzuras hapesachim would be sufficient. 

Chukei Chaim: 17. There is also a machlokes as to the Mechaber’s opinion. It seems he is machmir (שו''ע סי' שמ''ה ס''ז), and the Rama seems to be meikel (סי' שמ''ו ס''ג). Many Acharonim are also meikel and attest that this is the common practice (316, par. 14; ביאה''ל סי' שס''ד ס''ב ד''ה ואחר); others are machmir (ibid., 15). The Mishna Berura concludes that a scrupulous person with yiras Shomayim will personally be machmir, but we do not have the ability to object to those who are meikel (ibid., 16).

Rebuttal: Many poskim maintain that the Mechaber is mekil, but almost all agree that the Rema upholds the criterion of shishim ribo. 

Chukei Chaim: 18. Since nearly all streets today are wider than 16 amos (ibid., 5), already at the beginning of our path toward the kashrus of an eiruv on today’s streets, we start with a machlokes among the poskim.

Rebuttal: This is simply misleading. We accept that shishim ribo is a fundament of reshus harabbim. There are additional criteria that need to be fulfilled in order for the street to be classified as a reshus harabbim, such as mefulash u’mechuvanim, and mechitzos.

Chukei Chaim: 19. 600,000 in the city or on the street? Even according to the meikel opinions, that an area is only a reshus horabim d’oraisa with 600,000 people, the poskim argue whether 600,000 people must pass through that specific reshus horabim (ibid., 18) – in which case even in big cities, many streets do not have the status of a real reshus horabim – or as long as there are 600,000 people in the city (19), all the major roads which serve a major part of the city’s residents (20) are considered reshus horabim even if 600,000 people do not pass through them. According to the latter, many of the streets in a big city with 600,000 people in it cannot have an eiruv using tzuros hapesach alone.

Rebuttal: No posek of stature maintains that the criterion of shishim ribo is conditional on the city. It is simply against the accepted minhag, as argued by Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l. There is perhaps one posek (Rav Nissim Karelitz) who upholds that the criterion of shishim ribo is conditional on major streets that service shishim ribo. This is clearly against the minhag, as there were cities whose streets could have been classified as servicing shsihim ribo prior to WWII which were nevertheless included in eruvin. Moreover, there are other criteria which would allow eruvin in large cities l’chatchilah.