Chukei Chaim: Issue 317
Chukei
Chaim: Some Halachos of Eiruv Walls
Walls
1. We mentioned
previously (Issue 315, par. 33) that an eiruv chatzeiros can only be made in an
area considered a reshus hayachid. When an eiruv is made in a reshus horabim,
e.g., in a city, the area must first be enclosed by kosher walls, thereby
giving it the status of a reshus hayachid. Then, an eiruv with bread can be
made. However, not every wall helps in a true reshus horabim, as we will
explain after an introduction with several rules.
Gap
2. A real wall with a gap
in it more than ten amos wide [about 5 m/16 ft] is posul; it is not considered
a wall. Mid’oraisa, if an area is enclosed on all four sides and the walls have
wide gaps, they are not posul since the gaps are viewed as entrances, provided
that there is a certain amount of wall on either side of the entrance.
Mid’rabanan, though, any entrance wider than ten amos should be fixed with a צורת הפתח. If it was not, the entrance is considered
a gap which makes the wall posul (ערוך השלחן סי' שס''ב סכ''ו). Some hold a gap of ten amos makes a wall
posul d’oraisa.
Rebuttal:
It is important
to explicate that the overwhelming majority of the poskim maintain that a pirtzas
esser only prohibits me’d’rabbanan. It is clear we follow this
majority.
Chukei
Chaim: Is a “Wall” Nullified by People Walking through It?
פסי ביראות
12. With respect to פסי ביראות, which are not full walls but are
considered walls according to Chazal (above, 9), the Tannoim, Rishonim, and
Acharonim argue about the halacha when a public path goes between the
partitions around the well that constitute the “walls.” Does this remove their
status of walls, leaving the area as a reshus horabim, or do they still have
the halachic status of a wall even if many people walk through, making the area
within them a reshus hayachid?
13. “אתו רבים
ומבטלי מחיצתא.” R’ Yehuda holds “many people come and nullify the wall.” The
purpose of a wall is to demarcate an area and separate it from another domain.
When many people walk through something that is not actually a wall but that
Chazal gave the status of a wall, it is not called a wall anymore. Thus, if
many people walk through the פסי ביראות “walls,” they are no
longer considered walls, and the area has the status of a reshus horabim.
14. The Chachamim hold
people walking through do not nullify the wall. Even if many people walk
through the halachic walls on a public path, they still have the d’oraisa
status of walls, and the area within the partitions has the status of a reshus
hayachid.
Halacha
15. Rishonim. Some Rishonim pasken like the Chachamim, that people
coming through פסי ביראות
do not nullify the walls (רמב''ם פי''ז שבת ה''ג, הג' מיימונית שם). Other Rishonim pasken like R’ Yehuda,
that many people coming through פסי ביראות
nullify the walls (רמב''ן מלחמות עירובין כ''ב, רשב''א ו:, ריטב''א כ''ב., ר''ן כ''ב. ד''ה הכא, מאירי י''ז: ד''ה ר''י).
Rebuttal:
From the meager
list that Rav Bleier enumerates of those Rishonim who follow the Chachamim,
it is apparent that he only knew the Rishonim who accept Rav Yehuda l’halachah.
However, the majority of Rishonim maintain that we pasken like
the Chachamim, lo asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta. The following
is a complete list (since we pasken from the Achronim, it is
irrelevant to enumerate here, however, I will nevertheless do so to demonstrate
that Rav Bleier did not present the full picture): 1) Tosfos, see Bais
Ephraim, p. 39b and Avnei Nezer 276:2. 2) Rabeinu Chananel,
see Ravyah p. 321. 3) Rambam, Mishnayos Eruvin 2:4, Yad
17:10, 17:33. 4) Maggid Mishnah, ibid., 5) Hagaos Maimones,
ibid., Basra 9. 6) Ravyah, p. 270. 7) HaEshkol, Eruvin
siman 55. 8) Sefer HaBattim, Perek 13. 9) Tosfas Yshanim,
Shabbos 6b. 10) Or Zarua, Eruvin 33b. 11) Mahrach Or
Zarua, Piskei Eruvin, Perek 2 ois 57. 12) Ramak,
as cited in Hagaos Ashri, 20b. 13) Rabeinu Chananel Ben Shmuel, Eruvin
22a. 14) Rivevan, Eruvin 22a. 15) Rid, Tosfos Eruvin
22a, Piskei 20a. 16) Ri’az, Piskei 2:1:6. 17) Sefer
HaMeoros, Eruvin 17b. 18) Baal Hamaor, see Bais Ephraim
p. 39b.
Chukei
Chaim:
16. Acharonim. Many Acharonim are
meikel and pasken like the Chachamim (בית אפרים סי' כ''ו, מג''א סי' שס''ג סק''מ, שו''ת חתם סופר או''ח סי' פ''ט, הנודב''י הובא בשו''ת תשובה מאהבה סי' קי''ב, אבנ''ז סי' רע''ג ורע''ו חזו''א סי' ק''ז סק''ד ועוד),
and the general minhag is to rely on the meikel opinion. However, it is not so
clear-cut, as most poskim are machmir and cite R’ Yehuda (ביאה''ל סי' שס''ד ס''ב ד''ה ואחר).
17. However, many Acharonim are
machmir and pasken like R’ Yehuda (משכנות יעקב סי' ק''כ קכ''א, ביאה''ל שם).
Rebuttal:
No, it is clear
cut. As will be demonstrated by the
subsequent list, there are very few poskim who maintain that we pasken
like Rav Yehuda. There is no
question that shitas Chachamim was accepted l’halachah. The following is
a (partial) list of the overwhelming majority of poskim who maintain
that we pasken like the Chachamim, lo asu rabbim u’mevatlei
mechitzta: 1) Chacham Tzvi, siman 5, 37. 2) Knesset
Yechezkal, siman 2:3. 3) Mayim Rabim, siman 34-36. 4) Maharit
Tzahalon, siman 251. 5) Tosfos Shabbos, siman 363. 6) Chavas
Daas, Nachlas Yaakov, Eruvin. 7) Pri Megadim, Rosh
Yoseph, Shabbos 6b. 8) Even HaOzer, Eruvin 6b, 22a. 9)
She’eilas Yaavetz, siman 7 and Mor U’Ketziyah, siman
363. 10) Keren Oreh, Eruvin 7a. 11) Noda B’Yehudah, O.C.
Mahadura Tinyana, 42 and Teshuvah M’Ahavah, siman 112. 12) Gaon
Yaakov, Eruvin 11a, 21a. 13) Michtam L’David, siman 1.
14) Shulchan Aruch HaRav, O.C. 363:42, 364:4 and Kuntres
Achron, O.C. 345:2. 15) Tiferes Tzvi, siman 11. 16)
Bais Ephraim, O.C. 26 (the Chevrah Hilchos Issurei Eruvin
argue that the Bais Ephraim only maintains lo asu rabbim in a
situation of shem daled mechitzos and not in a situation of three mechitzos;
this is hevel, as the Bais Ephraim’s diagrams prove otherwise,
and in due time, I will demonstrate the speciousness of their arguments). 17) HaEleph
Lecha Shlomo, siman 181. 18) Aishel Avraham, siman
345. 19) Chai Adam, klal 71:15 and Nishmas Adam 71:9. 20) Chesed
L’Avraham, siman 39. 21) Chasam Sofer, O.C. 89. 22) Maharham
Shick, O.C. 171, 181. 23) Bais Shlomo, siman 43, 51.
24) Tzemach Tzedek, Shabbos 100a and Eruvin, the end of Perek
5. 25) Nefesh Chayah, siman 25. 26) Shaar HaZekeinim, p.
116b. 27) Chazon Nachum, siman 36. 28) Rabeinu Yosef M’Slutsk,
siman 11. 29) Maharia HaLevi, siman 94. 30) Maharsham,
3:188, 9:18. 31) Yeshuos Malko, siman 21. 32) Sharei Tzion,
siman 4. 33) Avnei Nezer, siman 268:4, 276:1, 279:2. 34) Harei
B’samim, 5:73. 35) Imrei Yosher, siman 102 and Minchas
Pitim, siman 364. 36) Kaf HaChaim, O.C. 364:12. 37) Divrei
Malkiel, 3:10, 14. 38) Rav Chaim Berlin in Tikkun Shabbos Odessa, p.
28 and in Nishmas Chaim, siman 29. 39) Achiezer, 4:8. 40) Aruch
HaShulchan, O.C. 364:1. 41) Even Yikrah, siman 58. 42)
Chazon Ish, O.C. 74:10, 107:4.
Furthermore, Rav
Bleier misunderstood who the Mishnah Berurah accepts l’halachah, the Chachamim
and Rav Elazar [lo asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta] or Rav Yehudah [asu
rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta] and Rav Yochanan [delasos neulos]. Rav Bleier argues that the Biur Halachah,
364:2, is proof that the Mishnah Berurah’s opinion is in accordance with
Rav Yehudah, since he argues that most poskim do not accept the Rambam
who argues that we follow Rav Elazar who upholds lo asu rabbim of a tzuras
hapesach on a d’Oraysa level. Hence, the understanding is that the Mishnah
Berurah maintains that a tzuras hapesach is not sufficient to
encompass a reshus harabbim on a d’Oraysa level; only delasos
would be effective, as set forth by Rav Yochanan.
However, this is
incorrect. The fact is the Mishnah Berurah in Shaar HaTziyun, siman
363:94 maintains that we pasken lo asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta even
in a situation of mechitzos b’y’dai shomayim [natural walls, whose
efficacy is halachically inferior than mechitzos b’y’dai adam, man-made
walls] (see also Biur Halachah, ibid., 36). It follows that the Mishnah
Berurah in 363:118, 156 argues that it is halachically sufficient if a mechitzah
consisting of a tel hamislaket [a slope with an adequate halachic gradient]
encompasses an entire city and does not mention that a Baal Nefesh
should be stringent because there may be roads that are wider than 16 amos
[hence, the Mishnah Berurah must be relying on lo asu rabbim of
the tel hamislaket].
Why then does the
Mishnah Berurah in the Biur Halachah, 364:2, accept Rav Yochanan
who requires delasos me’d’Oraysa? Subsequent to what I argue above [that
the Mishnah Berurah upholds lo asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta],
there is no doubt that the Mishnah Berurah is only following those poskim
who maintain that Rav Yochanan can also be in agreement with the Chachamim,
and they would in certain situations ― such as in an area which is encompassed by tzuras
hapesachim or only two mechitzos ― require delasos [actually,
this is the Bais Ephraim’s and Chazon Ish’s argument, and in
fact, both the Ravyah (p. 270, 276) and Eshkol (siman
64-65) quote Rav Yochanan yet pasken like the Chachamim which
buttress’s the Bais Ephraim’s and Chazon Ish’s assertion]. This
is further evident from the fact that the Mishnah Berurah (Biur
Halachah, 364:2) only affirms that the Rif and the Rosh
follow Rav Yochanan regarding delasos neulos but does not articulate
that they accept Rav Yehudah l’halachah.
In short, the Mishnah
Berurah maintains lo asu rabbim in accordance with the Chachamim
and in a situation of three mechitzos would not require delasos
even me’d’rabbanan. However, if an area is encompassed by tzuras
hapesachim or only two mechitzos, he would require delasos
me’d’Oraysa pursuant to Rav Yochanan [however, it should be noted that many
poskim maintain that a tzuras hapesach would be sufficient me’d’Oraysa;
see above]. This follows why the Mishnah Berurah asserted that it is
only the Rambam [according to his understanding] who maintains lo
asu rabbim on a d’Oraysa level even in a situation of tzuras
hapesachim encompassing an area.
