Part 2: The Jewish Tribune’s Argument Against the NW London Eruv

Continued from part I

The Jewish Tribune, page 4:
This [that it is sufficient if a road just services shishim ribo to be classified as a reshus harabbim] is the opinion of almost all the leading authorities of our time – Rav M Feinstein ztl, Rav A Kotler ztl, Rav S.Z. Auerbach ztl, Rav Kaminetsky, zl. Rav Y.Y. Weiss ztl and yibodel l’chaim Rav Y. S. Elyashev shlito – although their opinion in this regard seem to be ignored in the publication!
The rebuttal:
Rav Moshe zt”l’s opinion was (Igros Moshe, O.C. 1:139:5, 4:87, 5:28:16) that an intercity road [sratya] would require 600,000 people traversing the same section of the road daily for it to be classified as a reshus harabbim. Additionally, Rav Moshe stated (ibid., 5:28:5, 5:29) that the criterion of shishim ribo when applied to a city would necessitate a population of at least 3,000,000 inhabitants. Only a city with such a sizable population could physically satisfy the condition of shishim ribo ovrim bo, 600,000 people collectively traversing its streets at one time. Obviously, the author of this article does not know Rav Moshe’s opinion at all. Regarding Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l’s view, I challenge the author of this article to cite one teshuvah of Rav Aharon’s dealing with how to apply the criteria of shishim ribo. Dear reader, there is no such teshuvah. The opinions of Rav Auerbach zt”l and Rav Kaminetsky zt”l are pure hearsay from the cabal. Regarding Rav Weiss zt”l, as cited above in regards to the Bais Ephraim, he maintains that shishim ribo needs to actually traverse the street but just not every day of the year (Minchas Yitzchak, 8:32). That Rav Elyashiv shlita subscribes to this opinion is hearsay from the cabal, as well. As a matter of fact, Rav Elyashiv’s opinion is clarified in his letter which was included in the kuntres, and it is certainly not what this article claims it to be. What can be discerned from this letter is that Rav Elyashiv maintains that shishim ribo is conditional of the city and is not applicable to a road at all. This is just another proof that the cabal states opinions that they make up out of thin air in the name of gedolim. As I had mentioned prior in my post regarding the kuntres, I am surprised that Rav Elyashiv maintains that shishim ribo is conditional of a city, since the overwhelming majority of poskim uphold that it is a qualification of a street (see Part 2a: Why Brooklyn Is Not a Reshus HaRabbim). [In answer to those who argue that the Achiezer maintains that shishim ribo is conditional of a city, see my post Part 1: The Achiezer Explained where I prove otherwise.]

The Jewish Tribune, page 4:
(Other eruvim in major cities do not encounter the same issues which for reasons of the limited scope of this article cannot be dealt with. They will be clarified in a kuntres to be published shortly.)
The rebuttal:
There is no doubt that the NW London eruv is as mehudar or possibly even more mehudar, as most city eruvin past or present. I look forward to a clarification of the difference between the London eruv and eruvin in the rest of the world.

The Jewish Tribune, page 4:
The roads concerned, albeit interconnected and not absolutely straight, are still classified as r’shus horabim particularly as they are highways. (Confirmed by Rav S.Z. Auerbach and Rav YS Elyashev). It is true that the Chazon Ish ztl advanced a novel and more lenient view but his thesis is opposed by all the aforementioned authorities and earlier gedolim.
The rebuttal:
The roads of London fail to meet at least two of the requirements of a reshus harabbim: 1) They do not contain shishim ribo. 2) They are not mefulash u’mechuvanim m’shar l’shaar. Moreover, since the eruv consists of mechitzos habatim on all four sides that are omed merubeh al haparutz (or at the minimum we can make use of the Chazon Ish’s chiddush) the area enclosed is fundamentally a reshus hayachid min haTorah. Even one of the above conditions would be sufficient ground to permit an eruv of tzuras hapesachim. Accordingly, as there are many reasons to allow an eruv in London, even a Baal Nefesh can utilize the eruv with certainty. Additionally, there is no difference between a road and a highway that runs through a city as the article seems to suggest. Both would need to be mefulash u’mechuvanim m’shar l’shaar. I reiterate, everything that the cabal mentions in the name of the gedolim (Rav Auerbach zt”l and Rav Elyashev shlita) is hearsay. While Rav Kotler zt”l and Rav Feinstein zt”l disagreed with the Chazon Ish, there is nothing in the writings from Rav Kaminetsky zt”l, Rav Weiss zt”l (see more regarding Rav Weiss and this matter further down), and Rav Elyashev shlita that argues on the Chazon Ish. [It is important to note that according to Rav Kotler, no city eruv ─ large or small, past and present ─ could have been erected. It is therefore clear that the minhag is not like him.] Additionally, Rav Auerbach zt”l maintained that, in case of great need, one could possibly rely on the chiddush of the Chazon Ish (Minchas Shlomo, 2:35:22; actually, in Halichos Shlomo, Hilchos Tefillin, siman 31:95 they mention that Rav Auerbach stated that the halachah is probably like the Chazon Ish). Moreover, there are poskim who clearly utilize the Chazon Ish’s chiddush (Even Yisroel, 8:36; Shevet HaLevi, 8:97; Machazeh Eliyahu, 39:2; Kinyan Torah, 4:40, and Rav Chaim Kanievsky shlita in Shoneh Halachos, siman 363).

The Jewish Tribune, page 39:
In practice, even the Chazon Ish ruled that the K’vish Haschachor in Bnei Brak should not be included because of the possibility of it being a r’shus horabim min HaTorah (testimony of his nephew Rav N. Karelitz).
The rebuttal:
As I posted lately (Would the Chazon Ish Have Utilized His Chiddush to Allow an Eruv L’chatchilah?) this statement has been refuted by Rav Karelitz shlita himself. Dear reader, there is not a word argued by the cabal that can be trusted.

The Jewish Tribune, page 39:
Another major obstacle is that of karfifos. This relates to sizeable areas within the eruv perimeter which are not designed for daily living purposes … Their existence can disqualify the validity of the eruv unless they are enclosed with proper halachic partitions – something not feasible. Any assertion that such karfifos do not exist within the eruv is incorrect. It should be noted that the Chazon Ish zl was very opposed to any eruv encircling, karfifos and for this reason alone, to portray the London eruv as being “valid according to the Chazon Ish” is manifestly untrue.
The rebuttal:
As I mentioned above, karpeifos are an issue to be dealt with but not a reason to negate an eruv. Additionally, the experts wrote that the Chazon Ish would allow these karpeifos. Moreover, Rav Halpern, in his teshuvah, wrote extensively regarding the London karpeifos and categorically allowed them, so why has it only become an issue now? Additionally, I am told that there is an eruv that was established by one of the main objectors to the NW London eruv which included karpeifos. So again, why has it become an issue only lately? The hypocrisy continues. [I hope to post in the near future a more detailed rebuttal regarding some of the arguments against the teshuvah on karpeifos published in the kuntres.]

The Jewish Tribune, page 39:
A further problem which makes the word ‘mehudar’ ring hollow, is that of s’chiras r’shus within the eruv area. All non-Jewish residents must rent out their rights to the street for Eruv use – otherwise they will automatically invalidate the Eruv. This involves approaching all of them individually for this propose which is naturally not possible. Alternatively, one can go over their heads and rent the rights from someone who can enforce entry into their premises without their permission. In former times, such autocratic authority existed but not today in our democratic countries. The use of the Mayor of London for this purpose cannot really be taken seriously as even the police do not have these powers without reasonable cause for suspicion.
The rebuttal:
To begin with, it’s important to note that this argument would call into question all city eruvin large and small. Consequentially, there is no doubt that this matter has not been considered a difficulty by the majority of poskim who allow city eruvin l’chatchilah. Why should London be any different? Even though there are a few rabbanim who mentioned to their talmidim that they should not carry, no city eruv was advertised as being only b'dieved. This issue has only become a problem lately when a group formed in Eretz Yisroel with a goal to enact all chumras possible in eruvin, including establishing small neighborhood eruvin so that the renting of the rights from each and every person included in the boundaries of the eruv would be possible. However, as Rav Dovid Eisenstein mentioned in the kuntres (p. 56) [regarding a neighborhood eruv that was established in Golders Green] these eruvin will eventually need to rely on the general sechiras reshus from the city Mayor (and such), since those involved with these eruvin are bound to lose track of new non-Jewish residents which would require a renewed sechiras reshus from them. I am told this has actually happened regarding most of the neighborhood eruvin set up by this group in Eretz Yisroel. This is a classic example of people creating chumros that they ultimately cannot carry out. Instead of them plumbing the depths of the inyan impartially ─ which according to all is only d’rabbanan ─ and allowing themselves to realize that there are many heterim, they are machmir and seek to create difficulties. There are numerous reasons to allow our sechiras reshus (see here Part 1: Sechiras Reshus for Contemporary City Eruvin) such as the power of government to employ eminent domain (or as it is called in England, a compulsory purchase). I believe that the words of Rav Yisroel Yaakov Fisher zt”l (Even Yisroel, 8:36) succinctly sums up who these “baalei chumras,” were when he basically told them that the large Yerushalayim eruv is just fine, and he is not keen on the neighborhood eruvin at all. [Sure there were gedolim who joined these “baalei chumras,” however, they clearly did not intend to negate large city eruvin as is the agenda of these askanim. I will add that I know for a fact that some of these gedolim quietly support city eruvin.]

The Jewish Tribune, page 39:
For this reason alone Rav S.Y. Elyashiv rules that where the “individual renting of rights” is not possible, no eruv should be constructed to allow people to carry who would not do so otherwise. He adds that only where people are already carrying and the purpose of the eruv is designed to limit the transgression, can s’chirus r’shus be carried out via the authorities.
The rebuttal:
Rav Elayshiv said no such thing. Rav Elyashiv states in the letter published in the kuntres (p. 37) that there are those who are machmir and don’t use the city eruv because they maintain that it is not adequate to rely on the sechiras reshus from the city Mayor. However, Rav Elyashiv acknowledged that the Ginas V’radin is lenient, and the Bais Meir cites a reason to be lenient as well, but the Bais Meir concludes that, Heaven forbid, that he should be lenient when other poskim are not. Nevertheless, Rav Elyashiv declared the Gedolie Yerushalayim constructed an eruv of tzuras hapesachim in order that people should not come to carry without an eruv at all. Therefore, Rav Elyashiv concluded in this letter that it is a mitzvah gedolah to erect and enhance the eruv in Yerushalayim. Consequentially, the Jewish Tribune’s suggestion (which they obtained from one of the members of the anti-eruv cabal’s seforim) that Rav Elyashiv only allowed the reliance on sechiras reshus, “to limit the transgression,” of people who had previously been carrying, but that he would not allow an eruv to be constructed where people have not yet been carrying is now proven incorrect. Rav Elyashiv stated clearly in this letter that the Gedolei Yerushalayim constructed an eruv, and that it is even a mitzvah gedolah to erect an eruv. Clearly Rav Elyashiv is not just referring to a situation where people have been already carrying, as this article suggests, since he even mentions the construction of a new eruv. [Additionally, the Yerushalayim eruv has been expanded over the years to include new neighborhoods where people had not been carrying thus far, so apparently there have been new eruvin constructed in Yerushalayim, as well.]

Moreover, if the sechiras reshus was only allowed, “to limit the transgression,” of people who have previously been carrying, why haven’t we ever seen the Gedolei Yerushalayim proclaim as such. Furthermore, why didn’t Rav Elyashiv state clearly in this letter that the Yerushalayim eruv was not intended for people to carry therein, but that it was only established to save people from transgression? Instead, Rav Elyashiv just states that there are people who are machmir and do not rely on their city’s sechiras reshus, but nevertheless, the Gedolei Yerushalayim allowed an eruv. In fact, the overwhelming majority of residents of Yerushalayim rely on their eruv. Even more so, this claim is offensive. Does anyone actually believe that the residents of Yerushalayim who make use of the eruv would not listen to the Gedolei Yerushalayim if they told them not to carry, as this article suggests? Dear readers, this argument is fiction, and Rav Elayshiv never said any such thing. Clearly Rav Elyashiv’s intent when he wrote, “the Gedolie Yerushalayim constructed an eruv of tzuras hapesachim in order that people should not come to carry without an eruv at all” was just as the Chasam Sofer (O.C. siman 99) declared, that it is impossible that people would not come to carry without an eruv. Therefore, Rav Elayshiv concluded that it is a mitzvah gedolah to erect an eruv, without any further qualifications. Dear readers, why should London be any different?

Besides for which, as Rav Dovid Eisenstein mentioned in the kuntres (Hebrew section p. 56), London’s situation regarding sechiras reshus is possibly superior to Yerushalayim. In fact, I was told that Rav Elyashiv shlita admitted so to Rav Moshe Berlin shlita. In light of this letter from Rav Elyashiv, all arguments in his name regarding sechiras reshus from the cabal and their seforim should be discounted.

The Jewish Tribune, page 39:
Space does not permit discussion of other problems inherent in the construction of this eruv which lies largely within non-Jewish districts where no legal permission for necessary checking is possible.
The rebuttal:
The fact is most city eruvin prior to WWII were established in non-Jewish districts. Furthermore, there is no difference between the countless city eruvin in America and city eruvin all over the world which are mostly constructed within non-Jewish districts. Why should London be any different?

The Jewish Tribune, page 39:
The late Rav Eider zl – an expert of eruvim refused to become involved in this eruv which he asserted would only cause great dissention (contrary to the implication on page 551) – and how right he was. In a letter he writes – “A community eruv needs vigilance and constant repairs. We have communities in which almost every week the eruv needs repairs…because of vandalism, weather conditions and accidents affecting wires or posts”. How often over a five year period has this Eruv been declared out of bounds? It is worth remembering that it only needs one thin wire to snap or slip down on the side of dozens of “tzuros hapesach” posts anywhere along the eleven mile boundary and the entire Eruv is possel, with no means of informing the public! And that is called Mehudar?
The rebuttal:
No one is being forced to carry so there is no need for dissention. If a rav does not want his kehilah to use the eruv, he should just state his opinion loud and clear. Why is there the need to, “cause great dissention,” if not for political reasons? It may be that Rav Eider did not want to be involved with an eruv in the face of controversy, and so he offered reasons not to erect an eruv in light of such a situation (my suspicions have now been confirmed, Rav Eider was threatened by the cabal to stay out of the London eruv). However, anyone familiar with Rav Eider’s immense contribution to the establishment of city eruvin can attest that, notwithstanding these issues (vandalism etc.), he was involved in erecting city eruvin all over the world. Additionally, there is no doubt that the eruvin in Europe prior to WWII had these same issues, and no one argued that an eruv should not be erected for these reasons. I have been informed that after the initial start up tribulations, there have been few if any issues with the eruv’s status on Shabbos. Actually, since non-Jews were hired to check the eruv and repair any breaks on Shabbos, there never is a need to inform the public. Moreover, there were eruvin in the past and there are eruvin today that are as large as the NW London eruv, and none of them have a means of notifying the public (actually, many poskim do not require that the public even be informed). Why should London be any different? Yes, if the Yerushalayim eruv is considered mehudar, notwithstanding all these so called issues, why shouldn’t the London eruv, which is more mehudar, be classified as such?

There is an interesting dichotomy that I would like to bring to light. When the Boro Park eruv was established, there was an argument set forth by the cabal that Boro Park is unlike Europe prior to WWII, and even today since there is no official city Bais Din that would be in charge of the upkeep of the eruv. It is fascinating that the issue of upkeep is being inveighed against the NW London eruv despite the fact that the city of London does maintain a Bais Din, and thus regarding this matter, it is no different than any of the eruvin established prior to WWII. Instead of lauding the London Bais Din for bringing in these experts to upgrade the eruv to a mehudar status, they are harshly criticized. It is obvious that the cabal will use any argument that they can to negate an eruv.

The Jewish Tribune, page 39:
The same renowned expert was a close talmid of Rav M. Feinstein zl, and has no hesitation in writing (about the proposed London Eruv) “I am reasonably certain that Rav Moshe would oppose the Eruv” and yet it is still considered ‘mehudar’ despite the opposition of the leading posek of our generation!
The rebuttal:
Even if Rav Eider said what they claim he did, that he is, “reasonably certain that Rav Moshe would oppose the Eruv,” how does this affect its mehudar status? Nowhere in Rav Eider’s letter does he claim that Rav Moshe’s issues with the eruv were of a halachic nature. Moreover, Rav Eider said no such thing. Anyone who would read Rav Eider’s letter would see that the cabal is inserting words into it. Rav Eider did not claim that Rav Moshe would object to the eruv only that his rebbe advised him not to be involved in establishing an eruv in a city where there is opposition. Nowhere did Rav Moshe suggest that rabbanim can’t establish an eruv in their city in the face of opposition.

The Jewish Tribune, page 39:
In the publication great play is made of the fact that this Eruv “is like the Eruv of Yerushalayim”. Firstly acknowledge experts in the field – both here and in Eretz Yisroel – have written to refute this comparison and assert that in major respects London is halachially far worse.
The rebuttal:
The biggest experts in the field who happen to be involved with both the Yerushalayim and London eruvin argue that the London eruv is more mehudar than the Yerushalayim eruv. Do these, “acknowledged experts in the field,” know both situations better than these experts from Yerushalayim? Moreover, it would be nice to see what these so called, “acknowledged experts in the field,” have to say.

The Jewish Tribune, page 39:
Secondly, Rav Y.S. Elyashiv has written explicitly that if official statistics will prove that Yerushalayim has 600,000 inhabitants, the entire Eruv is in jeopardy and will have to be reviewed. In London we have long passed that stage and yet is still ‘kosher’ and even ‘mehudar’?
The rebuttal:
It is fascinating how the cabal did not realize that this statement contradicts their claim a few paragraphs earlier regarding Rav Elyashiv’s shita in shishim ribo. Here they admit that from Rav Elyashiv’s letter we see that he maintains that the criterion of shishim ribo is conditional of the city, but previously they argued that Rav Elyashiv upholds that the possibility of shishim ribo to traverse a street is sufficient for the street to be classified as a reshus harabbim. Clearly there is not a word that this cabal says in the name of the gedolim that can be trusted, as they can’t even get their arguments straight.

Yerushalayim has reached the stage ─ of containing a population greater than shishim ribo ─ quite a few years ago, and the eruv has not been dismantled but is here to stay (the population of Yerushalayim is growing at about a rate of 10,000 residents a year). Moreover, Rav Elyashiv (who seems to be machmir regarding shishim ribo) was clearly being stringent because of the fact that the Yerushalayim eruv consists of tzuras hapesachim. However, the London eruv consists of mechitzos so there is no reason to think that Rav Elyashiv would be stringent in such a situation as well. Furthermore, just as Rav Elyashiv allowed an eruv in Toronto consisting of mechitzos, there is no doubt that he would allow this eruv in London as well. I reiterate all statements in the name of Rav Elyashiv emanating from the cabal, even those written in their seforim, should be discounted. This letter published from Rav Elyashiv in the kuntres proves that they argue fictitious opinions in his name (including that Rav Elyashiv maintains that the possibility of shishim ribo to traverse a street is sufficient for the street to be classified as a reshus harabbim and their claims regarding Rav Elyashiv’s shita in sechiras reshus).

Part III

Eruvin in the News: Westmount, Quebec

Shaar Sets Up Symbolic Carrying Domain

Eruv Will Allow Jews Greater Mobility While Observing the Sabbath

Westmount will soon be joining Cote St. Luc, Hampstead, Ville St. Laurent and other communities with the establishment of a symbolic 'domain' for its Jewish residents, officials at Congregation Shaar Hashomayim announced last week.

Known in Hebrew as an eruv, the enclosed area will be marked by a thin line on top of existing utility poles, and will be barely noticeable. Once in place, it will allow people greater freedom to carry items around on the Sabbath without breaking religious laws. Read on...

Eruvin in the News: Cornell University, NY

Cornell University Jewish Group Planning Eruv

Symbolic Fence Would Allow Activities During Sabbath; Town Approval Pending

By Krisy Gashler

Ithaca may soon be a friendlier place for Orthodox Jews.

How soon depends on how long it takes to get permission from municipal governments.

The Center for Jewish Living at Cornell University has been working for roughly two years to establish an eruv to surround campus and parts of the city and town of Ithaca and the village of Cayuga Heights.

An eruv is a symbolic fence that surrounds an area and allows observant Jews to move more freely on the Sabbath, said Cornell campus Rabbi Meir Klein. Read on...

Eruvin in the News: Westhampton Beach, NY 3

Hamptons' Edgy Holy War

By Selim Algar and Todd Venezia

May 9, 2008 -- Residents of a wealthy East End enclave are up in arms and living in fear that their tony way of life will be destroyed - all because of a quarter-inch strip of plastic.

The furor has broken out in Westhampton Beach this month, after a local synagogue asked permission to erect a symbolic plastic boundary to allow worshippers to perform physical tasks on the Sabbath. Read on...

Would the Chazon Ish Have Utilized His Chiddush to Allow an Eruv L’chatchilah?

Something that has bothered me for many years has now been answered. In Orchos Rabbeinu (vol. 1 p. 170, vol. 3 p. 253), they write that the Chazon Ish did not want to include Jabotinsky Road (481) in the Bnei Brak eruv. They go so far as to claim that even though the road according to the Chazon Ish’s chiddush (see The Brilliant Chiddush of the Chazon Ish) would not be classified as a reshus harabbim, nevertheless, he did not want to include it in the eruv. From these statements many have argued that although the Chazon Ish maintained that there is no reshus harabbim today in large cities, he would not enact his chiddush l’chatchilah. There was never any doubt in my mind that something was wrong with these statements in Orchos Rabbeinu. Anyone who learnt through the Chazon Ish on eruvin ─ his chiddushim and his countless letters defending them ─ would realize how strongly the Chazon Ish believed in his chiddush and could not honestly argue that the Chazon Ish would not utilize his chiddush l’chatchilah. Moreover, the Chazon Ish called his chiddush a clear and encompassing heter for our cities (Chazon Ish, O.C. 107:7). Evidently he would have relied on his chiddush l’chatchilah.

I hope that this matter will now be put to rest. In the Bnei Brak newspaper known for its Chazon Ish leaning, Arba Kanfos (April 30, 2008 p. 21; see below), they published an article from Rav Nissim Karelitz shlita where he states emphatically that the Chazon Ish’s chiddush can be relied on l’chatchilah, and that the reason why Jabotinsky Road was not included in the eruv was because it was parutz merubeh al haomed and therefore did not meet the Chazon Ish’s requirement. This follows what Rav Karelitz clearly states in his sefer Chut Shani (vol. 2, p. 281) that the Chazon Ish only had an issue with Jabotinsky Road because it was not within the boundaries of the city. However, through the Chazon Ish’s chiddush, streets in the city proper would normally be considered encompassed by mechitzos. [Additionally, it is apparent from one of the letters to Rav Chaim Kanievsky shlita published in the kuntres The Eruv Hamehudar in NW London (p. 38) that he maintains that the Chazon Ish’s chiddush can be used l’chatchilah, as well.]

The only issue that the Chazon Ish himself wrote about was that almost every time he inspected the eruv after Shabbos it was either broken or ripped. Therefore, he maintained that the eruv was considered be’chezkas pasul every Shabbos (Teshuvos V’Ksavim, siman 85; see the copy of this ksav yad in Orchos Rabbeinu, vol. 1 p. 170). He was therefore uneasy about people utilizing the eruv. However, since modern construction materials can withstand extreme weather conditions, they are b’chezkas kayama. There is no doubt then that the Chazon Ish would allow an eruv utilizing his chiddush and allow carrying in it today l’chatchilah.

An article published in the Bnei Brak newspaper Arba Kanfos (April 30, 2008 p. 21) which cites Rav Nissen Karelitz shlita who maintains that the Chazon Ish’s chiddush can be relied on l’chatchilah, and that the reason why Jabotinsky Road was not included in the eruv was because it was parutz merubeh al haomed.

Part 1: The Jewish Tribune’s Argument Against the NW London Eruv

Part of an ongoing commentary on the bias against city eruvin.

On March 20, 2008, the London Jewish Tribune’s headline read, “Don’t use the eruv.” They went on to say that the kashrus of the North West London eruv had again been called into question. This diatribe appeared after the new kuntres The Eruv HaMehudar in NW London promoting the eruv was disseminated. The article continues with refutations of the main points in the kuntres. I will start by making one statement and then move on to rebut the article word for word.

I think that it is a shame that chashuvah rabbanim such as Rav Padwa shlita and Rav Halpern shlita have allowed their objection to the eruv to become an halachic one. Clearly Rav Halpern maintains that London is not a reshus harabbim, and he would have, at the time of his writing his teshuvah in support of an eruv, been elated with the present eruv. Rav Padwa, as well, has told the Chernobyler rebbe from Boro Park (when he was visiting in London in 2001) that there are no halachic issues with a London eruv, and that his father had ancillary reason for objecting to one. The only reason that the issue of reshus harabbim has even entered the conversation is because this disagreement has been hijacked by people who have agendas and who will utilize all means to win. Even if it takes the rewriting of what some of those objecting today wrote themselves.

The Jewish Tribune, page 1:
[A statement from] the NW London Committee on behalf of Kedushas Shabbos, said that the description of the eruv [in the kuntres] as mehudar was far from the truth. It declares that there are still major problems with the London eruv.
The rebuttal:
Putting all personal bias aside, I think we would all benefit from a little level headedness. Who would know if the eruv is mehudar or not, the rabbanim from London or these experts in constructing eruvin from Yerushalayim? Why would anyone believe the London rabbanim more than the experts who state emphatically that the NW London eruv is a mehudar eruv? Are the local London rabbanim bigger authorities in eruvin than these experts? I do not think so.

The Jewish Tribune, page 1:
The major problem which remains, according to the statement, is that no eruv is valid in an area considered a r’shus harabim from the Torah viewpoint.
The rebuttal:
As I mentioned above, this became an issue with the ossrim only after the fact. The fact that the reshus harabbim issue only later became part of the debate is proof that the machlokas is not leshem shomayim, and it is only to negate the eruv at all costs.

The Jewish Tribune, page 1:
Among the other obstacles to the validity of the eruv is karfifos.
The rebuttal:
The experts wrote an extensive teshuvah in the kuntres explaining the heter. More so, these experts argued that Yerushalayim and other areas contain similar karpeifos and nevertheless the rabbanim allowed an eruv. As I mentioned in my prior post, if this was a machlokas leshem shomayim everyone would find a solution to this problem since most city eruvin contained karpeifos. (See more about this matter in part two.)

The Jewish Tribune, page 1:
The committee is critical of the comparison made [by the experts] between the NW London eruv and that of Yerushalayim, saying that in fact, London’s is, halachically, far worse.
The rebuttal:
There is no doubt that this statement from the experts elicited such a response because it illuminates the hypocrisy that has plagued all the anti-eruv campaigns, which is why don’t they take their fight to Yerushalayim as well? Of course the answer is it would be impossible to stop people from carrying in Yerushalayim since people have been utilizing the eruv from the times of Shlomo HaMelech. Moreover, no one will listen to their arguments since there are many reasons to allow the eruv in Yerushalayim and in cities all over the world. Additionally, who would know whether or not the London eruv is halachically similar to the Yerushalayim eruv, the experts who are involved with the Yershalayim eruv or the rabbanim who live in England?

The Jewish Tribune, page 4, North West London Eruv – a statement:
The Eruv is portrayed as Mehudar and by implication may therefore be relied upon even by the most orthodox. As if to prove this point, the brochure is introduced with portraits of earlier gedolim who all speak in favour of creating an eruv. This fact is not in dispute – provided that there are no halachic objections to its construction, whereas there are unfortunately indeed major problems with the London eruv.
The rebuttal:
There is no question that the eruvin established in Europe prior to WWII ― including those cities that contained shishim ribo ― had major halachic issues. Nevertheless, the gedolim of yesteryear found major leniencies to erect eruvin, and the overwhelming majority of our forefathers utilized their town’s eruv. How much more so would the gedolim of the past have approved of the current NW London mehudar eruv which does not rely on the many leniencies that they had to incorporate into their own eruvin. Additionally, even if the heter to permit an eruv is not a clear one, the Aishel Avraham states (siman 363) that nevertheless an eruv should be established in order to save people from chilul Shabbos beshogeg (see also Kriena D’Igrasa, p. 106, and Oim Ani Chomah, p. 136). Following this, there is no doubt that if the machlokas was leshem shomayim the ossrim would agree that despite their objections, an eruv should be established, and only then would they proclaim that their congregants should not make use of it.

It is important to note, that it is always possible to cite shitos yachidos to invalidate an eruv; however, ruling according to shitos yachidos is not the correct approach in halachah. [The Chasam Sofer writes (Y.D. 37) that if we were to collect all the shitos ha’ossrim, we would not be able to eat bread or drink water.] Moreover, since in hilchos eruvin 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. Consequently, to invalidate an eruv, one would have to selectively choose from disparate shitos yachidos ― which in many cases are contradictory ― and that is an unjustifiable approach in halachah. The reality is that if someone learns hilchos eruvin with an open mind, he would realize that since it is almost impossible to meet all the criteria of reshus harabbim, creating an eruv l’chatchilah is a real possibility.

The Jewish Tribune, page 4:
The pictures are followed by a further set of imposing faces of present-day gedolim, together with eruv letters – aimed at giving the impression that all those leading figures have involved themselves in the complicated issues of the London eruv and given it their full approval. Nothing can be further from the truth. None of them write about London or a situation comparable with London with the exception of Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach in his first letter who has since clarified his p’sak in his most recent letter published below. Nor have they been presented with a detailed description of the entire construction. In fact, it goes without saying that no godol would underwrite a contentious and complicated eruv without seeing it at first hand or at least having been properly briefed on all issues from an objective source.
The rebuttal:
This diatribe is duplicitous. Just a little later in this article they have no compunctions to list rabbanim who they maintain would object to an eruv in London when in fact, “none of the rabbanim actually involved themselves in the complicated issues of the London eruv,” either (more about these rabbanim further down). Besides for which, in the many debates I had with one of the members of the cabal (Chevrah Hilchos Issurei Eruvin), the names of some of these same gedolim were mentioned as opposing the London eruv. I wonder who was the, “objective source,” that, “properly briefed,” these gedolim, “with a detailed description of the entire construction?” I guess it is only when a gadol opposes an eruv that he does not need to be briefed from an, “objective source.” The hypocrisy continues. Moreover, I would like to know what was the cause of Rav Auerbach shlita's retraction? Was it because he was, “properly briefed on all issues from an objective source,” or was it the more likely scenario that he was told that some rabbanim objected to an eruv and it is incorrect that he mixed into the matter (as he specified in his first letter that he usually does not mix into matters that take place overseas). I am sure that it was the latter. Additionally, I have been told that many pertinent issues were discussed regarding the eruv between these gedolim and Rav Ehrentreu shlita and the experts. However, I have been informed that these gedolim who quietly support eruvin do not want to officially mix into these matters. In any case, there is no need for the rabbanim to involve themselves in the technicalities of the London eruv since it is halachically indistinguishable from the one in Yerushalayim.

The Jewish Tribune, page 4:
The publication then devotes many pages towards commending the proficiency of three people who came recently at enormous expense to improve the eruv. Apparently their involvement was considered necessary despite the fact as long as five years ago this very Eruv was launched and declared then as kosher lemahadrin.
The rebuttal:
With this argument, the author(s) of this article is showing his true colors. They are trying to create inconsistencies in Rav Ehrentreu’s words to generate doubt in the eyes of his congregation that he was unreliable. This tactic is typical from the anti-eruv cabal. In fact what the Bais Din maintained from the get go was that they were confident in the halachic integrity of the eruv. Clearly the eruv was kosher when it was originally established (there is no doubt that our forefathers would have considered this eruv kosher lemahadrin). However, there are many levels to mahadrin, and what was requested of these experts was to upgrade the eruv lechumrah to reach a mahadrin standard equivalent to that in Yerushalayim (see the kuntres, p. 26). As a matter of fact, the experts mentioned to me that the eruv as it was originally established was more mehudar than most eruvin in Eretz Yisroel. (See more about this matter in part two.)

The Jewish Tribune, page 4:
Whilst not detracting from their knowledge in the field, these visitors (the experts from Yerushalayim) can only do as much as their location permits. They can only correct and improve. They cannot eliminate the natural obstacles that exist.
The rebuttal:
Well, if they admit that these visitors are knowledgeable in their field, wouldn’t they know about these so called, “specific problems,” better than the writer of this article? There is no doubt that these experts from Yerushalayim have a more superior grasp of the inyan than anyone in the whole of England. Moreover, when I debated (one of) the author(s) of this article a while ago, he argued that even these experts agreed with him that there are these insurmountable, “specific problems,” and they only came to rectify whatever was possible. Well, now that the kuntres was published and these experts stated emphatically that these so called, “specific problems,” do not exist, of course the answer now is that these experts do not know what they are talking about. So what is it, do or don’t the experts know what they are talking about? Additionally, it is an extremely base tactic to denigrate these experts by calling them knowledgeable in their field, as if they are mere specialists who know nothing more. In fact, they are true talmidei chachamim, while on the other hand, most of those arguing against the eruv do not know the inyan of eruvin at all.

The Jewish Tribune, page 4:
This brings us to some of the specific problems. First and foremost, no eruv is valid in an area considered a r’shus horabim from the Torah viewpoint. The London Eruv includes roads that fall within this description. According to the most lenient opinion roads in a city inhabited by 600,000 people, serving those residents, are each a r’shus horabim min haTorah – even if the road is not actually traversed by 600,000 people on a daily basis. The North Circular Road (A406) and the Great North Way (A1) are the main arterial highways that access and serve all of London’s more than seven million inhabitants. It follows that these major roads automatically invalidate any eruv.
The rebuttal:
To claim that an eruv (tzuras hapesach) is not valid in a reshus harabbim is erroneous. Many Achronim maintain that me’d’Oraysa, a tzuras hapesach would reclassify a reshus harabbim as a reshus hayachid. Accordingly, the requirement of delasos is only me’d’rabbanan (Rosh Yosef, Shabbos 6b; Shulchan Aruch HaRav, O.C. 364:4; Tzemach Tzedek, Eruvin the end of Perek 5; Aishel Avraham, siman 345; Gaon Yaakov, Eruvin 11a; Yeshuos Malko, O.C. 21; Aruch HaShulchan, O.C. 364:1, and Kaf HaChaim, O.C. 364:12). Since the requirement of delasos is me’d’rabbanan, we can be lenient [safek d’rabbanan l’kulla] and apply any additional heter to remove the requirement of delasos (Kanah V’Kanamon, 5:56; Livush Mordechai, 4:4, and Bais Av, 2:9:3). Moreover, there is no lenient opinion, it is what the Shulchan Aruch states, and all other opinions are chiddushim. The simple understanding of the Shulchan Aruch is that the shishim ribo need to actually traverse the road itself and most poskim concur (Mor U'ketziyah, siman 366; Pnei Yehoshua, Shabbos 5b; Bais Ephraim, O.C. siman 26; Chavas Daas, in Nachalas Yaakov, Eruvin 5b; Michtam L’David, siman 2; Divrei Chaim, Addendum 3; Zivchei Tezdek, siman 102; Maharsham, 3:188; Sefas Emes, Shabbos 6b; Yeshuos Malko, siman 27; Divrei Malkiel, 4:3; Tirosh VaYitzhar, siman 73; Mishnah Berurah, Shaar HaTzion, 345:25 [the Mishnah Berurah indicates this by the usage of the phrase, “derech hamavoi hamefulash,”]; Minchas Elazar, 3:4; Tuv Yehoshua, p. 8; Bais Av, 2:5:2; Maharshag, 2:25; Mahari Stief, siman 68; V’yaan Yoseph, 131:1, 155:1, 195:2; Divrei Yatziv, 173:4, and Rav Shmuel Wosner shlita in Shevet HaLevi, 6:41 ― See also the sheilah to the Chacham Tzvi in siman 37 regarding England). Therefore, according to most poskim, the fact that a road could possibly be servicing shishim ribo is not sufficient grounds for the street to be classified as a reshus harabbim. Some argue that the Bais Ephraim maintains that it is sufficient if a road services shishim ribo for it to be classified as a reshus harabbim. However, the simple understanding of the Bais Ephraim is that the shishim ribo would need to traverse the street itself for the street to be classified as a reshus harabbim (Maharsham, 3:188 and Minchas Yitzchak, 8:32). The only question regarding the Bais Ephraim’s position was whether the requirement of shishim ribo traversing the street is on every day or would on most days suffice.

Part II

Eruvin in the News: Amsterdam

36 Years After Last Eruv, Amsterdam Jews Can Venture Out on Shabbat

By Cnaan Liphshiz

Amsterdam - Why should a group of rabbis be permitted to barricade the roads leading to the Dutch capital? Answering this question convincingly proved crucial for the historic reintroduction last month of the Jewish community's eruv, which freed hundreds of devout Dutch Jews from 36 years of weekend curfews. Read on...

Eruvin in the News: Stamford Hill, London

‘Not in My Back Yard’: Charedi Chief Fights New Eruv Plan

By Simon Rocker

The religious leader of London’s Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations moved this week to prevent the creation of an eruv in his own back yard.

Rabbi Ephraim Padwa, head of the Union’s rabbinate, urged members of the strictly Orthodox community not to back plans for a local eruv that would cover the Charedi strongholds of Stamford Hill and Stoke Newington in North London. Read on...

Eruvin in the News: Far Rockaway/Lawrence, NY

Carry On...

From The Editor's Desk

By Larry Gordon

We can perhaps venture to say that many people, both within the Orthodox community and outside of it, misunderstand the nature of the much-debated halachic and conceptual enclosure we affectionately know as the eiruv.

Here in the Five Towns, as well as in some of the numerous readership communities that receive this newspaper, the eiruv is, in most cases, rarely thought of and is very often taken for granted. After all, you may be thinking, why should we look for it if we probably would not be able to see it anyway? But rest assured, it is there and intact week after week so that you can carry your tallis to shul or wheel your toddler in his or her new Quinny without reservation, hesitation, or compunction. Read on...

The Kol Korei of the Chemdas Shlomo

In 1838, a kuntres was published by the Chemdas Shlomo, Rav Shlomo Zalman Lipschitz (1765-1839), with additional signatures of Yitzchak Kalisz of Warka (1779-1848) and Rav Chaim Meir Yechiel Shapira of Mogelnitz (d. 1849). [I hope to post more about these gedolim in the future when I write about the history of the Warsaw eruv.]

This kuntres, laying out issues that the Jewish communities should rectify, was in response to the terrible oppression by the Tzar’s armies. The fifth article states that those areas already encompassed by eruvin should insure their kashrus, and in those areas not yet enclosed by an eruv, the baalei battim should initiate an eruv with a hechsher. We see from this fascinating kuntres that these great gedolim considered it the responsibility of the baalei battim (even in the times where cities had Chief Rabbis) to establish an eruv, as well.

Facsimile of the original kuntres (1838) title page and the page with article five.

Eruvin in the News: Westhampton Beach, NY 2

How First Eruv on East End Would Work

By Mitchell Freedman

In his hands, the attorney for The Hampton Synagogue held a small piece of black plastic - round, hollow and about the thickness of a large cigar.

This, Richard Haefeli told members of the Westhampton Beach village board and community members at a meeting last week, is the material that would be used to mark the symbolic boundaries of an "eruv" that the synagogue hopes to create, which would encompass a chunk of the village. Read on...

Eruvin in the News: Westhampton Beach, NY

Religiously Symbolic Fence Sought for East End

By Mitchell Freedman

In a first for the East End, creation of an eruv, a symbolic fence used in Orthodox Jewish observance, is being sought by a synagogue in Westhampton Beach. Read on...

The Eruv HaMehudar in NW London

Lately a new kuntres titled The Eruv HaMehudar in NW London was disseminated to Jewish residents in Golders Green and Hendon. This beautiful full color booklet consists of over 160 pages containing letters of support from Gedolim and information regarding the kashrus of the eruv, particularly from three eruv experts who reside in Yerushalayim.

I believe this booklet serves two purposes: 1) Its primary role is to remedy the vilification of Rav Ehrentreu shlita’s name which was maligned by the anti-eruv group. 2) Its secondary role is to rectify what the Edah HaChareidis did when they dismissed their two eruv experts, Rav Moshe Berlin shlita and Rav Yaakov Yizchok Rochman shlita, from their job as retribution for their involvement in the NW London eruv (this illustrates to what length the anti-eruv group would go). To accomplish this purpose, the kuntres had to be written for the layman to understand which precluded any major halachic discussions (it does, however, contain an in-depth teshuvah on karpeifos). Some may consider the lack of halachic content a drawback; however, I think the kuntres accomplished what it set out to do. This is not to say that it is devoid of any content as it does include some interesting tidbits of information that I will now mine. Moreover, I believe that there are additional heterim for the eruv that the booklet did not even mention and which should be elucidated. [Please note that the kuntres consists of both Hebrew and English sides, and the page numbers basically correspond to both languages.]

On page 26 and 54, they state that the eruv is not less mehudar than the eruv of Yerushalayim. This is very important to note as most people carry in the Yerushalayim eruv, and there is absolutely no difference between London and Yerushalayim today.

On page 36, they state that while Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv shlita maintains that sechiras reshus is problematic, he still advocates the construction of city eruvin because there is whom to rely on. It should be noted that sechiras reshus is only a d’rabbanan, and that regarding this matter, all are in agreement that we maintain halachah k’divrei hameikil. One of the fundamental reasons to allow sechiras reshus l’chatchilah today is the power of eminent domain. I inquired of one of the mumchim from Yerushalayim if this aspect of sechiras reshus was discussed with Rav Elyashiv. He answered that the technicalities were not fully explained to Rav Elyashiv, and, therefore, the issue was never finalized. I mentioned that the rabbanim in Boro Park considered eminent domain to be the most solid approach to sechiras reshus and its importance should be clarified to him. [I was not clear if the power of eminent domain in either Eretz Yisrael or in London is similar to the American system; he answered that he believes that it is somewhat comparable.]

Additionally, from Rav Elyashiv’s letter, it seems that he maintains that shishim ribo is conditional of a city. I had many debates with one of the most vocal opponents of the NW London eruv (on Frummer Blog) and this letter clearly illustrates that he was arguing points in Rav Elyashiv’s name without knowing his opinion (he claimed that Rav Elyashiv maintained that the possibility of shishim ribo to traverse a street is sufficient for the street to be classified as a reshus harabbim). However, he was just repeating what was stated in the book Simchas Yisrael regarding Rav Elyashiv’s shita of shishim ribo, and as I stated then, this book cannot be relied on and this letter proves it. However, I am a bit surprised that Rav Elyashiv maintains that shishim ribo is conditional of a city. As I have posted prior, the fundament of shishim ribo until lately has been accepted as being conditional of a street (see Part 2a: Why Brooklyn Is Not a Reshus HaRabbim). Even Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l (Igros Moshe, O.C. 1:109) accepted as fact that shishim ribo is conditional of a street and only later (ibid., 1:139:5, 4:87-88, 5:28:5, 5:29) stated his chiddush that in a city, shishim ribo applied to an area of twelve mil by twelve mil. Even after Rav Moshe stated his chiddush, he realized that eruvin were established in cities containing shishim ribo, hence he formulated his chiddush of 3,000,000. In any case, as has been pointed out in the kuntres, Rav Elyashiv is referring to a situation of only tzuras hepesachim and not of a city encircled by mechitzos, in which case it would not make a difference if the city contained shishim ribo since it is classified as a reshus hayachid.

On page 38 is a letter from Rav Chaim Kanievsky shlita to Rav Dovid Eisenstein shlita, and from this letter they state that one can assume that Rav Kanievsky maintains that the Chazon Ish’s chiddush is permitted l’chatchilah. As a matter of fact, Rav Kanievsky cites the Chazon Ish l’halachah in his Shoneh Halachos (siman 363). Additionally, Rav Eisenstein mentions (p. 55) that Rav Dov Ber Landau shlita, the Rosh Yeshivah of Slabodka and a talmid muvhak of the Chazon Ish, told him that the Chazon Ish can be relied on l’chatchilah. The only reason why this discussion is needed was because the anti-eruv group cites from Orchos Rabbeinu that the Chazon Ish could not look upon one who used an eruv and other such stories. These statements, that the Chazon Ish’s chiddush can be relied on l’chatchilah, should put to rest any claims to the contrary. The fact is that the only difficulty with eruvin that the Chazon Ish himself wrote about was that the eruv was b’chezkas broken or ripped literally every Shabbos (Teshuvos V’Ksavim, siman 85). He was therefore uneasy about people utilizing the eruv. Modern construction material can withstand extreme weather conditions and are b’chezkas kayama. There is no doubt that the Chazon Ish would allow carrying in an eruv today, and the stories to the contrary do not pertain to our eruvin. I have been told that there will be more evidence that will be publicized shortly regarding this matter.

On page 47 there is a letter from Rav Shmuel Auerbach shlita stating that although he usually does not mix into matters that take place overseas, he looked carefully into the matter of the London eruv and was completely satisfied that the supporters of the eruv were basing themselves on reliable halachic sources. He added that all parties should treat each other with respect. [I know about his retraction, and I will discuss this matter in my next post addressing the Jewish Tribune article objecting to this kuntres.] I do not understand this letter. What did Rav Auerbach mean by that he, “usually does not mix into matters that take place overseas?” Didn’t he involved himself with Brooklyn eruvin? Rav Auerbach wrote a scathing letter (in 2005) stating that those who established Brooklyn eruvin had the chutzpah to go against Gedolei Yisrael, Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l and Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l (actually Rav Aharon never mentioned a Brooklyn eruv).

On page 48 there is a letter from Rav Elchanan Halpern shlita arguing that contrary to what some have told the Gedolim in Eretz Yisrael, it is only a rumor that chareide rabbanim use sharp language to criticize those who use the NW London eruv, calling them names such as mechallelei Shabbos or pesulei eidus or pesulei chittun. I will leave it to members of the Golders Green community to argue if this is a fact or not (I have been told by a reliable source that Rav Halpern’s own son uses such language); however, I would like to understand why Rav Halpern signed kol koreis stating that London is a reshus harabbim when in fact he wrote in his S’dei Elchanan (siman 24; this teshuvah was published previously in his Yagdil Torah) that London is not a reshus harabbim. More so, I know for a fact that Rav Halpern allows his family to use the Boro Park eruv, and why should London be any different?

On page 52-57 there is an interview of Rav Dovid Eisenstein shlita. Rav Eisenstein states that most city eruvin are based primarily on the Chazon Ish’s chiddush (see The Brilliant Chiddush of the Chazon Ish). While there is no doubt that we can rely on the Chazon Ish’s chiddush even l’chatchilah (see above), Rav Eisenstein is incorrect that the Chazon Ish is the primary heter for city eruvin. London and many other cities are encompassed by three and even four mechitzos omed merubeh al haparutz and do not have to come on to the Chazon Ish’s chiddush at all (I have spoken to people in London and I have been told that the metzius is that there is no siluk mechitzos). I suppose the anti-eruv cabal would argue that if four mechitzos are being utilized, some of the tzuras hapesachim which are protruding out of the line of the mechitzos are in a reshus harabbim. However, this is irrelevant. When using mechitzos habattim, there is always another row of mechitzos habattim which would include any tzuras hapesachim that extend beyond the mechitzos. Consequentially, the tzuras hapesach would always be erected in a reshus hayachid.

Additionally, even though Rav Elyashiv maintains that shishim ribo is conditional of a city as I mentioned above, there is no doubt that it was the mesorah through the ages that shishim ribo is conditional of a street. The Divrei Malkiel (4:3) stated when writing to the people erecting an eruv in the city of Odessa, which had approximately shishim ribo, that, “the minhag is to erect eruvin even in the largest of cities and it does not concern us that they have shishim ribo since the shishim ribo is dispersed over all the streets.” We can add an additional heter that is of mefulashim u’mechuvanim m’shaar l’shaar (see Part 1: Why Brooklyn Is Not a Reshus HaRabbim). This heter was relied on in Warsaw and in New York in 1962.

Consequentially, London is not a reshus harbbim for the following two reasons: 1) There is no street that has shishim ribo traversing it. 2) The streets are not mefulashim u’mechuvanim m’shaar l’shaar. More so, because the area is encompassed by mechitzos (either through mechitzos habbatim or through the Chazon Ish’s chiddush) it is classified as a reshus hayachid to begin with, notwithstanding the possibility of a reshus harabbim contained therein.

Rav Eisenstein was then asked about the argument that the North Circular Road contains shishim ribo traversing it. He answered that the number of people using the road falls far short of this requirement, and that there is nowhere near shishim ribo passing through the section of the North Circular included in the eruv. Some have argued that we cannot halachicaly separate the section of the road included in the eruv from the rest of the North Circular. This is incorrect. There are Rishonim and Achronim who maintain that a tzuras hapesach can demarcate an area containing less than shishim ribo (see Tosfos Rid, Eruvin 22a; Or Zarua, Eruvin 22a; Igros Moshe, O.C. 5:28:19 and Addendum to O.C. 4:89; Mahari Stief, siman 68; Toras Chemed, p. 93, and Rav Elya Meir Bloch zt”l in Kol Tzvi number 7). [It’s important to note that most Achronim maintain that a tzuras hapesach changes the status of a reshus harabbim into a reshus hayachid; see Part 1: Delasos – Me’d’Oraysa or Me’d’rabbanan.]

Additionally, Rav Eisenstein argued that many poskim maintain that the occupants of a car are not tallied in the shishim ribo. He is incorrect; it is not many poskim only most poskim (see Are a Vehicle’s Occupants Included in the Shishim Ribo?). Moreover, the poskim maintain that people traversing the road in both directions are only counted traveling in one direction, and so the total for a roadway like the North Circular is actually much less (Kuntres Tikkun Eruvin Manhattan, p. 108; Kinyan Torah, 4:40:7, and Rechovas Ha’ir, 23:2).

Some claim that according to the Bais Ephraim that the possibility of shishim ribo traversing a street is sufficient for the street to be classified as a reshus harabbim. Consequently, the North Circular Road would be classified as a reshus harbbim even if shishim ribo do not actually traverse it. This is incorrect. The simple understanding of the Bais Ephraim is (Maharsham, 3:188 and Minchas Yitzchak, 8:32) that the shishim ribo would need to traverse the street itself for the street to be classified as a reshus harabbim, and the only question regarding the Bais Ephraim’s position was whether the requirement of shishim ribo traversing the street is for every day or would on most days suffice. Some claim that the Chazon Ish also subscribes to the idea that just the possibility of shishim ribo traversing a street is sufficient for the street to be classified as a reshus harabbim. However, it is clear from the Chazon Ish himself (107:6) that he maintains that shishim ribo is conditional of a street. Nevertheless, this is inconsequential since the Chazon Ish (108:12) upholds like the Magen Avraham that shsihim ribo would have to pass through the tzuras hapesach in order to negate it.

Rav Eisenstein then adds a very important point that many people do not realize. Even if the North Circular Road contains shishim ribo, and we would not agree to any of the above arguments since the area is enclosed by mechitzos, it is nevertheless classified as a reshus hayachid.

On page 60 there is an in-depth teshuvah proving that there are no real karpeifos included in the eruv. I would like to note that the poskim whom I speak to regarding hilchos eruvin have told me that all cities had to deal with this issue (actually, the Brooklyn eruvin do not contain any questionable karpeifos at all) and no one ever objected to an eruv because of them. Actually, there have been one or two cities where the anti-eruv group objected because of karpeifos, and for those who studied these historical struggles, it is obvious that those arguments were for similar factors as London - mi b’rosh. I found it comical that when I debated one of the most vociferous people against the NW London eruv, he did not even know about the issue of the Wildwood karpaf. During the course of our debate, when someone mentioned it to him, he asked to be apprised of the matter. At first, I merely thought it was interesting that he did not know about this issue to begin with, but then I realized that the London anti-eruv cabal is using the seforim from the Chevrah Hilchos Issurei Eruvin who rarely mention karpeifos, as their main arguments have been the issue of reshus harabbim. However, all the anti-eruv groups have one thing in common, they seek all means to negate eruvin, collecting disparate shitos yechidos – which in many cases are contradictory – just so that there will be no eruv.

I have a few more observations to make. There was an argument made, why did those supporting an eruv call in experts from overseas? Was there no one locally who could do as good a job? This is total “rubbish.” These eruv mumchim are from the greatest in the world, and I am sure there are no rabbanim in London who hold a candle to their expertise. Rabbanim have always called in experts to build mikvaos, and there is no reason why eruvin should be different. In any case, anyone locally would have been terrorized (as a matter of fact these overseas experts were terrorized as well - they lost their jobs).

One of the most hypocritical points that I have seen argued lately is what right do the rabbanim from overseas have to mix into a local matter? This is most fascinating. When I debated the virtues of the London eruv, Rav Elyashiv’s name was invoked many times in opposition, and I never heard anyone say, what business is it of his? I guess, as is usual when the issue is eruvin, everyone has a right to inject themselves into the matter to osser an eruv, but to support an eruv, only the local rabbanim have a right to mix in. I shouldn’t be surprised since this same shtik was utilized against Brooklyn eruvin. Rav Dovid Feinstein shlita allowed that an eruv can be established in Chicago according to his father, but the ossrim there argued that his was not the last word regarding his father. However, when those supporting an eruv in Brooklyn argued that Rav Moshe would allow an eruv, those opposing the eruv argued that Rav Dovid was the biggest expert in his father’s shitos and he maintained that his father would not allow an eruv in Brooklyn even in its present construction. The hypocrisy continues.

Another point, throughout this kuntres we see that the eruv was always kosher, and that these experts were just making it more mehuder. In my debate with that anti-eruvnik, he claimed that these experts told him that the eruv was never kosher. I stated then that his goal was to create doubt in the eyes of Rav Ehrentreu’s congregation that he was unreliable. Obviously, as I said then, everything this miscreant claimed in the name of these experts was suspect. Now it is clear as day that he fabricated all these statements in the name of these experts including that the experts maintained that the eruv was never kosher and that London is a reshus harabbim.

In summation, there is nothing that the pro-eruv group could offer that would satisfy the anti-eruv cabal. Their goal is one thing only, that there be no eruv at all. The fact that the anti-eruv cabal mixed into the technical aspect of the eruv, such as the efficacy of the tzuras hapesachim, is proof that they seek all means to negate an eruv. Haven’t they argued that no eruv can be constructed because London is a reshus harabbim? Why then do they care if the tzuras hapesachim are not the most mehudar? According to them, they are worthless anyway. In fact, this was their modes operandi in Boro Park, as well. Additionally, I constantly hear that the eruv is based on kulos. This was argued in Brooklyn, as well, and is factually incorrect. As mentioned above, the Chazon Ish can be relied on l’chatchilah, and the other reasons to allow an eruv that I mentioned are accepted l’halachah as well. More so, since these heterim are at the minimum sfek sfeikos, we would go l’kulah even regarding a d’Oraysa.

Eruvin in the News: NW London 3

Eruv ‘Friends’ Go On Glossy PR Offensive

By Simon Rocker

Supporters of the North-West London eruv have mounted an expensive public-relations exercise in a bid to demonstrate to local strictly Orthodox residents that it is usable.

Thousands of copies of an lavishly produced 160-page booklet have been delivered to Jewish homes in Hendon and Golders Green, containing endorsements for the Sabbath boundary from across the Orthodox rabbinic world.

Although the North-West London eruv became operational five years ago, under the supervision of the London Beth Din, it has been consistently opposed by the rabbinate of the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations, which questions its validity under Jewish law. Read on...

Eruvin in the News: Denver, Co

"Invisible" Line Defines Neighbors

By Susan Greene

A piece of string is the binding thread in a tapestry of pious Jews moving east of the Denver Tech Center.

It's called an eruv — a symbolic wall that allows exceptions to strict rabbinical laws forbidding work, including lifting babies and carrying keys, outside the home on Sabbath.

Eruvs stretch the boundaries of that private space to include whole neighborhoods. This one in Greenwood Village is threaded from streetlamps to telephone poles, zig- zagging through housing tracts and chain-restaurant parking lots. Read on ...

Eruvin in the News: Dallas, TX 2

The Building of an Eruv - An Electrifying Experience in More Ways than One!

“The source of blessings is You, Hashem, our A’Mighty, King of the Universe who has kept us alive, sustained us, and brought us to this time.”

Tears welled up in my eyes as I contemplated these words and their appropriateness while witnessing the culmination of a project that took over a decade to complete. I vividly remember riding in my car down a busy Dallas street many years ago and sadly repeating to myself, “This will never happen…this will never happen.” “This” was the building of an eruv to surround the community where I am the rabbi of a shul/Torah center. Truth be told, I was overwhelmed by this daunting task. In order to erect an eruv there are numerous factors that must be addressed, weighed, analyzed and correctly executed. The logistics that had to dovetail during this process appeared unreachable. Yet the knowledge that there are communities who overcame similar hurdles and now enjoy the benefits of their eruvim served as a source of inspiration and helped us persevere when we were faced with what we perceived to be insurmountable obstacles. Read on ...

Eruvin in the News: Borehamwood, London 6

Eruv Plans Underway

Preparations are underway for the construction of an eruv in Borehamwood.

Hertsmere Borough Council agreed to the construction of the eruv last year. An eruv is a symbolic boundary that allows Orthodox Jews to carry and push items on their day of rest.

The Borehamwood eruv will be made up of 34 sets of poles and connecting wires which will bridge the gap between natural features such as train tracks, walls and hedges around the town. Read on ...

Part 4: The Truth About Warsaw

In Part 3: The Truth About Warsaw I wrote:
On the Los Angeles eruv website it states that Rav Gustman zt"l was asked, “How did Warsaw continue to keep their Eruv, even after the population there grew, and exceeded 600,000. He answered that Warsaw did not have main streets like Paris or Brooklyn, wherein there were 600,000 people from all around using those streets. Warsaw expanded in a manner that the people from the various parts of the city did not use any single streets, and rather each neighborhood used the adjacent streets. At the time there were no cars or wide streets, hence no major thoroughfares used by 600,000 people.”

I then answered:
“This story in the name of Rav Gustman zt”l is not credible. The fact is that Rav Shlomo Dovid Kahane zt”l, one of the main rabbanim of Warsaw before World War II, wrote (Divrei Menachem, O.C. vol. 2, pp. 42-43) that in Warsaw they didn’t want to rely on the criterion of shishim ribo at all (however, he maintained that they relied on the universally accepted criterion of mefulash u’mechuvanim m’shaar l’shaar).”

In fact the most uncontrovertibly proof that Rav Gustman did not utter the above words is the reality that he is the one who found this letter from Rav Shlomo Dovid Kahane and gave it to Rav Menachem Kasher zt”l.

This is what Rav Kasher relates regarding how he chanced upon this letter of Rav Kahane (Divrei Menachem, O.C. vol. 2, p. 42 note 4):

מענינים מאד המסבות איך המכתב הזה נתגלה לנו. לפני שבוע דברתי עם הגר"י גוסטמן שליט"א ר"מ ישיבת נצח ישראל בברוקלין, שהי' אחד מחברי הבית דין בווילנא שבראשו עמד הגרח"ע זצ"ל

Clearly Rav Gustman knew that the heter being relied on in Warsaw was mefulash u’mechuvanim m’shaar l’shaar and not the criterion of shishim ribo at all.

Eruvin in the News: Boulder, CO 3

Council Passes Eruv Lease

Cowles Objects that People Weren't Informed of Religious Boundary

By Ryan Morgan

A plan to build a Jewish religious boundary in central Boulder hit a speed bump Tuesday night, but the Boulder City Council still offered its blessing.

Some members of the Boulder City Council took issue with the proposal to grant a lease to Congregation Aish Kodesh to build an eruv, or religious boundary.

After lengthy debate, the council voted 5-2 to approve the eruv. Read on ...

Eruvin in the News: Boulder, CO 2

Boundary May Simplify Boulder Jews' Sabbath

Council May Grant Lease Allowing Right-of-way for Eruv

By Ryan Morgan

An Orthodox Jewish congregation in Boulder is just a few regulatory hurdles away from having an easier Sabbath.

On Tuesday night, the Boulder City Council will consider whether to grant a lease to the Congregation Aish Kodesh to build an eruv, or religious boundary. Orthodox Jews are forbidden on the Sabbath from doing any sort of work outside the home — including mundane tasks like carrying a wallet in a pocket or carrying a child. An eruv provides a large, unbroken boundary inside which people can go about their business on the Sabbath. Read on ...

A Letter to the Editor

The following is my letter to the editor which appears in the current issue of Mishpacha [November 21, 2007]. It was written in response to the article Beaver Hats and Brownstones [November 7, 2007].

Dear Sir,

As an avid reader from the get go, I would like to take this opportunity to commend you for publishing a wonderful magazine. I know I can always count on Mishpacha to provide balanced coverage on a wide variety of topics. That is why I was taken aback when I read your recent cover story about Williamsburg (November 7, 2007; page 6) where you drew parallels between the religiosity of Bnei Brak and Jerusalem with that of Williamsburg, and compared the current anti-eruv vigilantism of a few individuals with that of prewar Williamsburg Rabbis Chaim Gelb and Baruch Kaplan, “who would vocally stand up for Shabbos.”

The analogy is totally off the mark. Chillul Shabbos in prewar Williamsburg was universally accepted as a legitimate concern, while the contemporary eruv issue is at the most a machlokas haposkim. There is no requirement for one to be mocheh when others are following their rabbanim who allow carrying. As a matter of fact, the eruv is supported and used by the foremost posek in America, Harav Fischel Hershkowitz shlita.

The rabbi you describe as a, “proponent of a machlokas l’sheim Shamayim, [who] fervently believe[s] that any eruv subscriber is a mechallel Shabbos,” is not just, “taking to task those Jews who accept the Williamsburg eruv.” He has physically attacked people carrying and has even been arrested for harassment. I hardly think that this is the paradigm of one who campaigns l’sheim Shamayim that you seek to promote in your fine publication.

It’s ironic that Bnei Brak and Jerusalem — areas that are known for their kanaus l’sheim Shamayim — are, hallachically, no different than Williamsburg, yet the overwhelming majority of observant Yiden who carry in the eruvin there never encounter such vigilantism. Carriages are not overturned and the women pushing them are not verbally harassed. This clearly demonstrates that the motive for this vigilantism is not l’sheim Shamayim.

This is not the venue for a detailed discussion regarding the underlying issue of the Williamsburg eruv. Suffice it to say, it’s clearly a power struggle and has little to do with halachah.

Sincerely,

L(ine)M(an)

Eruvin in the News: Lancaster, PA

New Eruv Will Allow Orthodox Jews to Carry

By James Buescher

Lancaster, PA - It's a treasured part of Scripture for Jews: the story of the Israelites, after having escaped slavery in Egypt, depending on God for a mysterious biblical food called manna. Read on ...

Eruvin in the News: Manchester, England 2

Another Eruv on the Way for Manchester

By Nathan Jeffay

Plans are afoot to establish an eruv in the Greater Manchester town of Whitefield.

Whitefield Hebrew Congregation has “a route and a scheme” for a religious boundary that would permit Orthodox Jews to carry certain items on Shabbat, its minister Rabbi Jonathan Guttentag has told the JC. Read on...

History of City Eruvin − Part 5: The Eruv in St. Louis

Continued from part IV

The First St. Louis Eruv

In 1896, Rav Zecharia Yosef Rosenfeld published his arguments for an eruv in a kuntres called Tikvas Zecharia.[89] He stated in his preface:[90] I was driven out of the country in which I was born by the fury of my oppressor,[91] a country where Torah and greatness completely enveloped me. I arrived in this country and observed that even many of the religious Jews permitted carrying on the Shabbos [without an eruv]. A religious Jew, a Jew for whom all is holy, is not embarrassed to carry his tallis to shul in public and then to wrap himself in it during prayer. I said to myself, what could I do for the sake of my people, to remove this major sin? If I raise my voice in public to express the severity of the prohibition, I know very well that my words will not make an impact because people have already become accustomed to carrying. Furthermore, the many preachers of this country have used all the means at their disposal to rebuke the public, yet they have been unsuccessful and their words have been ignored.

Rav Rosenfeld then stated: When I was appointed as the Rav of the Agudas HaKehilos of St. Louis, I wasted no time, and I examined the configuration of the city and labored over the halachic issues. Baruch Hashem, I found that there is an acceptable way to permit carrying in St. Louis on Shabbos. He then added that he hoped that others would be energized to do likewise in all communities, to seek an acceptable means to permit carrying in order to remove this major sin.

Since a proposal to establish an eruv had never before been implemented in this country,[92] Rav Rosenfeld sent his kuntres to Rav Yitzchok Elchonon Spektor (1817-1896)[93] Av Bais Din of Kovno to secure a haskamah. Rav Spektor answered that it was difficult for him to be involved from such a great distance in a complicated halachic issue like this since he was unfamiliar with the configuration of American cities. Rav Spektor directed Rav Rosenfeld to turn to Rav Yaakov Yosef Josef, Chief Rabbi of New York, for a haskamah since he would be more familiar with the cities of America. Rav Rosenfeld stated that he followed this suggestion and indeed secured a haskamah from the Chief Rabbi. He then signed and dated the preface as the Rav of the Agudas HaKehilos of St. Louis on Feb 24 (or April 20), 1896.

In his introduction, Rav Rosenfeld cited the Chasam Sofer[94] who declared that it was common sense and an obligation to rectify the chatzeiros and the mevo’os in order to permit carrying as it is known that issurei Shabbos are severe. Those who did not observe Shabbos were considered as if they denied the entire Torah, and included in this was the proscription of carrying. Moreover, we were commanded to educate the children not to become accustomed to chilul Shabbos. However, it was not possible for the public to ensure that members of their household did not leave their houses without carrying something. The Chasam Sofer continued that it was the responsibility of the rabbanim to rectify their city, and if not, they would have to account for it.

Rav Rosenfeld then added that it was only Bais Din and not the inhabitants of the mavoi who could compel one to contribute for the mechitzos and the eruvei chatzeiros. He cited the Behag[95] that there was a requirement to establish an eruv of tzuras hapesachim for a city. Rav Rosenfeld then argued that the duty of a rav, whether or not he received wages from the community, definitely included the responsibility of establishing an eruv.

Rav Rosenfeld cited the Rosh[96] who commanded the leader of the city Freres, who refused to establish an eruv, to rectify the streets of his city in order that carrying be permitted on Shabbos.

Therefore, Rav Rosenfeld declared that it was incumbent upon him to inspect the perimeter of the city of St. Louis in order to find a heter to rectify the city so that carrying would be permitted on Shabbos.

Chapter One – Citing support for his opposition to the Masa'as Binyamin,[97] Rav Rosenfeld argued that most poskim did accept the criterion of shishim ribo as a fundament of a reshus harabbim, including Tosfos. Rav Rosenfeld added the Eshkol, Piskei Rid, and HaAgur to the Bais Ephraim’s list of Rishonim who maintained that shishim ribo is a criterion of a reshus harabbim.[98]

Additionally, Rav Rosenfeld, in support of the Bais Ephraim, cited Rashi[99] who clarified that the reason why Machane Levi'ah was a reshus harabbim was because it was where Klall Yisroel assembled to hear Torah from Moshe Rabbainu. Rav Rosenfeld argued that even though Machane Levi'ah was the main reshus harabbim since Yidden came from the entire diglei hamidbar to Machane Levi'ah, it was prohibited to carry in all the streets in the diglei hamidbar. Consequently, Rav Rosenfeld argued, even according to those who posited that it was sufficient to classify a street which supported shishim ribo as a reshus harabbim, at least one street actually needed to contain shishim ribo traversing therein. Only then, according to Rashi, would all the streets leading to it be considered as supporting shishim ribo and, therefore, they would be classified as a reshus harabbim.

Section One – Rav Rosenfeld maintained that even though we included all the inhabitants of the city towards shishim ribo – since all the streets opened into each other – if a karmelis such as a roofed area bisected the city, we would not tally the now divided population as a unified total to render the city a reshus harabbim.[100]

Section Two – In Rav Rosenfeld’s opinion, the telegraph lines which bisected the city created a roofed area through the principle of lavud [we view objects within three tefachim of each other as if they are halachically connected] because their wires were spaced less than three tefachim apart on crossarms that projected more than an amah on both sides of the poles. Consequentially, the streets beneath them would be classified as a karmelis, and the city was bisected into parts of less than shishim ribo.

Chapter Two – Notwithstanding the platyas contained therein, Rav Rosenfeld upheld that a city encompassed by mechitzos would be classified as a reshus hayachid since, as a result, the platyas were not mefulash.

Chapter Three – Rav Rosenfeld mentioned that many of the Gedolei Achronim maintained that the mechitzos were not negated even at the time when the river froze over. He then argued that water did halachically negate the riverbanks; only the riverbanks that were above the water line could be used as mechitzos.[101]

Chapter Four – An additional concern discussed by Rav Rosenfeld was that the riverbanks may later be obliterated by a build-up of sediment.

Chapter Five – Rav Rosenfeld cited the Shoel U’Maishiv[102] who maintained that telegraph lines served as halachic tzuras hapesachim. He then disputed the Toras Chesed’s four reasons why telegraph lines were not considered halachic tzuras hapesachim:[103] 1) Rav Rosenfeld advocated that wires affixed to the top of the crossarms were not considered tzuras hapesach min hatzad. [Additionally, he declared that he only made use of telegraph lines where the wires were affixed to insulators fastened to crossarms that were attached to the top of the poles.] 2) He demonstrated that the poskim would have allowed that a structure meant to resemble a doorway could serve as a tzuras hapesach even if not expressly constructed as one [as opposed to an area requiring only minimal rectification ― a heker]. Additionally, the fact that telegraph wires, in order to allow passage beneath them, were intentionally placed high up on poles, which were never placed in middle of the street but only on the corners, proves that they were designed to allow free passage beneath them. 3) He argued that we were not concerned that the distance between the telegraph poles and the houses was more than three tefachim because the poles were running along the sidewalk, parallel to the streets. Since the opening between the telegraph poles and the houses was only on the side, Rav Rosenfeld stated that that the gap could be up to 10 amos wide. Additionally, Rav Rosenfeld noted that in a situation where the telegraph lines and the mechitzos were joined together without any gaps between them, it did not concern us that there were gaps between the poles and the houses. 4) He maintained that only when the tzuras hapesachim were less than three tefachim apart was there a dispute that this was not the way a doorway is constructed. In fact, the telegraph poles were more than four tefachim apart.

Additionally, Rav Rosenfeld noted that the crossarms on the telegraph poles projected more than an amah on each side, and the wires generally were spaced less than three tefachim apart on the crossarms. Therefore, he reasoned, since we view the space between the wires as halachically connected through lavud, we could then apply the principle of pi tikra yored v’sosem [we regard the edge of a roof as extending downwards, forming a legitimate partition], and the telegraph lines could be regarded as mechitzos.

Chapter Six – Rav Rosenfeld stated: 1) That he disagreed with Rav Akivah Eiger[104] and maintained that the renting of the reshus through sechiro v’lekito was effective for an observant Jew. 2) Rav Rosenfeld argued that, even according to Rav Akivah Eiger, sechiro v’lekito was effective for a non-Shomer Shabbos Jew.

Chapter Seven – According to the Teshuvos Rivash,[105] Rav Rosenfeld stated it was possible to contract sechiras reshus from the city’s mayor because he could place objects in the homes of the city’s residents as he pleased. Another rationale cited by the Rivash was that, since the mayor had the authority to alter the major thoroughfares as he pleased and to offer the residents an alternative route, he obviously had the right to remove all the non-Jews from the thoroughfares. Since he may expel them, he may sell their jurisdictions over the streets as well. The Rivash noted that the second reason did not suffice to permit carrying into the streets from the houses that belonged to the non-Jews. He therefore concluded that, in order to satisfy both reasons, it was best to refrain from carrying in and out of the houses of non-Jews and to limit one’s carrying to taking objects from houses owned by Jews into the streets and vice versa.

Citing the Pri Megadim[106] Rav Rosenfeld wrote that, as far as we are concerned, each reason is sufficient by itself. Therefore, when the mayor was authorized to quarter soldiers in private homes, one was allowed to carry even to and from non-Jewish homes. If, however, the mayor was not authorized to do so, one was only permitted to carry into the streets from Jewish homes. Thus, according to the laws of this country that authorized the authorities to condemn private homes in order to construct roads, marketplaces, or for other public benefit when they deem necessary, the Rivash’s second reason allowed carrying even into the streets from non-Jewish homes.

Rav Rosenfeld continued that, according to the laws of this country, magistrates could issue warrants allowing the police to enter any house. Detectives might enter houses even without the knowledge of homeowners. The officials in charge of hygiene and health might enter any house at any time to inspect the cleanliness, the water pipes and other matters, and then require the homeowners to work and fix any violations in accordance with their directives. If the homeowner did not fulfill their directives, they might send workers with tools into the homes to make the necessary repairs at the owner’s expense. If he did not reimburse the authorities, they had the right to sell his house. According to Rav Rosenfeld this suggested that one might contract the sechiras reshus from the mayor of the city. Furthermore, since the officials, the police officers, and all the city authorities involved in municipal matters such as preventing harm, maintaining roads and preserving sanitation, were not appointed by the government but were rather elected by the inhabitants of the city who, in turn, are the sole sources of their salaries, the municipal authorities and workers were thus no less than sechiro v’lekito of the inhabitants of the city, or at the very least, they should be considered sechiro v’lekito of sechiro v’lekito.[107]

Continued here.
_____________________________

[89] Preface p. {6}. Rav Jaffe later claimed that the rabbanim of Yerushalayim had seen Rav Rosenfeld’s Tikvas Zecharia, vol. 2 (Teshuvah KaHalachah VeDivrei Shalom, p. 2). Consequentially, Tikvas Zecharia, vol. 2 must have been published prior to their haskama on Rav Jaffe’s Teshuvah KaHalachah VeDivrei Shalom which is dated June 28, 1896 (ibid., p. {2} 3). However, I am not convinced that they actually saw Rav Rosenfeld’s kuntres at all; see further Analysis of the Halachic Debate.
[90] Page {3}.
[91] See note 31.
[92] See note 56.
[93] Author of Be'er Yitzchak (Konigsberg, 1858); Ein Yitzchak, vol. 1 (Vilna, 1889), vol. 2 (1895), and Nachal Yitzchak, vol. 1 (Vilna, 1872), vol. 2 (1884).
[94] O.C. siman 99.
[95] Hilchos Eruvin, Perek Hador.
[96] Klal 21, siman 8.
[97] Siman 92.
[98] This was the first teshuvah to mention that, besides for the Bais Ephraim’s list, there are additional Rishonim who support shishim ribo. By 1906, Rav Rosenfeld’s addition was being quoted by others; see Rav Avraham Aharon Yudelovitch, Bais Av (2:5:2). As Rav Rosenfeld sent a query to Rav Yudelovitch (ibid., 3:30), I would venture to say that he sent him his kuntres as well (see also notes 100, 110). How else can we explain how Rav Rosenfeld’s kuntres reached Rav Yudelovitch who was in Manchester at the time?
[99] Shabbos, 96b.
[100] This chiddush in the name of Rav Rosenfeld was mentioned, as well, by the Bais Av (2:5:10) who did not agree with him. See the article by Rav Avraham Aharon Price regarding the Toronto eruv in HaPardes (25th year, vol. 4 pp. 11-38) where he defends Rav Rosenfeld (p. 21); see also notes 98, 110.
[101] Rav Rosenfeld extensively reworked this chapter at a later date. Hence some editions are paginated as folios with a different type from pp. 13-18 (see Hebrew Printing in America 1735-1926, p. 974). See also note 167.
[102] Mahadura Kama, 2:88.
[103] O.C. siman 9.
[104] Gilyon HaShas, Eruvin 80a.
[105] Siman 427.
[106] Mishbetzes Zahav, siman 391:6.
[107] I have cited many of Rav Rosenfeld’s arguments regarding sechirus reshus as they are pertinent to contemporary American eruvin. Besides for some of my own insertions, the above translation regarding sechirus reshus [chapter 7] were taken from The Contemporary Eruv (2002), p. 115.

_________________________________________________

Title page of Rav Rosenfeld’s kuntres attesting to the permissibility of the St. Louis eruv.