Introduction to the Modern Eruv: Difference between revisions

<p class="indent">The last major approach to explain how a large city could not be considered a biblical ''reshut ha-rabbim'' was elucidated by the ''Hazon Ish''.<ref name="ftn17"> ''Hazon Ish Orah Hayyim ''107:7. Most of his approach is clearly based on the ''gemara'' and earlier rabbis. However, this approach is nonetheless attributed to the ''Hazon Ish'' because one aspect of his understanding was at odds with that of Rav Moshe Feinstein. See further in ''Be-Ikvei ha-Tzon'', ''Siman'' 13:5.</ref> The'' gemara'' establishes that a border which is made up of a number of walls with gaps between them can be considered one long wall if the combined length of its gaps is less than the combined length of the standing walls. This rule is limited to cases in which each gap is less than 10 ''ammot'' in length; a wall with gaps greater than 10 ''ammot'' is not considered to be an effective border. While the ''Mishkenot Ya''ʻ''akov'' interpreted this to mean that a wall which has gaps greater than 10 ''ammot'' is not considered a “wall” even on a biblical level, the generally accepted view is that of the ''Beit Efrayim'' who argued that this would be an effective border on a biblical level, and is only invalid rabbinically.<ref name="ftn18"> ''Mishkenot Ya''ʻ''akov Orah Hayyim'' 121, ''Beit Efrayim Orah Hayyim ''25.</ref></p>

<p class="indent">In major cities such as New York City, it is quite common to have buildings line both sides of the streets without any gaps between buildings, creating a “border” of sorts. Even if each cross street creates a gap in the continuity of the buildings, the majority of such a border would be standing walls and would only have a minority of gaps. Any street that has such buildings on both of its sides can be considered enclosed by two walls on a biblical level, since the buildings form a wall with the majority standing. Lastly, if such a street comes to a dead end where it is met by another wall of buildings, it would then be enclosed by three walls which would make it a biblical ''reshut ha-yahid''!</p>

<p class="indent">Before expanding this proposition, let us analyze one of our basic assumptions that the buildings that line the streets can serve as a wall for an eruv. The ''gemara'' states that a ''mehitzah'' (partition) can serve as a wall for an eruv even if it was not originally intended to be used as an eruv wall when it was constructed. Therefore, the ''Hazon Ish'' presumed that the buildings which lined the streets could serve as an eruv wall to enclose the street. R. Moshe Feinstein, however, found it difficult to view the walls of a building as a partition that would enclose the street, since they were originally constructed for the purpose of enclosing the inner part of the building and never functioned as a border of the street. Nonetheless, the ''gemara'' clearly seems to indicate that the ''Hazon Ish''’s position is correct.<ref name="ftn19"> See'' Eruvin'' 15a and ''Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayyim ''362:3.</ref></p>

<p class="indent">With that in place, it is possible to take the ''Hazon Ish''’s approach one step further. He said as long as it was possible to find one street that came to a dead end in a city, the rest of the city could be considered a ''reshut ha-yahid''. According to his explanation, the street which comes to a dead end is considered a ''reshut ha-yahid ''since both of its sides are lined with buildings and at one end it comes to a dead end. In envisioning the sides of that street as walls, we can view even the gaps in the buildings—i.e. the cross streets—as forming a part of the wall, since a majority of the wall is standing. Now that the junctions between our original dead end street and its cross streets are considered a border, the cross streets become dead ends as well and each one would itself be considered a biblical ''reshut ha-yahid''. By continuing to find the adjacent cross streets from any of these previously determined “private domains,” it is possible for the entire city to be considered a ''reshut ha-yahid''.'' ''It is noteworthy, though, that this last extension of the ''Hazon Ish''’s approach is questionable and its correctness can be investigated further.<ref name="ftn20"> ''Be-Ikvei ha-Tzon Siman'' 13.</ref></p>