112
edits
Introduction to the Modern Eruv: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→The Hazon Ish’s model of a citywide eruv
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
==The ''Hazon Ish''’s model of a citywide eruv== | ==The ''Hazon Ish''’s model of a citywide eruv== | ||
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>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''!{| style="border-spacing:0;"| style="border:0.0069in solid #000001;padding-top:0in;padding-bottom:0in;padding-left:0.075in;padding-right:0.075in;"| [[Image:]]|-| style="border:0.0069in solid #000001;padding-top:0in;padding-bottom:0in;padding-left:0.075in;padding-right:0.075in;"| '''''Hazon Ish'' Diagram'''All diagrams are aerial views. Street A, which comes to a dead end and is lined with buildings on both of its sides, can be considered a biblical ''reshut ha-yahid'' because both its sides have a border made up of a majority of standing walls. The ''Hazon Ish'' would then proceed to explain that the imaginary lines drawn to complete the closure of Street A serve as a third partition for Streets B, C, and D which would then also become biblical “private domains.” |}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>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 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> | |||
{| style="border-spacing:0;"| style="border:0.0069in solid #000001;padding-top:0in;padding-bottom:0in;padding-left:0.075in;padding-right:0.075in;"| [[Image:]]|-| style="border:0.0069in solid #000001;padding-top:0in;padding-bottom:0in;padding-left:0.075in;padding-right:0.075in;"| '''''Hazon Ish'' Diagram'''All diagrams are aerial views. Street A, which comes to a dead end and is lined with buildings on both of its sides, can be considered a biblical ''reshut ha-yahid'' because both its sides have a border made up of a majority of standing walls. The ''Hazon Ish'' would then proceed to explain that the imaginary lines drawn to complete the closure of Street A serve as a third partition for Streets B, C, and D which would then also become biblical “private domains.” |} | |||
<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> | |||
==Formation of a ''tzurat ha-petah''== | ==Formation of a ''tzurat ha-petah''== | ||
The basic idea of a ''tzurat ha-petah'' is that it resembles a doorframe, which consists of two doorposts and a lintel on top. The doorposts need to be sturdy enough to support a lightweight door that would reasonably be used as a real door in that part of the world and whose width extends from one doorpost to the other (although it only needs to be 10 ''tefahim'' in height). The farther the doorposts are from one another, the sturdier they have to be in order to support a door that would extend from one post to the other. In actuality, very often the poles of a modern ''eruvin ''are too wobbly to realistically hold any door, calling into question the validity of these ''eruvin''.<ref name="ftn21"> ''Eruvin ''11b, ''Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayyim'' 362:11.</ref>Regarding the lintel, the ''Shulhan Arukh'' followed the version of the ''Talmud'' ''Yerushalmi'' that allows the lintel to be as thin and weak as a string. The Me’iri, however, had a version of the ''Yerushalmi'' that required the lintel to be strong enough to be able to bolt the door into it for further support. Until today, we follow the ''Shulhan Arukh'' and allow a string as the lintel.<ref name="ftn22"> ''Meiri Eruvin'' 2a and footnote 64 in the ''Mossad ha-Rav Kook'' Edition by Rav Simcha Zissel Beroida; ''Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayyim'' 362:11; ''Bi’ur ha-Gra'' ''ibid''.</ref> The ''gemara'' established that a ''tzurat ha-petah'' which is poorly constructed in the eyes of a professional architect is invalid. For example, the string serving as a lintel must pass directly over the top of the doorposts and may not be tied around the side of the doorposts; otherwise it is considered “poorly constructed.”<ref name="ftn23"> Even though the ''Taz Orah Hayyim'' 362:4 was lenient if the string is tied towards the top of the doorpost, his opinion has not been accepted (''Mishnah Berurah'' 362:64). Additionally, the Maharsham’s opinion that this ''halakhah ''doesn’t apply nowadays (Maharsham 1:162) is a nuance not accepted by the ''Mishnah Berurah''. </ref> Similarly, if the doorposts do not touch the ground, even if they are within three ''tefahim'' of it, the ''Hazon Ish'' considered this “poorly constructed” and therefore invalid. Although there is a concept of ''lavud'', a principle that supposes any two objects within three ''tefahim'' of one another to be considered as though they were touching, the ''Hazon Ish'' felt that it may not be employed in construction of a ''tzurat ha-petah'' since a non-Jewish architect would never use it.<ref name="ftn24"> Even though the ''Shaʻarei [[Teshuvah]]'' 363:4 and Steipler in ''Kehillat Yaʻakov'' on ''Eruvin Siman'' 6 assumed that this was acceptable, the ''Hazon Ish'' ''Orah Hayyim'' 71:11 and 79:11 found this invalid because it does not form a normal doorframe in the eyes of an architect.</ref> Another case in which a ''tzurat ha-petah'' is invalid is where the doorposts are misaligned with the gap in the border that this ''tzurat ha-petah'' would complete. For example, a ''tzurat ha-petah'' may not serve as a fourth wall of a boundary if its doorposts are to the left or the right of where the fourth wall should be (see diagram #2).<ref name="ftn25"> The Steipler in ''Kehillat Yaʻakov ibid.'' based upon Rabbeinu Yehonatan’s commentary on the Rif and ''Hazon Ish Orah Hayyim'' 70:16-7 agreed that the ''tzurat ha-petah'' is ineffective if the doorposts of the ''tzurat ha-petah'' are not in line with the breach in the wall. Regarding the contradictory rulings of the ''Hatam Sofer'' on this matter, see ''Be-Ikvei ha-Tzon Siman 12.''</ref> Additionally, if the doorpost for a ''tzurat ha-petah'' is inside of a separate ''reshut ha-yahid'', the doorframe is invalid. This situation is possible when one of the doorposts is found inside of a fenced area (see diagram #3).<ref name="ftn26"> Rabbi Yaʻakov of Lissa in ''Tikkun Eruvin'' s.v. ''od ra’iti she-tohavin'', ''Avnei Neizer'' ''Orah Hayyim'' 290</ref> {| style="border-spacing:0;"| style="border:0.0069in solid #000001;padding-top:0in;padding-bottom:0in;padding-left:0.075in;padding-right:0.075in;"| [[Image:]]<center>Diagram #2</center>| style="border:0.0069in solid #000001;padding-top:0in;padding-bottom:0in;padding-left:0.075in;padding-right:0.075in;"| [[Image:]]<center>Diagram #3</center>|-| style="border:0.0069in solid #000001;padding-top:0in;padding-bottom:0in;padding-left:0.075in;padding-right:0.075in;"| The bottom, left, and right sides are valid borders and the fourth side is completed with a ''tzurat ha-petah''. However, the doorposts for the ''tzurat ha-petah'' are misaligned, with one to the right and one to the left of where the wall should have been.| style="border:0.0069in solid #000001;padding-top:0in;padding-bottom:0in;padding-left:0.075in;padding-right:0.075in;"| The black lines represent complete walls and the gray lines represent a ''tzurat ha-petah''. One of the ''tzurat ha-petah'' poles is inside of a private domain.|}In conclusion, in order to be able to construct an eruv that would permit one to carry on ''Shabbat'', one first must clarify that the area under discussion is biblically a ''makom patur'' and not a ''reshut ha-rabbim''. It is possible for the area not to be considered a “public domain” on a biblical level either because it lacks a population of 600,000 people, because its main street does not go straight through the city, or because buildings line the streets such as the case may be in a large city. Once the area is ascertained to be a ''karmelit,'' which is a ''makom patur'' on a biblical level, it is possible to erect an eruv using ''tzurot ha-petah''. Finally, even if a community has a properly constructed eruv, its residents must ensure that they only use it in accordance with the rest of ''hilkhot'' ''Shabbat''.<ref name="ftn27"> One example is playing ball on ''[[Shabbat]]''. Even if there is an eruv, there are issues involved with playing ball on ''[[Shabbat]]'' including wearing improper clothing for the sanctity of ''[[Shabbat]]'' and nullifying the positive mitzvah of “''shabbaton,”'' spiritually resting on ''[[Shabbat]]''. Regarding playing games on ''[[Shabbat]]'', see ''Arukh ha-Shulhan Orah Hayyim'' 308:70 quoting from the ''Yerushalmi''. Concerning the mitzvah of resting on ''[[Shabbat]]'', see Rambam ''Hilkhot [[Shabbat]]'' 1:1, Ramban ''Vayikra'' 19:2, and Ibn Ezra'' Shemot'' 20:8.</ref> | The basic idea of a ''tzurat ha-petah'' is that it resembles a doorframe, which consists of two doorposts and a lintel on top. The doorposts need to be sturdy enough to support a lightweight door that would reasonably be used as a real door in that part of the world and whose width extends from one doorpost to the other (although it only needs to be 10 ''tefahim'' in height). The farther the doorposts are from one another, the sturdier they have to be in order to support a door that would extend from one post to the other. In actuality, very often the poles of a modern ''eruvin ''are too wobbly to realistically hold any door, calling into question the validity of these ''eruvin''.<ref name="ftn21"> ''Eruvin ''11b, ''Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayyim'' 362:11.</ref>Regarding the lintel, the ''Shulhan Arukh'' followed the version of the ''Talmud'' ''Yerushalmi'' that allows the lintel to be as thin and weak as a string. The Me’iri, however, had a version of the ''Yerushalmi'' that required the lintel to be strong enough to be able to bolt the door into it for further support. Until today, we follow the ''Shulhan Arukh'' and allow a string as the lintel.<ref name="ftn22"> ''Meiri Eruvin'' 2a and footnote 64 in the ''Mossad ha-Rav Kook'' Edition by Rav Simcha Zissel Beroida; ''Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayyim'' 362:11; ''Bi’ur ha-Gra'' ''ibid''.</ref> The ''gemara'' established that a ''tzurat ha-petah'' which is poorly constructed in the eyes of a professional architect is invalid. For example, the string serving as a lintel must pass directly over the top of the doorposts and may not be tied around the side of the doorposts; otherwise it is considered “poorly constructed.”<ref name="ftn23"> Even though the ''Taz Orah Hayyim'' 362:4 was lenient if the string is tied towards the top of the doorpost, his opinion has not been accepted (''Mishnah Berurah'' 362:64). Additionally, the Maharsham’s opinion that this ''halakhah ''doesn’t apply nowadays (Maharsham 1:162) is a nuance not accepted by the ''Mishnah Berurah''. </ref> Similarly, if the doorposts do not touch the ground, even if they are within three ''tefahim'' of it, the ''Hazon Ish'' considered this “poorly constructed” and therefore invalid. Although there is a concept of ''lavud'', a principle that supposes any two objects within three ''tefahim'' of one another to be considered as though they were touching, the ''Hazon Ish'' felt that it may not be employed in construction of a ''tzurat ha-petah'' since a non-Jewish architect would never use it.<ref name="ftn24"> Even though the ''Shaʻarei [[Teshuvah]]'' 363:4 and Steipler in ''Kehillat Yaʻakov'' on ''Eruvin Siman'' 6 assumed that this was acceptable, the ''Hazon Ish'' ''Orah Hayyim'' 71:11 and 79:11 found this invalid because it does not form a normal doorframe in the eyes of an architect.</ref> Another case in which a ''tzurat ha-petah'' is invalid is where the doorposts are misaligned with the gap in the border that this ''tzurat ha-petah'' would complete. For example, a ''tzurat ha-petah'' may not serve as a fourth wall of a boundary if its doorposts are to the left or the right of where the fourth wall should be (see diagram #2).<ref name="ftn25"> The Steipler in ''Kehillat Yaʻakov ibid.'' based upon Rabbeinu Yehonatan’s commentary on the Rif and ''Hazon Ish Orah Hayyim'' 70:16-7 agreed that the ''tzurat ha-petah'' is ineffective if the doorposts of the ''tzurat ha-petah'' are not in line with the breach in the wall. Regarding the contradictory rulings of the ''Hatam Sofer'' on this matter, see ''Be-Ikvei ha-Tzon Siman 12.''</ref> Additionally, if the doorpost for a ''tzurat ha-petah'' is inside of a separate ''reshut ha-yahid'', the doorframe is invalid. This situation is possible when one of the doorposts is found inside of a fenced area (see diagram #3).<ref name="ftn26"> Rabbi Yaʻakov of Lissa in ''Tikkun Eruvin'' s.v. ''od ra’iti she-tohavin'', ''Avnei Neizer'' ''Orah Hayyim'' 290</ref> {| style="border-spacing:0;"| style="border:0.0069in solid #000001;padding-top:0in;padding-bottom:0in;padding-left:0.075in;padding-right:0.075in;"| [[Image:]]<center>Diagram #2</center>| style="border:0.0069in solid #000001;padding-top:0in;padding-bottom:0in;padding-left:0.075in;padding-right:0.075in;"| [[Image:]]<center>Diagram #3</center>|-| style="border:0.0069in solid #000001;padding-top:0in;padding-bottom:0in;padding-left:0.075in;padding-right:0.075in;"| The bottom, left, and right sides are valid borders and the fourth side is completed with a ''tzurat ha-petah''. However, the doorposts for the ''tzurat ha-petah'' are misaligned, with one to the right and one to the left of where the wall should have been.| style="border:0.0069in solid #000001;padding-top:0in;padding-bottom:0in;padding-left:0.075in;padding-right:0.075in;"| The black lines represent complete walls and the gray lines represent a ''tzurat ha-petah''. One of the ''tzurat ha-petah'' poles is inside of a private domain.|}In conclusion, in order to be able to construct an eruv that would permit one to carry on ''Shabbat'', one first must clarify that the area under discussion is biblically a ''makom patur'' and not a ''reshut ha-rabbim''. It is possible for the area not to be considered a “public domain” on a biblical level either because it lacks a population of 600,000 people, because its main street does not go straight through the city, or because buildings line the streets such as the case may be in a large city. Once the area is ascertained to be a ''karmelit,'' which is a ''makom patur'' on a biblical level, it is possible to erect an eruv using ''tzurot ha-petah''. Finally, even if a community has a properly constructed eruv, its residents must ensure that they only use it in accordance with the rest of ''hilkhot'' ''Shabbat''.<ref name="ftn27"> One example is playing ball on ''[[Shabbat]]''. Even if there is an eruv, there are issues involved with playing ball on ''[[Shabbat]]'' including wearing improper clothing for the sanctity of ''[[Shabbat]]'' and nullifying the positive mitzvah of “''shabbaton,”'' spiritually resting on ''[[Shabbat]]''. Regarding playing games on ''[[Shabbat]]'', see ''Arukh ha-Shulhan Orah Hayyim'' 308:70 quoting from the ''Yerushalmi''. Concerning the mitzvah of resting on ''[[Shabbat]]'', see Rambam ''Hilkhot [[Shabbat]]'' 1:1, Ramban ''Vayikra'' 19:2, and Ibn Ezra'' Shemot'' 20:8.</ref> | ||
