Introduction to the Modern Eruv: Difference between revisions

<p class="indent">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></p>

<p class="indent"> 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> </p>

<p class="indent">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></p>

<p class="indent">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></p>