112
edits
Introduction to the Modern Eruv: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Determination of a reshut ha-rabbim
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
==Determination of a ''reshut ha-rabbim''== | ==Determination of a ''reshut ha-rabbim''== | ||
How does one decide whether any given area is biblically considered a “public domain”? The ''gemara'' derived the 39 ''melahot'' (principal categories of labor) prohibited on ''[[Shabbat]]'' from the significant activities done in the construction of the ''mishkan'' (Tabernacle) in the desert. The ''gemara'' implicitly assumed that the transportation of the ''mishkan'' was also included in the mitzvah of constructing the ''mishkan''. Therefore, the details of the prohibition against [[carrying]] on ''[[Shabbat]]'' can be derived from how the ''mishkan'' was transported in the desert. The wagons containing the parts of the ''mishkan'' could only have traveled on streets with a minimum width of 16 ''ammot''<nowiki>; thus in order for any area to be considered a “public domain” it must include a street at least 16 </nowiki>''ammot'' wide.<ref name="ftn9">''Shabbat'' 99a</ref> However, in practice, this definition doesn’t help very much since in almost all places where an eruv is desired, the streets are wider than 16 ''ammot''. One of the potential considerations in determining whether a particular area is a ''reshut ha-rabbim ''is the size of its population. Again, this criterion is based on the derivation of the laws of carrying on ''Shabbat'' from the transportation of the ''mishkan'' in the desert. Rashi'' ''and Tosafot wrote that just like there were 600,000 people in the Jewish camp in the desert, the definition of a public domain for the purposes of the prohibition of carrying on ''Shabbat'' requires a minimum population of 600,000.<ref name="ftn10"> The discussion of the opinion of Rashi and Tosafot as well as the dissenting opinions can be found in ''Tur'' and ''Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayyim'' 345:7. In the Torah’s census of the Jewish people, there were found to be slightly over 600,000 men between the ages of 20 and 60. While this number does not include women, children, elderly, and converts, Tosafot (''Eruvin'' 6a s.v. ''keitzad'') concluded that we can only define a “public domain” based on a number that the Torah states explicitly.</ref> There is a dispute as to whom is included in the count of population when determining the status of an area. The opinions range between counting all residents, counting all people who roam the streets of the area, and counting just the people who walk on a particular street.<ref name="ftn11"> ''Mishnah Berurah'' 345:24, R. Moshe Feinstein in ''Iggerot Moshe Orah Hayyim'' 1:139.</ref> Based on this assumption, many communities in Eastern Europe relied on a local eruv, considering their small villages and towns to be a ''makom patur'' (and not a “public domain”) on a biblical level. Ramban<ref name="ftn12"> ''Eruvin'' 59a. See further in Rabbi Hershel Schachter’s article titled “''Be-Inyan ha-Eruv be-Manhattan''” in ''Kol Tzvi ''v. 7. </ref> explained that the opinion of Tosafot which required a minimum population of 600,000 is limited to streets within a city. For a local street within the city to be considered public, it requires a certain level of usage. In contrast, a highway from one city to another, wrote Ramban, is automatically considered a public domain even without any minimum population simply by its definition as a major public road. It is possible to suggest that Ramban actually ''defined'' the biblical ''reshut ha-rabbim'' as a highway, and he viewed all of the guidelines about determining whether a given area is a ''reshut ha-rabbim'' as a test of whether it is sufficiently similar to a highway or not. Some rabbis felt that this approach of Rashi and Tosafot in defining a public domain was well-accepted and served as a basis for the modern eruv.<ref name="ftn13"> ''Taz'' ''Orah Hayyim'' 345:6, ''Arukh ha-Shulhan Orah Hayyim'' 345:18</ref> Others, however, argued that many ''rishonim'' (medieval rabbinic authorities) disregarded the idea of Rashi and Tosafot and assumed that there was no minimum population for an area to be considered a ''reshut ha-rabbim''.<ref name="ftn14"> ''Mishkenot Yaʻakov Orah Hayyim'' 120.</ref> Therefore, other suggestions were offered in order to explain the basis for local ''eruvin'' in Eastern Europe. The ''Arukh HaShulhan'' interpreted a passage in the ''Yerushalmi'' to mean that a “public domain” is defined as a street that is known to be the main street of the town. If there are multiple main streets in town, however, no one of them can be identified as a ''reshut ha-rabbim''. Accordingly, the larger the city, the more likely it would be for the multiplicity of streets to cause there to be no particular main street.<ref name="ftn15"> ''Arukh ha-Shulhan Orah Hayyim'' 345:19-25.</ref> Yet, the inference of the ''Arukh HaShulhan'' has traditionally been considered counter-intuitive and has not been accepted.Another approach to defend the practice of local ''eruvin'' in Eastern Europe was that of Rabbi Shlomo Dovid Kahana. Rabbi Kahana wrote that a ''reshut ha-rabbim ''needs to be a street that passes from one end of the city to the other without making any significant turns (''mefulash''). If, however, the main street turns at a right angle or comes to a dead end, the area is considered a ''makom'' ''patur'' on a biblical level. Using this same approach, it is again the case that the larger the city the more likely it is to be a ''makom patur'' because of the increased likelihood that there will not be any streets which pass straight through the city. While Rav Moshe Feinstein disagreed with this leniency, Rav Moshe’s own original interpretation of this requirement (''mefulash'') is not generally accepted.<ref name="ftn16"> Rav Moshe Feinstein in ''Iggerot Moshe Orah Hayyim'' 5:28:6 understood the requirement of having a main street pass from one end of the city to the other as referring to the fact that every part of the street needs to have the dimensions of a public alleyway. He assumed that if one section was roofed or narrower than 16 ''ammot'' wide, the entire street could not be considered as “a public domain.” See also ''Iggerot Moshe Orah Hayyim'' 140.</ref>It seems reasonable to propose, based on the Ramban mentioned earlier, that a highway that passes through a city is automatically considered a “public domain” by its definition as a public road. Therefore, a highway is not subject to the criterion of passing straight through the city in order to be considered a “public domain.” Whereas intracity streets are not considered “public” if they turn or come to a dead end, highways are “public” by definition, irrespective of whether they twist or turn. | <p class="indent">How does one decide whether any given area is biblically considered a “public domain”? The ''gemara'' derived the 39 ''melahot'' (principal categories of labor) prohibited on ''[[Shabbat]]'' from the significant activities done in the construction of the ''mishkan'' (Tabernacle) in the desert. The ''gemara'' implicitly assumed that the transportation of the ''mishkan'' was also included in the mitzvah of constructing the ''mishkan''. Therefore, the details of the prohibition against [[carrying]] on ''[[Shabbat]]'' can be derived from how the ''mishkan'' was transported in the desert. The wagons containing the parts of the ''mishkan'' could only have traveled on streets with a minimum width of 16 ''ammot''<nowiki>; thus in order for any area to be considered a “public domain” it must include a street at least 16 </nowiki>''ammot'' wide.<ref name="ftn9">''[[Shabbat]]'' 99a</ref> However, in practice, this definition doesn’t help very much since in almost all places where an eruv is desired, the streets are wider than 16 ''ammot''. </p> | ||
<p class="indent">One of the potential considerations in determining whether a particular area is a ''reshut ha-rabbim ''is the size of its population. Again, this criterion is based on the derivation of the laws of carrying on ''Shabbat'' from the transportation of the ''mishkan'' in the desert. Rashi'' ''and Tosafot wrote that just like there were 600,000 people in the Jewish camp in the desert, the definition of a public domain for the purposes of the prohibition of carrying on ''Shabbat'' requires a minimum population of 600,000.<ref name="ftn10"> The discussion of the opinion of Rashi and Tosafot as well as the dissenting opinions can be found in ''Tur'' and ''Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayyim'' 345:7. In the Torah’s census of the Jewish people, there were found to be slightly over 600,000 men between the ages of 20 and 60. While this number does not include women, children, elderly, and converts, Tosafot (''Eruvin'' 6a s.v. ''keitzad'') concluded that we can only define a “public domain” based on a number that the Torah states explicitly.</ref> There is a dispute as to whom is included in the count of population when determining the status of an area. The opinions range between counting all residents, counting all people who roam the streets of the area, and counting just the people who walk on a particular street.<ref name="ftn11"> ''Mishnah Berurah'' 345:24, R. Moshe Feinstein in ''Iggerot Moshe Orah Hayyim'' 1:139.</ref> Based on this assumption, many communities in Eastern Europe relied on a local eruv, considering their small villages and towns to be a ''makom patur'' (and not a “public domain”) on a biblical level. </p> | |||
<p class="indent">Ramban<ref name="ftn12"> ''Eruvin'' 59a. See further in Rabbi Hershel Schachter’s article titled “''Be-Inyan ha-Eruv be-Manhattan''” in ''Kol Tzvi ''v. 7. </ref> explained that the opinion of Tosafot which required a minimum population of 600,000 is limited to streets within a city. For a local street within the city to be considered public, it requires a certain level of usage. In contrast, a highway from one city to another, wrote Ramban, is automatically considered a public domain even without any minimum population simply by its definition as a major public road. It is possible to suggest that Ramban actually ''defined'' the biblical ''reshut ha-rabbim'' as a highway, and he viewed all of the guidelines about determining whether a given area is a ''reshut ha-rabbim'' as a test of whether it is sufficiently similar to a highway or not. </p> | |||
<p class="indent">Some rabbis felt that this approach of Rashi and Tosafot in defining a public domain was well-accepted and served as a basis for the modern eruv.<ref name="ftn13"> ''Taz'' ''Orah Hayyim'' 345:6, ''Arukh ha-Shulhan Orah Hayyim'' 345:18</ref> Others, however, argued that many ''rishonim'' (medieval rabbinic authorities) disregarded the idea of Rashi and Tosafot and assumed that there was no minimum population for an area to be considered a ''reshut ha-rabbim''.<ref name="ftn14"> ''Mishkenot Yaʻakov Orah Hayyim'' 120.</ref> Therefore, other suggestions were offered in order to explain the basis for local ''eruvin'' in Eastern Europe. The ''Arukh HaShulhan'' interpreted a passage in the ''Yerushalmi'' to mean that a “public domain” is defined as a street that is known to be the main street of the town. If there are multiple main streets in town, however, no one of them can be identified as a ''reshut ha-rabbim''. Accordingly, the larger the city, the more likely it would be for the multiplicity of streets to cause there to be no particular main street.<ref name="ftn15"> ''Arukh ha-Shulhan Orah Hayyim'' 345:19-25.</ref> Yet, the inference of the ''Arukh HaShulhan'' has traditionally been considered counter-intuitive and has not been accepted.</p> | |||
<p class="indent">Another approach to defend the practice of local ''eruvin'' in Eastern Europe was that of Rabbi Shlomo Dovid Kahana. Rabbi Kahana wrote that a ''reshut ha-rabbim ''needs to be a street that passes from one end of the city to the other without making any significant turns (''mefulash''). If, however, the main street turns at a right angle or comes to a dead end, the area is considered a ''makom'' ''patur'' on a biblical level. Using this same approach, it is again the case that the larger the city the more likely it is to be a ''makom patur'' because of the increased likelihood that there will not be any streets which pass straight through the city. While Rav Moshe Feinstein disagreed with this leniency, Rav Moshe’s own original interpretation of this requirement (''mefulash'') is not generally accepted.<ref name="ftn16"> Rav Moshe Feinstein in ''Iggerot Moshe Orah Hayyim'' 5:28:6 understood the requirement of having a main street pass from one end of the city to the other as referring to the fact that every part of the street needs to have the dimensions of a public alleyway. He assumed that if one section was roofed or narrower than 16 ''ammot'' wide, the entire street could not be considered as “a public domain.” See also ''Iggerot Moshe Orah Hayyim'' 140.</ref></p> | |||
<p class="indent">It seems reasonable to propose, based on the Ramban mentioned earlier, that a highway that passes through a city is automatically considered a “public domain” by its definition as a public road. Therefore, a highway is not subject to the criterion of passing straight through the city in order to be considered a “public domain.” Whereas intracity streets are not considered “public” if they turn or come to a dead end, highways are “public” by definition, irrespective of whether they twist or turn.</p> | |||
==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> | 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> | ||
