16,374
edits
Introduction to the Modern Eruv: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
Introduction to the Modern Eruv (view source)
Revision as of 04:48, 16 September 2014
, 16 September 2014Text replace - "Mishnah Berurah" to "Mishna Brurah"
No edit summary |
m (Text replace - "Mishnah Berurah" to "Mishna Brurah") |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
==Explanations of the ''tzurat ha-petah'' enclosure== | ==Explanations of the ''tzurat ha-petah'' enclosure== | ||
<p class="indent">From a biblical perspective, there are two well-defined types of domains: ''reshut ha-yahid'' (a private domain) and ''reshut ha-rabbim'' (a public domain). Any other area is considered a ''makom patur'' (an exempt area). The definition of a ''reshut ha-yahid'' is an area with the minimum measurement of 4 ''tefahim ''by 4 ''tefahim''<ref name="ftn2"> A ''tefah'', or handbreadth, is a measure of length between 3 and 4 inches. An ''ammah,'' or cubit, is a measure of length between 18 and 24 inches.</ref> that is surrounded by walls of 10 ''tefahim'' high. A ''reshut ha-rabbim'', on the other hand,'' ''is a street that is at least 16 ''ammot''<sup>2</sup> wide. An open field, then, which is neither enclosed nor used by the public, is considered a ''makom patur'' on a biblical level. The biblical prohibition of [[carrying]] an item from one domain to another only applies to from a reshut ha-yahid to a reshut ha-rabbim or vice versa. [[Carrying]] between a ''makom patur'' and a ''reshut ha-rabbim'', or between a ''makom patur'' and a ''reshut ha-yahid'', would be permitted on a biblical level. To avoid inadvertent violations of ''[[Shabbat]],'' however, the rabbis introduced a fourth type of domain called a ''karmelit''. This category includes some areas that would be considered a ''reshut ha-yahid'' on a biblical level and some areas that would be considered a ''makom patur'' on a biblical level. Continuing with our example, while an open field is a biblical ''makom patur'', on a rabbinic level it is a ''karmelit''. The rabbis forbade [[carrying]] from a ''karmelit'' to a ''reshut ha-yahid'' or ''reshut ha-rabbim''. In effect we treat a ''karmelit'' like a “public domain” on a rabbinic level.<sup> </sup><ref name="ftn3"> ''[[Shabbat]]'' 6a, Rambam'' Hilkhot [[Shabbat]]'' 14:1-7, ''Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayyim'' 345, ''Shulhan Arukh ha-Rav'' 345:19, '' | <p class="indent">From a biblical perspective, there are two well-defined types of domains: ''reshut ha-yahid'' (a private domain) and ''reshut ha-rabbim'' (a public domain). Any other area is considered a ''makom patur'' (an exempt area). The definition of a ''reshut ha-yahid'' is an area with the minimum measurement of 4 ''tefahim ''by 4 ''tefahim''<ref name="ftn2"> A ''tefah'', or handbreadth, is a measure of length between 3 and 4 inches. An ''ammah,'' or cubit, is a measure of length between 18 and 24 inches.</ref> that is surrounded by walls of 10 ''tefahim'' high. A ''reshut ha-rabbim'', on the other hand,'' ''is a street that is at least 16 ''ammot''<sup>2</sup> wide. An open field, then, which is neither enclosed nor used by the public, is considered a ''makom patur'' on a biblical level. The biblical prohibition of [[carrying]] an item from one domain to another only applies to from a reshut ha-yahid to a reshut ha-rabbim or vice versa. [[Carrying]] between a ''makom patur'' and a ''reshut ha-rabbim'', or between a ''makom patur'' and a ''reshut ha-yahid'', would be permitted on a biblical level. To avoid inadvertent violations of ''[[Shabbat]],'' however, the rabbis introduced a fourth type of domain called a ''karmelit''. This category includes some areas that would be considered a ''reshut ha-yahid'' on a biblical level and some areas that would be considered a ''makom patur'' on a biblical level. Continuing with our example, while an open field is a biblical ''makom patur'', on a rabbinic level it is a ''karmelit''. The rabbis forbade [[carrying]] from a ''karmelit'' to a ''reshut ha-yahid'' or ''reshut ha-rabbim''. In effect we treat a ''karmelit'' like a “public domain” on a rabbinic level.<sup> </sup><ref name="ftn3"> ''[[Shabbat]]'' 6a, Rambam'' Hilkhot [[Shabbat]]'' 14:1-7, ''Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayyim'' 345, ''Shulhan Arukh ha-Rav'' 345:19, ''Mishna Brurah'' (Introduction to 345), ''Arukh ha-Shulhan'' ''Orah Hayyim'' 345:1.</ref></p> | ||
<p class="indent"> Although Orthodox Jews generally observe rabbinic enactments with the same zeal as they would observe biblical commandments, the laws of ''eruvin ''demonstrate an exception to that principle<nowiki>; significant leniencies are based on the fact that many of its details are only rabbinic in nature. There is a general assumption amongst the </nowiki>''poskim'' (rabbinic authorities) that an enclosure created by several ''tzurot ha-petah'' would not be sufficient to circumvent a biblical prohibition against [[carrying]] on ''[[Shabbat]]''. Only once the area can be determined to be a ''makom patur''—an area from which [[carrying]] to a'' reshut ha-yahid'' or'' reshut ha-rabbim ''entails a rabbinic, and not biblical, prohibition—can the construction of an eruv using the ''tzurat ha-petah ''ensue. In other words, a ''tzurat'' ''ha-petah'' is effective as long as one can be sure that the area is not a true ''reshut'' ''ha-rabbim''. There are two reasons offered for this assumption. </p> | <p class="indent"> Although Orthodox Jews generally observe rabbinic enactments with the same zeal as they would observe biblical commandments, the laws of ''eruvin ''demonstrate an exception to that principle<nowiki>; significant leniencies are based on the fact that many of its details are only rabbinic in nature. There is a general assumption amongst the </nowiki>''poskim'' (rabbinic authorities) that an enclosure created by several ''tzurot ha-petah'' would not be sufficient to circumvent a biblical prohibition against [[carrying]] on ''[[Shabbat]]''. Only once the area can be determined to be a ''makom patur''—an area from which [[carrying]] to a'' reshut ha-yahid'' or'' reshut ha-rabbim ''entails a rabbinic, and not biblical, prohibition—can the construction of an eruv using the ''tzurat ha-petah ''ensue. In other words, a ''tzurat'' ''ha-petah'' is effective as long as one can be sure that the area is not a true ''reshut'' ''ha-rabbim''. There are two reasons offered for this assumption. </p> | ||
<p class="indent">Rabbi Yosef Teomim, author of an important commentary on the ''Shulhan Arukh'' called the ''Pri Megadim'', raised the possibility that the ''tzurat ha-petah ''is only effective in enclosing an area according to rabbinic law. According to biblical law, however, the ''tzurat ha-petah'' is ineffective. Subsequently, using a ''tzurat ha-petah'' to enclose an area that is considered to be a “public domain” on a biblical level would simply be an insufficient means to convert it into a “private domain.” A ''karmelit'', however, is considered a ''makom patur'' on a biblical level and is only considered “public” by the rabbis; thus by erecting a rabbinically sanctioned enclosure, one successfully converts it into a “private domain.”<ref name="ftn4"> ''Bi’ur Halakhah'' 362:10 s.v. ''ke-she-kol'' cites the opinion of the ''Pri Megadim''. See also ''Bi’ur Halakhah'' 364:2 s.v. ''ve-ahar''. </ref> </p> | <p class="indent">Rabbi Yosef Teomim, author of an important commentary on the ''Shulhan Arukh'' called the ''Pri Megadim'', raised the possibility that the ''tzurat ha-petah ''is only effective in enclosing an area according to rabbinic law. According to biblical law, however, the ''tzurat ha-petah'' is ineffective. Subsequently, using a ''tzurat ha-petah'' to enclose an area that is considered to be a “public domain” on a biblical level would simply be an insufficient means to convert it into a “private domain.” A ''karmelit'', however, is considered a ''makom patur'' on a biblical level and is only considered “public” by the rabbis; thus by erecting a rabbinically sanctioned enclosure, one successfully converts it into a “private domain.”<ref name="ftn4"> ''Bi’ur Halakhah'' 362:10 s.v. ''ke-she-kol'' cites the opinion of the ''Pri Megadim''. See also ''Bi’ur Halakhah'' 364:2 s.v. ''ve-ahar''. </ref> </p> | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
==Determination of a ''reshut ha-rabbim''== | ==Determination of a ''reshut ha-rabbim''== | ||
<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">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"> '' | <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"> ''Mishna Brurah'' 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">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">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> | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
<p class="indent">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></p> | <p class="indent">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></p> | ||
<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">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 ('' | <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 (''Mishna Brurah'' 362:64). Additionally, the Maharsham’s opinion that this ''halakhah ''doesn’t apply nowadays (Maharsham 1:162) is a nuance not accepted by the ''Mishna Brurah''. </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> | ||
[[Image:eruv-diagram2.png|left|thumb|150px|Diagram #2. 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. ]] | [[Image:eruv-diagram2.png|left|thumb|150px|Diagram #2. 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. ]] | ||
<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">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> | ||
