112
edits
Introduction to the Modern Eruv: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Introduction to the modern day eruv
(Created page with "Reprinted with permission from Eruv And Halacha pp. 47-57 in an article entitled "Eruvin: The Streets, The Strings, And The Shabbat" by Rabbi Hershel Schachter [[Image:]]...") |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
[[Image:]][[Image:]][[Image:]]<center>'''''Eruvin'': The Streets, the Strings, and the ''[[Shabbat]]'''''</center><center>Rabbi Hershel Schachter</center> | [[Image:]][[Image:]][[Image:]]<center>'''''Eruvin'': The Streets, the Strings, and the ''[[Shabbat]]'''''</center><center>Rabbi Hershel Schachter</center> | ||
==Introduction to the modern day eruv== | ==Introduction to the modern day eruv== | ||
In order to permit [[carrying]] from one domain to another or within a public domain on ''[[Shabbat]]'', a symbolic enclosure of the area, colloquially known as an eruv, needs to be erected. In terms of ''halakhah'', there are three elements necessary to convert a public domain into a private one. The most significant one is a border enclosing the area, whether it is a house, neighborhood, or city. The other elements are a joint partnership between the tenants of the area in the ownership of some food—which usually takes the form of a box of [[matzah]] in the local synagogue—and a deed of rental of the area from the local government. The technical term eruv, as it appears in the ''gemara'', refers to the food which the tenants jointly own; colloquially, however, it refers to the borders of the enclosure, which is usually the most recognizable element of this legal mechanism as well as the hardest to construct.<ref name="ftn1"> The basic requirements of an eruv can be found in Rambam, ''Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Eruvin'' 1:1-7 and 2:10 and ''Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayyim ''366:1 and 382:1.</ref>In its ideal form, the borders of an eruv would be solid walls. Of course, considering that this possibility is highly impractical in modern society, another approach needs to be investigated. The ''gemara'' introduced the concept of using ''tzurot ha-petah'' (symbolic doorways) as a wall. According to the ''gemara'', the construction of a doorway requires two doorposts and a lintel sitting on top of the doorposts. Whereas the doorposts have certain requisite [[measurements]], the lintel on top can be as thin as a wire or string. By lining up a number of ''tzurot ha-petah'' made of these doorposts and lintels, it becomes feasible to erect a complete enclosure of a large city. Even though using ''tzurot ha-petah'' may be the only practical option in order to construct an eruv, there is one significant caveat to this approach. | <p class="indent">In order to permit [[carrying]] from one domain to another or within a public domain on ''[[Shabbat]]'', a symbolic enclosure of the area, colloquially known as an eruv, needs to be erected. In terms of ''halakhah'', there are three elements necessary to convert a public domain into a private one. The most significant one is a border enclosing the area, whether it is a house, neighborhood, or city. The other elements are a joint partnership between the tenants of the area in the ownership of some food—which usually takes the form of a box of [[matzah]] in the local synagogue—and a deed of rental of the area from the local government. The technical term eruv, as it appears in the ''gemara'', refers to the food which the tenants jointly own; colloquially, however, it refers to the borders of the enclosure, which is usually the most recognizable element of this legal mechanism as well as the hardest to construct.<ref name="ftn1"> The basic requirements of an eruv can be found in Rambam, ''Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Eruvin'' 1:1-7 and 2:10 and ''Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayyim ''366:1 and 382:1.</ref></p> | ||
<p class="indent">In its ideal form, the borders of an eruv would be solid walls. Of course, considering that this possibility is highly impractical in modern society, another approach needs to be investigated. The ''gemara'' introduced the concept of using ''tzurot ha-petah'' (symbolic doorways) as a wall. According to the ''gemara'', the construction of a doorway requires two doorposts and a lintel sitting on top of the doorposts. Whereas the doorposts have certain requisite [[measurements]], the lintel on top can be as thin as a wire or string. By lining up a number of ''tzurot ha-petah'' made of these doorposts and lintels, it becomes feasible to erect a complete enclosure of a large city. Even though using ''tzurot ha-petah'' may be the only practical option in order to construct an eruv, there is one significant caveat to this approach.</p> | |||
==Explanations of the ''tzurat ha-petah'' enclosure== | ==Explanations of the ''tzurat ha-petah'' enclosure== | ||
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, ''Mishnah Berurah'' (Introduction to 345), ''Arukh ha-Shulhan'' ''Orah Hayyim'' 345:1.</ref> 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. 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> The ''Hazon Ish'', Rabbi Avraham Karlitz, however, strongly disagreed with the ''Pri Megadim''’s idea. He proved from the ''gemara'' that a ''tzurat ha-petah'' certainly functions as a wall on a biblical level. The ''gemara'' states that in order to avoid ''kil’ayim'', the prohibition of planting two different kinds of seeds together, one may construct a ''tzurat ha-petah'' to divide between the two patches of plants. Therefore, Rabbi Karlitz concluded that the construction of a ''tzurat ha-petah'' serves as a wall even where the wall fulfills a biblical requirement.<ref name="ftn5"> ''Hazon Ish Orah Hayyim'' 70:13.</ref> In order to defend the ''Pri Megadim'', some later authorities suggested that there is room to distinguish between the wall that is necessary to permit [[carrying]] on ''[[Shabbat]]'' and the wall necessary to separate plants of different species. The walls in the realm of ''kil’ayim'' serve merely as a divider between two areas and as such the ''tzurat ha-petah'' accomplishes this task even on a biblical level. To permit [[carrying]] on ''[[Shabbat]]'', however, the borders of a “private domain” need to encircle it and make it noticeably differentiated from its surroundings.<ref name="ftn6"> An elaboration of this topic can be found in Rabbi Hershel Schachter’s ''Be-Ikvei ha-Tzon,'' ''Siman'' 13:1.</ref> Another approach in explaining the basis for limiting the use of a ''tzurat ha-petah'' enclosure to a ''karmelit'' emerges from a comment of Tosafot.<ref name="ftn7"> ''Tosafot Eruvin'' 22a s.v. ''kashya''.</ref> The ''gemara'' explains that all opinions agree that a “flimsy barrier” cannot serve as a partition if there is traffic that regularly crosses that barrier, but a “sturdy barrier” functions as a partition even if traffic passes through it. Tosafot commented that if an area is enclosed on three sides and only requires a wall on the fourth side on a rabbinic level, even if the fourth wall is “flimsy” and traffic passes through it, it nonetheless serves as a valid partition. The Maharam of Rotenberg extended the idea of Tosafot to say that in any situation that only requires a wall on a rabbinic level in order to permit [[carrying]], that wall could be “flimsy” and is nevertheless not nullified by the fact that traffic passes through it. Based on the leniency of the Maharam, classical ''poskim'' assume that a ''tzurat ha-petah'' acts as a “flimsy wall” which functions as a partition if the area is only considered a “public domain” on a rabbinic level. Therefore, the consensus of ''poskim'' is that a ''tzurat ha-petah'' only permits [[carrying]] in the enclosed area if the area would have otherwise only been a biblical'' makom patur''.<ref name="ftn8"> ''Mordekhai, Eruvin Remez'' 509. See further in Rabbi Hershel Schachter’s article titled “The Laws of Eruvin—An Overview,” ''The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society'' 5 (1984): 131-150. </ref> | 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, ''Mishnah Berurah'' (Introduction to 345), ''Arukh ha-Shulhan'' ''Orah Hayyim'' 345:1.</ref> 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. 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> The ''Hazon Ish'', Rabbi Avraham Karlitz, however, strongly disagreed with the ''Pri Megadim''’s idea. He proved from the ''gemara'' that a ''tzurat ha-petah'' certainly functions as a wall on a biblical level. The ''gemara'' states that in order to avoid ''kil’ayim'', the prohibition of planting two different kinds of seeds together, one may construct a ''tzurat ha-petah'' to divide between the two patches of plants. Therefore, Rabbi Karlitz concluded that the construction of a ''tzurat ha-petah'' serves as a wall even where the wall fulfills a biblical requirement.<ref name="ftn5"> ''Hazon Ish Orah Hayyim'' 70:13.</ref> In order to defend the ''Pri Megadim'', some later authorities suggested that there is room to distinguish between the wall that is necessary to permit [[carrying]] on ''[[Shabbat]]'' and the wall necessary to separate plants of different species. The walls in the realm of ''kil’ayim'' serve merely as a divider between two areas and as such the ''tzurat ha-petah'' accomplishes this task even on a biblical level. To permit [[carrying]] on ''[[Shabbat]]'', however, the borders of a “private domain” need to encircle it and make it noticeably differentiated from its surroundings.<ref name="ftn6"> An elaboration of this topic can be found in Rabbi Hershel Schachter’s ''Be-Ikvei ha-Tzon,'' ''Siman'' 13:1.</ref> Another approach in explaining the basis for limiting the use of a ''tzurat ha-petah'' enclosure to a ''karmelit'' emerges from a comment of Tosafot.<ref name="ftn7"> ''Tosafot Eruvin'' 22a s.v. ''kashya''.</ref> The ''gemara'' explains that all opinions agree that a “flimsy barrier” cannot serve as a partition if there is traffic that regularly crosses that barrier, but a “sturdy barrier” functions as a partition even if traffic passes through it. Tosafot commented that if an area is enclosed on three sides and only requires a wall on the fourth side on a rabbinic level, even if the fourth wall is “flimsy” and traffic passes through it, it nonetheless serves as a valid partition. The Maharam of Rotenberg extended the idea of Tosafot to say that in any situation that only requires a wall on a rabbinic level in order to permit [[carrying]], that wall could be “flimsy” and is nevertheless not nullified by the fact that traffic passes through it. Based on the leniency of the Maharam, classical ''poskim'' assume that a ''tzurat ha-petah'' acts as a “flimsy wall” which functions as a partition if the area is only considered a “public domain” on a rabbinic level. Therefore, the consensus of ''poskim'' is that a ''tzurat ha-petah'' only permits [[carrying]] in the enclosed area if the area would have otherwise only been a biblical'' makom patur''.<ref name="ftn8"> ''Mordekhai, Eruvin Remez'' 509. See further in Rabbi Hershel Schachter’s article titled “The Laws of Eruvin—An Overview,” ''The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society'' 5 (1984): 131-150. </ref> | ||
