Techum: Difference between revisions

# If when drawing the square around a city that would include part of another city, some poskim hold that the two cities are considered one large city and the techum is drawn around both of them.<ref>Minchat Yitzchak 8:33 explains that since the squaring of a city is taken into account before we add the 70 amot of the city if the squaring off of a city includes another city everything should be considered one large city. His proof is the concept of Eruvin 55a that the arms of a bow-shaped city join as long as they are within 4000 amot of each other. The Chazon Ish 110:16 wasn't sure whether or not the cities join when the squaring off of each other join. Rav Chaim Kanievsky in [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=49174&st=&pgnum=383 Shoneh Halachot 398:19 and 21] writes that Chazon Ish held that they do join but left it unresolved (הדבר צריך הכרע). Zecher Tzvi (techum Shabbat p. 21) holds that one can be lenient based on Chazon Ish. Dirshu 398:21 quotes Rav Dovid Landau who holds that since Chazon Ish left this unresolved one must be strict. Dirshu 398:21 cites Rav Wosner (Kitzur Hilchot Medidat techumin) as holding that one can be lenient, but Rav Elyashiv as holding that one should be strict. [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=21547&st=&pgnum=250 Mechzeh Eliyahu 1:74] and 77 is lenient. Machneh Yisrael of Rabbi Dimitrovsky p. 19-22 writes that one who is lenient has what to rely upon and supports this from the Rambam and Meiri. He also cites Rav Elyashiv as being strict. Mdarkei Hatechum p. 18 quotes Rav Dovid Feinstein, Rav Belsky, Rav Elyashiv, and Rav Nissim Karelitz as holding that we cannot cities based on the squaring off of the city.</ref>

#Yet, even according to Chazon Ish's view there are three other arguments that possibly could allow for crossing these bridges. 1) Chazon Ish suggests that cities join together if even just a small part of their squaring off overlap. Rav Elyashiv disagrees.<ref>See [[#Joining_Cities]] above.</ref> If one were to be lenient on this question, then even according to the first method of squaring off Manhattan it joins with Fort Lee and Brooklyn. 2) Tunnels with buildings on top potentially join cities. 3) The Williamsburg bridge had a booth for guards to watch the bridge. Some poskim hold that this makes the entire bridge like a dwelling place and then it would join Manhattan and Brooklyn together. In practice, some rabbis allow walking over the Williamsburg bridges and others do not.<ref>Rav Yitzchak Shpitzer and Rav Yechezkel Shraga Weiss (Poalim Ltorah v. 17 pp. 113-131). [https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/728838/rabbi-hershel-schachter/eruvin-shiur-118/ Rav Hershel Schachter (Eruvin 118, min 50-53)] also notes that whether Manhattan and Brooklyn join together for one techum depends on whether two overlapping techumin are considered one city.</ref>

#There are two methods of how to draw the techum of Bronx. Note, the main area of Bronx has contiguous settlement without breaks of 141.3 amot<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 398:7 writes that two cities join together if they're within 141.3 amot. This is based on Rav Huna in Eruvin 57a and accepted by the poskim.</ref> for most of Bronx, Yonkers, New Rochelle, Scarsdale, and White Plains. The map below demonstrates where highways like Bronx River Parkway, I-95, and I-287 break up the settlement.<ref>Mdarkei Hatechum p. 10 quotes a debate among the rabbis of Chicago whether a highway breaks up a city for purposes of techum if the settlement on either side is further than 141.3 amot apart. Some rabbis including Rav Moshe Heinemann hold certainly a highway does not break up the city since it is meant to be part of the city and others disagree. Mdarkei Hatechum concludes that it does break up the city. Techum Shabbat Umedidato p. 34 holds that highways do not break up a city for purposes of techum.</ref> Additionally, parks and rivers break up the settlement.<Ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 398:9 writes that a valley that is usually dry joins onto the city if it is used by the inhabitants of the city. Mishna Brurah 398:46 concludes that other types of areas do not join onto the city just because they are used by the townspeople. Therefore, it is clear from Mishna Brurah that a river that is always flowing does not join onto a city. This is also the assumption of many poskim who discussed cities with rivers splitting them up including: Meishiv Dvar (4:58 s.v. ach, cited by Dirshu 398:63), Mechzeh Eliyahu 1:74, and Minchas Yitzchak 8:33.</ref> Either way, the settlement does not spill over into Connecticut by measuring contiguous settlement.

# Many poskim hold that Manhattan and Brooklyn are considered one city for purposes of techum.<ref>Minchat Yitzchak 7:24 quotes the Satmer Rebbe held that Manhattan and Brooklyn were one city for purposes of techum.</ref> This could be based on several approaches: 1)Chazon Ish suggested that cities join as long as their squared off boxes overlap. This occurs between Manhattan and Brooklyn. However, many poskim including Rav Elyashiv and Rav Dovid Feinstein do not accept this leniency.<ref>See [[#Joining_Cities]] above.</ref> 2) Minchat Yitzchak<Ref>7:24</ref> writes that the bridges which are built with guard booths join onto the city and connect the cities. Shevet Halevi<Ref>4:40</ref> disagrees with this logic. 3) There are tunnels between Manhattan and Brooklyn and some poskim consider that to join onto the city and connect the cities.<ref>Rav Yitzchak Shpitzer and Rav Yechezkel Shraga Weiss (Poalim Ltorah v. 17 pp. 113-131) and Tikkun Eruvin (fnt. 89)</ref>