MAJOR CITIES AND THEIR ERUV STATUS Rabbi Haim Jachter | Eruvin Daf 59 As we explained in the previous chapter, constituting breaches (pirtzot) in them. some Rishonim require 600,000 residents Nevertheless, Rav Chaim Ozer claims that for a city to attain the status of a reshut Paris is a reshut hayachid on a purely harabim. While this position prevents most biblical level, since the walls on these three towns and cities from having to cope with sides cover most of the perimeter (omeid the issues regarding a reshut harabim, merubeh al haparutz). Rav Chaim Ozer larger cities might nonetheless face them. argues that while any breach over ten amot In this chapter, we survey the opinions of (roughly fifteen to eighteen feet) invalidates contemporary authorities regarding certain a wall on a rabbinic level, such breaches are specific cities. insignificant on a biblical level as long as the majority of each of three sides of the perimeter remains enclosed. Since the breaches in Paris's wall are problematic Paris: Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinski and the only on a rabbinic level, the erection of Chazon Ish tzurot hapetach suffices to permit carrying. In the late 1930s, the rabbis of Paris asked Rav Chaim Ozer and the Chazon Ish thus Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinski (the leading conclude that tzurot hapetach suffice in Ashkenazic halachic authority at that time) Paris. if they could construct an eruv consisting of tzurot hapetach around their city. This method would only suffice if Paris were Warsaw: Rav Shlomo David Kahane considered a karmelit, as opposed to a reshut harabim. Rav Shlomo David Kahane (the Rav of Warsaw during the 1930s) faced an Rav Chaim Ozer consulted with the Chazon interesting problem with Warsaw's eruv. Ish (one of the most respected authorities During its construction in the nineteenth in the laws of eruvin) as well as the rabbis century, Warsaw's eruv consisted of tzurot who supervised the Vilna eruv. Rav Chaim hapetach. It was effective because fewer Ozer (Teshuvot Achiezer 4:8) opens his than 600,000 people resided within it. responsum by noting that over 600,000 However, in the twentieth century, people reside in Paris, so seemingly all Warsaw's population exceeded 600,000, authorities would consider it a reshut seemingly invalidating the eruv. Rav Kahane harabim. Consequently, an eruv consisting (cited by Rav Menachem Kasher in Noam of tzurot hapetach cannot render it a 6:44) rules that the eruv is nonetheless private domain. valid, asserting that the larger a city grows, the less chance there is for any one street However, he notes that walls surround Paris to run straight through it, without curving on three sides, rendering it a reshut significantly. One requirement for a reshut hayachid on a biblical level. There are harabim is that a street must go straight bridges that pass over the walls, through the entire city. Accordingly, 1 OU Chag at Home 5781 Warsaw does not meet this requirement Second, the ruling of Rav Chaim Ozer and is still not a reshut harabim. Rav Moshe Grodzinski and the Chazon Ish also seems to Feinstein criticizes this approach (see apply to Flatbush. The faces of the buildings Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, O.C. 1:140), and the fences along the highways appear questioning the argument that the street to constitute the majority of a wall on three cannot curve. He claims that a street that sides. (Ironically, this lenient consideration runs from one end of town to the other is most often applicable in densely turns it into a reshut harabim, curves populated urban areas rather than smaller notwithstanding, provided that it meets the suburbs, which frequently have much other criteria for a reshut harabim. Thus, in empty space between buildings.) a place that meets the other requirements for a reshut harabim, tzurot hapetach do Third, the Aruch Hashulchan's unique (but not suffice. highly questionable) approach might be taken into account (O.C. 345:19-24). In his opinion, a street must be the only inter-city thoroughfare or commercial center in that Flatbush: Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin and city to be a true reshut harabim, with all Rav Moshe Feinstein other streets being minor in comparison. Accordingly, only in the time of the Talmud During the 1970's, the construction of the did true reshuyot harabim exist, because it eruv in Flatbush (a neighborhood of was common for a town to have only one Brooklyn, New York) aroused great main street. Nowadays, most towns and controversy. To this day, its permissibility cities have more than one inter-city remains disputed. Some rabbis permit thoroughfare and commercial center, so we carrying inside the Flatbush eruv, while do not have true reshuyot harabim. many rabbis and rashei yeshivah there, such Brooklyn certainly has multiple commercial as Torah Vodaath's Rav Yisroel Belsky centers and inter-city roads, so the Aruch (personal communication), forbid its use. Hashulchan would not consider it a reshut Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin (Kitvei Hagaon harabim. Rav Y.E. Henkin 2:25) strongly encourages Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot the construction of eruvin in New York's five Moshe, O.C. 4:87) vigorously disputes the boroughs, including Brooklyn (whose Aruch Hashulchan's argument, citing a population easily exceeded 600,000 already proof to the contrary from the Gemara in his day). Although Rav Henkin does not (Shabbat 96b). The Divrei Malkiel (vol. 3, p. explain why these places are not reshuyot 267) also writes that one may not rely on harabim, a number of arguments have been the Aruch Hashulchan's novel insight, since offered to support his contention that it does not appear in any earlier source. Rav Flatbush is not in this category. First, Rav Aharon Lichtenstein (personal Shlomo David Kahane's argument regarding communication) conveyed sentiments the Warsaw eruv seemingly applies to similar to those of the Divrei Malkiel and Flatbush, too, because no street within the Rav Moshe. Moreover, a careful reading of Flatbush eruv runs straight from one end of the Aruch Hashulchan seems to reveal that the city to the other. he sought to use his novel suggestion only 2 OU Chag at Home 5781 as an adjunct (senif) to the view that a true acceptable according to baseline Halachah. reshut harabim requires 600,000 people. He He accepted the approach of the Beit never suggests relying on his idea without Ephraim that the occupants of cars do not other grounds for leniency. Accordingly, the count towards the count of 600,000 Aruch Hashulchan's view cannot be relied people. upon as the sole reason for permitting carrying within an area that contains more than 600,000 people. Kew Gardens Hills A fourth defense of the Flatbush eruv is the Although Rav Moshe did not approve of opinion of Rav Efraim Zalman Margoliot constructing an eruv in Flatbush, he did (Beit Efraim, O.C. 26) that only pedestrians permit the eruv in the Kew Gardens Hills count when determining that 600,000 section of Queens, New York. Rav Moshe people travel in a street. He argues that the stipulated the following requirements for requirement for 600,000 people is based on the eruv to be acceptable: a comparison to the encampment in the desert. The comparison can thus be made 1) All highways (Grand Central only to pedestrians, as the 600,000 people Parkway, Long Island Expressway, who were in the quintessential reshut Van Wyck Expressway) were harabim were all pedestrians. The excluded from the eruv, because Maharsham (1:162) and Rav Eliezer many authorities maintain that Waldenberg (cited in The Contemporary highways always constitute reshuyot Eruv, p. 54 note 119) add that trains and harabim. cars are private domains unto themselves, so their occupants are not counted among 2) It was constructed in a manner the 600,000 people of a reshut harabim. that greatly reduces the possibility Both Rav Moshe (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, of breakage during Shabbat. A O.C. 1:139:6) and Rav Binyamin Silber communal eruv that uses as many (Teshuvot Az Nidberu 6:70) reject this pre-existing components as possible, argument, pointing out that wagons such as telephone poles and wires, (agalot) were used in the desert fences, hills, and train overpasses encampment's thoroughfares. has the greatest chance of remaining intact. Despite all of the arguments in favor of being lenient, Rav Moshe did not endorse 3) An individual was appointed to the construction of the Flatbush eruv (see inspect the eruv every Friday; it Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, O.C. 4:87-88). He must be rigorously inspected before explicitly rejects all of the arguments every Shabbat (see Teshuvot Doveiv presented and rules that the 600,000 Meisharim, 2:28, who addresses of people who regularly travel the streets of inspecting an eruv before Friday). Brooklyn render it a reshut harabim. Interestingly, Rav Ovadia Yosef (Teshuvot 4) The rabbis of the community Yabia Omer 9 O.C. 33) endorsed the were required to approve of the creation of an Eruv in Flatbush as eruv and mutually agree that it was 3 OU Chag at Home 5781 built properly, as an eruv should Accordingly, he rules that the entire Tel Aviv promote peace and not be a source metropolitan area (known as Gush Dan of tension within a community (see which includes Tel Aviv-Yaffo, Ramat Gan, Gittin 59a). Bnei Brak, Givatayim, Petach Tikva, Bat Yam etc.) should be viewed as one entity Regarding the issue of reshut harabim, Rav regarding the reshut harabim issue. Since Moshe wrote that "Kew Gardens Hills is more than 600,000 people reside in Gush small regarding these issues and the Dan, it constitutes a reshut harabim.