The Eruv part 3

The complexities of the Eruv are great, and the opinions as to its details many. Is it, in fact, worth it? Let's take a look, from the most pro to the most anti-Eruv views.
First, the Talmud, as we have seen, greatly praised the innovation of the Eruv, as bringing unity to the people. Beyond that, without the Eruv, women with small children would be virtual prisoners in their homes. Carrying a baby, or wheeling a carriage, would be out of the question. Rabbi Y.M. Epstein, the author of the Aruch HaShulchan, went so far as to say that wherever there is no Eruv, if a Jew desecrates Shabbat by carrying outside his home, the sins are upon the community rabbis (!), as they could have easily prevented it by a simple procedure. The presence of an Eruv in a community is often a major incentive for Orthodox Jews to move there, thus helping outlying communities to grow. Rabbi C.E. Shapiro, the rabbi of Munkatch 

in the early twentieth century, would always carry some object with him on Shabbat, lest he would be seen as one who scoffs at a fundamental aspect of Jewish law and tradition. (Remember, Eruv constitutes an entire tractate of the Talmud).

A middle ground approach is to allow, or even to encourage the making of Eruvin in small towns, or sections of big cities that have no major thoroughfare transversing the city, which could constitute a Biblical Public Domain. This would accord with the view of Rashi, that a Public Domain requires 600,000 people. Some Ashkenazi Jews, and most Sepharadim, do not accept that view. However, since there are other considerations that can make a thoroughfare into a Karmelit, such as the view of Chazon Ish I mentioned in my last post. many of these will allow an Eruv "where necessary", but not for frivolous reasons.
There are some rabbis who are opposed to an Eruv other than for a small area, such as a courtyard. They consider the doubts as to what constitutes a Public Domain, and what constitutes an enclosure (is a wire enough?) too great to surmount.
Another consideration, sadly, is that the presence of an Eruv can, and has, caused anti-semitism. As I mentioned above, an Eruv tends to bring more Orthodox Jews to a community. There are those who do not wish that to happen.This would include antisemites, as well as many non-Orthodox Jews who are uncomfortable with the presence of Orthodox Jews in their communities. There have been a number of court cases in which the argument of anti-semites against the Eruv was ostensibly that if the wire crosses public property, it is a violation of the separation of Church and State. It is often possible, however, to make an Eruv that is totally unobtrusive. In my last community in which I served, I set up an Eruv that no one could know was there unless told.
A pitfall that is all too common, is, in my opinion, due to the hubris of certain rabbis, who wish to gain public recognition. One technical requirement of the eruv, is that a Jew, usually the rabbi, acquire entrance rights to all homes in the town. In this way, all homes may be seen as one domain. These rights may be purchased from any policeman, or government employee. It is explained to them that this is purely for ritual purposes. For reasons beyond my ken, many rabbis insist on the town council passing a resolution that these rights are hereby granted to the rabbi. These proceedings inevitably bring every antisemite out of the woodwork. This is totally unnecessary and unwise.
Another aspect of the question was communicated privately by the Lubavitcher Rebbe to one of his followers, who was the rabbi of a large mid-western city. (Told to me by the follower). It is known that the Lubavitcher Rebbe was opposed to the making of city-wide Eruvin. The follower asked him why. He answered "the problem today is not that people desecrate Shabbat. but that they are unaware of Shabbat altogether. Every aspect of Shabbat that we make easier, makes less awareness of the specialness of the day".
In the early '80s, I lived briefly in Monsey, New York. The Eruv was put up by a particular rabbi, whom some people did not approve of. As a result, part of the community used the Eruv and part did not. This caused needless division in the community. I chose not to use it, so as not to offend my neighbors. One Friday night, on the way home from synagogue with my then one and a half year old son, he sat down in a snowbank and refused to budge. No amount of coaxing would change his mind. A crowd gathered to watch. After about ten minutes, a man came up to me and whispered "in cases like this, we rely on the Eruv".(Today, Monsey has an eruv that virtually all rely on). The Eruv was meant to bring unity. How sad that in that community it brought division.
I'll end this series with a story. A rabbi gave a weekly Talmud class. One young man came diligently, no matter how hot or cold. The rabbi eventually turned to him and said "you are my best student! May I ask why I never see you at services?" The young man responded: "Because I'm not Jewish! I love studying, and incorporate much into my daily life, but I am not, nor do I wish, to be Jewish!". The rabbi was puzzled. "Do you observe Shabbat? It is written that it is "a sign between me and the Children of Israel!". The young man said "Rabbi, I'm way ahead of you. I always carry a key in my pocket so as not to fully observe the Shabbat." "A key?" said the rabbi. "We have an Eruv here, it's allowed to carry a key on Shabbat!" The young man looked shocked. "What?!?! YOU rely on the Eruv?!?!"
May G-d enlighten us in His Torah, and give us Peace!

The Eruv part 2

We have seen that, in the ancient layout of cities, courtyards and alleys could be made into Private Domains by means of the Eruv, but that Public Domains probably could not, unless first made into semi-Public Domains (Karmelit) by means of barriers at each end. What about our modern cities?
It would appear, at first glance, that most of our city streets cannot have an Eruv. The definition of a Public Domain derives from the thoroughfare between the encampments in the wilderness. The only stipulations that we find in the Talmud are that they extend from one end of the city (or encampment) to the other, unobstructed, and that they be sixteen cubits (about twenty four feet or  about seven and a half meters) wide. That would make just about any city street into a Public Domain! A minority view of a Ninth Century rabbi was picked up and accepted two centuries later by Rashi, This view says that in the wilderness, the population was six hundred thousand. Therefore, any street would have to have that number of people walking on it daily to qualify as a Public Domain; otherwise it remains a Karmelit. Some cities do indeed have that number or people. In my native New York City, there are many; thus, theoretically, rendering an eruv impossible. Other parts of the city would be able to make an Eruv. Smaller cities would not be likely to have such a situation at all. There were, and are, many who disagree with Rashi. There is no hint of the six hundred thousand people idea in the Talmudic sources of Eruv. If we will add that, why not other features of the wilderness situation? Perhaps we need the Sanctuary in the middle? Perhaps we need Moses and Aaron? These rabbis rejected totally the ability to make an eruv in a modern city, Most Ashkenazi rabbis did accept Rashi's view, mostly because of the stature of Rashi, rather than on the merit of the idea. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find a yeshiva high school  student who would not immediately blurt out, if asked the definition of a Public Domain, the number six hundred thousand. Most Sepharadim rejected this view. However, this had little effect in the past, as most Mediterranean cities maintained the ancient structure of courtyards well into modern times. In the Shulchan Aruch, Rabbi Yosef Karo mentions the idea of six hundred thousand as "some say". while the Ashkenazic view, Rabbi Moshe Isserles, quotes it as being the accepted position.
Another issue is the question of the enclosure.  Any area where an eruv is to be made must be enclosed. A wire or string suspended between two poles may be considered a doorway. A wall, consisting entirely of doorways, would be acceptable to most opinions. How about using existing utility wires for the eruv? If  they form a completer perimeter around a city or neighborhood, this would be acceptable according to many.In fact, one German rabbi in the early twentieth century actually relied on the city's telegraph wires as an eruv. However, others point to the view of Rashi, accepted in the Shulchan Aruch, that eruv "doorways" must be similar to real doorways, with a lintel ABOVE two doorposts, not suspended from their sides, as most utility wires are. However, many see no problem, as RAMBAM quotes no such requirement, and Rashi's words are ambiguous. (Literally over the top of the poles, or merely NEAR the top? Perhaps Rashi is speaking of a string merely looped around a pole, but would find it acceptable if nailed or bolted on? Perhaps Rashi is speaking of a situation where one is coming to CREATE a doorway, but an already existing doorway situation, albeit unusual, would still be acceptable?) But many felt that although these options may be acceptable in a place requiring an Eruv only by rabbinical law, this would not hold true for a Biblical Public Domain. Many rabbis do not consider city Eruvin "kosher" for this reason especially. Chabad have a special requirement, following a minority opinion, that the poles must be less than fifteen feet apart. This would make an eruv impossible, except in the case of a private backyard or the like.
A very novel approach was taken by the twentieth century rabbi, Rabbi A. Y. Kerelitz, known as Chazon Ish. He opined that the way our streets are set up, with houses and other buildings lining our thoroughfares, is in and of itself "walls". Although they have large gaps, rendering them invalid by Rabbinic Law, they would be good by Biblical law, thus rendering these streets Karmelit, which could then be easily made into Private Domains by the usual Eruv procedures. This view has been widely accepted. Therefore, the vast majority of rabbis, both Ashkenazi and Sepharadi, do accept the possibility of making an Eruv in modern cities. (There are notable exceptions to this in both communities). I have heard many claim that Rav Ovadia Yosef invalidated all urban eruvin. This is patently untrue. Rather, he says they are valid, but present sufficient halachic problems that one who is strict should avoid. He even defended the Flatbush Eruv (a neighborhood in Brooklyn), which had been declared invalid by  Moshe Feinstein. When I spent a Shabbat in Flatbush several years ago, I did carry, relying on the controversial eruv.
But is Eruv making desirable? What do we gain and what do we lose? That will be my next post.

The Eruv part 1

The later books of the Tanakh make it clear that one may not "carry burdens" on Shabbat. This is a recurring theme in the Book of Ezra.The rabbis of the Talmud record that the Oral Torah understands this as being the primary meaning for the Biblical injunction "let no man leave his place on the Sabbath day".(Exodus 16:29) That is, not to transport from a Private Domain to a Public Domain or carry within a Public Domain, on Shabbat. These distinctions date back to the encampment in the wilderness, where the Israelites camped in tent groups, which eventually formed into four "camps", each of three tribes, with a broad thoroughfare between the camps. For most of history, this was the common situation in the Middle East, as well as in most other places. Houses were built around a central courtyard (hatzer).  The courtyards opened into alleyways (mavo'ot). Alleyways would, in turn, enter into a broad thoroughfare that went from one end of the city to the other. This can be seen in Jerusalem's reconstructed "Cardo", as well as in old cities in the Middle East and Europe, Each house was a "Reshut Hayachid" (Private Domain), the broad thoroughfare was a "Reshut Harabbim" (Public Domain). Carrying an object from the Private to the Public Domain constitutes a Biblical prohibition, as does carrying a burden within the Public Domain. The courtyards and alleyways are called "Karmelit" (semi-public Domain), which is considered as Private in Biblical law, but as public in rabbinic law (this is a classical "fence around the Torah"). It is completely permissible to carry within a Private Domain.
It was felt in very early times that the Shabbat would be much more enjoyable if neighbors could get together and bring things from one home to another. Families could join together for celebratory meals and the like. A series of enactments were made to allow for this. One enactment was called "Eruv Hatzerot" (the combining of courtyards). Bread, either baked from dough contributed by each household in the courtyard, or donated to the entire population of the courtyard by one person, was deposited in a central place.  All the homes in the courtyard were surrounded by a  wall, and the bread constituted a common kitchen, making all the homes in the courtyard into one! This is essentially similar to a single home with many rooms. It is still one Private Domain. The Talmud attributes this enactment to King Solomon, with a Heavenly Voice proclaiming G-d's delight "If you are wise my son, I will also rejoice!". G-d loves unity! Another enactment was made, extending the first one to all the courtyards in an alleyway. This is called "Shuttufei Mavo'ot" (combining alleyways). Each courtyard would contribute food (it may or may not be bread) into a central place, and a symbolic doorway would be made for the alleyway, partitioning it off from the Public Domain.
The question arises if the Eruv solution would work for the Public Domain as well, thereby uniting the entire city. Some said yes. Some said no. Some said a qualified yes. Since the main thoroughfare has a Biblical prohibition of carrying, could a rabbinic enactment undo this status? The Talmudic consensus is that it could only be done if the entrances to the Public Domain, that is, the city gates, would have doors that close at night. (Not uncommon in the ancient world). Then it would cease being a true Public Domain, and an Eruv would be efficacious. Others argue that there are other factors at work, that may render a public domain into a karmelit, thus allowing an eruv. There is an entire tractate of the Talmud devoted to the Eruv. It is one of the most difficult. But throughout the ages, the Eruv was of great benefit to the Jewish people, uniting communities into one (as is the ideal!).
Today, however, our cities are not built like that. Is an eruv even possible? Is it advisable? In the last thirty years, virtually every major Jewish community has constructed an eruv. Some celebrate this. Some see it as a tragedy and a travesty. Why? In every community with an eruv, some will refuse to use it. Why? That will be the topic of my next post.