[Avodah] Eruvin in Pre-War Europe: An Eyewitness Account

[Zev Sero]

> It is a mitzvah to establish an /eruv/, and /Chazal/ even instituted a 
> /brachah/ for setting one up.[...] Those who 
> ostentatiously refuse to use the /eruv/ cause the uninformed to feel 
> guilty for using it. They are also violating halachah (/Shulchan Aruch/, 
> 366:13). Even worse, the Talmudic Sages and later authorities would have 
> accused them of being /apikorsim/ [heretics] (/Eruvin/ 31b, /Mishnah/ 
> and /Rashi/, 61b, /Rabbeinu Yehonasan/, and /Shulchan Aruch/ 385:1). The 
> Sages of the Talmud highly praise King Solomon, and expressed their 
> gratitude to him for instituting the laws of /eruv/, hailing it as one 
> of the most important rabbinic regulations ever enacted. Consequently, 
> they frowned upon people who impeded those who sought to install and use 
> an /eruv/.

While in general I'm sympathetic to the viewpoint of that blog, I find
this particular line of attack to be disingenuous.  Shlomo Hamelech's
gezerah, and the bracha that Chazal instituted, have nothing to do with
turning a reshut harabim or a karmelit into a reshut hayachid.  They
are entirely concerned with carrying in a shared reshut hayachid, and
turning a shared RHY into a private RHY.  Shlomo did not create a
leniency, or make shmirat shabbat easier on people; on the contrary,
he made it harder.  Before Shlomo, it was permitted to carry in a
shared RHY without any kind of provision; he was the one who forbade
it unless one makes an eruv.

The claim based on OC 366:13 is particularly disingenuous; anyone who
looks it up will find that all it says is "mitzvah lachazor achar eruv
chatzerot".  It has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

The condemnations of "mi she'eno modeh betorat eruv" are not of those
who don't carry in a RHR that has been turned into a RHY, but of those
who *do* carry in a shared RHY *without* an eruv, because they don't
accept Shlomo Hamelech's gezerah, and see no need for an eruv.

A far better proof is from the Rosh, who threatened to put a rov in
cherem for not making an eruv in his town.  Of course we don't know
how big that town was, or what halachic problems there might have
been with its layout; perhaps had this rov written back that in his
town there were particular circumstances that made an eruv halachically
questionable, the Rosh would have let him off.  From the Rosh's letter
it seems that this rov either did not approve of eruvin at all, under
any circumstances, or was just too lazy to make one, or didn't see it
as his job.  But at least this letter is on topic, unlike the "proofs"
cited above.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev at sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas