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

[Elazar M. Teitz]

<Since hapeh she'asar hu hapeh shehitir, (the same beis din that was
gozeir against carrying in a karmelis invented eiruv), I think it would be more accurate to frame it not so much as an eiruv is a matir as much as an eiruv-surrounded karmelis never had an issur to begin with.>

    The term "eruv-surrounded karmelis" is an example of a ubiquitous misnomer.  All eruvim -- tavshilin, t'chumin and chatzeiros -- are food.  

    When it comes to carrying, there were two g'zeiros.  One introduced a fourth r'shus, karm'lis.  In order to carry therein, it is necessary to convert it into a r'shus hayachid, which can be done either with actual walls or with a tzuras hapesach -- two uprights at least 10 t'fachim high, and a crossbar which can be as thin as a wire or a string.  A person's unfenced backyard is an example; once a tzuras hapesach is made, no eruv is necessary.

     The second g'zeira prohibited carrying from one person's r'shus hayachid to another's, even where they are enclosed by actual walls. An example is a two-family house, where it is prohibited to carry from one half to the other, or from either half to mutual property, such as a back yard.  For this, no tzuras hapesach is necessary, since there are walls; but an eruv -- jointly-owned food placed on the property -- is necessary to be m'arev, to blend the distinct r'shuyos hayachid into one.

     In city eruvin, both are necessary.  The streets must be enclosed, done by a tzuras hapesach if there are no natural walls; and the individually owned areas must become one, done by an eruv, usually matzos.  

     I surmise that when the tzuras hapesach occasionally was down, an announcement was made that the eruv could not be relied upon for carrying.  This apparently morphed into "The eruv is down." 

<Halakhah kedivrei hameiqil be'eruvin. I remember this from the Rosh, but eruvonline.blogspot.com lists the following:
Mordechai, Eruvin 1:482; Rosh, Eruvin 2:4 see the Gra, O.C. 358:5 and
the Bais Shlomo, siman 42; Maharash Elgazi, Halichos Eli, Klali 5 Ois
251 cites the Rabbeinu Chananel, Rambam and Tosfos; Mayim Rabbim,  siman 36, 38; Chacham Tzvi, siman 59; Bach HaChadash, Kuntrus Achron siman 3; Yeshuas Yaakov, 363:5; Chasam Sofer, 6:82, and Maharsham, 4:105, 8:58:5, 9:18.>

     Look in that Rosh in Eruvin 4:2. He says that halacha k'divrei hameikil b'eruv, but not bimchitza, meaning that if there is a question of whether the tzuras hapesach is proper, we do not follow the meikil. (He does entertain the possibility that the rule may apply to the m'chitza as well.)  
 
     At any rate, the biggest kula -- the requirement of shishim ribo for a r'shus harabim -- certainly has nothing to with halacha k'divrei hameikil, because it is not a question of eruv, but of the existence or non-existence of a r'shus in which an eruv can be effective.

EMT 

____________________________________________________________
Study to be a Paralegal at a school near you.  Click here to get free info now.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw22EwCgTQOSAi8tZfB9T8i0o4bnaZ7iPpUPZmfbxyHZUYPl4/