בס"ד י"ג אדר ב' תשס"ח

DETAILED CRITICAL COMMENTS ON THE BOOKLET

“The Eruv Hamehudor of NW London”

1) Public Letter from LBD Dayonim shlito (p. 21): “needing only a very small number of tzuras hapesach constructions”.

Question: Is 40 Tzuras Hapesach constructions a “very small number”?

עמ' 22: "כי כאשר העץ צומח אל תוך הצוה"פ ונאחז בחוט ומושך אותו כלפי חוץ מבין העמודים, הדבר קרוב לפסול ממש, כי אף אם האץ אינו דוחף אותו אלא פחות מג' טפחים, גם כן הדבר קרוב לפסול ממש, כיון שהוא דבר קבוע, ואינו דומה לרוח שדוחף את החוט, שיש מקילין בזה עד ג' טפחים."

2) Here the author, the Eruv Supervisor shlito, admits himself that one of the features of the “old” Eruv – declared mehudar upon its launch – was “near to psul”. This problem occurred when the fly-over was used as קנה עליון. It bends out between the two poles – כ"דבר קבוע". [וע"ע מ"ב סי' שס"ב ס"ק כ"ו וחזו"א ושו"ת שערי ציון סי' ג'. ובס' תפארת יעקב פרק כ"ב הע' י' כבר כ' כעין מש"כ הרב הנ"ל דאם הוא באופן קבוע, אולי הוא פסול לכו"ע. This has now been put right in a most beautiful and efficient way.]

3) P. 26: In the Haskomo to the Eruv by the very learned Eruv-Supervisor he writes that the Eruv is mehudor “according to the Chazon Ish”, i.e. who holds that the streets are not Reshus Horabim.

It should be borne in mind that Hag. R.M. Feinstein, R. A. Kotler, the M.B. and others do not concur with this. In fact it is a Machlokes Rishonim and Hag. R. Eliashiv considers it a Sofek De’orayso. Thus the Eruv Supervisor phrased his letter with great care and accuracy; yet a reader might not realize that his opinion is contradicted by some of the greatest Poskim. They consider it posul, never mind mehudar. Klapei a temisdig Ba’al Habayis the letter implies that everything is mehudor, period. Is that emesdig?

4) P. 22 - Article by Eruv Supervisor shlito: A Weekly Triple-check

“… hundreds of other cities worldwide which enjoy the benefits of an eruv.”

Question: Is this figure accurate?

5) “… the shmiras Shabbos of thousands of people is dependent upon it.”

Question: Is this figure accurate]? Do the Shomer Shabbos members of the 4 United Synagogues in the area and Ner Israel etc. indeed comprise “thousands”?

6) “We have hired a non-Jew to go around on shabbos and to repair anything that needs to be fixed – see Mishna Berura 276:25.”

Question: The Mishno Beruro would forbid hiring of a non-Jew to go around on Shabbos – obviously with a car. He only permits it once a break in the Eruv was found – due to the great Michshol of carrying in a broken Eruv he allows reliance upon a Shito which is opposed by most Poskim [i.e. the Shito which permits amiro Le’akum to do an Issur min Hatorah]. If the Eruv was found intact on Friday, and there has been not ריעותא e.g. stormy weather, one can rely on Cheskas Heter (עי' שו"ת דובב מישרים ח"א סי' כ"ח ואגרות החזו"א) there is no concern that it will break down the very next day. Consequently the (otherwise wonderful) Hidur of hiring a non-Jew would not allow going against most Poskim who forbid Amiro Le’akum in these circumstances.

Perhaps the Heter could be based upon אמירה לאמירה see M.B. (307:24).

7) P. 36: It is evident from Hagaon R. Eliashiv’s letter that he objects to Eruvin in towns with over 600 000 inhabitants and then insists on an Eruv with Delosos –something which is not practical as one cannot close the streets. The expression “Eruv of Tzuras Hapesach” is actually borrowed from the Bi’ur Halocho (שמ"ה ז') as can be seen by any discerning reader. It does not mean that one has to have Omed Merubo and that Omed Merubo is sufficient. [Indeed he holds that Omed Merubo remains a Sofek De’orayso – as attested to by the author of Chochmas Lev] It simply means what it says: Tzuras Hapessach is insufficient because the streets are a REshu Horabim or Sofek Reshus Horabim. It requires Delosos.

8) P. 39: Letter to Hag. R. Ch. Kanievsky: "וכן ראיתי שהמחיצות שם לא נעשו לכל אורכם בשיעור חזו"א" On the other hand the Spaniard’s gap is only kosher according to the Chazon Ish measurements as the former Rosh Beth Din himself pointed out in his public Shiur.

Question: Is the writer, Rav Eisenstein shlito, correct in calling such an Eruv “kosher”?

In any case, after such stressing that the Eruv could collapse at any time, is it surprising that Hag. R. Chaim Kanievsky replied that it would be correct to repair the Eruv.

9) Ibid. "וראיתי שהעירוב הוא עירוב כשר, אך אינו עשוי בחוזק, ובקל יכול לבא לידי פסול אם לא יחזקהו ויהדרוהו מיד."

Question: Should such an Eruv have been launched as “mehudor” if it is in danger of breaking down at any time?

10) P. 40: The entire Tshuvo by the Tzitz Eliezer is about one subject only: Can one be mezake the Pas as זכין לאדם שלא בפניו if some people do not want any Zechus in the Pas. As a Heter he quotes that the reason of those who do not want any share in the Pas is due to the fact that they consider the Eruv invalid. Therefore it is arguable that if the Eruv is indeed [[כלפי שמיא גליא valid, these objectors would no longer object. Therefore, if indeed the Eruv is valid, one may safely ignore the objectors and be mezake the Pas.

However, this argument only helps for those who object on halachic grounds. It will not help for those G.G. inhabitants who object on other grounds e.g. because an Eruv will lead to Ta’aruvos or a lessening of Kedushas Shabbos [arguments which the Ba’al Eshed Hanecholim considers weighty but which the undersigned does not subscribe to]. In that case it cannot be considered a “Zehus”.

In the booklet by Haga’on Horan Shlomo Miller and his Kolel there is a lengthy discussion on the Tzitz Eliezer’s subject. His Maskono is that it is not to be considered a Zechus.

Finally, entire Tshuvo is really off the main point. The main problems of the Eruv are the issue of Reshus Horabim, of the Karfifos, of the Sechiras Horeshus. Obviously the Tzitz Elizer was not informed about them as he does not even deem them worth mentioning in passing.

It follows that the Tshuvo does not settle the issues of this particular Eruv.

11) P. 44: Support from Gedolei Yisroel – letter from Hag. R. Michel Y. Lefkowitz shlito and endorsed by Hag. R. Ch. Kanievsky shlito. The letter stresses the former Rosh Beth Din’s expertise in Horo’oh and how praiseworthy it is for the correspondent to help him against personal slander.

Question: Of course many people (including the undersigned) can attest to and admire the former Rosh Beth Din for his great erudition, beautiful delivery of Shiurim and also many wonderful amazing deeds of Chesed.

Is this relevant to the specialized question as to whether the large number of objections to this Eruv are correct – an area in which the former Rosh Beth Din is perhaps a little less specialized than Hag. R. M. Feinstein, Horav Eider and other experts who were critical of the Eruv which was constructed and even declared mehudor.

12) Letter by Hag. R. Shmu’el Auerbach. See newly published letter on website www. nwlondoneruv.info. addressed to London Yiden, published with permission. It appears formthe two letters:

a) Re Reshus Horabim the Ch. Ish is meikal and therefore obviously המיקל יש לו על מי לסמוך.

b) Lema’asei Hag. R. Auerbach advises people not to carry and calls it in once place Sofek Melocho, obviously due to the fact that there are great Poskim who forbid it.

c) The publishers of this glossy booklet had the unbelievable audacity and chutzpah to publish his (first) letter after he explicitly told them not to publish it. [In fact he rang the person concerned and told him that he had asked the letter to be destroyed.]

d) It would not be unreasonable to assume that some other letters were also published without permission. The undersigned asked Rav Berlin whether he had given permission. He was quiet. The undersigned asked again. He was again quiet…..

e) It is fair to assume that Rav S. Auerbach was not told about other problems e.g. Karfifos.

13) P. 56: Interview - “What was done in the past is not relevant.”

Question: Why is it irrelevant? Does the past record not determine the degree of trust in present declarations? If on past record a most wonderful Rov supervised the Monsey butcher, would we trust his present declarations? Were the Eruv to have been very problematic in the past and was yet declared as mehudor, would that not lead us to view present declarations with a little caution?

14) Ibid. “It has been suggested that the eruv relies on the shiur of the Chazon Ish l’kula.”

Comment: This was not a mere “suggestion” but an explicit explanation during the public Shiur delivered upon launch of the Eruv. However, it no longer applies as the interviewee noted quite correctly.

15) P. 48: Open Letter by Horav Hag. R. Elchonon Halpern shlito that one may not call those who rely on the eruv “mechallelei Shabbos” or “pesulei eidus”.

Comment: This is 100% true, simply because they are in the class of shogegim, believing that the Eruv is certainly fully reliable. עי' שו"ע חו"מ סי' ל"ד ס"ד וסכ"ד ובתשו' הגרע"א ח"א סי' צ"ו ד"ה עוד נ"ל, ויתכן דכאן עדיף דהוה אומר מותר.

16) P. 52: “… the London Eruv is one of the most mehudar city-eruvin in the world”

Question: Is it not one of the most problematic city-eruvin in the world due to the fact that it includes the North Circular Rd. which serves well more than 600 000 inhabitants living near it. Over 600 000 use it in order to get to the North? Did not the Boro Park Eruv exclude such a large street namely Ocean Parkway? Is not both Los Angelos and Baltimore Eruv far better in that due to the spread-out nature of these towns Hag. R. M. Feinstein would allow their Eruv which is not the case in London?

17) P. 54: Interview – “The London Eruv … is based primarily upon the ruling of the Chazon Ish…. Even a public domain through which 600 000 people pass .. is nonetheless considered a private domain min Hatorah if the streets are surrounded by building…”

Question: In fairness, why did the interviewee not bother to mention that this Psak of the Chazon Ish is opposed by many other Poskim including the Mishno Beruroh, Hag. R. M. Feinstein [as the undersigned himself heard from the interviewee], Hag. R. A. Kotler and many others who are on public record against city-eruvin in very large cities.

18) Ibid. “..is absolutely clear that 600 000 people do not pass through the North Circular section within the Eruv.”

Question: Indeed there is practically no street in the whole world including Oxford Circus in the shopping season which has 600 000 passing through it. Is the interviewee suggesting that there is no Reshus Horabim min Hatorah to be found in the whole world? Why did Chazal forbid the Shofar and the Arba Minim on a Yomtov which falls on Shabbos lest he transgresses the Issur min Hatorah of carrying?(עי' בה"ל ומהר"י אסאד) It is abundantly clear that a Reshus Horabim does not have to be actually freqeuented by 600 000 on the same day or the same time; rather it has to be available and serve a population of 600 000. Does the North Circular Rd. not serve 600 000 who would use it to get to the North?

Apart from there is no halachic evidence that these 600 000 have to travel in the section of the street which is within the Eruv. It is not impossible that as long as 600 000 travel along some part of this very long street, the whole street is to be considered a רשות הרבים מן התורה.

19) Ibid. “Today there is almost no difference between the eruv in Yerusholayim and the eruv in London… there could already be 600 000 people there (in Yerusholayim) every day.

Question: Is there not a huge difference between Yerusholayim and London: Even if Yerusholayim were to contain 700 000 inhabitants, there is hardly a single major road which serves 600 000 people. Those living on the eastern side use roads near to them, those on the western side use roads near to them…. On the other hand, in London there is surely not the slightest doubt that the North Circular runs adjacent to well over 600 000 who will use it whenever necessary. And in any case, if yerushol. Willl be found to have 600 000 thenRav Eliashiv does not allow reliance upon the Eruv.

20) P. 55: “This is largely due to the design of the great gaon and eruv expert Rav Shimon Eider z.t.l.”

Would it not be fair to add that after this design this “great Gaon and expert” came to the conclusion the wake of Hag. R. Feinstein’s Pslokim he could never grant a kosher certification to this Eruv?

21) P. 57: “What about the issue of sechirus?”

Question: Why did the interviewee not bother to mention in his reply the view of Hag. R. Eliashiv (see also Bi’ur Halocho and Chacham Tzvi) that the sechirus reshus which was done is of no use?

22) Ibid. “It is now absolutely kedas ukedin betachlis ha’hiddur”.

Question: Is something considered to be no less than an Issur Torah by Hag. R. M. Feinstein and by Hag. R. A. Kotler and by the Mishno Beruro to be called the ultimate Hidur?

P. 60-65 – Karfifos: Explained in detail in separate Hebrew Birur Halocho.

P. 65 – Summary and Conclusion with regard to the Karfef: The park next to Wildwood Rd. (i.e. Hamstead Heath Extension)

Comment: This park may in any case not be a problem because the wild-growing bushes etc. may perhaps form a Mechitzoh which is 10 tefochim high.

23) P. 65 of distributed booklet: – Summary and Conclusion with regard to the Karfef next to the Brent river: Many factual assumptions used as bases for the halachic conclusions are more in the category of guesswork or Divrei Nevi’us!

“People use it all the time.”

a) Question: Is this factually accurate? Both the Beis Sosayim in the closed off part of the car-park and in the overgrown field behind it is certainly not used all the time, at most some people take out their dogs along the river side but the rest of the car-park and the overgrown part remains desolate of people. .

You write that these non-built up areas will soon be built up.

b) Question: Is this factually accurate? Do you expect the Heath Extension to be exchanged for concrete structures? How come you are so sure of yourself?

You write that the plans for building houses on these areas may already be in the council.

c) Question: How were you privy to such surprising information which nobody local knows about. Not only are some of these “green” and forlorn areas zealously guarded over by the “conservationists” (you in Eretz Yisroel may not know about these type of people), not only is the building in the Heath Extension fraught with legal problems – the whole assumption is rather unrealistic.

You write that the existence of these Zeroim is only temporary.

Question: The Zeroim, bushes etc. in the Heath Extension, however wild-growing they may indeed be, have been around for years. What makes you assume that now they will be taken down?

Further Question: The car park has been closed to cars for years. Why do you take on with surety that it is only temporary?

The Zeroim in the Karfef behind the car-park may indeed by cut down from time to time, and perhaps you only mean this. But in this case you have not answered the problems. The other Karifos still invalidate!

כדאי להזכיר כאן את דברי רבינו הגר"א:

גרסינן בסנהדרין (ז:) : "דרש ר' יאשיה וכו' אם ברור לך הדבר כבקר אמרהו ואם לאו אל תאמרהו. ר' חייא בר אבא א"ר יונתן מהכא אמור לחכמה אחותי את, אם ברור לך הדבר כאחותך שהיא אסורה לך אומרהו ואם לאו אל תאמרהו.

וצריך ביאור מה הוסיף ר' יונתן על ר' יאשיא והא דברי שניהם עולים בקנה אחד שצריך לברר הדבר לאישורו קודם שאמרהו. לזאת ביאר רבנו הגר"א ז"ל (בפירושו למשלי סי' כ"ב פסוק י"ב) דבקר היינו בירור המציאות. כדי להגיע לפסק אמיתי עליו לברר המציאות כ"כ עד שברור לו כמו שיודע שבבקר איכא אור. ועוד אחת, דאחרי בירור המציאות עליו לברר דין תוה"ק כ"כ ברור כמו שיודע לכל בר בי רב דהתורה אסרה עליו את אחותו. עוי"ל דרך זה כפל הלשון של הגמ' בשבת כל דיין שדן דין "אמת לאמיתו" נעשה שותף להקב"ה. ע"ש עוד בדברי הגר"א.

משה דוד שפירא