בס"ד

COMMENTS ON RECENT BOOKLET ABOUT NW LONDON ERUV

Note: The undersigned lives far away from London and belongs neither to the Kedassia Organization nor to the United Synagogue. There is no motivation whatsoever to serve the interest of one at the expense of another. There is no motivation whatsoever ch.v. to serve the interests of one Rov at the expense of another.

The sole purpose is to equip the intelligent reader of the new booklet with knowledge – so that he can judge for himself.

Preface: In the week before Purim a booklet entitled “The Eruv HaMehudar in NW London” was distributed to many households in both Golders Green and Stamford Hill. The booklet is produced very nicely with lavish illustrations and contains graphics of remarkable beauty. It does not carry a Haskomo of any one of the גדולי תורה . It claims, however, by citing their letters that they agree that indeed this is both a kosher and very mehudar Eruv. The booklet is extremely impressive - especially so upon a reader who has not had time to delve into Hilchos Eruvin or the practical issues. The undersigned was shown over the years almost all letters now published in this new booklet [including one of הגר"ח קנייבסקי שליט"א which was not published.]. It is fully agreed that the construction has now been brought up to a very high standard. However, with reference to other hurdles, which an Eruv must also pass, the situation is as follows - according to the Gedolei Haposkim:

THE OPINION OF THE GEDOLEI HAPOSKIM

Preface: All Poskim consider it a Mitzvo to make an Eruv – a kosher Eruv. The Booklet quotes quite correctly the Chasam Sofer, the Maharil Diskin and others. This is also apparent from the Gemoro and Shulchon Oruch. These same Poskim would not consider it a Mitzvo to make an invalid Eruv. They would hardly consider it a Mitzvo to make a very problematic Eruv – and advertise it as “mehudor”.

HAG. R. ELIASHIV CONSIDERS THE RESHUS HORABIM PROBLEM A SOFEK DEORAYSO

HAG. R. ELIASHIV shlito is most hesitant about an Eruv containing streets which serve 600 000 inhabitants. North Circular Rd. is such a street. In such a case “it would be impossible to allow carrying on the basis of an Eruv containing Tzuras Hapesach-constructions” as the NW London Eruv does. (quote from his letter on p. 37 of booklet) For this reason alone this Eruv is considerably worse than the Jerusalem Eruv, the Edgware Eruv or the Borough Park and Flatbush Eruvin in New York. In America they excluded Ocean Parkway, a very busy road. An Eruv containing a Tzuras Hapesach should not be used if it includes a very busy road. [See his letter on p. 37 of booklet; his expression עירוב צוה"פ is taken from the Bi’ur Halocho שמ"ה ז' at bottom of page – only an Eruv made up throughout of proper walls would be permissible as explained by Bi’ur Halocho; of course this is impossible in a city-wide Eruv with streets which may not be blocked.] The author of Sefer Chochmas Lev [upon whom one Rav Hamaskim wrote that he is a Gaon and in no need of any Haskomo whatsoever], a Talmid of Hag. R. Eliashiv, has testified that this is R. Eliashiv's Ho’roh and there is no doubt about this.

HAG. R. ELIASHIV IS ALSO V. HESITANT BEC. OF SECHIRUS RESHUS

HAG. R. ELIASHIV shlito is, moreover, very hesitant due to an additional problem with city wide Eruvin: The Sechirus Horeshus. [He writes that most Poskim (incl. M.B. and many others) require Sechirus Reshus; nowadays in a democratic country Sechirus Reshus from the authorities is of no use since they cannot take over a private house unless there was a declaration of war, a “reasonable suspicion of criminal action” etc. See letter reproduced in this booklet that “all Poskim” except for the Ginas Verodim and Beis Meir require Sechirus Reshus. Belgian Laws allow a Sechirus Reshus which is valid according to him (see Sefer Rechovois Ir); English Law does not allow this. (See Sefer Chochmas Lev for detailed explanation of his Psak)]

MISHNO BERURO FORBIDS IN TOWNS WITH OVER 600 000 INHABITANTS

MISHNO BERURO (בה"ל שמ"ה ז' ושס"ד ב') allows an Eruv in a town under 600 000 with some hesitation; he clearly forbids an Eruv in a town with over 600 000. [The booklet quoted the M.B. allowing an Eruv in such a town with under 600 000 inhabitants as if this would apply to London.]

The M.B. is also rather hesitant about an Eruv containing Karfifos such as the Karfof next to the River Brent. [This is explained at length in undersigned Kuntres on Karfifos, available elsewhere on this site]

CHAZON ISH FORBIDS MIDERAOBNON DUE TO KARFIFOS

CHAZON ISH z.t.l. invalidates the Karfifos next to the river Brent. [This is explained at length by the undersigned in a Kuntres on Karfifos and a further letter, soon available on this site.]

HAG. R. CH. KANIEVSKY CONFIRMS CHAZON ISH’S VIEW ON KARFIFOS

HAG. R. CHAIM KANIEVSKY shlito: The Chazon Ish’s view that such a Karfef would invalidate the Eruv was confirmed by a letter to the Gaon R. Chaim in which he replied that in the case of such problems the Chazon Ish forbade carrying. [Curiously this letter was not published in this booklet. It is, however, available on this site]

HAG. R. M. FEINSTEIN FORBIDS MIN HATORAH BECAUSE OF RESHUS HORABIM

HAG. R. MOSHE FEINSTEIN (in 8 different Tshuvos) forbids an Eruv in a town with over 2 ½ - 3 million inhabitants unless there is a very low population density (see details in his Tshuvo).

HAG. R. A. KOTLER AND OTHER GEDOLIM – who also signed on the public declaration calling carrying in the Brooklyn Eruv a “Melochoh Deorayso”.

R. EIDER CONFIRMED R. FEINSTEIN’S PSAK WOULD APPLY TO LONDON

ORIGINAL ARCHITECT OF THE ERUV, HORAV SHIMON EIDER z.t.l.: He declared - after drafting the original Eruv boundaries - that having checked into the commuter traffic etc. he could never grant a certification to the Eruv. The reason is that he was reasonably certain that his mentor רבשכבה"ג Hag. R. M. Feinstein would invalidate the Eruv. [The letter was sent to Rav Kimchi shlito, a copy is available from him or from the undersigned T. 0780428 3099].

HAG. R. SHMUEL AUERBACH NOTES THAT CHAZ. ISH IS NOT CONCERNED WITH RESHUS HORABIM PESUL BUT NEVERTHELES ADVISES EXPLICITLY AGAINST CARRYING DUE TO CHASHASH CHILUL SHABBOS

His first letter is published in the booklet. His second letter was published recently in the J.T. and will soon be available on this site.

a) Re Reshus Horabim the Ch. Ish is meikal and therefore obviously המיקל יש לו על מי לסמוך. [It may be assumed that they did not make him aware of the Karfifos problem.]

b) Lema’asei Hag. R. Auerbach advises people not to carry and calls it in one place in the letter Sofek Issur Shabbos. This is due to the fact that there are great Poskim who forbid it.

c) The publishing of the original letter was done against his explicit request not to publish it. The second letter was addressed to “Residents of London” and written for publication.

(Rabbi) M.D. Spiro

Email: md@spiro.orangehome.co.uk T.:0780 428 3099

CONCLUSIONS FROM PAST RECORD FOR PRESENT RELIABLITY

Since this is a controversial matter, it is worthwhile to look at the past record. If a person wants to determine whether to follow the present advice of a doctor, he will study the reliability of past pronouncements by this doctor.

THE PAST ERUV

1) HAG. R. ELIASHIV Shlito wrote in a printed and published Tshuvo that the gap near Spaniard’s Inn makes the Eruv not usable. [עי' קובץ תשובות להגרי"ש אלישיב שליט"א ח"ב]

2) Both CHAZON ISH and HAG. R. CHAIM NOEH would invalidate the Eruv. Hag. R. Chaim Noeh – due to the gap which is too large according to his Psak. [This was declared openly by the former Rosh Beth Din shlito in his public Shiur upon launch of the Eruv.]

Chazon Ish - due to the fact that the height of the poles was too low according to his Psak [as testified in letter by Rav Eisenstein to Hag. R. Chaim Karnievsky, printed in this booklet] So the original Eruv satisfied neither of the two opinions.

3) Many Eruv Experts objected forcefully to the Eruv due to the Psul of פתחא בקרן זווית at Spaniard’s Inn even according to Chazon Ish measurements.

4) Rav Eisenstein wrote [in a letter printed in this booklet] that the Eruv might break down any time and needs to be strengthened immediately. Was this Eruv deserving of the “full confidence in its Halachic integrity” which was declared upon its launch?

5) There were many other problems in the construction, running counter to P'sokim by the Mishno Beruro, by the Chazon Ish and by the Mekor Chaim (Nesivos). The Eruv Authority and the Ba’al Habayis who supported the renovation of the construction are most deserving of praise. The visitors from Eretz Yisroel in conjunction with a local building firm toiled long and hard and rectified the shortcoming in the construction and succeeded to bring it up to a wonderful high standard. The issue here is: How trustworthy were pronouncements in the past? How trustworthy are they in the present and future?