The Canarsie Eiruv
I was very excited to be shown the Eiruv of Rav Moshe Faskowitz, then the rabbi of the Young Israel of Redwood, (located in the Canarsie section of Brooklyn) in 1989. My fellow Yeshiva University Kollel member, Rav Yitzchak Eisenmann, had told me that Rav Faskowitz had created a high-quality Eiruv in Canarsie and I was very eager to see it.
I was especially interested since Rav Faskowitz was guided in the creation of this Eiruv by the renowned Poseik Rav Gedalia Zinner. I very much wanted to see approaches that differed from the ones I was taught at Yeshiva University by my Rebbeim, Rav Hershel Schachter and Rav Mordechai Willig.
The visit did not disappoint. Indeed, the Canarsie Eiruv was a very high-quality Eiruv. It was, on the one hand, stricter than the standards which I was taught, as no breaches wider than three Tephachim were tolerated. On the other hand, it was more lenient in that it relied on what is referred to in the Halachic literature as “Delatot”.
The Eiruv was attached to the South Shore High School building and followed the walls of the building until it reached fences. Some of these fences had openings wider than ten Amot and were open during the day. Rav Zinner, it turns out, permits relying on the fact that these fences were closed at night as a sufficient means to create a Halachic boundary.
Rav Schachter and Rav Willig, by contrast, do not permit relying on “Delatot” in this manner. Let us explore the basis for these varying approaches to “Delatot”.
Yerushalayim’s Gates
The Gemara (Eiruvin 6b, 22a, and 101a) presents Rabi Yochanan’s oft-cited teaching that “Had Yerushalayim’s gates (“Delatot”) not been locked at night, it would have been considered a Reshut HaRabbim (a place in which it is forbidden to carry on a Torah level on Shabbat)”. This Gemara teaches a point of major importance. Namely, that even a Reshut HaRabbim may be corrected by Delatot. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 364:2) codifies this rule as normative Halacha.
The Mishna Berurah (364:6) presents the standard explanation of the efficacy of Delatot. The explanation is that since the Delatot inhibit traffic flow at times, it cannot be described as a Reshut HaRabbim.
Daletot Re’uyot Linol
The Rishonim, though, engage in a major debate regarding how to understand and apply this idea. The Rif (Eiruvin 2a in the pages of the Rif) rules that Delatot are effective only if they are closed at night. The Rosh (Eiruvin 1:8) agrees. The Rif and the Rosh seem to imply that the doors are closed every evening. The Rambam (Hilchot Shabbat 17:10), however, writes that it is sufficient for there to be potential for the doors to be locked at night (“Delatot Re’uyot Linol”) to rectify a Reshut HaRabbim.
The Shulchan Aruch (op. cit.) presents both opinions. However, the opinion of the Rif and Rosh are presented as the primary opinion and the Rambam is presented as the secondary opinion. Rav Yosef Karo here follows his celebrated formula that he sets forth in his introduction to the Shulchan Aruch, to use the Rif, Rambam, and the Rosh as his “Beit Din” and to follow the majority when they disagree.
Indeed, the Mishna Berurah (364:8) notes that the Shulchan Aruch follows the opinion of the Rif and the Rosh since it is presented as the primary opinion. He adds (Sha’ar HaTziyun 364:9) that the fact that the Rama does not express an objection, illustrates that he subscribes in practice to the stricter rulings of the Rif and the Rosh. The Mishna Berurah assumes that the Rama’s silence in regards to this section of the Shulchan Aruch represents a retraction of his earlier ruling in accordance with the Rambam that he included in his Darkhei Moshe commentary to the Tur (364).
The Practice in Pre-War Europe
Many communities in pre-war Europe (as reported by Teshuvot Avnei Neizer Orach Chaim 273-278 and Chazon Ish Orach Chaim 78:1) relied upon Delatot Re’uyot Linol. This seems to run counter to the rulings of the Shulchan Aruch and the Rama.
However, the Aruch HaShulchan (Orach Chaim 364:1) rules in accordance with the more lenient view of the Rambam. He supports this ruling from the fact that the Tur endorses the approach of the Rambam. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav (364:4) also essentially rules in accordance with the Rambam, though he strongly prefers accommodating the stricter view. His ruling that baseline Halacha is in accordance with the Rambam is based on the Rama’s approach that appears in the Darchei Moshe (Orach Chaim 364).
Moreover, Rav Yaakov Bloi (Netivot Shabbat 23:1 note 10) argues that even the stricter views of the Rif and Rosh require the gates to be locked at night only when Delatot are needed to ameliorate a Reshut HaRabbim. However, when using Delatot (as was done in Europe) to serve as a Mechitza in a Carmelit (an area in which it is forbidden to carry only on a rabbinic level), all would agree that Delatot Re’uyot Linol suffice.
Jerusalem’s Chareidi neighborhood of Mattesdorf maintains a door (the Mishna Berura 364:7 cites opinions that one door suffices) on Panim Me’irot street to bolster the status of its Eiruv (it surrounds the community with Tzurot HaPetach as well). The community cites a ruling it received from none other than Rav Moshe Feinstein who regards this door as satisfying the stricter opinions of the Rif and Rosh who require the doors to be actually locked, even though this door is locked only for Shabbat and not every evening.
Rav Moshe is cited as arguing that the point of the requirement of the doors being locked at night is that the doors should serve as a highly significant function. Having the doors locked at night protected ancient Jerusalem from the invasion of bandits at night. The door of Mattesdorf, argues Rav Moshe, also serve a significant function since it prevents cars from entering the community and thereby desecrating the holy Shabbat.
Interestingly, Rav Moshe’s argument serves to reject a suggestion made at the Shiur on Eiruvin in Israel delivered by Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi Rav David Lau at Yeshivat Otniel in 2018. Rav Re’eim HaCohen, the Rosh Yehsiva of Otniel, appears to be the audience member who suggests to Rav Lau that Delatot should be installed that would surround Israeli cities and be extended to enclose the city momentarily every day at 3 AM each morning.
Rav HaCohen argued that this would satisfy even the strict opinion of the Rosh and the Rif since they do not state that the Delatot must be closed the entire evening. Rather, they merely require that the Delatot be closed every evening.
According to Rav Moshe, a momentary closing of the doors does not serve any significant non-Eiruv function and “doors” such as the ones described by Rav HaCohen would not at all satisfy the opinion of the Rif and the Rosh even if these doors would be closed for a minute each early morning.
Delatot without Tzurot HaPetach
The Chazon Ish vociferously objected to the pre-war European practice of relying upon Delatot Re’uyot Linol. The Chazon Ish argues that the Gemara teaches only that Delatot relieve an area of the status of a Reshut HaRabbim. However, Delatot alone do not render an area as enclosed and permitted to carry within it. The Chazon Ish supports his contention that the Gemara never presents Delatot as a means to render an area as a Reshut HaYachid.
However, the Chazon Ish notes that the Chatam Sofer (Teshuvot Orach Chaim 88) disagrees and permits Delatot even without a Tzurat HaPetach. This view is supported by the fact that the Gemara never mentions a requirement to augment Delatot with Tzurot HaPetach.
Teshuvot Teshuva Mei’ahavah (2:245) and Teshuvot Brit Avraham (number 18) agree with the Chatam Sofer. The famous Radzhiner Rebbe, Rav Gershon Henoch Leiner, published an essay entitled Delatot Sha’ar HaIr (printed at the end of his celebrated work Ein HaTechelet) supporting the ruling of the Chatam Sofer.
Netivot Shabbat (23:3 note 16) notes that the many Acharonim who support the pre-war European practice regarding Delatot also disagree with the ruling of the Chazon Ish. Moreover, Dayan Yitzchak Weisz (Teshuvot Minchat Yitzchak 4:41) argues that the Chazon Ish was strict in only regard to Delatot that address a Reshut HaRabbim. However, in regards to creating a Mechitza within a Carmelit, Delatot suffice without a Tzurat HaPetach.
We should note, though, that the Chazon Ish is hardly a lone voice. Teshuvot Chessed L’Avraham (Orach Chaim 2:Orach Chaim:35) and Teshuvot Divrei Malkiel (3:15) explicitly agree with the Chazon Ish. Rav Yaakov Bloi (Netivot Shabbat 23:3 note 15) believes that the Sefat Emet (Eiruvin 6b) also agrees with the Chazon Ish. Rav Moshe Feinstein is cited (The Laws of an Eiruv, page 118) as also agreeing with the Chazon Ish.
The Gates in Canarsie
Returning to the gates in Canarsie, it emerges then that Rav Zinner ruled in accordance with the many Acharonim who adopt the lenient view of the Chatam Sofer permitting Delatot without accompanying Tzurot HaPetach. The fact that these gates were actually closed each evening further supports the ruling of Rav Zinner.
Rav Baruch Simon (Imrei Baruch on Eiruvin and Reshuyot pages 88-89) bolsters the ruling of the Chatam Sofer by noting that the great Rabi Akiva Eiger (Teshuvot Chadashot L’Rabbeinu Akiva Eiger number six) supports the view of his son-in-law the Chatam Sofer. Moreover, Rav Simon notes that there are even two Rishonim, the Meiri (Eiruvin 59a s.v. Kevar Bi’arnu) and Ritva (Eiruvin 22a s.v. D’Rabbanan Ad’rabbanan) who subscribe to the view of the Chatam Sofer.
Indeed, Rav Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer (The Contemporary Eiruv, third edition page 100) writes that “the preponderance of Poskim rule that Delatot are valid enclosures without Tzurot HaPetach overhead”. In addition, the Aruch HaShulchan (Orach Chaim 364:1) clearly indicates that he also subscribes to the lenient view.
Nonetheless, Rav Schachter and Rav Willig firmly rule in accordance with the Chazon Ish. Rav Zvi Sobolosky reports that he ruled this way for an NCSY Shabbaton held in a camping ground. He rules that the fact that the gates of the camping ground were closed at night does not render the area a Reshut HaYachid when the gates are open on Shabbat day.
Moreover, Rav Mordechai Willig (personal communication) rejects a suggested compromise permitting relying on parking lot gates that are closed every evening, as long as the gates are closed when Shabbat begins. This compromise is based on the many Halachot which are determined by the beginning of Shabbat, such as Muktzah status.
Rav Willig, though, summarily rejected the idea, noting that Tosafot (Eiruvin 17a s.v. Ireiv) do not accept the application of the principle of Shabbat Keivan SheHutrah Hutrah (an Eiruv that began Shabbat intact remains valid for the entire Shabbat) to consent the of creation of Mechitzot. Rav Willig rules that if the parking lot gates are wider than ten Amot and are open during the middle of Shabbat, the Eiruv is invalidated, despite the fact that these doors were closed at the beginning of that Shabbat.
Resolutions in Roslyn Heights, West Orange, Charleston and Merrick
The dispute that rages between the Chatam Sofer and Chazon Ish is difficult to resolve. The absence of discussion in the Gemara makes it difficult to arrive at a definitive ruling. Hence, in practice I make every effort not to rely on Delatot, even if they are locked at night, except in cases when there is no alternative to create the community Eiruv. In cases of no alternative we rely upon the many Poskim who adopt the lenient view and the precedent of the pre-war European communities.
For example, the Eiruv in Roslyn Heights, Long Island runs along the fences of Christopher Morley park. However, we redirect the Eiruv to utility wires instead of relying on the portion of the park’s parking lot fence which is open during the day, even on Shabbatot when the park fences close before the beginning of Shabbat.
Similarly, in West Orange, New Jersey the community relies upon the golf course fence for a portion of its Eiruv. However, it redirects the Eiruv to utility poles instead of relying on the portion of the gate where a break of greater than ten Amot opens during the day to permit cars to enter the parking lot. In Charleston, South Carolina the community’s Eiruv also avoids the Daltot Re’uyot Linol at the entrance of the famous Citadel Military Academy.
However, the Eiruv in Merrick, Long Island relies on a series of fences that include a parking lot fence which opens during the day and is closed each evening. The community has not been able to secure permission to install Tzurot HaPetach in the area nor is there a viable alternative to create this community’s Eiruv. As such we rely on the many Acharonim who rule leniently, especially since Rav Bloi inclines in favor of the lenient view.
Government Limits on Delatot
There was considerable debate in pre-war Europe about the validity of the Delatot installed. As we have noted, many pre-war communities considered these Delatot to constitute viable Delatot Re’uyot Linol in cases where it was impossible to obtain permission to build Tzurot HaPetach.
Teshuvot Yeshu’ot Malko, however, argues that these Delatot did not even meet the standard of Re’uyot Linol, since the government would not permit the doors to be locked except for extremely brief periods at very limited times. However, Teshuvot Avnei Neizer (ad. loc.) defends the validity of these Delatot despite the limitations imposed by the government.
Rav Baruch Simon (op cit. page 86) writes that he is inclined to the stricter opinion that such doors are not considered Re’uyot Linol. He cites the Maharsham’s Haghot to the Orechot Chaim (363:11) who writes “where it is impossible due to government restrictions to close the doors there is no room to be lenient. Despite the fact that I have heard of great Rabbanim who are lenient about this matter, in my humble opinion they do not have upon which to rely”.
However, Rav Simon does not cite the Aruch HaShulchan (op. cit.) who endorses the lenient view. He writes:
“and even if the city government does not permit the Delatot to be closed, it does not matter since the Delatot render the breaks in the Mechitzot as permitted openings (and not a breach). After Delatot are installed the area is considered one enclosed courtyard without the need of adding any Lechis or Korot”.
It is hardly surprising to discover the Aruch HaShulchan endorsing the lenient view, as he is very inclined to defend the extant practices of the observant Jewish community.
Moreover, the work U’L’Arev Eiruvo cites a most interesting practice of Jerusalem’s Eidah HaChareidit. This work records that they maintain police barricades at the side of the main vehicular entrance to Jerusalem. None other than Rav Chaim Kanievsky is reported to have endorsed the efficacy of these doors as Delatot Re’uyot Linol, as a Chumra (stringency) to help ameliorate the status of Jerusalem as a Reshut HaRabbim. Rav Kanievsky makes this endorsement despite the government’s severe limitations and restrictions on using these barriers to close this major thoroughfare.
String Delatot – London and Oakland
Various communities today have a form of Delatot installed as a Chumra/stringency to help overcome issues of Reshut HaRabbim. For example, Rav Zvi Lieberman of the London neighborhood of Edgeware in June 2011 showed me the Delatot he installed to help overcome concern for his community being considered a Reshut HaRabbim.
These contemporary Delatot consist of rolls of thin durable material stored within plastic or metal canisters which are installed to the utility poles that form the Eiruv boundaries. The Delatot are forty inches high and consist of strings that are not less than three Tephachim apart.
Rav Yaakov Bloi calls into serious question the validity of such Delatot. He cites Teshuvot Avnei Neizer (Orach Chaim number 282) and Teshuvot Imrei Yosher (1:110) who require that the Delatot should be recognizable that it comes to enclose the public area. Such Delatot in canisters hardly seem to satisfy the Avnei Neizer and Imrei Yosher’s requirement.
On the other hand, Rav Eliezer Waldenburg (Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer 14:90) and Rav Shmuel Wosner (Teshuvot Sheivet HaLevi 4:41) endorse the proposal of the creation of an Eiruv in Amsterdam based solely on such “canister Delatot”. They reason that as long as the doors have the potential to impede traffic in the areas into which it was installed they enjoy the status of a Delet. Rav Waldenburg and Rav Wosner approved these installations in a situation where there is no alternative to creating their Eiruvin.
Much effort has been made to create an Eiruv for the Jewish community of Oakland, California. Due to safety concerns for earthquakes, the local government authorities do not permit the installation of Tzurot HaPetach. As such Delatot remain the only viable option. Rav Judah Dardik asked Rav Zinner if he may rely on such Delatot in Oakland where there is no other way to create the Eiruv. Rav Zinner extended his approval in such circumstances. Rav Willig ruled that we rely on Rav Zinner’s ruling.
The Oakland community still is awaiting the long sought permission from the local authorities to install these Delatot. The community has invested considerable sums to create Halachically viable Delatot. We remain hopeful the approval will soon be forthcoming.
Conclusion
Rav Waldenburg writes in the context of the proposed Eiruv for Amsterdam
“We are mandated and directed by the great Poskim of earlier and later generations to expeditiously create community Eiruvin which have some basis in Halacha, even when it is debatable, since thereby one prevents hundreds and thousands of Jews from wittingly or unwittingly violating Shabbat in an area without an Eiruv”.
Although every effort should be made to create the highest quality Eiruv that a community can create and sustain, in some cases there is no choice but to rely upon lenient approaches. In regards to Delatot every effort should be made to accommodate the stricter approach of the Chazon Ish. However, when there is absolutely no choice, we have a tradition from pre-war Europe and the support of first rate Poskim to rely on Delatot. This applies to even the more debatable Delatot such as when the government severely limits the times the Dealtot may be closed and even regarding string Delatot rolled up into a canister attached to utility poles.