Correcting an Incorrect Impression

I was under the impression (and many share this impression) that the Minhag of Chabad is not to accept community Eruvin. I thought this was because the father of Chabad Halachah, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (written by Rav Shenuer Zalman of Ladi, the founder or Alter Rebbe of Chabad) rejects the use of community Eruvin.  

However, upon investigation it turns out that the Shulchan Aruch HaRav adopts the same approach as the Mishnah Berurah to community Eruvin. Both of these great authorities prefer that we avoid using communal Eruvin (see Shulchan Aruch HaRav 345:11 and 362:19 and Mishnah Berurah 345:23 and 362:59). However, they do not reject the use of community Eruvin by the broader Jewish community.  

Two Reasons to Avoid Using a Communal Eruv When Possible

Both the Shulchan Aruch HaRav and Mishnah Berurah agree that there are two considerable problems with the use of communal Eruvin. First, is that communal Eruvin almost always are composed of Tzurot HaPetach. Tzurot HaPetach are effective only in a Carmelit and not in a Reshut HaRabbim. Community Eruvin rely on the opinions in the Rishonim that an area is not defined as a Reshut HaRabbim if less than 600,000 people reside in that area. 

However, many Rishonim including the Rif and Rambam do not subscribe to this opinion. Therefore both the Shulchan Aruch HaRav and the Mishnah Berurah urge a God fearing individual to avoid relying on the lenient opinion. However, both the Shulchan Aruch HaRav and the Mishnah Berurah fundamentally recognize that the accepted custom is to rely on the lenient opinion.   

In addition, Rambam (Hilchot Shabbat 16:16) severely limits the efficacy of Tzurot HaPetach. He rules that they be relied upon only if there is a majority of Halachic wall (such as actual walls, very steep hills or fences) on that side of the surrounded area. Only then may the Tzurot HaPetach may then fill in the missing pieces.  

The Shulchan Aruch HaRav and the Mishnah Berurah prefer that we satisfy the opinion of Rambam. However, they recognize that the fundamental Halachah conforms to the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 362:10) who rules in accordance with Tosafot (Eruvin 11a) and the Rosh (Eruvin 1:13) who disagree with the Rambam. The Aruch HaShulchan (Orach Chaim 362) notes that most Poskim subscribe to the view espoused by Tosafot and the Rosh.  

Not surprisingly, when Chabad adherents create an Eruv in their summer camps, bungalow colonies and backyards they make the Tzurot HaPetach not wider than ten Amot.  

We should note, though, that taking this measure satisfies only the Chatam Sofer’s (Teshuvot Orach Chaim 88) understanding of Rambam. However, Rav Chaim Soloveitchik (to Rambam Hilchot Shabbat 16:16) and the Chazon Ish (Orach Chaim 79:6) argue that according to Rambam even a succession of Tzurot HaPetach whose width does not exceed ten Amot does not enclose the area unless a majority of Halachic wall encloses that side of the area. [1]

Policy Concerns of the Seventh Lubavitcher Rebbe

Accordingly, we have seen that there is no long standing Chabad tradition to eschew communal Eruvin for the broader Jewish community. The current widespread reluctance among Chabad adherents to rely on community Eruvin stems from policy concerns of the seventh and most recent Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rav Menachem Mendel Schneerson.  

As is apparent from the collection of the Rebbe’s Halachic writings (Shulchan Menachem Orach Chaim 196), the Lubavitcher Rebbe felt that the precedent to establish Eruvin in European communities should not be followed in America. The Rebbe was fundamentally concerned that the Jewish community in his time was dramatically weaker, spiritually speaking, than their European antecedents. Thus, he was very concerned that the creation of community Eruvin would lead to Jews forgetting about the prohibition to carry on Shabbat.  

The Rebbe was afraid that people would be so accustomed to relying on a community Eruv that people would rely on it even on Shabbatot on which it is down and even if they moved to another neighborhood or city that did not have an Eruv.  

The Rebbe was not alone among the great twentieth century American Rabbanim in this regard.  Rav Leib Landesman told me that Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky felt the European precedent should not be followed in the United States. Similarly, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik (the Rav) did not permit the construction of an Eruv in Boston. Rav Aharon Kotler is cited (“The Laws of an Eruv” page 150) as similarly opposing the creation of citywide Eruvin in North America due to the many Rishonim who oppose the less than 600,000 population leniency. The Satmar Rebbe felt that a Sechirat Reshut was ineffective in America and thus community Eruvin were an impossibility in this country.

Rav Pinchas Teitz interestingly resisted the creation of an Eruv in his Elizabeth, New Jersey community for many years. He finally acquiesced but insisted that the Eruv be pulled down once a year so that the community is reminded of the prohibition of carrying. On the other hand, the Rebbe did leave the decision to create an Eruv to the Rabbis of each community. They should weigh, he wrote, whether it will be to the benefit or detriment of the community. In practice, of course, the pro community Eruvin view of Rav Zvi Pesach Frank (Teshuvot Har Zvi Orach Chaim 2:24), Rav Moshe Feinstein, and Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin (Kitvei HaRav Henkin 2:32-33) prevailed in North America. [2]

Nonetheless, many of the lessons may and should be derived from the Rebbe’s writings.  First, he notes that a community Eruv requires the active involvement of a Rav who has specialized knowledge in the area of Eruvin. How correct this assertion is. Just as the areas of Gittin, Milah, Kashrut, Geirut, Mikva’ot and Dinei Torah require specialized knowledge training and experience, so too creating and maintaining a high quality community Eruv demands a Rav who has invested his proverbial “10,000 hours” in Halachic communal Eruv activity. 

He also writes that if a community Eruv already exists, the Rabbanim must ensure that it remains adherent to a high Halachic standard. How correct is this advice as well! In my more than three decades of experience with community Eruvin, I am witness to the fact that high Eruvin standards are maintained only if Rabbanim maintain an ongoing effort to uphold the Eruv’s standards.  

In addition, to a certain extent, the community does not know about the prohibition of carrying on Shabbat. While the Elizabeth practice of pulling the Eruv down once a year may not be feasible for many or even most communities, Eruv education is paramount. Events such as biking around the Eruv and other activities to learn about the Eruv will help address this concern and keep the prohibition to carry on Shabbat on people’s minds even if their neighborhood is blessed with an Eruv.  

Conclusion

Rav Avrohom Bergstein, the learned Chabad Shaliach in Fair Lawn, informs me that Chabad families typically follow the approach of the respected Rav Yaakov Landa of Bnei Brak to community Eruvin. Rav Landa advised that for Chabad the women and children may rely on a community Eruv but that the men should follow the stricter opinion. 

This approach seems to both fit with the Shulchan Aruch HaRav’s preference to avoid relying on community Eruvin and the policy concerns of the Lubavitcher Rebbe. If the men do not rely on the Eruv, the community will not lose consciousness of the Melachah of carrying and all of its attendant problems. On the other hand, women raising small children will not be confined to their homes for Shabbat and children will have the flexibility of relying on the community Eruvin. 

[1] Rav Baruch Simon (Imrei Baruch, Eruvin UReshuyot pages 95-97) demonstrates that the disagreement between these Acahronim finds its roots in a dispute that already raged between the Rishonim. We should also note that the Kaf HaChaim (O.C. 362:92) cites the Orchot Chaim who argues that even the Rambam would accept an Eruv when the broader area is surrounded by walls on a majority of three sides. Such situations occur in many communities, especially in more urban areas where there is little or no space between buildings.

[2] As noted a number of times in “The Laws of an Eruv” Rav Moshe Feinstein was the Poseik consulted regarding the construction of early communal Eruvin in the United States during the 1970’s.

[3]  Interestingly, I was told that when Rav Mordechai Willig created the Eruv in the Riverdale section of Bronx, New York, he told his wife that he did not want to be one of those husbands whose wives relied on the Eruv while he did not. Rav Willig asked his wife if she wished to rely on the Eruv and that if she would, he in turn would rely on the Eruv. Rebbetzin Willig responded that she would not rely on the Eruv and thus both Rav and Rebbetzin Willig do not rely on community Eruvin in order to satisfy the stricter opinions regarding the community Eruvin. Interestingly, I saw Rav Willig even go as far as to remove his wristwatch to avoid wearing it within a community Eruv.

[4] Rav Bergstein also sent me a recording of a ruling issued by Rav Gedalia Oberlander, a leading Lubavitcher Halachic authority who resides in Cleveland, who agrees that Lubavitch women may rely on a properly constructed Eruv. He explains that it is essential for contemporary women to be able to get out of the house with their small children on Shabbat and thus they may rely on a proper Eruv.