2020/5781

An issue that frequently arises when designing an Eruv is the presence of bodies of water in the area. As previously mentioned, lakes and other bodies of water, depending on circumstance, may be designated as Karpefiyot, thus mandating their exclusion from the eruv. In this chapter, we explore the various opinions in regards to this very important issue.

Community Use and Aesthetic Qualities

As mentioned previously, in order for an area to be enclosed within the Eruv, it must be Mukaf LeDirah, fit for human habitation. As such, if a body of water is used for boating or fishing, then it is not a Karpeif. [1] Additionally, there is a discussion as to whether the aesthetic qualities of a body of water may also remove its Karpeif designation. For example, a lake that is not used for fishing or boating, yet serves to beautify the scenery of the locale might not be a Karpeif.

Rav Moshe Heinemann (in a lecture delivered to a conference of Young Israel rabbis) cites Rav Moshe Feinstein as ruling that a body of water’s aesthetic qualities does not remove it from the status of Karpeif. Rav Moshe’s ruling is preceded by similar rulings issued by Teshuvot Divrei Chayim (2 O.C. 28) and Teshuvot Sho’eil Umeishiv (1:3:131). However, numerous great Posekim, such as Teshuvot Imrei Yosher (1:170) and the Nezirut Shimshon (cited in Rav Bloi’s Netivot Shabbat 13:13) disagree. In fact, Teshuvot Chelkat Yaakov (O.C. 1:181) writes that the consensus of Acharonim adopts the lenient view regarding this matter. 

In practice, numerous prominent pre-war communities in Europe adopted the lenient approach to this issue. Teshuvot Melamed LeHo’il (O.C. 65) records the adoption of the lenient practice in Cracow (Poland), Lomzha (Lithuania), and Fulda (Germany). Teshuvot Chelkat Yaakov (ad. loc.) similarly records that the lenient practice was adopted in Warsaw (Poland), Manheim (Germany), and Antwerp (Belgium). In fact, Rav Yitzchak Isaac Liebes (who served as a leading Rav in pre-war Europe and post-war New York) records (Teshuvot Beit Avi 4:68) that almost all pre-war European cities had parks with large flower beds that were not excluded from the community eruvin.

It is important to note that the idea that a planted section that serves to beautify the area is considered part of the dirah (and hence not a Karpeif) already appears in the Meiri’s commentary on Eruvin (24a). This is quite noteworthy, as the agreement of a Rishon to one side of a disagreement between Acharonim can serve as strong support to that opinion. 

However, the Meiri’s commentary was most often not available until relatively recently, and thus its Halachic weight is debatable. The Chazon Ish famously claims that it does not enjoy much Halachic weight since it was not part of the mesorah (tradition) for many centuries. On the other hand, both the Mishnah Berurah and Rav Ovadia Yosef frequently quote the Meiri. Thus, the Meiri is an important, though not necessarily decisive, support for the lenient view. [2]

Rav Moshe Feinstein’s Ruling

Although there is ample halachic support for the inclusion of such potential karpefiyot in community eruvin, the fact that it runs counter to a reported ruling of Rav Moshe Feinstein is no small matter. However, we may take into consideration the fact that (as we mentioned is reported in the aforementioned Teshuvot Chelkat Yaakov) the pre-war Warsaw eruv relied on the lenient view of the Meiri. Moreover, the Chelkat Yaakov notes that the lenient position was endorsed by none other than the Chidushei Harim. In general, Rav Moshe considers (as is evident from Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, O.C. 5:28:5) Warsaw’s eruv as setting a significant precedent in the realm of Hilchot Eruvin. For example, Rav Moshe’s extraordinary ruling (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, O.C. 4:87) that permits the construction of eruvin consisting of tzurot hapetach in areas with less than 2,400,000 people [3] relies on the precedent of the eruv in pre-war Warsaw, where the population was 1.3 million. One might counter that Rav Moshe believed “that accepted leniencies with respect to eruvin were needed in prewar Europe, where private homes often lacked basic necessities such as running water making carrying essential. In modern-day cities, an eruv is not as crucial and therefore a more stringent approach is warranted” (Rav Francis and Rav Glenner’s The Laws of an Eruv, p. 151). 

One may respond that the aforementioned Teshuvot Chelkat Yaakov applies precedents from pre-war communities to post-war Switzerland, an advanced society. Rav Zvi Pesach Frank (Teshuvot Har Zvi, O.C. 2:24) and Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin (Kol Kitvei Harav Henkin 2:32-33) also apply the standards of the Warsaw eruv as a precedent to post-war cities in the United States. Similarly, Rav Hershel Schachter (in a personal communication) holds that one may rely on the pre-war practice to create an eruv in a community that has very large flower beds in its parks. Moreover, pre-war Warsaw was a developed city, and, nevertheless, the lenient approach to Karpeif was relied upon by the community. 

Finally, today’s reality is that it is crucial for every Jewish community to have an eruv, even if it means that the possible Karpefiyot are not excluded. There are many Jews who find the Melachah of Hotza’ah to be especially challenging, and may not necessarily refrain from carrying even in the absence of an eruv that encompasses the area. For some, the existence of an eruv is a make or break issue as to their decision if they will observe Shabbat altogether. It is quite possible that even Rav Moshe would agree that lenient opinions may be utilized to create an eruv in keeping with traditions from Europe in such circumstances. It should be noted that the Israeli rabbinate encompasses all urban Israeli communities with Eruvin even if all possible Karpefiyot are not excluded. [4] Likewise, North American communities should be encompassed by eruvin even if all possible Karpefiyot are not excluded. [5]

Golf Courses and Cemeteries

Rav Moshe Heinemann, in his lecture  delivered to the Conference of Young Israel rabbis, felt that sand traps and other hazards on golf courses do not constitute karpefiyot despite the fact that they are unused land. He explains that since the hazards are part of the game of golf, it is considered to be a useful portion of the golf course and therefore part of the dirah. 

There is considerable debate regarding whether a cemetery constitutes a Karpeif. Rav Elyashiv (Kovetz Teshuvot 1:45) rules leniently, as people visit cemeteries, making it part of the dirah. Rav Heinemann, though, reports that Rav Moshe Feinstein adopted a strict approach and did not regard a cemetery as part of the Dirah. The Passaic, New Jersey community excludes cemeteries from its Eruv. An exception even according to the strict view might be cemeteries of special historic and/or national interest, such as Arlington National Cemetery. 

Conclusion

Although it is better to adopt the stricter opinion regarding Karpeif, in many instances, the stricter view is not a viable and sustainable option. Thus, while those who wish to be strict are encouraged to do so, those who wish to follow the lenient views have ample halachic precedent and rabbinic authority supporting them.

[1]  Regarding watery areas, see Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 358:11). Rav Heinemann cites Rav Moshe Feinstein, who rules that in contemporary times, even water that is less than three Tefachim deep (approximately 9 to 11 inches) should be regarded as a Karpeif. Although the Mishnah Berurah (Bi’ur Halachah op. cit. s.v. vehi) considers it a problem only if the water is at least three Tefachim deep, Rav Moshe feels that in contemporary society, unlike in the past (see, for instance, Yoma 77b and Ta’anit 23b), people do not walk through any body of water, even if it is very shallow; thus, no body of water is part of the Dirah. 

[2]  See the first chapter of Walking the Line: Hilchot Eruvin from the Sources to the Streets  for a discussion of the Devar Shmuel’s opinion regarding the nullification of a Karpeif that only constitutes a small part of a city. We also should clarify that the Meiri and the Devar Shmuel represent different lines of reasoning. Although some conflate the two, Rav Bloi (Netivot Shabbat 13:13 and 15) presents them as distinct ideas.

[3]  Rav Moshe argues that 600,000 refers to the amount of people typically in the street during the daytime. In his view, this standard is met in a city with a population of at least 2,4000,000. 

[4]  Eruvin Mehudarim (higher standard eruvin) in Israel exclude every Karpeif in accordance with the strict ruling of Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv. In January 2019, I saw how a sown field is excluded from the broader Modi’in Eruv.

[5]  We should note that the exclusion of Karpefiyot is at times exceedingly challenging and sometimes borders on making Eruv maintenance an unsustainable task for the community.