5784/2023

Rav Heinemann’s Ruling 

Rav Moshe Heinemann (as recorded in the Star-K eruv webinar) forbids having a three to four Tefach (approximately nine to sixteen inches) break in a Mechitzah (halachic wall) and hence disqualifies an Eruv which has any gap of that length along its route. He bases his ruling on those Acharonim (such as the Tosefet Shabbat 362:25 and Kaf Hachaim O.C. 362:94) who disqualify a Tzurat HaPetach that is less than four Tefachim wide. They note that Shach (Y.D. 287:2; following the Tur, unlike Rambam Hilchot Mezuzah 6:1 and the Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 287), in the context of the laws of Mezuzah, writes that a gap less than four Tefachim wide is not defined as a Petach (opening) and, therefore, does not require a Mezuzah. Thus, since such a gap might not be defined as a halachic opening, it is unable to be corrected with a Tzurat HaPetach, which can serve to fill in only a space that qualifies as a halachic gap in a mechitzah, meaning, a gap more than four Tefachim wide. 

Chazon Ish (O.C. 77:5) follows this opinion, noting that Vilna Gaon and the Shaarei Teshuva (363:9) seem to support it. Rav Hershel Schachter (as stated in the lectures on Hilchot Eruvin he delivered to Yeshiva University rabbinical students in 5779) also subscribes to this view.

The Mishnah Berurah:

Interestingly, the Mishnah Berurah does not address this issue in Hilchot Eruvin. In Hilchot Sukkah (630:9), though, he writes that “Yeish Omerim,” “there are those who say,” that a minimum of four Tefachim width is needed to create a Tzurat HaPetach. But his omission of this opinion in Hilchot Eruvin and his characterization in Hilchot Sukkah of this view as only a “Yeish Omerim” might indicate that he holds that in the context of Hilchot Eruvin, we may be lenient concerning this issue. 

Rav Heinemann’s Leap

Rav Heinemann, by contrast, takes the stringent view and applies it one step further. In his view (presented in a letter to Rav David Zomick dated 7 Marcheshvan 5772), not only is a Tzurat HaPetach invalid if its width is less than four Tefachim, but a break between three and four Tefachim wide within a valid Mechitzah is also not considered an acceptable Petach and this break would thus invalidate the entire mechitzah. (Note: an opening of less than three Tefachim is known as Lavud, which renders it the Halachic equivalent of the solid wall adjacent to it). 

The Poskim’s Silence

However, Rav Heinemann appears to be the lone authority who articulates this stringency. The absence of any mention by the classic poskim of such a point is striking, especially since it is quite relevant for those who adopt the Tevu’ot Shor’s stringency (not to tolerate gaps of three Tefachim or more from a Tzurat HaPetach to a mechitzah). The Aruch Hashulchan (O.C. 362:36) explicitly states that an opening in a mechitzah of less than ten Amot (approximately 15 to 18 feet) is permitted; only a breach greater than ten Amot poses a problem. The very Kaf HaChaim Rav Heinemann cites as a source for his position states that a gap of between three and four Tefachim is indeed allowed in a situation of Omed Merubeh Al HaParutz, meaning that there is more standing wall than open space on that portion of the eruv. 

Rav Asher Weiss is fond of noting (see, for example, Teshuvot Minchat Asher 1:4) that the silence of poskim regarding a matter that arises regularly constitutes evidence of the highest order. Rav Weiss adds that the Chazon Ish (Shevi’it, number seven) emphasizes this point as well. The Beit Meir (in a response, printed in the Binat Adam, Sha’ar Hakavu’a number seven) similarly states “It is preferable to draw conclusions from the silence of the earlier sources than from the explicit teachings of the later ones”. Thus, the fact that the poskim never forbid a gap in the Eruv between three and four Tefachim wide constitutes strong proof against Rav Heinemann’s stringency.  

Eruvin 16a

Moreover, a passage in Eruvin 16a appears to directly contradict Rav Heinemann’s ruling. The Gemara quotes a ruling from the Tosefta (Kilayim, chapter four) regarding a fence in which the standing portions are between three and four Tefachim wide that one must ensure that no breach in the fence is as wide as that, so that every portion of the fence will be larger than the breach. It is evident, though, that as long as each part of the fence is indeed larger than the breach, it constitutes a valid mechitzah (halachic wall) even though it may include an opening of between three and four Tefachim.

Eruvin 6a 

Furthermore, the Gemara (Eruvin 6a) rules that a Pirtza BiKeren Zavit, an opening at one of the corners of the eruv, is invalid only if it is at least four Tefachim wide. The Gemara (ibid.) similarly rules that a breach in the sidewall of a Mavui presents an issue only if it is at least four Tefachim wide. The above is codified by the Rama (O.C. 365:2); it thus seems that a breach of less than four Tefachim does not present an issue. 

Tzurat HaPetach vs. a Petach

To counter Rav Heinemann’s aforementioned logic, it may be suggested that there is a fundamental difference between a Tzurat HaPetach, regarding which we may argue that it must constitute a formal Petach to be valid, as opposed to an opening in a mechitzah of ten Amot or less. An opening of this size need not be formally defined as a Petach. Rather, if it is no larger than this size, it is not to be defined as a Pirtza (a breach in the wall). A Pirtza invalidates a halachic wall but an opening of ten Amot or less does not. Therefore, an opening of between three and four Tefachim likewise does not invalidate a mechitzah even if such an opening does not constitute a formal Petach. The mechitzah remains valid since it does not contain a Pirtza. 

Conclusion

Despite Rav Heinemann’s deserved stature as a prominent contemporary posek, since he is a lone view regarding this matter and Eruvin 16a seems to be against it, there would appear to be no need to accommodate this stringency even in an eruv of exceptionally high standards. Rav Michael Taubes agrees with this assessment. He reports that Rav Schachter told him that Rav Heinemann’s approach runs counter to all of the Rishonim.