2020/5781

The Challenge

The challenge was considerable. On the one hand, Rav Shmuel Khoshkermann of the Atlantic Kashrut Commission wanted the updated eruv for Camp Ramah Darom (CRD) in northern Georgia to be constructed to high standards to satisfy all potential guests. On the other hand, Camp Ramah Darom is a world class facility blessed with extraordinarily beautiful scenery, from which we could not detract when creating the new Eruv.

The question became whether we could attach Lechis to CRD’s many cabins. The Lechis would then be situated beneath eaves (see Figure 1), an unacceptable arrangement according to some opinions. If we would have adopted the stringent view, much more construction would have become necessary, making a very challenging project even more difficult. Upon investigation, it emerged that there was much room to be lenient regarding this issue, even not in a case of great need, all the while maintaining high Eruv standards.

Lechi in a Reshut HaYachid

The concern is that the eaves create Halachic walls through the concept of Pi Tikra Yoreid VeSoteim, that the lip of the roof (in our case, the eaves) extends to the ground and creates a halachic wall. If so, the Lechi would then have to penetrate a Halachic wall, a situation that is subject to considerable debate.

The Mishnah Berurah (363:113) cites the Netivot (Tikkun Eruvin), who invalidates a Tzurat HaPetach which is partially encompassed by a Reshut HaYachid. The Mishnah Berurah accepts his ruling as normative Halachah.

The Netivot sets forth two possible reasons for this strict ruling. One might argue that the Tzurat HaPetach is not noticeable (Nikar) if it is situated within a Reshut HaYachid (such as a private yard). Alternatively, one might claim that the walls or fences that encompass a Reshut HaYachid are Halachically viewed as extending "all the way to the heavens" (KiMan DeMalya; see Shabbat 7a), so the airspace above a Reshut HaYachid is Halachically impenetrable. For example, a horizontal wire that passes through a backyard enclosed by a fence would be invalid according to this reason, as it is Halachically blocked by the "upward extension" of the fence.

Other Acharonim disagree with the Netivot’s stringency. The Aruch HaShulchan does not mention this stringency, and the Teshuvot Chatam Sofer (O.C. 91 and 96) and Teshuvot Maharsham (1:207) rule leniently regarding this issue when the Lechi is noticeable (Nikar). Teshuvot Chavatzelet HaSharon (1:20) writes that the custom is to be lenient in regard to this issue. He adds that his father, who was exceedingly strict concerning most halachic matters, likewise ruled leniently in this instance.

Rav Hershel Schachter (in a lecture at Yeshiva University) relates that Rav Mendel Zaks told him that the custom in Europe was indeed to be lenient. The Laws of an Eruv (p. 108) notes that it is apparent from many responsa that the custom in pre-war Europe was to be lenient. However, Rav Schachter strongly urges communities to be strict in this matter. This issue has not yet been resolved, and practices vary from community to community.

Accordingly, the stringency introduced by the Netivot raises concern regarding the installation of a Lechi beneath an eave. It should be noted that there are two primary interpretations of the Netivot’s stringency. The issue of placing a Lechi that is noticeable underneath an eave only arises according to the stricter interpretation, which regards Halachic walls (such as those “created” via the principle of Pi Tikra) the same as physical walls. However, Rav Yaakov Bloi (Netivot Shabbat 19:19, f.n. 44) argues that the Netivot’s stringency only applies to actual walls and not to Halachic walls. Nevertheless, Teshuvot Beit Shlomo (O.C. 55:4) adopts the strict view regarding this matter.

Rav Aharon Kotler (cited by Rav Moshe Heinemann in a speech to a convention of Young Israel rabbis in the 1990s and in The Laws of an Eruv ad. loc.) adopts the same lenient view as Rav Bloi. Nonetheless, Rav Moshe Feinstein is cited (ibid.) as adopting the strict view in accordance with the Beit Shlomo.

We decided to permit the installation of Lechis on the cabins only in situations where the Lechis is positioned under one eave. We did not install Lechis on cabin corners, where two perpendicular eaves meet. This approach, as we will explain, satisfies the position of the Beit Shlomo and Rav Moshe Feinstein.

Pi Tikra Yoreid VeSoteim

The reason for this distinction lies in the scope of the principle of Pi Tikra Yoreid VeSoteim. While Rashi (Shabbat 94b) believes that we apply Pi Tikra even if there is only one Mechitzah (as depicted in Figure 1), Tosafot (Shabbat 94b s.v. Bishtei Ruchot) and Rambam (Hilchot Eruvin 17:35) argue that Pi Tikra applies only if there are at least two adjacent walls. The Rama (O.C. 361:2) rules in accordance with Tosafot. The Kaf HaChaim (O.C. 361:31) rules that Sephardic Jews may follow this opinion as well.

Accordingly, since the Halachah follows Tosafot, there is concern for Pi Tikra only when a Lechi is placed beneath two adjoining eaves above two adjacent walls. Since the Halachah does not follow Rashi, Pi Tikra does not result in the creation of a Halachic wall when a Lechi is placed under a single eave. We therefore could affix Lechis along the sides of the cabins in such locations.

Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky’s Stringency

Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky (Emet LeYaakov, O.C. 361:2) rules strictly even in a case where a Lechi is located beneath only one eave. However, with the great

respect owed to Rav Yaakov, this seems to constitute an excessive stringency.

Rav Yaakov’s position assumes a quadruple stringency. It assumes that the Halachah is concerned for the stringency of the Netivot, the stricter version of the Netivot’s stringency, the Beit Shlomo’s strict application of the strict version of the Netivot, and the lone view of Rashi regarding Pi Tikra (which is not cited in the Shulchan Aruch as normative Halachah). Such stacking of stringencies in a case of a Rabbinic law (as previously noted, Eruvin consisting of Tzurot HaPetach may be constructed only in an area in which it is forbidden only on a Rabbinic level) seems unreasonable.

Conclusion

Even though we made a great effort to create a very strict eruv at Camp Ramah Darom, we permitted Lechis to be attached to cabins where the lechi rests beneath only one eave. The Satmar Posek, Rav Shulem Weiss (Tikkun Eruvin 4:4) permits such an arrangement even not in a case of great need, despite the strong inclination of the Satmar community (as communicated to me by Satmar Dayan Rav Mendel Silber in 1992) to follow the strict rulings of the Beit Shlomo.

Rav Moshe Heinemann (as reported by Rav Micha Shotkin) and Rav Hershel Schachter (in a personal communication in 1989) agree with this ruling as well. Rav David Feinstein (cited in The Laws of an Eruv ad. loc.) permits the placement of a Lechi only under one eave in a case of need. Our situation at CRD qualified as a situation of need, and we therefore followed the view that permits the installation of Lechis under single eaves.