Monday, January 02, 2006

Breaks of More Than Ten Amos — Eruvin 94a

Breaks of More Than Ten Amos — Eruvin 94a

רש"י עירובין דף צד/א

חצר שנפרצה לרשות הרבים - במלואה, או יותר מעשר:

From The Contemporary Eruv:

Whether a break wider than ten amos interrupts omed merubeh [an area whose perimeter is mostly enclosed may be considered wholly enclosed] is one of the many topics disputed by the Mishkenos Ya’akov and Beis Ephraim. The Chazon Ish (Orach Chaim 107:5) holds that me’d'oraysa, omed merubeh al ha'parutz overrides a gap even if it is greater than ten amos. The Igros Moshe, ibid., 5:28:3 rejects this Chazon Ish, and holds that the breaks of more than ten amos invalidate the enclosure even me’d'oraysa (if they are not rectified by tzuras ha'pesach). Reb Moshe’s reasoning here is unclear (see the attempt by the editors of this, the latest volume of the Igros Moshe, there to clarify the issue; see also Nesivos Shabbos 3:1 note 8 and 23:2, note 14).

Rabbi Akiva Yosef Kaplan noted that, although he does not cite the Chazon Ish explicitly, Rabbi Aharon Kotler, in Mishnas Rabbi Aharon 1:6:2:1-8, is inclined to accept the contention of the Mishkenos Ya’akov, that a break wider than ten amos does interrupt omed merubeh al ha’parutz. Reb Aharon interprets Rashi here d.h. Chatzer She’nifratza, on the basis of the Mishkenos Ya’akov’s contention as well. Rashi there seems to indicate that a reshus ha’rabbim may narrow to a width of ten amos yet still retain its character as a reshus ha’rabbim. Rabbi Chaim Twerski remarked to me that, nevertheless Rashi is discussing the walls surrounding a courtyard, which may well, at least on the side bordering on the reshus ha’rabbim, not be omed merubeh. However, Rabbi Akiva Yosef Kaplan noted that the Chazon Ish does not propose this approach in Rashi, and that the language of Rashi does not necessarily support this possibility.


  1. Harav Bechhofer - Harav Moshe zt”l clearly states in Igros Moshe O.C. 2:89 that pirtzos esser is me’d’rabbanan. In Igros Moshe O.C. 5:28:3 Rav Moshe is only objecting to the Chazon Ish’s shita of using the omed as a mechitza. I would add that the attempts by the editors of this volume are on the wrong track. Rav Moshe clearly didn’t read the actual Chazon Ish; he only saw what Harav Menashe Klein shlita cited.

  2. If you are right, I will fix the mistake in the next edition (IY"H!) of TCE. I would appreciate any other hagahos v'tikkunim you might have.

  3. He seems to be unsure:

    שו"ת אגרות משה חלק או"ח ב סימן פט

    וקושית תו"י מעמודי פתח החצר ל"ק כ"כ דאפשר מדאורייתא לא נתבטלו העמודים, והגמ' מקשה רק שלדינא דרבנן לילפו מפתח שער החצר, דהא מדאורייתא פתח שבכותל כשיש כבר שם ד' מחיצות ליכא שיעור להפתח דהא בפסין לעולי רגלים התירו ומשמע שמדאורייתא הוא אף בלא פסין הפשוטין שלא הזכיר הרמב"ם בפי"ז משבת הל"ג בהחיוב בזורק מר"ה לבין הפסין רק התנאי שיהיה בכל זוית וזוית פסין, משמע שהפשוטין הם מדרבנן והחמירו בזה אף לרגלים, וכן משמע קצת מדף י' דהוא מדרבנן שלכן שייך שיהיה שינוי מפסי ביראות למבוי להטעמים שאומר שם. ואף אם נימא שהפשוטין נמי מדאורייתא כדמשמע במחצה"ש סימן שמ"ה סק"א, משמע עכ"פ שבכותל גדול שהעומד מרובה על הפרוץ אוסר פתח אף גדול רק מדרבנן, ובמחיצה רביעית ודאי הוא רק מדרבנן אבל לתו"י משמע מדקרא בתורה כל העשרים אמה לפתח אחד שמדאו' נבטלו העמודים מהאוירים. עכ"פ ברחבין ד' טפחים וכ"ש אמה ויותר הוא רק מדרבנן זה שמתבטל מהאוירין. ולכן ודאי יש לסמוך ע"מ שכתבתי שלא מתבטל כשבכל הכותל הוא עומד מרובה.

  4. I forgot to refer you to the beginning of Igros Moshe, O.C. siman 2:90 where Rav Moshe is clearer. Additionally, in siman 2:89, what Rav Moshe really is unsure about is פסי ביראות and even though regarding omed merubeh he uses the word משמע he is not questioning omed merubeh. In any case, Igros Moshe, O.C. 5:28:3 is proof that Rav Moshe doesn’t maintain that pirtzos esser is d’Oraysa since he doesn’t mention it and he would have used it against the Chazon Ish.

    In my opinion, there is no proof from Rashi since if there is an amah in the zavis, the shiur pirtza would be 13 and not 10. So Rashi must be referring to a situation where there isn’t an amah in the zavis, merely a lechi, and it’s classified as a karmelis me’d’Oraysa only because of the rabbim that is traversing it. (See Rashba and Chidushei Meiri, Eruvin 94a; the Meiri brings Rashi’s lashon and then brings the Raved that there was only a lechi and a rabbim traversing there. See also Shulchan Aruch HaRav, siman 345:6 and 361:4.) Even though a pirtza that is less than esser would also be considered a karmelis me’d’Oraysa nevertheless it would be classified as a reshus hayachid d’rabbanan. Hence Rashi’s statement that the situation is that there is a pirtzas esser and then it would be classified as a karmelis d’rabbanan as well (see Ritva, Eruvin 94a; regarding a korah). [See also Chazon Ish, siman 112:7.]