Monday, August 01, 2011

The "Side Top-Wire" Issue

This is a classic eruv "top-wire" pole:

This is a variation on the theme:

This, let us call a "side top-wire":

This a variation on this theme:

Rabbi Herschel Schachter shlita has opined that "side top-wire" is the same as "top-wire" - i.e., that it does not constitute tzuras ha'pesach min ha'tzad. Although afar ani tachas raglav, I don't understand his position.

Has anyone heard of any other opinions pro or con in this issue?


  1. so why dont you just ask him?

  2. I did. When I say "opined" I mean he opined it to me. I would like to know what other talmidei chachomim have to say on the issue.

  3. It may not be "min hatzad" but how could it be "kaneh al gabeihen?" Why is there ever a need to use "gud asik" to see if the lechi hits the wire if it does not have to be directly on top?

  4. I'm with you, Rabbi Schaffel. I do not understand the psak.

    BTW, more discussion on this is at:

  5. Two observations:

    In your first picture of a side-top-wire, it appears that the wire may actually be over the pole. If there is less than three tefachim between the pole and the bell-shaped thing above it, then it may in fact be a continuation even without any other kulot. It's hard to tell in the picture, but the concept is valid.

    Second, the Machazeh Avraham (quoted in Tikkun Eruvin Vol. 1 page peh-tet, picture nun-vav) appears to permit this. The morei hora'ah with whom I have worked (who have not given me permission to name them publicly) were lenient regarding similar constructs.


  6. I'm going to cross-post this response to Reb Shlomo to the more expansive Linked-In discussion.

    Granted, if the wire is directly over the utility pole, then it is not a problem, either on account of lavud or on account of gud asek. But in the case that I think the picture depicts, the wire is only over the strip of metal bolted to the side of the pole.

    I don't have the Tikkun Eruvin. The Machazrh Avraham's mareh makom would be helpful. I still cannot understand the leniency.

    I am not enthusiastic about anonymous poskim. Although you personally may be allowed to rely on them, nobody else can.

  7. I believe that RHeineman also would hold that is not a lechi min ha-tzad. What I remember hearing as the explanation is that once the addition to the pole is longer than it is wider, then the top of that addition becomes the top of the pole and as long as the wire runs over it, it is ok.

  8. I personally recieved a heter from Rav Shlomo Miller Shlita to this very question recently (i have the psak signed by him with photo) he cited makor chaim (self understood) and the chelkas yaakov (looked through tshuvah not sure which aspect he was citing. ) Ive heard another simple sevarah to be matir - the insulator is a hemshech of lechi- accord to taz there is anyways no pikei shmai problem within 3 tephachim - even lifi chazon ish who ruled accord to pri migadim, he cites derech heirus as issue (meaning destruction like a churvah ) this is the way it is made lichatchila seemingly he would also claim no prob of pischei shmei (although he may possul for other reasons) and on top of all that you have the afforementioned makor chaim who seems to clearly be matir such a thing. nonetheless my personal shimush was to be misaken.

  9. I was at a chasunah last night and I sat with R' Akiva Yosef Kaplan, a great mumcheh in Eruvin. He affirmed that R' Heinemann is meikel as per what anon1 wrote, and that his heter is recorded in Dr. Bert Miller's Eruv Manual p. 5, para. 19c.

    The Makor Chaim that "dnz" references is:

    עוד נראה למותר לחבר הלחי להחתיכות נסרים הבולטין מצידי הכתלים כל שאין בין זה לזה שלשה טפחים עד לארץ משום לבוד ואף שזה יוצא וזה נכנס. ואין להקשות מהא דאמרינן בעירובין יף י״א בפתחי שמאי...

    (see p. 2)

    I am not convinced the MC is mattir the metzius we are discussing.

    RAYK told me that R' Heineman bases his heter on a Machazeh Avrohom - perhaps that was the source that RSM recalled as the CY? Rabbi Elimelech Lange in Hil. Eruvin p. 61 cites the MA in fn. 89, and that he is mattir even she'lo b'she'as ha'dechak. Rabbi Lange himself is only mattir b'she'as ha'dechak.