Volume 44 Number 29
Produced: Thu Aug 19 21:37:38 EDT 2004
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Child Carrying Tallit (3)
[Elozor Teitz, Nathan Lamm, Akiva Miller]
Chumrot At Other's Expense (2)
[Gershon Dubin, Leah Perl Shollar]
Halachic parasitism?
[Martin Stern]
Halachic Parasitism - in the Eye of the Beholder
[Shaya Karlinsky]
Humrot, kulot, and arrogance
[Meir Shinnar]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elozor Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 11:53:51 GMT
Subject: Re: Child Carrying Tallit
The statement was made that "Pretty well every town eiruv relies on the
opinion that to be a reshut harabbim d'oraita it must be used by 600,000
people daily. This is a da'at yechidi [one person's opinion--EMT] among
the rishonim, most of whom hold that the criterion is that it be 16 amot
wide."
This is a gross inaccuracy. There are two criteria for a r'shut harabim
(public thoroughfare), for which an eruv does not help: that it be 16
amot (24-32 feet) wide, and that multitudes walk in it. Whether the
definition of "multitudes" is 600,000 (the number of men between 20 and
60 when the Jews were in the desert) or a lesser number is indeed a
dispute among the rishonim, but it is hardly the opinion of an
individual. The Mishna B'rura (Siman 345, in Bi'ur Halacha) cites 24
rishonim, 12 for each opinion. Among those adopting the more lenient
opinion are Rash, Rosh and the Tur.
However, issue should be taken as well with another statement, that
"Code phrases such as 'a Yirai Shemaiyim' or 'it is highly commendable'
get attached to halachic rulings -- and they serve to divide k'lal
Yisroel." That it is commendable and that a y'rei shamayim should
refrain from using an eiruv where possible is stated in that same Biur
Halacha, and I doubt that anyone can accuse the Chafetz Chaim of any
action or statement that would "serve to divide k'lal Yisrael."
EMT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 06:09:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Child Carrying Tallit
Martin Stern writes:
"For an eiruv where there is a reshut harabbim d'oraita you need real
walls (not just fictitious ones consisting of a tsurat hapetach) with
gates that can be locked at night. Apart from the Old City in
Yerushalayim, I don't know of any that satisfy this criterion."
And not even there. The wall next to the Jaffa Gate was broken through
over a century ago, and there's nothing- not even a wire- connecting the
two halves. Furthermore, I believe that many of the gates do not have
doors.
I believe Bnei Brak has actual gates which are closed. No walls, but
the buildings make one.
I imagine Army bases, corporate campuses, (l'havdil)jails, and the like
might fit this criterion...
Nachum Lamm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:00:54 -0400
Subject: re: Child Carrying Tallit
Martin Stern wrote <<< Pretty well every town eiruv relies on the
opinion that to be a reshut harabbim d'oraita it must be used by 600,000
people daily. this is a da'at yechidi among the rishonim, most of whom
hold that the criterion is that it be 16 amot wide. >>>
That makes it sound like there is only one criterion, and that there's a
machlokes on whether that one criterion is to look at the population or
to look at the width of the road. That's not my understanding at all.
Rather, there is a list of *several* criteria, and the road is a Reshus
HaRabim if *all* the criteria are met, and the machlokes concerns which
rules are on the list and which are not. For example, I think everyone
includes the Sixteen Amos Width and the Must Not Have A Roof rules,
whereas the Six Hundred Thousand and the Straight From One End Of The
City To The Other are debated.
He wrote <<< ... the opinion that to be a reshut harabbim d'oraita it
must be used by 600,000 people daily. this is a da'at yechidi among the
rishonim, ... >>>
But the Mishnah Brurah 345:23 says. "... this opinion is NOT a da'as
yechidaah, as I wrote in the Beur Halacha." And if one looks halfway
down the page, you'll see where he lists *twelve* authors who hold this
view: Baal Halachos Gedolos, Rashi, Sefer Mitzvos Gadol, Sefer Mitzvos
Katan, Sefer Hatrumah, Rabenu Meir, Rokeach, Tosfos, Rosh, Or Zarua,
Tur, and someone whose initials (Resh Yod Vav) are unfamiliar to me.
It is true that the Beur Halacha brings another dozen rishonim who take
the opposing view, and that the Mishneh Brurah himself would strongly
prefer that we follow the stricter view. My only point is that the views
of the rishonim is FAR from being as unbalanced as that post would lead
us to think.
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 14:54:51 GMT
Subject: Chumrot At Other's Expense
From: Allen Gerstl <acgerstl@...>
<<A spouse may be acting voluntarily; however In the case of the child,
while he/she is not being used to violate the halachah, I question the
voluntariness of the practice and whether it is not l poor chinuch. The
child is being used as a facilitator for someone else's allegedly higher
level observance through that child's allegedly lower level of
observance. I would appreciate hearing if this is discussed in any
known sources.>>
I can't give you sources, but I agree that while having an adult (who is
aware of the varying shitos and has concluded that he may be mekel, not
someone who just goes along because that's what folks do) do something
that you are machmir not to may be OK, but having a child (or perhaps
even someone who's not aware that there may be a halachic basis to be
machmir) do so is poor chinuch.
Gershon
<gershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leah Perl Shollar <leahperl@...>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 13:20:52 -0400
Subject: Chumrot At Other's Expense
Here's a thought:
Usually families follow the minhagim of the husband. What if the
husband is not comfortable with using the eruv, whereas the wife is?
She does not want to stay inside all Shabbos, and feels that if there is
a halachically suitable solution she wants to use it. The husband could
say that it creates an odd dichotomy in the family, and what about the
message given to the children, etc., But he accepts her choice to use
the eruv. Why should he then have to push the carriage if they are
walking together? And, if she says, "Why don't you put your tallis in
the stroller", must he refuse? She is not doing anything wrong
according to her view.
What about opening cans on Shabbos by making a hole in the bottom and
then opening it vs. not opening it at all. Can one who does the first
insist that another person who follows the second opinion must do the
same? Or, is it "halachik parasitism" for the second person to ask the
first to open the can? What if the first person offers to do so?
Leah Shollar
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 11:44:35 +0100
Subject: Halachic parasitism?
on 18/8/04 10:27 am, Carl Singer <casinger@...> wrote:
> I have seen men who don't use the eruv put their tallis into the stroller
> that their wife is pushing -- did they marry their b'ashert or their
> Shabbos Goy?
and on 18/8/04 10:38 am, Meir Shinnar <Meir.Shinnar@...> wrote:
> Hilchot shabat are equally obligatory on the wife(the issue of
> children is different, becuase the level of obligation is different).
> Either you believe the eruv shouldn't be relied on, in which case you
> stay home to take care of the baby while the wife walks, or you
> believe it can be relied enough for this case - in which case help the
> wife push the stroller (even if you want to wear a shabbos belt).
> This is halachic parasitism - living a life that's dependent on
> someone else violating your idea of what the halacha is.
These postings are based on a complete misunderstanding of the fact that
halakhah recognises that there are sometimes 'grey areas' where a
lenient position can be taken on the balance of opinion but that this is
not necessarily 100% certain. In such cases it is permissible, and may
even be commendable, for someone who is familiar with the whole halakhic
discussion to take a stricter position for himself or herself.
The eruv is such a case and men and women tend to differ as to whether
they have a 'great need' to rely on it (itself a subjective
assessment). Another situation is where one brings in Shabbat early at
plag haminchah but discovers that one needs to do a certain melakhah
which is not allowed. One may ask a neighbour who brings in Shabbat
later to do it directly without any qualms.
As regards the implication that the use/ non-use of an eruv represents a
male chauvinist stance, perhaps they should consider that our present
practices regarding hilkhot niddah are based almost entirely on chumrot
taken on by women which were only later accepted by the rabbinic
authorities. Anyone who doubts this should join the daf hayomi to learn
massekhet niddah, which will commence in a few months time, and they
will soon realise that our present practice is very different from the
Torah's original prescriptions.
This assumption that men and women must be treated exactly the same and
any differences in needs must be ignored is one of the most
objectionable aspects of the political correctness movement which is
unfortunately influencing even the thinking of too many Orthodox Jews.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shaya Karlinsky <ravshaya@...>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 13:28:13 +0200
Subject: Halachic Parasitism - in the Eye of the Beholder
I beg to present a different perspective on Dr. Shinnar's view of
allowing a wife to carry in an eiruv that the husband doesn't want to
rely upon.
> >It is not unusual to see couples in Yerushalayim where the
> >husband wears a shabbos belt to avoid carrying a key and the wife pushes
> >their infant in a stroller. This must be the thinking underlying
> >Shmuel's grandfather's position.
>
> This is a classical case of being machmir at someone else's expense -
> if pushing the child in a stroller is enough of a justification to rely
> on the eruv, why should only the wife push the eruv ? Hilchot shabat
> are equally obligatory on the wife(the issue of children is different,
> becuase the level of obligation is different). Either you believe the
> eruv shouldn't be relied on, in which case you stay home to take care of
> the baby while the wife walks, or you believe it can be relied enough
> for this case - in which case help the wife push the stroller (even if
> you want to wear a shabbos belt). This is halachic parasitism - living
> a life that's dependent on someone else violating your idea of what the
> halacha is.
One may think that carrying in a city-wide eiruv is a problem, and he
would prefer that his wife follow that opinion, too. But that may be an
unfair burden on her, which he doesn't want to impose, since there are
opinions to permit carrying. If she also doesn't want to carry, he may
offer to stay home with the baby so she can visit a friend. But she may
WANT to take the baby out, and allowing her to do so is being stringent
for himself, and lenient for his wife.
Shaya Karlinsky
Jerusalem
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Meir Shinnar <Meir.Shinnar@...>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:46:01 -0400
Subject: Humrot, kulot, and arrogance
A poster posted
Any 'town eiruv' relies on numerous kullot and, though it is highly
commendable to make one where possible, it is equally commendable
not to rely on it to carry on shabbat except in cases of great need
Then proceeded to defend the opinion that eruvin depend on da'at yachid.
Without going into the halachic argument over eruvin, about which there
are major authorities on both sides, this thread does raise two more
general issues about the current sociology of halacha.
1) Clearly, there are major rabbanim who hold of the lecatchila
permissibility of eruvin, and who carried publicly even not for great need.
One could probably also argue that this was the majority of later
(18-19th century) rabbanim, although this is a different argument.
There are also major rabbanim who disagree with the heterim. One can
reasonably pasken either way, and a posek can clearly rule to his
community as the poster does.
However, to argue that this is universally accepted denies reality, and
demeans all those who disagree. This is a modern approach - the fact
that there is a more machmir position (at least in this case with good
rationale) implies that the more lenient position inherently has to be
followed only in cases of great need, rather than accepting that some
people view the lenient approach as the proper lecatchila approach.
2) There is another more general halachic concept that has apparently
disappeared - the notion of mechaze keyohara - appearing arrogant. That
concept implied that for an individual to publicly follow a strict
opinion, he has to be already recognized as of a certain level - because
he is implying that he is better than those who follow the lenient
position - and that someone who hasn't achieved that level to practice a
public humra is actually an act of public arrogance, and should be
condemned. This concept didn't just apply to the general public. Thus,
Rav Moshe Feinstein, in at least one of his tshuvot, mentions a strict
opinion and says that he doesn't do it because it would appear arrogant
for him to do it (he was talking about drinking blended whiskey without
a hechsher - and says that if someone offered him a drink during a
kiddush, it would be mechaze keyohara for him not to accept.
If someone has the psak that eruvin are not permissible, he should
follow it. However, if he believes that they are permissible, then I
would argue that it is mechaze keyohara for him not to use an eruv that
is sanctioned by the community.
Meir Shinnar
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 44 Issue 29
