Q & A: A Downed Eruv (Part II)

Question: What if an eruv was breached on a Shabbat – is it permitted to be repaired and if it is how is this to be done? This is not a hypothetical question because this actually happened. Interestingly the matter was hush-hush, with no one except for the few individuals involved knowing anything about it. I only learned about it much later after it was repaired. What is the proper manner of dealing with such a situation?

Zvi Kirschner
Via E-mail

Synopsis: Last week we cited the rule of the Shulchan Aruch that if an eruv facing a public domain is breached on a Shabbat, it is not permitted to carry therein and the leniency of “keivan shehutra, hutra” cannot be applied. We also noted that a non-Jew might, under certain conditions, repair the eruv if not doing so would cause hardship to the public.

* * *

Answer: The rabbi, the gabbai, or any individual in charge was indeed in a very delicate situation. Obviously, a very quick decision had to be made whether to proceed with any public announcement about the downed eruv.

In Tractate Shabbos (148a-b), there is a discussion about various violations of Shabbat and Festivals, such as clapping [the hands] (in grief, according to Rashi) and dancing, which are forbidden on Yom Tov; or sitting at the edge of the alleyway (the physical boundary of the private domain separated from the public domain by the eruv) on Shabbat, as it is possible that an object one carries will roll into the public domain. And there is no difference between rabbinical enactments and Scriptural laws. Tosefet Yom HaKippurim, the extension added to Yom Kippur, is Scriptural, yet some women eat and drink until it is dark, which is a clear violation of Yom Kippur; even so, Abaye states that we do not rebuke them because “Mutav sheyehu shogegin ve’al yehu mezidin” – it is far better that they err unintentionally than that they transgress deliberately.”

The Mechaber (Orach Chayyim 608:2) codifies this halacha: “We do not admonish women who eat and drink until dark – as they do not know that it is a requirement to add from the mundane to the holy [mitzvah le’hosif mi’chol al hakodesh] – so that they will not be doing it deliberately.”

Rema in his glosses (ad loc.) notes that the same rule applies to any other prohibited matter. We say “mutav” – it is better that they err unintentionally than that they deliberately transgress. However, there is one caveat: This applies only to matters that, though biblically forbidden, are not explicitly stated in the Torah. However, if the violation is explicitly stated in the Torah, we do admonish them.

If a person knows that his words will not be accepted, he should not admonish publicly, except for once. One should not admonish constantly, especially if it is known that the admonitions will not be heeded. But in private it is an absolute requirement to admonish an individual to the extent that, according to Rema [citing the Ran], one can even strike him or excoriate him.

The Magen Avraham (ad loc.) limits the aforementioned method of discipline to someone who is close to the individual. This is not the case for other individuals, who might be resentful and take revenge.

The gaon Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (Iggrot Moshe, Orach Chayyim 2:36) was asked about the advisability of announcing in the synagogue on Rosh Hashana before tekiat shofar (the blasting of the shofar) that from the time the berachot on the shofar are recited, it is forbidden to speak until the conclusion of the shofar blasts after the repetition of the Amidah. He likens the situation to the Mechaber’s halacha augmented with Rema’s comment: If the congregants will probably not listen, it is better not to make the announcement.

The questioner argued that if such an announcement is not made, would the people ever be taught these halachot? Won’t every halacha qualify as a matter that will not be listened to?

Rav Feinstein makes two observations in his response. One must teach these halachot [obviously in organized study sessions] and not wait until the matter is at hand. And, surely, if one asks, we instruct the person in that particular halacha. A rabbi must also know his congregation. If he feels that even a few congregants will listen and amend their behavior, then the announcement should be made.

As for the case of an eruv that was breached on Shabbat, Rabbi Yehoshua Y. Neuwirth (Responsa Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata) cites Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (who is obviously following the ruling of Rabbi Shlomo Kluger in a situation of she’at ha’dechak, as noted previously) stating that it is preferable not to make an announcement because the public will not heed it and it is far better that they err in ignorance. The eruv situation is less stringent than shogeg because it only involves a rabbinical violation – they think there is an eruv wherein carrying is permitted (see Shabbos 73a).

In your situation, the eruv was almost immediately repaired. Nothing beneficial would have resulted from making an announcement, especially since there probably are many young children and infants around whose free movement would have been hindered. Mothers surely would not have remained for long, stranded with their children, in any of the open areas.

For the sake of the mitzvah of eruv, in which King Solomon and his beit din were so involved (see Shabbos 14b), may we merit the arrival of his scion, Moshiach ben David, speedily in our days.