The practice of halakhah: an eruv

For a personal look at the practical workings of halakhah, please read the wonderful story by Rabbi Publisher Student* about how he set up "the weirdest eruv on the block". Rabbi Gil Student's tale of the eruv** begins with the following anecdote, which speaks volumes I think about the actual practice of halakhah in daily life:

I live in Flatbush, in which there is an eruv that is a matter of great controversy.[1] In all likelihood, were it not for the social stigma I would use the "old" Flatbush eruv, which I believe my rabbe'im would approve but they refuse to take a stance on a controversial matter in a community in which they do not reside. When I first started davening at my current shul, the Flatbush eruv came up in conversation with the rabbi and when I asked him whether he liked it or not, he said that it depends who asks him. "What if I ask you?" "No, it's not for you." I can respect that answer. The "new" Flatbush eruv is not better than the old one in any meaningful way. Plus, it does not reach my block.

I was particularly struck by the response of the shul's rabbi, "No, it's not for you." Jewish law requires much more than systematic deductions from a compilation of rules. Judaism revolves around individual cases and situations; halakhah is quite casuistic. The controversy in Flatbush does have the advantage of making space for leniencies, depending on rabbinic discretion. Rabbi's Gil's account implies that another shul-goer might get the answer, 'Yes, that eruv is made for you.'

{New} Rabbinic controversies and minority opinions are recorded by the tannaitic literature (the Mishnah, the Tosefta and BT/JT baraitot). Why? Perhaps to rule out the path not taken; but also to leave a trace of alternative paths, their supporting authorities and plausible halakhic reasoning. Just like we see between generations of the U.S. Supreme Court, a dissent in one case may become the groundwork for a divergent decision (or, rarely, direct reversal) in a similar case in the next generation.

{New} To put Rabbi Gil's narrative in a social science context, I would turn to Pierre Bourdieu's Outline of a Theory of Practice. (Corrections welcome here as elsewhere.) Bourdieau is writing about different theoretical models of the social world. He offers an alternative to the mode of theoretical knowledge that he calls objectivist. Objectivist knowledge constructs rituals and social relations as if built upon formal roles, conditions, exchanges, and rules. When it comes to law, including halakhah ("Jewish law"), the typical objectivist model is legal positivism. (See Mishpat Ivri in Wikipedia.) Objectivist knowledge withdraws from the social experience, sets up a point of view that turns rituals and other practical activity -- such as daily practice of law -- into objects of observation and analysis, i.e. objectivist representations. Bourdieu (3f.) argues that objectivist abstractions exclude and deny certain experiences, including the ways that social agents really do have explicit knowledge of the structures of the social world. I think this means, crudely, that objectivists assume that the natives can't know as much as the 'objective' anthropologist. Bourdieu gives the natives far more credit.

Looking back at the eruv story, it is apparent that Rabbi Gil does have a sense of how halakhah functions in practice, how the experience of halakhah is fully objectified in its abstract rules. So he knows how to ask for a rabbinic opinion, who to ask, and he can observe the subtleties at play in his interaction with the shul rabbi. The shul rabbi, the eruv consultant(s) in the story, and, I dare say, Rabbi Gil are "virtuosos" who know both the legal postivist account of formal "Jewish law" as well as the lived experienced of halakhah as a practice. As Bourdieu writes:

... only a virtuoso with a perfect command of his 'art of living' can play on all the resources inherent in the ambiguities and uncertainties of behaviour and situation in order to produce the actions appropriate to each case, to do that which people will say "There was nothing else to be done", and to do it the right way. We are a long way, too, from norms and rules... but [objectivists are] never presuming to encompass in a catalogue of recurrent situations and appropriate conduct, still less in a fatalistic model, the 'art' of the necessary improvisation which defines excellence. (p8)

The language of rules and models, which seems tolerable when applied to 'alien' pracices, ceases to convince as soon as one considers the practical mastery of the symbolism of social interaction -- tact, dexterity, or savoir-faire -- presupposed by the most everyday games of sociability and accompanied by the application of a spontaneous semiology, i.e., a mass of precepts, formulae, and codified cues. This practical knowledge ... continuously carries out the checks and corrections intended to ensure the adjustment of practices and expressions to the reactions and expectations of other agents. (p10)

{New} Kudos to Rabbi Gil Student (and his various interlocutors) for the masterful, necessary improvisation of his "weird eruv" in Flatbush. From his account, it seems that he has indeed adjusted for "the reactions and expectations of other agents" in his neighborhood, who are both impressed and inspired by the virtuosity mobilized by Rabbi Gil and his co-conspirators. Kudos, too, for writing a fine, almost anthropological account of the transactions involved. Bourdieu would be pleased.

(For readers unfamiliar with an eruv, I expect to be writing more on this topic. Soon the daf yomi Talmud cycle will shift to the tractate Eruvin. Meanwhile, I wrote one post on Sabbath space and time, which has been "vanished" to Quicksilver: The Prequel here.)

Kol tuv,

Kaspit

* Insider joke based on comments to this Hirhurim post.
** An eruv is a ritually designated enclosure, a symbolic wall or fence that marks off an area in which some sabbath prohibitions on carrying do not apply. An eruv is an example of a legal fiction in Jewish law.

[1] For background on the Flatbush eruv controversy: Technical Jewish legal analysis at Hirhurim here (w/in-depth comments) and by R. Yisroel Hirsch. Analysis supporting the eruv here (HT here w/comments). Non-technical discussions by Gedanken (and again). R. Micha Berger at Avodah. The bitterness. Steven Weiss on the Manhattan eruv.

Comments

[Rachel]

Thanks for pointing me to this story.

This is far from my area of expertise, but it's fascinating.

[anon]

"The "new" Flatbush eruv is not better than the old one in any meaningful way."

R'Gil is wrong it's way better.

[Daniel]

"...suffice it to say that Pierre Bourdieu was on the right track in Outline of a Theory of Practice."
Expand on that track, if you will? I own a copy but have not been able to read it through.

See revised version, thanks. Kaspit

[lineman]

See this blog for information regarding eruvin. http://eruvonline.blogspot.com/

[shiah director]

In letter printed in Igros Moshe, Part 4 letter 87,Reb Moshe gives permission to Rabbonim of Flatbush to make an eruv. In letter 88 there, he states openly: what he says is against the Shulchan Aurach (445): and if one wants to he can follow ruling of Shulchan Aurach. This is obvious, even if not stated openly there: because, obviously Reb Moshe is not against one who follows ruling of Shulchan Aurach. He, personally, wants to be machmer for reasons stated. This is not the first time in Jewish history when a Godel B'Yisroel wanted to be machmer: but, nevertheless, ruled others don't have to follow his chumra.
Old Flatbush eruv was made when Reb Moshe was alive: and he approved of it. New eruv is no better than Reb Moshe's eruv.
See: mail-Jewish vol.30 no.95, on this website. Stated there: a student of Reb Moshe, living in Flatbush, asked him if he could use the eruv there. He said: YES!
Publicity by liars, against what Reb Moshe wrote and told others, is not binding on anyone.

[david]

R’ Director, the first Flatbush eruv relied on tzuras hapesach min hatzad so you can’t compare.

[shiah director]

I checked Flatbush eruv of 1979 many times. It was completely in accord with the halacha. There were even many tzuras hapesachs in places where they were not needed. I never saw any reason to invalidate this eruv.

[david]

If you would have checked it for the last twenty years you would see that they rely on many kulos.

David: your comments about the Flatbush eruv are not for the internet. They are for Rabbonim of Flatbush who made this eruv and supervise it. Talk to them.

David: your comments about the Flatbush eruv are not for the internet. They are for Rabbonim of Flatbush who made this eruv and supervise it. Talk to them.

[shiah director]

Now there is a Sefardic eruv with mecitzas. Information about their eruv is on Flatbush eruv website.

[David]

But your comments are for the net???

[shiah director]

Yes my comments are for the net because they tell people information about eruvin they were not aware of. It's a mitzva to educate the public.
Your comment about tzura hapesach min hatzad is not for the internet because it is obviuously false. Because there is no reason to make such a tzuras hpesach. That's why I told you to talk to Rabbonim of Flatbush. You will see that you made a mistake. You are publicizing this mistake to thousands on the internet. Without first checking if you are correct.

[shiah director]

I might add Rabbonim of Flatbush are most reliable. They always ask known poskim for their guidance. To slander them is a grave sin. First you have an obligation to talk with them.
WOE! This is normal conduct for all anti eruv people. They slander pious GOD fearing Jews who observe laws of the Shulchan Aurach and all poskim in past and present generations. They call them mechallal Shabbos for using the eruv for no reason. They also slander formost poskim in our generation, and past generations who approved of eruvin in Brooklyn, in vile terms. They lie and publicize false information to fool the public. They are mentally ill. They rule on eruvin without learning the subject. They are the laughing stock of all prominent Torah scholares in our generation who all approved of eruvin in Brooklyn A WALLED CITY.
Booklet on this subject, by the undersignin, is available FREE by writing P.O.B. 786, Woodbourne, N Y 12788
S. Director

[shiah director]

Rabbi Sharfman, refered to in Igros Moshe 4:87, told me, many times he went to Reb Moshe and asked him to give him a letter stating he can make an eruv in Flatbush, like he told him (see previous posts).He refused.
Rebitzen Feinstein told him.The Rov would give you a letter. But, Rav Elberg,from Agudas Harabbonim, will come every day, and bother the Rov for two hours, asking him to write another letter, refuting what he wrote.
Therefore, he only told people who asked him,if they can make an eruv in Brooklyn, they can make one. His obligation according to our HOLY TORAH. Was to answer anyone who asked him correctly. And, tell them Toah Law.
However, he didn't feel he had an obligation to put this in writing. Because, eventhough, he had a holy obligation to answer all who asked him questions on Torah Law, to the best of his ability, he had no obligation to put this in writing. Nevertheless, reading between the lines of his many letters about eruvin in Brooklyn, one sees clearly, he was not against it (see previous posts).

[shiah director]

Whatever the case may be. Brooklyn is surrounded by walls. 1. Man made sea walls so people don't fall into the ocean. 2. Even by Coney Island Beach, there's a boardwalk and buildings. 3. Oceans and rivers surrounding Brooklyn are walls around it.
Therefore, because of these walls, an eruv is not needed around Flatbush. I don't know why it was made. I didn't make it.

[shiah director]

Concering tzuras hapesach min hatzad (see previous post). If there is a tzures hapasech on one or two blocks or even in a larger area, it doesen't make any difference if there is a tzuras hapesach min hatzad in the middle of the valid tzuras hapesachs. Because, we always rely on the valid tzuras hapesachs. Even if there is one tzuras hapesach at one end of the city, and another valid tzuras hapesach at other end of the city it does not matter what's in the middle of these valid tzuras hapesachs, we rely on them.

[shiah director]

For information about eruvin go to website:www.Israel613.com, and click ERUV

[shiah director]

For a list of publications,and important letters on subject of eruvin, by Shiah Director. Go to website: www.israel613.com: and click ERUV page 5.

[shiah director]

Recently all opposition to Brooklyn Eruvn has ceased. Those against eruvin for the past twenty six years have not produced any liturature supporting their stand.An intellengent person cannot accept rulings on any matter of Jewish Law without an explanation in writing.

Fact remains all leading poskim in Eretz Yisroel rule that there is no reshus harabim in all large cities. Because, all large cities have dead end streets. Therefore any street conected to it is a private domain.

The Chazon Ish ruled like this.His ruling has been accepted as absolute by leadin poskim in Eretz Yisroel.

Rav Chiam Kanevesky rules like his uncle(mothers brother). Rav Smuel Wosner rules like him. Rav Fisher and Rav
Horowitz from the Bais Din of Edah Hacaradis rule like him. Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach also rules like him.

This is discussd in detail in their published Tshuvos.

Leading poskim in the United States have also accepted this ruling as absolute. Rav Menasha Klein, Rav Ycheskel Roth, Rav Fishel Herskowitz, Rav Krause and others.

This ruling by the greatest poskim in our generation,and previous generations, makes all discussion about eruvin in Brooklyn purely academic.

I tell you a secret. Safer Tiv Yhoshuah, published 100 years ago, and never republished until 1980,also rules like the Chazon Ish. He states in his book,when in the Holy City of Jerusalem, he showed his book to holy scholas living there, and to the holy sage Rav Chiam Berlin, they all praised what he wrote.

Therefore, all opposition to Brooklyn Eruvin is stupidity, without basis. It's time that anti-eruv people (including Belsky)stop publicizing their abnormal stupid garbage. Those against eruvin are going against all Gedolei Yisroel from past and present generations

[shiah director]

Time has come for all anti-eruv people to learn the subject. Literature pro-eruv is availble, WHY DON'T THY LEARN IT.

[las vegas credit card processing]

After demonstrating my ability to handle my finances, I decided to get myself a credit card.