Daf Ditty Eruvin 94: Pi Tikra and Brooklyn’s Elevated Train Track

1
2
MISHNA: With regard to a courtyard that was breached into the public domain, and the
breach was more than ten cubits wide, so that it cannot be considered an entrance, one who carries
an object from inside the courtyard into the private domain, or from the private domain into
it, is liable, as it ceases to be a private domain and is subsumed into the public domain. This is the
statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

And the Rabbis disagree and say: One who carries from inside the courtyard into the public
domain, or from the public domain into it, is exempt, because its legal status is like that of a
karmelit. Although it ceases to be a private domain, it does not become a full-fledged public
domain.

3
‫ – ם לרשות שנפרצה חצר‬when a wall of a ‫ חצר‬collapses, exposing it to a ‫הרבים רשות‬,

‫ אליעזר רבי‬treats the ‫ חצר‬like a ‫הרבים רשות‬, and one who carries from this ‫ חצר‬to a ‫ היחיד רשות‬is ‫חייב‬
for ‫הוצאה‬.

The ‫ חכמים‬view the ‫ חצר‬as a ‫ כרמלית‬,and therefore one may not carry from the ‫ חצר‬to a ‫היחיד רשות‬
,but there is no ‫ חטאת חיוב‬for doing so.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Eliezer, due to the fact that the courtyard
was breached into the public domain, does it become the public domain? The Gemara answers:
Yes, as in this regard the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer conforms to his standard line of reasoning.

4
As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: In a
situation where the multitudes selected a path for themselves in a field, or between fields, the
path that they selected, they selected, and they retain the right to traverse this path even if the
place belongs to an individual. Here too, as the partition of the courtyard was breached to the extent
that the public can enter, its status is that of a public domain.

According to the second ‫פשט‬, the place of the wall is known, but is now like ‫ הרבים רשות צידי‬- an
area of overflow traffic. ‫ אליעזר רבי‬holds that ‫ הרבים רשות צידי‬has the status of a ‫רשות הרבים‬, even if
it is privately owned, and the ‫ רבנן‬hold that ‫ צידי הרבים רשות‬do not have the status of a ‫הרבים רשות‬.

5
According to the second ‫פשט‬, the place of the wall is known, but is now like ‫ הרבים רשות צידי‬- an
area of overflow traffic. ‫ אליעזר רבי‬holds that ‫ הרבים רשות צידי‬has the status of a ‫רשות הרבים‬, even if
it is privately owned, and the ‫ רבנן‬hold that ‫ צידי הרבים רשות‬do not have the status of a ‫הרבים רשות‬.

MISHNA: With regard to a courtyard that was breached on Shabbat into a public domain
from two of its sides, and likewise with regard to a house that was breached from two of its
sides, and likewise with regard to an alleyway whose cross beams or side posts were removed
on Shabbat, the residents of that domain are permitted to carry there on that Shabbat, but are
prohibited from doing so in the future. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

6
7
Rabbi Yosei says: This cannot be the Halacha, as if they are permitted to carry there on that
Shabbat, they are likewise permitted to do so in the future, and if they are prohibited from
carrying there in the future, they are also prohibited from carrying there on that Shabbat.

GEMARA: The Gemara poses a question: With what case are we dealing? If you say the
Mishnah is referring to a case where the breach was up to ten cubits wide, in what way is a breach
on only one side different?

8
It is due to the fact that we say: It is an entrance rather than a breach, and carrying is therefore
permitted. If so, if it was breached on two sides as well, say: It is an entrance, and there are
entrances on two sides of the courtyard.

Rather, the Mishnah is certainly dealing with a breach that is greater than ten cubits.

If so, it should be prohibited to carry even if the courtyard was breached on only one side, as a
breach that size negates all the partitions.

9
We learned in the Mishnah: And likewise, with regard to a house that was breached on Shabbat
from two of its sides into a public domain, the residents are permitted to carry in the house on that
Shabbat, but not a future Shabbat. The Gemara asks: In what way is a breach on one side
different? The difference is due to the fact that we say: The edge of the roof descends and seals
the house, as if there were a full-fledged partition there. So too, when it is breached on two sides,
let us say: The edge of the roof descends and seals.

10
The Gemara answers: The Sages of the school of Rav said in the name of Rav: The Mishnah is
referring to a case where the house was breached in a corner, and its roofing was inclined, as
in that case, one cannot say: The edge of the roof descends and seals, as the edge of an inclined
roof does not appear to be the beginning of a partition.

- ‫ וקירויו באלכסון‬it is a slanted roof.

We can only apply ‫ וסותם יורד תקרה פי‬to a flat roof, where its edge is perpendicular to the ground,
and therefore Halachically extends straight down to form a wall.

11
And Shmuel said: The Mishnah is referring to a breach that is even wider than ten cubits. The
Gemara asks: If so, why did the Mishnah cite a case where it is breached from two sides? It should
be prohibited to carry there even if it were breached from one side.

The Gemara answers: The reason that it is prohibited only if it is breached from two sides is due
to the fact that it is a house. In the case of a courtyard, the same Halacha would apply even if it
were breached on only one side. However, the Mishnah sought to teach the Halacha of a house as
well, in which case, it is prohibited to carry only if it is breached on two sides. If it is breached on
one side, the edge of the roof descends and seals, and carrying is permitted.

The Gemara asks: But the Halacha of a house itself should pose a difficulty according to this
explanation. In what way is a breach on one side different? It is due to the fact that we say: The
edge of the roof descends and seals the house, as if there were a full-fledged partition there. So
too, when it is breached on two sides, let us say: The edge of the roof descends and seals.

And furthermore: Is Shmuel of the opinion that there is a principle: The edge of a roof descends
and seals? But wasn’t it stated that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to a portico located
in a valley, which has the status of a karmelit. Rav said: It is permitted to carry in the entire
portico, as he maintains that the edge of the roof of the portico descends and seals, rendering it a
private domain. And Shmuel said: One may carry only within four cubits. Apparently, Shmuel
does not accept the principle: The edge of a roof descends and seals.

12
The Gemara answers: This is not a difficulty. Where Shmuel is not of the opinion that this
principle is applied, it is with regard to a structure where walls on all four sides are formed in
that manner. However, with regard to a structure where only three sides are formed in that
manner and the fourth side is an actual wall, he is of the opinion that the principle is applied.

Summary

The Gemara recounts the incident that teaches the dispute between Rav and Shmuel concerning
a wall between two chatzeros that collapsed on Shabbos.

MISHNAH: R’ Eliezer and Chachamim dispute the status of a chatzer whose wall separating it
from the public domain collapses. According to R’ Eliezer it is now part of the public domain
whereas according to Chachamim it is a karmelis.

Clarifying the opinion of R’ Eliezer: Two explanations are given to explain why, according to R’
Eliezer, the chatzer should be considered a part of the public domain.

The Gemara further explains why the disagreement is framed in the particular circumstance in
which it is presented.

13
MISHNAH: R’ Yehudah and R’ Yosi dispute the status of an enclosed area whose partition
collapsed on Shabbos. According to R’ Yehudah it is permitted to carry for the duration of that
Shabbos whereas according to R’ Yosi it is prohibited to carry even on that Shabbos.

Clarifying the Mishnah: Rav explains that the case of the chatzer and the case of the house refer
to a breach in the corner. In the case of the chatzer it is not an entranceway since people do not
construct entranceways in a corner and the case of the house also refers to a breach in the corner
and we cannot employ the principle of ‫ פוסותם יורד תקרה‬because the roof is on a slant.

Shmuel explains also that the case of the house refers to breach in the corner ‫ פי תקרה יורד וסותם‬of
principle the and cannot be employed because the breach occurred in a manner that the virtual
walls of ‫ תקרה פי‬would not reach the actual walls of the house thus leaving the house unenclosed.

The Gemara explains why Rav and Shmuel did not explain the Mishnah like the other.

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:1

The Mishnah had stated: A house was breached on two of its sides on Shabbos.

Our Daf asks: Does a breach in one side differ from breaches in two sides?

Just as we say regarding a breach in one side that the edge of the ceiling is deemed to extend
downward and to close the gap, why should it not be assumed in the case of breaches in two sides
as well that the edge of the beam extends and closes them up?

The Gemara answers: At the school of Rav it was explained in the name of Rav that this is a case
of a house whose breaches, for instance, occurred in a corner (where it cannot be regarded as an
entrance), and whose roof was lying in a slanting position, so that it cannot be said that the edge
of the ceiling extends downwards and closes them up (which is a principle that only applies to a
straight roof, where its edge is perpendicular to the ground).

Shmuel, however, said (to explain the Mishnah): The breach could have been even wider than ten
amos.

The Gemara asks: If so, shouldn’t the same restrictions apply even where the breach was made in
one side?

The Gemara answers: It was written on account of the (case of the) house.

The Gemara asks: But doesn’t the same difficulty arise in respect of a house: Does a breach in one
side differ from breaches in two sides? Just as we say regarding a breach in one side that the edge
of the ceiling is deemed to extend downward and to close the gap, why should it not be assumed
in the case of breaches in two sides as well that the edge of the beam extends and closes them up?

1 http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Eiruvin_94.pdf

14
And furthermore, it may be objected, does Shmuel at all uphold the principle that the edge of a
ceiling is deemed to descend downwards to close a gap, seeing that it was stated: If a pavilion (one
with a flat roof) was situated in a valley, Rav ruled: It is permitted to carry objects within its entire
interior; but Shmuel said: Objects may be carried only within four amos.

[Rav ruled that it was permitted to carry objects within its entire interior, because we apply the
principle: The edge of the ceiling descends and closes up (and is a valid partition), but Shmuel
ruled that objects may be carried only within four amos, because we do not apply the principle:
The edge of the ceiling descends and closes up.]

The Gemara answers: This is no difficulty: He does not uphold the principle in respect of four
walls where the ceiling has to supply the place of four walls (as is the case of the open pavilion
that has only a roof resting on poles), but in respect of three walls, he does.

The Gemara asks: Doesn’t the first difficulty, at any rate, remain?

As at the school of Rav it was explained in the name of Rav that this is a case of a house whose
breaches, for instance, occurred in a corner (where it cannot be regarded as an entrance), and whose
roof was lying in a slanting position, so that it cannot be said that the edge of the ceiling extends
downwards and closes them up (which is a principle that only applies to a straight roof, where its
edge is perpendicular to the ground); so too here, it may be explained:

This is a case of a house whose breaches, for instance, occurred in a corner, and whose roof was
lying in a slanting position.

Rulings
The Ritva comments on Rav’s allowing Shmuel to rule against him because it was Shmuel’s
hometown.

He explains that this was because the ruling was an argument between them that depended on what
argument seemed more logical.

They argued about that matter, and Rav allowed Shmuel to rule as he saw fit.

However, the Ritva says, it is clear that if Shmuel had ruled to do something that Rav held was
clearly one hundred percent forbidden he would have protested.

The same holds true, the Ritva says, for a student who sees his Rebbi doing something wrong. If
he is sure his Rebbi is one hundred percent wrong (not a matter of debatable logic) he must protest
in a respectable fashion.

Of course, a Rebbi is not usually wrong. This is why the Gemara earlier (67b) says that if a student
sees a Rebbi issuing a ruling that he thinks is wrong, it depends on whether or not the prohibition
is a Torah or Rabbinic prohibition. If it is a Torah ruling, he must immediately ask his Rebbi

15
whether or not this is correct (and present any proofs that he has that it is not). If it is a Rabbinic
ruling, he may wait until afterwards, even after the person has already acted on his Rebbi’s advice,
to ask whether or not the ruling is correct.

While the Nesivos famously says that we see from this Gemara that a Rabbinic prohibition done
accidentally must not need atonement, others (such as the Teshuvos Beis Yitzchak) argue that the
Gemara is saying something else entirely. The reason for not having to ask right away when it
comes to a Rabbinic prohibition is because the fact that it is only Rabbinic combined with the high
probability that the student is wrong equals a ruling that the student need not ask right away.

In short, while a person should always learn as much possible and not just rely on his Rebbi to
know everything, he must also give his Rebbi respect to the point where we assume that the Rebbi
knows better.

A WALL BETWEEN A CHATZER AND RESHUS HA'RABIM

THAT FELL DOWN

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2

The Mishnah discusses a case in which the wall between a Chatzer and Reshus ha'Rabim fell down.
Rebbi Eliezer maintains that the area where the wall stood becomes part of Reshus ha'Rabim.
According to the Chachamim, that area becomes a Karmelis.

Our Daf says (in its second explanation) that the argument is whether or not the area where the
wall stood becomes "Tzidei Reshus ha'Rabim" (the sides of Reshus ha'Rabim), which the
Chachamim maintain is a Karmelis and Rebbi Eliezer maintains is Reshus ha'Rabim.

RASHI (DH v'Iba'is Eima) explains that the status of the area is in doubt, because it is evident
that a wall once stood there, but now the people of Reshus ha'Rabim use that area.

We have learned (88a) that "the law of Gezel applies on Shabbos." This means that a person who
uses a Chatzer without permission ("Gezel") is not considered a resident or owner of that Chatzer
and does not prohibit the other residents from carrying in it if he has not joined their Eruv
Chatzeiros. According to this principle, how can the people of Reshus ha'Rabim make the area
forbidden to the owner if they do not have the right to use it?

RITVA explains that the Gemara is referring to a case in which the owner of the Chatzer originally
allowed the people of Reshus ha'Rabim to use the area upon which he later built a wall.
Accordingly, that area is in the same category as a path legally used by the people in the Reshus
ha'Rabim which may not be taken away from them (Bava Basra 100a).

2 https://www.dafyomi.co.il/eruvin/insites/ev-dt-094.htm

16
CHAZON ISH (107:10) points out that TOSFOS seems to take a different approach. Tosfos
maintains that even if the public never had any legal use of the area, it still belongs to Reshus
ha'Rabim now. The Chazon Ish suggests that Tosfos maintains that any Reshus which is secondary
and subordinate to Reshus ha'Rabim becomes part of Reshus ha'Rabim, even if the steps taken
towards making it subordinate to Reshus ha'Rabim were unlawful. As long as the area is associated
with Reshus ha'Rabim geographically, it can become Reshus ha'Rabim.

TWO WALLS OF A CHATZER FELL DOWN

The Mishnah states that if the walls on two sides of a Chatzer were breached on Shabbos, carrying
in that Chatzer during the rest of Shabbos is permitted (since it was permitted at the onset of
Shabbos), but on future Shabbosim it is forbidden.

The Gemara asks why the Mishnah mentions that two walls of the Chatzer were breached. If the
breach is wider than ten Amos, then carrying in the Chatzer is forbidden even if only one wall was
breached!

What is the Gemara's question? Perhaps the Mishnah is discussing a Chatzer that has a Pas. A Pas
is a plank at least four Tefachim wide that is placed next to one of the walls of the Chatzer at the
entrance of the Chatzer that opens to Reshus ha'Rabim. When a Chatzer has only three walls,
although it is a Reshus ha'Yachid mid'Oraisa, the Rabanan instituted that one may carry there only
when a Pas is erected. When a Chatzer has only two walls, even a Pas does not permit one to carry
there.

Perhaps the Mishnah is discussing a Chatzer (of four walls) with a Pas, and thus if two walls fall
down, it becomes prohibited to carry there. If only one wall falls down, it remains permitted to
carry there because of the Pas! Why, then, does the Gemara ask that there is no difference whether
two walls or one wall fell down?

TOSFOS (DH Mai Shena) answers that the Gemara is following the view of Rebbi Yehudah (as
the Mishnah itself quotes this law in his name). Rebbi Yehudah maintains that a Chatzer that has
only two Mechitzos is also a Reshus ha'Yachid mid'Oraisa. Accordingly, just as one Pas permits
one to carry in a Chatzer that has three walls, two Pasim permit one to carry in a Chatzer that has
two walls.

Our Daf asks that there is no difference between a case in which one wall was breached and a case
in which two walls were breached. In both cases, one may not carry in the Chatzer when there is
no Pas. The Gemara cannot answer that the Mishnah is discussing a Chatzer that has a Pas, because
a Pas would permit carrying in the Chatzer in both cases -- whether one wall fell or two walls fell,
according to Rebbi Yehudah.

RITVA questions this answer of Tosfos. How can the Gemara be discussing the view of Rebbi
Yehudah? The Gemara earlier (19b) says that Rebbi Yehudah maintains that a gap of up to 13 1/3
Amos between the Pasim of Pasei Bira'os is not considered a breach. The Gemara here, however,
says that only a gap of up to ten Amos is not considered a breach!

17
MITZPEH EISAN answers by citing the words of the Ritva himself earlier (19b), where the Ritva
says in the name of Tosfos that Rebbi Yehudah agrees that a gap wider than ten Amos wide is
considered a breach. He allows a gap of up to 13 1/3 Amos only in the case of Pasei Bira'os.

Tosfos answers further that a Chatzer usually has only three Mechitzos, and the fourth side is open.
A "Pas" (plank) is placed at the entrance of the open side, which permits one to carry in the Chatzer.
Consequently, when just one Mechitzah falls down, the Chatzer is no longer a Reshus ha'Yachid
mid'Oraisa, because only two walls remain.

Therefore, the Gemara asks why the Mishnah discusses a case in which two walls fall down. If the
breached area is greater than the standing area (Parutz Merubah), then even if one wall fall downs,
the Chatzer is no longer a Reshus ha'Yachid. It must be that the breached area is less than the
standing area, and thus it should make no difference whether one wall became breached or two
walls became breached.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:3

On the previous daf we learned about a case where the dividing wall between two courtyards
collapses on Shabbat, and how Rava and Abayye agree that we should apply the rule that has been
taught before (Eiruvin 17a) that once an area was declared permitted with regard to the rules of
eiruvin it remains so until after Shabbat. On our daf we are introduced to a disagreement about
this rule.

Rav rejects the rule and says that the residents are no longer allowed to carry beyond the most
basic four cubits around them. Shmuel argues that they can carry to where the wall originally
stood.

Our Daf relates that this disagreement was derived from an actual event, when Rav was visiting
Shmuel and they found themselves in a courtyard where the wall had fallen. Shmuel ordered a
cloak be hung between the courtyards and that people could continue carrying as before.

Rav did not comment, but he turned away, indicating that he disagreed with Shmuel's ruling. The
Gemara concludes that Shmuel did not really believe that even the cloak was necessary to allow
the residents to continue carrying, and that he hung it simply to offer some privacy to each side.

In way of explaining Rav's behavior, the Gemara argues that since it was Shmuel's hometown, Rav
did not want to publicly disagree with Shmuel's ruling, but he did want people to understand that
his opinion differed from the one that was being put into effect.

Tosfos point out that Rav was uncomfortable with Shmuel's ruling on two different planes. Aside
from objecting to the people in each courtyard carrying, since he believed that reestablishing the

3 https://www.steinsaltz-center.org/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=68446

18
wall by means of a cloak was a significant act, it should have been forbidden on Shabbat because
of binyan – building.

Shmuel did not feel that there was a real need for this division, so he had no reason to keep from
putting up the cloak in order to offer a modicum of privacy to the residents.

Meiri raises the question of how Rav could have avoided a public argument with Shmuel. Even if
it was Shmuel's hometown, we rule that in situations where a transgression will take place, concern
for wrongdoing is greater than issues of personal honor. He answers that this particular situation
was a relatively minor Rabbinic issue, and in such cases concern for another sage's honor is more
important than the potential transgression.

The Ritva explains that in this case we are dealing with a question that had not yet been decided,
so it would have been inappropriate for Rav to argue the ruling with Shmuel in Shmuel's
hometown. In fact, the Halacha follows Shmuel's ruling.

Whether a break wider than ten amos interrupts ‫ ]מרובה עומד‬an 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. 4

The Chazon Ish (Orach Chaim 107:5) holds that mid'oraisa, ‫ הפרוץ על מרובה עומד‬overrides 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 mid'oraisa (if they are not rectified by ‫הפתח צורת‬.(Reb Moshe’s
reasoning here is unclear 5

Rabbi Akiva Yosef Kaplan noted that, although he does not cite the Chazon Ish explicitly, Rabbi
Aharon Kotler (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 ‫הפרוץ על מרובה עומד‬.

Reb Aharon interprets Rashi here d.h. Chatzer She’nifratza, on the basis of the Mishkenos
Ya’akov’s contention as well.

4https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Eruvin%20094.pdf and The Contemporary Eruv

5see the attempt by the editors of this volume of the Igros Moshe there to clarify the issue; see also Nesivos Shabbos 3:1 note 8
and 23:2, note 14

19
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 ‫הרבים רשות‬.

Rabbi Chaim Twerski suggested that, nevertheless, Rashi is discussing the walls surrounding a
courtyard, which may well, at least on the side bordering on the ‫הרבים רשות‬, not be ‫מרובה עומד‬.

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.

The case on our daf in which Rav and Shmuel differ is where two adjacent chatzeiros each
arranged an eiruv for its own residents, but they did not arrange an eiruv together. The wall which
divides between them fell on Shabbos.

Rav rules that although carrying was permitted within each chatzer when Shabbos began, now that
the wall has fallen, nothing may be carried in any chatzer any longer. Rav does not hold that “once
Shabbos has begun with permission, the entire Shabbos is permitted.” Shmuel holds that the
utensils that established their residence in each respective chatzer may continue to be carried in
each chatzer, and from one chatzer to another.

This is consistent with Shmuel’s general outlook, that even if each chatzer made its own eiruv,
carrying items which started in each chatzer is still allowed from one to the other. Items which
began Shabbos in the houses can be carried within each respective chatzer, and this is true even
after the wall falls, because Shmuel holds that once Shabbos began with this being permitted, this
status of being permitted continues, even though the wall has fallen.

If the wall had fallen before Shabbos began, even Shmuel is of the opinion that the utensils in each
chatzer cannot be carried, because this situation is deemed as if the one, larger chatzer did not
arrange an eiruv before Shabbos. In this case, regarding the utensils which began in the houses
when Shabbos began and were taken out into the chatzer, we rule that they may not be moved
within the respective chatzeiros, following the guidelines of utensils which were in a house, and
were removed into a chatzer without an eiruv (which is the case here, where the wall fell before
Shabbos).

20
Halacha

If [the boundary of] a yard is fully breached or more than ten [amot] of its boundary is opened to
the public domain, the place where the walls were being considered the sides of the public domain,
which are karmelit, as is the yard itself. If the breach was in the corner, even less than ten amot
renders the yard forbidden.
Similarly, if a house is breached in the corner, even if the breach is less than ten, and the roof is
also broken until it is slanted, it is forbidden. However, if the breach is not in the corner, we say
that the edge of the roof [legally] descends and encloses [the area], even if the breach is more
than ten [amot]. This is only true if the roof is not slanted, rendering it edgeless.

Rem"a: There are some who say that the roof must be four tefachim wide (Tosfos and the Ros"h in
Chapter Keitzad Mishtatfin and theSma"g and the Tur).

We say that the edge of the roof descends and encloses even for two walls, assuming that there are
two adjacent walls that are complete, but not if there are just two opposite walls [that are
complete].6

6 The opinions in the poskim are presented in Beiur Halacha, #371.

21
The Elevated Train in Brooklyn
About fifty years ago, R’ Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe O.C. I, 138) was asked to voice his
opinion on creating an eiruv in Brooklyn.

At that time, a prominent Rav named R’ Rafael Ber Weismandel published a treatise in which he
suggested an eiruv could be made, since Brooklyn is surrounded on three sides by man-made walls
that hug the ocean and the river, and the fourth side is closed off by elevated train tracks that run
as an extension of the New York City subway system.

According to the sugya of pi tikra, the edge of a roof can be considered like a wall, which descends
to close off a reshus hayachid.

R’ Weismandel ruled that the train tracks formed such a wall.

R’ Moshe responded with a lengthy teshuva in which he rejected the proposal. One of his
arguments was based on our sugya, in which we find a machlokes over when the Halacha L’Moshe
M’Sinai of pi tikra applies.

22
According to the opinion accepted in Halacha by the Rema (above, O.C. 361:2), pi tikra applies
only if there are already two solid walls with a common corner that form an “L” shape.
Pi tikra can then form a third wall. However, if the two solid walls are parallel, such that people
can freely pass between them, they negate the “imaginary” wall of the pi tikra.

In the case of the elevated train, there is nothing to stop people from passing freely beneath the
tracks. Therefore, the Halacha L’Moshe M’Sinai of pi tikra does not apply.

Furthermore, argues R’ Moshe, pi tikra is only relevant to the area beneath the roof. Pi tikra allows
us to make an imaginary wall to enclose the area beneath the roof. In this case, the area beneath
the tracks may very well be a reshus hayachid. However, the pi tikra of the tracks does not enclose
the area beyond the tracks, i.e. the rest of Brooklyn.

We find this argument presented in our sugya by Rava, who claims that if a Sukka is built next to
a canopy, we cannot apply pi tikra to the edge of the canopy to form a wall for the Sukka. Pi tikra
can only form a wall for the area beneath the canopy, not for the area beyond it. For these and
other reasons, R’ Moshe concluded that Brooklyn cannot be considered a reshus hayachid, in
which an eiruv is feasible.

It is interesting to note that the Chazon Ish (O.C. 79:1) ruled in a very similar case, that an eiruv
can be made. In a certain city, the government did not permit the Jews to build a tzuros hapesach
over the main street. The street was wider than ten amos, so a lechi or kora would have been
ineffective. They therefore built a balcony extending over part of the street, such that from the end
of the balcony until the opposite side was less than ten amos.

They then considered the edge of the balcony to be a pi tikra, forming an imaginary wall, which
closed off half the width of the street. The remaining half was less than ten amos, and a lechi was
then sufficient to permit carrying.

Apparently, the Chazon Ish considered the pi tikra of the balcony a valid mechitza, even in regard
to the street beyond the balcony, and even though people passed freely underneath.

23
Brooklyn Union Gate Car train on the Lexington Avenue el at Myrtle Avenue

Mark S. Feinman writes:7

In the last quarter of the 19th Century, the City of Brooklyn comprised of much of today's
"Downtown Brooklyn". Brooklyn suburbs were areas such as Midwood, Bensonhurst, and if you
were wealthy and didn't mind a long ride, the ocean areas of Brighton Beach, Manhattan Beach
and Coney Island. Owners of the major hotels at the time, like the Brighton Beach Hotel and the
Sea Beach Palace Hotel, were looking for new ways to attract new customers. As a result, they
helped finance new steam railroads to the beach, but because each acted on his own, the steam
railroads that "grew up" were disjointed, concentrated in the western and southern portions of
Brooklyn, and really weren't built for the rapid transit that we know of today.

Meanwhile, another company, the Brooklyn Union Elevated Railroad Company, was responsible
for the creation of the first Elevated lines that fanned out of the City of Brooklyn. New areas of
the land would become accessible, and with trains running over the Brooklyn Bridge to Park Row
as early as September 1883, now the commerce center of New York would be a shorter ride away
for these Brooklynites.

7 https://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/Early_Rapid_Transit_in_Brooklyn,_1878-1913

24
The force that created rapid transit in Brooklyn was the American model of free enterprise. The
first company to create the route would reap all the profits from passengers using that route.

Eventually, all these companies and lines became the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Corporation, which
eventually began running these lines as a unit. With the BRT came electrification and rapid
expansion. Eventually the BRT would become a competitor to the Manhattan-oriented
Interborough Rapid Transit Corporation (IRT), and would be instrumental in future New York
City subway expansion. Like the IRT in Manhattan, the BRT was the only player in Brooklyn.

This is the story of the rise of rapid transit in Brooklyn, including the early days of the Brooklyn
Rapid Transit, from 1878 until the signing of the Dual Contracts in March of 1913.

A Brief Synopsis of Coney Island, 1829 - 19048

All of the first Brooklyn steam lines served different parts of Coney Island. Therefore, a brief
synopsis of Coney Island around that time is being provided, in order to give you an idea of why
it became so popular.

In 1829, the Coney Island House opened, marking the beginning of Coney Island's status as a
seaside resort. In 1844, The "Pavilion" was built on the western end of Coney Island and in 1847,
steamboat service began between that location and New York. By the 1860s, Mike "Thunderbolt"
Norton, a local politician with a reputation for corruption, opened a hotel in that same area, and
the western part of Coney Island took on the name Norton's Point. Both the politician and the area
became known for corruption.

Austin Corbin was a successful businessman who did extremely well on Wall Street. In 1873,
Corbin and his family moved to Coney Island on the advice of his son's doctor, for his son was

8 Joseph Cunningham and Leonard DeHart, A History of the New York City Subway System. Part II: Rapid Transit in Brooklyn.

(1976) William Fausser, The Sea Beach to Coney Island. (Self-published?, May 1979) Brian J. Cudahy, The Malbone Street

Wreck. (New York, NY: Fordham University Press, 1999) Alan Paul Kahn and Jack May, The Tracks of New York. Part II:

Brooklyn Elevated Railroads 1910. (New York, NY: Electric Railroaders' Association, Inc., 1975)

25
gravely ill and the doctor recommended the sea and salt air for comfort. After the move, Corbin,
then president of the Long Island Railroad, saw potential profits in the development of a seaside
resort. He then bought 500 acres and started the Manhattan Beach Improvement Company. In
1877, this company built the Manhattan Beach Hotel, followed in 1880 by the Oriental Hotel. The
Manhattan Beach Hotel was located on the far eastern portion of Coney Island (today's Manhattan
Beach). His New York and Manhattan Beach Railroad would eventually serve his hotel.

The second resort that was built was William A. Engeman's Brighton Beach Hotel, located west
of Corbin's Manhattan Beach Hotel. Engeman amassed his fortune during the Civil War selling
horses to the US government. The Brighton Beach Hotel opened just before the 1878 season and
was patronized by the upper middle class. The wealthier beachgoers went further east, to the
Manhattan Beach Hotel, because they felt the Brighton was too close to the portion of beach we
call Coney Island today, which at that time, had a reputation for being an undesirable
neighborhood. (For example, the Elephant Hotel opened at Coney Island in 1882 and became
associated with prostitution, which prompted the local expression, "seeing the elephant.") The
Brooklyn, Flatbush and Coney Island Railroad would serve the Brighton hotel. The Brighton
Beach Hotel, in retrospect, was built too close to the ocean, for by 1888 beach erosion was so
severe that the ocean threatened to collapse the structure. To solve this problem, it was jacked up
onto railcars and, using BB&CI steam engines, moved slowly inland 600 feet. The move started
April 3rd, 1888, and was completed on June 29th, 1888.

26
 The Culver Depot at Coney Island, 1916. Ed Watson

The third big developer was Andrew R. Culver who ran a steam line, the Prospect Park & Coney
Island Railroad (the Culver Line), which terminated in 1875 at Culver Depot along Surf Avenue.
His railroad offered regular service to Coney Island for a 35-cent fare. There was a marked increase
of "common establishments" in the vicinity of Culver Depot. While the more well to do patronized
the area east of today's Ocean Parkway, the middle class sought after the area west of Ocean
Parkway, and the Culver Line was a key reason why.

The final player in the Coney Island rail transportation picture was the New York and Sea Beach
Railroad in 1879 that terminated at their Sea Beach Palace Hotel. The Sea Beach Palace was an
enormous rail terminal, restaurant and hotel that was located several blocks west of Culver Depot.

Horse racing was a favorite pastime of the upper class in the 1880s, and because of the well-to-do
crowds at Brighton and Manhattan Beaches, a number of racetracks were built. These race tracks
were key to the development of Coney Island because not only did the rich patronize the racetracks,
but so did the not-so-rich. These huge crowds all needed a speedy way of getting to the track, and
those that had too much to drink needed places to stay. Other not so lavish hotels sprouted up in
the late 1880s like weeds.

27
Other diversions would also be built. In 1882, Peter and George C. Tilyou opened the Surf Theater,
Coney Island's first theater, on an alley later named the Bowery. La Marcus Thompson opened the
Switchback Railway, the first roller coaster in America. By 1895, Sea-Lion Park, the first enclosed
amusement park at Coney Island, was opened. In that same year, George C. Tilyou opened
Steeplechase Park at Coney Island, with the now-famous "Steeplechase Horses" as the prime
attraction. In 1903, Luna Park opened, and in 1904, the same year as New York's "First Subway",
Dreamland would open.

The first steam railroads were mainly built to serve hotels at the end of each line, and these hotels
were owned by the same company as the railroads that served them. But by the turn of the century,
the railroads were handling more crowds than they ever imagined.

Construction of the elevated line from the Williamsburg Bridge, 1903

The Coney Island Elevated: The First Elevated Railroad in Brooklyn

The very first elevated line in Brooklyn, elevated in the sense that most of it ran above the ground,
not on an "El looking" structure as we know it, opened in 1881. It was the one-mile-long Coney
Island Elevated Railway, and ran from the Brighton Beach Hotel to a terminal just west of the

28
Culver Terminal. It used iron bridges at road crossings, and wooden pilings and columns
elsewhere. It ran generally along the route of today's Brighton Line between Brighton Beach and
West 8th Street. There were no intermediate stations on this line, which ran seasonally in the
summertime only. In 1886, the Coney Island Elevated was reorganized as the Sea View Railroad
and purchased by the BRT in 1897. The BRT electrified the line, then tore the structure down in
1900 due to its poor condition and extended the Brighton line, via the right of way on the surface
where the line once stood, to Culver Terminal.

29