A Census of Sherbrooke Street for Purposes of Hilkhot Eiruvin

Be-chasdei Ha-Kadosh Barukh Hu, Yishtabach Shemo

Shalom C. Spira
10 Sivan, 5778
(second edition; revised and corrected)1

INTRODUCTION

Sherbrooke Street is a thoroughfare of over 30 km in length traversing Montreal, Quebec,

Canada, with a theoretical capacity to accommodate over a million human beings.2 Accordingly,
Sherbrooke Street is the subject of halakhic interest for evaluating the validity of an eiruv.
Specifically, on 8 Tevet, 5772 (corresponding to Jan. 3, 2012), the Jewish Community Council
of Montreal acknowledged for the first time ever the “Westmount Eruv” on its website.3 This
eiruv includes a portion of Sherbrooke Street within its territory. Ten months later, R. Hershel
Schachter wrote a letter dated 23 Marcheshvan, 5773 (corresponding to Nov. 8, 2012),
congratulating R. Michael Whitman for the eiruv projects that he supervises in Montreal,
apparently including the Westmount Eruv.4

1
The first edition of this essay was published on 22 Iyar, 5775 at
<http://www.scribd.com/doc/264957339/Sherbrooke-Street-Eruv>. Its census results were recapitulated in the
Canadian Jewish News column of this writer on May 21, 2015 (corresponding to 3 Sivan, 5775), p. 40. The latter
Canadian Jewish News publication subsequently inspired a change in the supervision of the eiruv encompassing
Sherbrooke Street, ultimately followed by deactivation of the entire eiruv in question (as will be described infra,
Section F), meriting the publication of the presently updated second edition of this essay [replacing the first edition
and posted at the same address of <http://www.scribd.com/doc/264957339/Sherbrooke-Street-Eruv>].
2
The Olympic Stadium alone, located along a 1 km portion of Sherbrooke Street, can accommodate myriads of
visitors. At the opening ceremonies of the 1976 summer Olympics, 76,433 human beings simultaneously attended
the Olympic Stadium. [The exact same number attended the closing ceremonies.] See
<http://parcolympique.qc.ca/en/the-olympic-park/our-organization/data-and-statistics/>. If one multiplies this
number by 30 (in order to arrive at a theoretical calculation how many human beings could be hypothetically
accommodated by 100% of the length of Sherbrooke Street), one arrives at a product which well exceeds a million.

3
At the time, the website address was <http://mk.ca/eiruv.html>. Approximately five years later, during the pre-
Pesach 5777 season, the Jewish Community Council of Montreal moved the website address to
<http://www.jccom.ca/our-community/eiruv/>, where it remains until today.
4
The letter is published at <http://www.adathcongregation.org/pdf_doc/RSchachterletterB.pdf>. However, two
cautionary notes are necessary regarding that letter and the background website on which it appears, as follows.
(1) R. Schachter’s letter also congratulates R. Whitman for supervising conversion, evidently a reference to
the fact that R. Whitman serves as the presiding judge of the RCA Montreal region conversion Beth Din, as
publicized at <http://www.geirutmontreal.org/index.html>. Yet, R. Whitman’s conversion enterprise is not
recognized on the Jewish Community Council of Montreal website, which instead lists its three judges for purposes
of conversion as being R. Shalom Chriqui, R. David Merling and R. Yonah Rosner, the latter three operating under
R. Yonatan Binyamin Weiss. [As of the current date of publication, see <http://www.jccom.ca/fr/geirut/rabbis/>.]
To that effect, in an e-mail of Aug. 15, 2016, R. Rosner explained as follows:

“I do not believe that the Beis Din of Montreal invalidated Rabbi Whitman's Beis Din for Geyrus.
I believe that Rabbi Whitman went to Rabbi Gedalya Schwartz Shlita who headed the Beis Din of

1
 Realistically speaking, it is virtually impossible to build an eiruv in the public domain of
any contemporary Diaspora community, since such an eiruv would require the erection of actual
doors that remain locked at night (as per the Gemara, Eiruvin 6b). Instead, pragmatic architects
of Diaspora eiruvin seek areas which are not public domains, but rather areas which are
designated as a karmelit (viz. intermediate areas which are semi-public, such that by rabbinic
decree a Jew may not carry on the Sabbath, but which can be rectified by marginal doorframe
network enclosures). Thus, the Westmount Eruv can only be valid assuming that Sherbrooke
Street is a karmelit and not a public domain. The following essay will endeavour to examine
whether that is indeed the case.
Mishnah Berurah, Orach Chaim 345, §23, rules that we cannot protest against an eiruv
that follows the view of the many Rishonim (cited as “some say” by Shulchan Arukh Orach
Chaim 345:7) that a thoroughfare which is not traversed by sixty myriad is not a public domain.5

the RCA who apparantly [sic] took his Beis Din under the RCA's wings. I believe that Rabbi
Binyamin Weiss Shlita's position is that if a Ger or Giyuris comes to the Beis Din of Montreal for
validation, they would investigate the individual to determine if the conversion was done properly.
In the past I have been called by the Beis Din in Eretz Yisrael under the chief Rabbi who looked
into conversions of private Montreal Rabbis case by case to determine if there was proper
Kabolas Hamitzvohs and based on the information I and others were able to provide the Beis Din
in Eretz Yisroel the Rabonim decided if they would validate the geyrus of these private Rabbis'
candidates who were then living in Israel. The Beis Din in Eretz Yisrael was aware that some
other candidates of these private Rabbis were deemed unacceptable.”

Adding a further layer of complexity to the matter, in a 2015 review of the RCA conversion network, the
RCA discovered that 78% of its converts are ladies.
[See <http://rcarabbis.org/pdf/GPSFINALREPORT_FINAL_June28.pdf>, p. 7.] This means that the RCA is
converting three times as many ladies as gentlemen, and therefore is either (a) condemning a mathematically
inevitable number of Jewish ladies to spinsterhood, or (b) must be prepared to allow bigamy in order to allow every
Jewish lady to find a shiddukh, following the view of the Vilna Ga’on cited by R. Ovadiah Yosef, Teshuvot Yabi’a
Omer VII, Even ha-Ezer no. 2. In a telephone conversation on Aug. 4, 2015, R. J. David Bleich confirmed with this
student that the RCA policy of converting three times as many ladies as gentlemen is unethical, unless the RCA is
prepared to allow bigamy like the Vilna Ga’on cited by Yabi‘a Omer.
(2) The same background website offers a so-called “Halachic Prenup for Canada” drafted by R. Whitman
and intended to rescue agunot. Alas, that prenup falsifies hilkhot gittin by claiming that all recalcitrant husbands are
obligated to divorce their wives [contrary to Shulchan Arukh Even ha-Ezer nos. 77 and 154], thereby disqualifying
R. Whitman (be-mechilat Kevod Torato) from adjudicating hilkhot gittin, as per the Mishnah, Bekhorot 30a, that
“one who is suspect regarding a matter neither adjudicates it nor testifies about it.” Indeed, in an e-mail this student
received on Aug. 8, 2017, R. Yisrael A. Knopfler, head of the Beis Din Tzedek of Lakewood, confirmed that R.
Whitman is disqualified from adjudicating hilkhot gittin. [For that matter, even R. Whitman’s aforementioned
mentors R. Hershel Schachter and R. Gedaliah Dov Schwartz have erred regarding hilkhot gittin. Viz. both R.
Schachter and R. Schwartz accept the validity of a get influenced by the 1993 Beth Din of America prenup. Alas, the
1993 Beth Din of America prenup is actually disqualified, as explained at
<http://www.scribd.com/doc/176990434/Prenuptial-Agreements>. Indeed this has been more recently confirmed by
the ruling of R. Moshe Sternbuch at <https://www.scribd.com/doc/273292099/Rav-Moshe-Sternbuch-condemns-
prenuptial-agreements?secret_password=tfA9agf8H8M7dDE9Hk4N>.]

5
Similarly (though not quite identically), Arukh ha-Shulchan, Orach Chaim 345, §18, avers that:

“Eiruvin have spread in the majority of Jewish cities for centuries, and only based on this
permission [viz. that a city which lacks sixty myriad is not a public domain], and it is as though a
Heavenly voice emerged like this opinion, and if we would try to hinder [the construction of
eruvin in cities that lack sixty myriad] not only would they not heed us, but we would seem as
though we are insane, because this matter has spread throughout Israel and in the poskim that

2
Yet, poskim have debated exactly how a civil engineer would quantitatively gauge this
measurement of sixty myriad.6 Seeking insight on this question, the present student contacted the
City of Montreal in 5768 with a request for a Sherbrooke Street census,7 which it graciously
provided. This essay will tabulate (and even attempt to interpret, in a non-professional manner)
the census results provided by the City of Montreal regarding how many human beings visit
Sherbrooke Street. 8

A. THE PORTION OF SHERBROOKE STREET INCLUDED IN THE

CENSUS

today we have no public domain except in a few, large cities in the world, like the royal cities
which have sixty myriad, but not in our cities.”

Arukh ha-Shulchan continues that he is not happy with relying alone on the fact that cities lack sixty
myriad to permit construction of an eiruv. Rather, he postulates a new crtierion for a public domain as a limud
zekhut (favourable judgement) upon those who construct eiruvin in cities that lack sixty myriad, viz. only a road that
is the sole east-west or north-south source of egress from a city constitutes a public domain.
By comparison, R. Ovadiah Yosef, Teshuvot Yabi‘a Omer IX, Orach Chaim no. 33, regards the question of
whether a road needs sixty myriad visitors to be considered a public domain to represent an unresolved doubt.
Yabi‘a Omer is willing to synthesize this doubt with other lenient doubts (in a city that lacks sixty myriad) in order
to ultimately reach a lenient conclusion to validate an eiruv.
Cf. R. Yehoshua Envel, “Le-Darkei Psikat ha-Mishnah Berurah ve-ha-Chazon Ish,” Yeshurun Vol. 31
(Elul 5774), p. 819, who advances the (rather surprising) thesis that Mishnah Berurah actually forbids relying on
such an eiruv, and that Mishnah Berurah’s comment that “we cannot protest” is only meant in terms of the laws of
admonition, as distinct from the laws of eiruvin.

6
See R. Avraham Pollack, “Birur ha-Shitot be-In’yanei Eiruv be-A’yarot Gedolot,” Or Yisrael Vol. 19 (II Adar,
5760), pp. 235-254; and R. Zvi Hirsch Wechter-Rabinovitch, Eizehu Reshut ha-Rabbim (Brooklyn, 5768).

7
Reportedly, R. Moshe Feinstein acted in an analogous manner decades ago; see Iggerot Mosheh, Orach Chaim IV,
no. 88 and the posthumously published Iggerot Mosheh, Orach Chaim V, no. 29.
8
Remarkably, in 2006, Mackay L. Smith published a comprehensive travelogue of Sherbrooke Street entitled
Montreal’s Sherbrooke Street: The Spine of the City. Thus, the Jewish world’s present interest in exploring the
halakhic status of Sherbrooke Street for purposes of eiruv architecture is paralleled by (by contradistinction) the
Noahide world’s recent interest in understanding the same highway.
N.B. Some of the images in Smith’s book are strictly forbidden unto Jews, because they display places of
non-Jewish worship situated along Sherbrooke Street. As explained by R. J. David Bleich, “Entering a Non-Jewish
House of Worship,” Tradition 44:2 (Summer 2011), those places classify as avodah zarah insofar as Jews are
concerned, such that a Jew may not enter. Indeed, R. Efraim Greenblatt, Teshuvot Rivevot Efraim V, no. 480, sec.
2:1 and R. Yisrael Pesach Feinhandler, Teshuvot Avnei Yashfeh I, no. 153, sec. 4 forbid a Jew from even so much as
looking at a photograph of such places. Nevertheless, Mackay L. Smith’s book as a whole is presently being cited in
the context of a halakhic discussion of Sherbrooke Street, under the rubric of le-havin u-le-horot (viz. deriving
valuable secular information that leads to a better-informed halakhic conclusion), as per R. Moshe Feinstein, Iggerot
Mosheh, Yoreh De‘ah II, no.111. Thus, although a Jew is forbidden to read Mackay L. Smith’s book, a Jew may
mention the title of the book as a reflection of just how busy a thoroughfare Sherbrooke Street actually is, for
purposes of understanding how hilkhot eiruvin will apply to Sherbrooke Street (for those secular parts of Sherbrooke
Street that a Jew is permitted to visit). Ergo, the merit of the Jewish People studying more Torah because of Mackay
L. Smith will redound to Mackay L. Smith’s credit (as per the Gemara, Avodah Zarah 2b, that a Noahide who helps
a Jew learn Torah will be rewarded from Heaven), even though – paradoxically – a Jew may not read Mackay L.
Smith’s book.

3
 Shulchan Arukh Orach Chaim 345:7 codifies the principle that a thoroughfare is only
classified as a public domain if it is unwalled. Shulchan Arukh continues that even if the
thoroughfare is walled, it can still be a public domain if it is “mefulash”, viz., if it passes straight
through the city from end to end.
Sherbrooke Street is not walled, and indeed the island of Montreal as a whole is not
walled. [Thus, Montreal is significantly different than the island of Manhattan, New York, USA,
which is (arguably) encompassed by a wall.9] Since Sherbrooke Street is not walled, the
prerequisite of mefulash is apparently unnecessary.
Admittedly, however, some poskim are more lenient than Shulchan Arukh and only
regard a street to be a reshut harabim if it is both unwalled and mefulash. These views are
catalogued by R. Hershel Schachter and R. Baruch Simon in their respective hilkhot eiruvin
lectures.10 At the same time, it is worthwhile to emphasize that this lenient position is not the
ruling of the Shulchan Arukh.
If – for argument’s sake – this lenient position is in fact accepted, then it would be
necessary to assess whether in fact Sherbrooke Street is mefulash. In their lectures, R. Schachter
and R. Simon present a further dispute among the poskim as to the definition of mefulash. Some
are lenient and define mefulash as being totally straight. Others are stringent and define mefulash
as simply meaning that the street does not terminate in a “cul de sac” (a dead-end) in the city.
Even if the boulevard in question does not itself extend directly from one end of the city to the
other, as long as the boulevard connects to other streets which do leave the city (and which can
be approached from either extreme of the boulevard), then the boulevard is mefulash. To this
effect, R. Simon quotes R. Moshe Bick as having remarked that the streets of Manhattan, New
York, are “mefulash until California”, by which he hyperbolically meant that they all connect to
other streets which eventually lead to the interstate highways.
Sherbrooke Street does not extend straight from one end of the island of Montreal to the
other. However, the majority of Sherbrooke Street (viz. the portion of Sherbrooke Street from the
intersection of Cavendish Boulevard and eastward) is synonymous with Quebec Route 138 (a
provincial intercity highway), from which one can smoothly exit the Island of Montreal from the
east or the west.11 Thus, according to some poskim, the majority of Sherbrooke Street (viz. the
portion that is synonynous with Quebec Route 138) is indeed mefulash.

9
For a discussion of the Manhattan island wall and its implications on hilkhot eruvin, see R. Moshe Feinstein,
Iggerot Mosheh, Orach Chaim I, no. 139, as well as the responsa featured in the Kol Zvi journal published by the
Wexner Kollel of RIETS, vol. 7, 5765, pp. 15-87.

10
The lectures of R. Hershel Schachter are digitally recorded at
<http://www.yutorah.org/showShiur.cfm/716261/Rabbi_Hershel_Schachter/Eiruvin#1_(5766)> and at
<http://www.yutorah.org/showShiur.cfm/716262/Rabbi_Hershel_Schachter/Eiruvin#2_(5766)>. The lectures of R.
Baruch Simon are digitally recorded at
<http://www.yutorah.org/showShiur.cfm/718676/Rabbi_Baruch_Simon/09_Gidrei_Rishus_HaRabim>and at
<http://www.yutorah.org/showShiur.cfm/718730/Rabbi_Baruch_Simon/12_Mavoi_Mifulash_URishus_HaRabim_
Mikorah>.
11
As recounted by Wikipedia, Quebec Route 138 begins in Elgin, Quebec, Canada – a rural community along the
United States border – located at 45 degrees and 1 minute north of latitude, 74 degrees and 14 minutes west of
longitude. Route 138 proceeds northeast from Elgin, traversing the island of Montreal (along what is called
“Sherbrooke Street”), then traveling through Trois Rivieres, then traveling through Quebec City and then continuing
all the way to “Baie-Ste.-Catherine” (a Quebec town located at 48 degrees and 6 minutes north of latitude, 69
degrees and 44 minutes west of longitude). At this point the highway is stopped by the Saguenay river, and travelers
must continue by ferry to traverse the Saguenay river. [N.B. Although the Quebec government also terms the road

4
 Accordingly, there is a sfek sfeka le-chumra to posit that the portion of Sherbrooke Street
which is synonymous with Quebec Route 138 meets all the criteria to constitute a public domain,
if only the census the discover that sixty myriad people visit Sherbrooke Street daily, as follows:

(i) Safek le-chumra #1: Perhaps the halakhah follows Shulchan Arukh that a road in
an unwalled city does not need to be mefulash in order to be considered a public
domain.
(ii) Safek le-chumra #2: Perhaps mefulash is defined as being a boulevard through
which one can leave the city from either end (whether it is on that particular
boulevard or on streets to which the boulevard connects).

Indeed, this sfek sfeka le-chumra is endorsed by Eizehu Reshut ha-Rabim,12 pp. 31-99,
who emphasizes that the majority of poskim are stringent on each of the two questions (and how
much more so when they are superimposed upon one another as a sfek sfeka le-chumra). Ergo,
the majority of Sherbrooke Street (viz. the portion that is synonymous with Quebec Route 138)
must be included within the census.

B. AN ANOMALOUS INTERSECTION: SHERBROOKE & CLARKE

Despite the conclusion of Section A that the majority of Sherbrooke Street (viz. the
portion that is synonymous with Quebec Route 138) must be included within the census, a
legitimate question may be raised regarding one anomalous intersection along Sherbrooke Street.
Specifically, at the intersection of Sherbrooke Street and Clarke Avenue, another avenue
called “Cote St. Antoine” appears (from a bird’s eye approach) to fuse with Sherbrooke Street.
Travelling [toward downtown] from west of the intersection to east of the intersection, traffic
smoothly flows along Sherbrooke Street, phenomenologically rendering the two segments of
Sherbrooke Street one whole. However, travelling [in the opposite direction, away from
downtown] from east of the intersction to west of the intersection, it would appear to the bird’s
eye that it would be smoother for traffic to proceed straight onto “Cote St. Antoine,” rather than
to slightly turn to the left (at a moderate angle) to follow the path of Sherbrooke Street. Is it
possible, then, that this intersection/bifurcation would halakhically divide Shebrooke Street into
two separate streets, whose specific pedestrian loads would not combine for purposes of a
census?
In actuality, a closer examination of the facts of the ground reveals that the bird’s eye
view represents an optical illusion. There is no flow of vehicle traffic whatsoever between
Sherbrooke Street and “Cote St. Antoine” at this intersection. A barricade bars all vehicular
traffic from Cote St. Antoine and the intersection; “Cote St. Antoine” is a dead-end street. Thus,
all vehicles proceeding along Sherbrooke Street from east of the intersection smoothly continue
along Sherbrooke Street west of the intersection. To that effect, the discontinuity between the
intersection and “Cote St. Antoine” is further emphasized by the fact that Sherbrooke Street
(both to the east of the intersection as well as to the west of the intersection) hosts six lanes of
vehicular traffic (measuring, together with the sidewalk, the requisite 16 cubits of width to

on the other side of the Saguenay river to be “Route 138”, that is a halakhically distinct highway (due to its lack of
terrestrial continuity) and will not affect the halakhic status of Sherbrooke Street in Montreal.]
12
Cited supra, note 6.

5
constitute a public domain), whereas “Cote St. Antoine” [on the other side of the dead-end] hosts
only two lanes of vehicular traffic.
Given these realities, it seems highly questionable whether one can regard the
intersection of Sherbrooke Street and Clarke Avenue as a halakhic interruption along the
thoroughfare of Sherbrooke Street. Since a doubt regarding a biblical prohibition must be
adjudicated to the side of stringency (safek de-Oraita le-chumra), the conclusion of Section A
remains. Namely, the majority of Sherbrooke Street (viz. the portion that is synonymous with
Quebec Route 138) will be included within the census to determine whether or not Sherbrooke
Street represents a public domain.

C. CITY OF MONTREAL VEHICULAR CENSUS

Upon receiving my census request, the Montreal police department referred the problem
to Moussa Diara, engineer at the City of Montreal’s Infrastructure Service. On Sept. 11, 2008, I
was privileged to receive by e-mail from Moussa Diara a vehicular census of the major
intersections of Sherbrooke Street that are synonymous with Quebec Route 138. Moussa Diara
specifically acknowledged that the City of Montreal does not possess statistics regarding human
beings who visit Sherbrooke in the absence of a vehicle. That having been established, the
following is the vehicular census:

DJMA
INTERSECTIONS
Rue 1 Rue 2 Total

Sherbrooke / Cavendish 15963 27436 43399

Sherbrooke / Décarie 23230 11069 34299

Sherbrooke / Atwater 20761 20517 41278

Sherbrooke / Côte-des-neiges 27858 18862 46720

Sherbrooke / University 29330 8721 38051

Sherbrooke / Saint-Laurent 25163 15022 40185

Sherbrooke / Saint-Denis 30420 15230 45650

Sherbrooke / Papineau 42450 22662 65112

Sherbrooke / Iberville 27827 12404 40231

Sherbrooke / Pie-IX / Rachel 38881 32781 71662

6
Sherbrooke / Viau 38040 25600 63640

Sherbrooke / Dickson 36727 25293 62020

Sherbrooke / Langelier 38941 8340 47281

Sherbrooke / Georges V 22858 5441 28299

Sherbrooke / Saint-Jean-“Ba-tiste”13 20000 21201 41201

Sherbrooke / Tricentenaire 20000 10990 30990

Sherbrooke / de La Rousselière 27061 4440 31501

Sherbrooke / “Leur”-Dame14 15480 10944 26424

DJMA: Débit journalier moyen annuel, c’est le volume de véhicule par 24h;
Rue 1 : indique la rue Sherbrooke;
Rue 2 : indique la rue transversale.

From these statistics, it emerges that there are a total of 797,943 quotidian vehicles (=the
sum of column 3) recorded by the census.
Obviously, this information requires interpretation. It seems to this writer that – on
average – every vehicle is being counted twice, since the typical urban resident travels to work in
one direction in the morning and travels back from work in the opposite direction in the evening.
Thus, 797,943 vehicles in the census should actually translate into a halakhically recognized
presence of 398,971.5 vehicles. And since it is impossible to speak of“half a vehicle” in the real

13
Due to the prohibition against interfaith religious dialogue expressed by all the poskim [including R. Joseph Ber
Soloveitchik, “Confrontation,” Tradition 6:2 (Spring-Summer 1964); R. Moshe Feinstein, Iggerot Mosheh, Yoreh
De‘ah III, no. 43; R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach as cited by R. Simchah Bunim Lazerson, Shulchan Shelomoh, Erkei
Refu’ah I (Jerusalem, 5766), p. 138; R. Avigdor ha-Levi Neventzal, Sichot le-Sefer Vayikra, pp. 365-368; R. Shmuel
Eliezer Stern, Geirut ke-Hilkhatah (Bnei Brak, 5764), pp. 190-193, 208-209], the street name has been modified for
purposes of this essay`s Jewish audience.
[N.B. The prohibition against interfaith religious dialogue was even earlier enunciated by R. Eliezer
Fleckles, Teshuvah me-Ahavah I, no. 8. Quoting his mentor R. Ezekiel Landau, R. Fleckles forbids a kohen from
holding a sheti ve-erev (icon of a foreign religion) during nesi’at kapayim, explaining that it is impossible to
reconcile the icons or the ideas of different religions with one another. See also R. Joseph Rosen, Teshuvot Tzafenat
Pa‘ane’ach II, no. 16, who appears to prohibit placing a government symbol in the synagogue when the symbol
contains a sheti ve-erev. Additionally, see the posthumously published Iggerot Mosheh, Yoreh De‘ah V, no. 15
Regarding Me’iri’s treatment of the same topic, see R. J. David Bleich, The Philosophical Quest: Of
Philosophy, Ethics, Law and Halakhah (Maggid Books, 2013), pp. 33-52.]

14
Due to the prohibition against interfaith religious dialogue, the street name has been modified for purposes of this
essay`s Jewish audience. See supra, note 13.

7
world, the number must be downsized to 398,971 vehicles for the sake of epistemological
certainty.
Now, one may object that – inevitably – there are instances of statistical overestimation
here because sometimes the same vehicle is being counted multiple times throughout the 24 hour
period, e.g. a vehicle that travels along Sherbrooke Street and hence traverses numerous
intersections. Nevertheless, it seems to this writer that the overestimation is counterbalanced by
the fact that some vehicles contain more than one human passenger, and also there are additional
vehicles that traverse Sherbrooke Street on minor intersections where the City of Montreal did
not conduct any census. Also, there are one-way travellers on any given day; viz. incoming
visitors from abroad (e.g. New York, Ottawa or Toronoto) who traverse Sherbrooke only once as
they enter Montreal, and Montrealers leaving to an outside city (e.g. New York, Ottawa or
Toronto) who traverse Sherbrooke only once as they exit Montreal. [For these one-way
travellers, the division in two described by the previous paragraph represents an
underestimation.] Hence, this writer assume that the overestimations and underestimations
neutralize one another, and everything balances to an estimated 398,971 human beings who visit
Sherbrooke Street (-or, more specifically, the portion of Sherbrooke Street that is synonymous
with Quebec Route 138) by vehicle on a daily basis.

D. MONTREAL TRANSIT CORPORATION STATISTICS

The information in Section C above informs us how many estimated human beings visit
Sherbrooke Street by vehicle. In order to learn how many human beings visit Sherbrooke Street
on foot (without ever employing a vehicle), this writer contacted the Montreal Transit
Corporation, requesting information how many human beings visit the subway stations located in
the immediate vicinity of Sherbrooke Street.
On Jan. 7, 2009, I was privileged to receive the following statistics by e-mail from Lyse
Carbonneau of the Montreal Transit Corporation:

1) Atwater (ligne verte) : 47,200 passages

2) Guy-Concordia (ligne verte) : 57,600
3) Peel (ligne verte) : 51,000
4) McGill (ligne verte) : 87,000
5) Place-des-Arts (ligne verte) : 43,600
6) St-Laurent (ligne verte) : 11,400
7) Préfontaine (ligne verte) : 9,600
8) Joliette (ligne verte) : 20,200
9) Pie IX (ligne verte) : 37,000
10) Viau (ligne verte) : 19,000
11) “A--omption”15 (ligne verte) : 7,600
12) Cadillac (ligne verte) : 16,400
13) Langelier (ligne verte) : 17,200
14) Radisson (ligne verte) : 21,600
15) Honoré-Beaugrand (ligne verte) : 34,600

15
Due to the prohibition against interfaith religious dialogue, the street name has been modified for purposes of this
essay`s Jewish audience. See supra, note 13.

8
16) Vendôme (ligne orange) : 32,000
17) Sherbrooke (ligne orange) : 32,400

Obviously, this information requires interpretation. It seems to this writer that metro
stations that are directly situated on Sherbrooke Street itself can seemingly be assumed to
statistically contribute 100% of the number of daily entrances into those stations to the pedestrian
population on Sherbrooke Street. The stations that meet this description are: Cadillac, Langelier,
Radisson, Honoré-Beaugrand and Sherbrooke.
As for the metro stations that are not located directly on Sherbrooke Street but are
positioned within its immediate vicinity, if the metro station is within a one-block radius of
Sherbrooke, then there seems to be a high degree of probability that about 25% of the number of
entrances into the station represent pedestrians on Sherbrooke. This is because, given the grid-
like nature of the streets surrounding the metro stations, one can approach from one of four
directions, and – if a metro station is within a one-block radius of Sherbrooke Street – one of
those four directions is by definition Sherbrooke Street. The stations that meet this description
are: Peel, McGill, Place-Des-Arts, Prefontaine, Joliette, Pie-IX and Vendome.
Stations that are more than a block away are assumed to not contribute in any statistically
significant manner. These include: St. Laurent and Viau.
Three borderline stations are Atwater, Guy-Concordia, and “A--omption.” Each could be
argued to be within a one block radius of Sherbrooke Street, but it's not perfectly smooth. In the
case of both Atwater and Guy-Concordia, from one angle they are within a one-block radius of
Sherbrooke Street, but from another angle they are two blocks away (because Lincoln interposes
on one side). As for “A--omption,” it's just a bit over a block south of Sherbrooke Street.
Therefore, in order to serve as an epistemological counterbalance to any overestimation that has
occurred with the other subway stations (e.g. a passenger who enters multiple subway stations on
the same day), the three borderline stations will be statistically ignored.
If all this writer’s assumptions are correct, then the total number of pedestrians on
Sherbrooke Street, based on the numbers provided to me by the Montreal Transit Corporation,
would be:

1) Atwater (ligne verte): 47,200 entrances, completely neglected = zero pedestrians

2) Guy-Concordia (ligne verte): 57,600 entrances, completely neglected = zero pedestrians
3) Peel (ligne verte): 51,000 entrances, one quarter of which is counted = 12,750 pedestrians
4) McGill (ligne verte): 87,000 entrances, one quarter of which is counted = 21,750 pedestrians
5) Place-des-Arts (ligne verte): 43,600 entrances, one quarter of which is counted = 10,900
pedestrians
6) St-Laurent (ligne verte): 11,400 entrances, completely neglected = zero pedestrians
7) Préfontaine (ligne verte): 9,600 entrances, one quarter of which is counted = 2400 pedestrians
8) Joliette (ligne verte): 20,200 entrances, one quarter of which is counted = 5050 pedestrians
9) Pie IX (ligne verte): 37,000 entrances, one quarter of which is counted = 9250 pedestrians
10) Viau (ligne verte): 19,000 entrances, completely neglected = zero pedestrians
11) “A--omption” (ligne verte): 7,600 entrances, completely neglected = zero pedestrians
12) Cadillac (ligne verte): 16,400 entrances, completely counted = 16,400 pedestrians
13) Langelier (ligne verte): 17,200 entrances, completelycounted = 17,200 pedestrians
14) Radisson (ligne verte): 21,600 entrances, completely counted= 21,600 pedestrians
15) Honoré-Beaugrand (ligne verte): 34,600 entrances, completely counted = 34,600 pedestrians
16) Vendôme (ligne orange): 32,000 entrances, one quarter of which is counted = 8000

9
pedestrians
17) Sherbrooke (ligne orange): 32,400 entrances, completely counted = 32,400 pedestrians

This yields a total estimate of 192,300 human beings who visit Sherbrooke Street (-or,
more specifically, the portion of Sherbrooke Street that is synonymous with Quebec Route 138)
daily on foot, without use of a vehicle.

E. COMPUTING THE STATISTICS

According to the non-professional statistical interpretation this writer has conducted,

there are (as explained in Section C) an estimated average of 398,971 human beings who visit
Sherbrooke Street by vehicle daily, and there are (as explained in Section D) an estimated
average of 192,300 human beings who visit Sherbrooke Street on foot daily without benefit of a
vehicle. Summing the two numbers, we find an estimated total average of 591,271 human beings
who visit Sherbrooke Street daily (-or, more specifically, the portion of Sherbrooke Street that is
synonymous with Quebec Route 138), as of the date of the composition of this essay. Although
this number is quite close to sixty myriad, it is still technically less than sixty myriad.
Of course, every statistical analysis possesses a “plus or minus” margin of error. Thus, it
is theoretically possible that there are sixty myriad human beings traversing Sherbrooke Street
every day, given the upper margin of error of this analysis. Arguably, however, this can be
counterbalanced by the following mitigating lenient consideration. Namely, although many
poskim believe that automobile travellers are included within the sixty myriad,16 other poskim
disagree.17 [One way to understand this dispute is that it hinges upon the debate in the Gemara,
Nazir 55a, as to whether a “thrown tent” (ohel zaruk) constitutes a tent.18] If automobile

16
Arukh ha-Shulchan, Orach Chaim 345, §26; R. Moshe Feinstein, Iggerot Mosheh, Orach Chaim I, no. 139, sec. 6;
R. Elijah Meir Bloch, responsum published in Kol Zvi (cited supra, note 9), p. 19; R. Menachem Segal Pollak,
responsum published in Kol Zvi (cited supra, note 9), p. 81; R. Shmuel ha-Levi Wosner, Teshuvot Shevet ha-Levi V,
no. 53; R. Henoch Dov Padwa, Teshuvot Cheshev ha-Efod III, no. 11; R. Benjamin Joshua Silber, Teshuvot Az
Nidberu VIII, no. 72. Additionally, R. Moshe Yitzchak Weissman, Yetzi’ot ha-Shabbat (2nd edition, Brooklyn,
5763), pp. 104-107, cites oral reports that this was the position of both R. Aharon Kotler and R. Yoel Teitelbaum. R.
Weissman himself concurs (pp. 98-104), claiming that the stringent position is justified by oblique precedents from
Yere’im, Magen Avraham, Chemed Mosheh, Knesset Yechezkel, Chatam Sofer and Pri Megadim.

17
R. Joshua of Kotna, Teshuvot Yeshu‘ot Malko, no. 26; R. Menasheh Klein, Om Ani Chomah (Kiryat Ungvar,
5760), pp. 80-82; R. Ovadiah Yosef, Teshuvot Yabi‘a Omer IX, Orach Chaim no. 33. Additionally, R. Yosef
Gavriel Bechhofer, The Contemporary Eruv (Feldheim, 1998), p. 119, reports from an oral conversation that this is
the position of R. Eliezer Yehudah Waldenberg. [Cf. Om Ani Chomah, pp. 165-166, which posthumously publishes
R. Feinstein’s rejoinder to R. Klein, maintaining (contrary to R. Klein) that vehicle passengers are counted toward
sixty myriad. This is then followed by R. Klein’s counter-rejoinder to R. Feinstein, pp. 193-197, maintaining
(contrary to R. Feinstein) that vehicle passengers are not counted.]
18
This explanation for the two sides of the debate is indeed offered by R. Pollak (cited supra, note 16). Since he
maintains that the halakhah is that a “thrown tent” is not a tent, his conclusion is that vehicle passengers must count
toward sixty myriad. On the other hand, R. Bloch (also cited supra, note 16), while agreeing with R. Pollak’s
conclusion that vehicle passengers count toward sixty myriad, rejects R. Pollak’s formulation that the question
hinges on Nazir 55a. According to R. Bloch, Nazir 55a only affects the laws of ritual purity and no other realm of
Halakhah. An allusion to this point of contention apparently materializes in R. J. David Bleich, Contemporary
Halakhic Problems III (KTAV Publishing, 1989), p. 57, where R. Joseph Shalom Eliashiv is cited as having negated
the equation between an airplane and a halakhic home for purposes of kindling Chanukah candles, seeing as the
airplane is an “ohel zaruk”. [N.B. Actually, an airplane is inferior to an ohel zaruk, as emerges from R. Bleich’s
subsequently published Contemporary Halakhic Problems V (Targum Press, 2005), pp. 310-326, and should

10
passengers were to be ignored, there is no doubt that Sherbrooke Street lacks sixty myriad
visitors daily. [Also, as mentioned in Section B, a question might be raised regarding the
intersection of Sherbrooke & Clarke. Although, as concluded in Section B, one cannot be lenient
based on that consideration alone, perhaps it can be combined here as part of a compounded
doubt to the side of leniency.]
Thus, we have discovered a sfek sfeka le-kula19 to validate the Sherbrooke Street eiruv:
(a) Safek le-kula #1: Perhaps the statistical analysis is accurate and precise that there are
slightly less than sixty myriad visitors to Sherbrooke Street daily, even including automobile
travellers.
(b) Safek le-kula #2: Perhaps automobile travellers should not be included in the census
altogether. [And/or perhaps the anomalous intersection of Sherbrooke & Clarke (described in
Section B) creates a halakhic discontinuity within Sherbrooke Street.]

On the other hand, R. Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Mosheh, Orach Chaim I, no. 139, sec. 5)
understands that the sixty myriad people do not have to all travel on the same street to make the
street a reshut harabim. Rather, as long as within an area of twelve mil by twelve mil (i.e.
twenty-four thousand cubits by twenty-four thousand cubits) there are 600,000 people in the
streets, all the streets in the area are considered to possess sixty myriad. If R. Feinstein’s novel
stringency is accepted, then there may literally be sixty myriad pedestrians attributed to
Sherbrooke Street (without even the need to reckon automobile travelers20), thanks to the

probably be characterized as an “ohel pore’ach”, with all due reverence manifested before the great luminary R.
Eliashiv.] For further discussion of the application of Nazir 55a (at least to matters of ritual purity), see R. Ovadiah
Yosef, Teshuvot Yabi’a Omer X, Yoreh De‘ah no. 52.
Parenthetically, on Dec. 10, 2009, this student telephoned R. Bleich to specifically inquire, given the above
sources, how an airplane passenger should conduct himself on Chanukah. The following is the response this student
was privileged to receive the same day by electronic mail:

“I have made no attempt in the writings you have cited to offer a definitive opinion with
regard Chanukah lights on airplanes. I consider the issue sufficiently complicated so that
I would advise a person not to travel during a time that would make kindling Chanukah
lights a problem. On the other hand, I see no reason why, if possible, he should not light
candles, but obviously without a blessing. The issues, as I’ve tried to explain, are: 1) is a
domicile a necessary requirement? 2) Ohel Zaruk 3) The absence of compartments in
airplanes and for that matter in U.S. trains.

Dictated to Kaaron Saphir by Rabbi J. David Bleich”.

19
R. Moshe Sternbuch, Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot V, no. 101, s.v. u-le-ma‘aseh, writes that a sfek sfeka le-kula is
sufficient to validate an urban eiruv, explaining that “this is what is accustomed in a number of great cities, and it is
already the practice of rabbis to generously overlook problems (le-ha‘alim ayin) regarding an eiruv, and to rely on
the lenient poskim, and they have not been concerned. ” [In context, however, R. Sternbuch is addressing the eiruv
in Jerusalem, whose steets are less busy than (le-havdil) Montreal’s Sherbrooke Street.]
Cf., however, R. Moshe Feinstein, Iggerot Mosheh, Orach Chaim IV, no. 74, s.v. bishul, sec. 5, who – in
the course of permitting the Sabbath application of ketchup on a foodstuff based on a sfek sfeka le-kula –
paradoxically suggests as an obiter dictum that “perhaps” we should not generally rely on a sfek sfeka vis-à-vis
Sabbath restrictions, given the weighty sanctity of the Sabbath (af she-hu sfek sfeka, ulai yesh le-hachamir be-
Shabbat mi-shum chumrato). [I am grateful to R. Baruch Plaskow for drawing my attention to this source.]
20
This is especially true since many vehicle passengers must step onto the street before entering the vehicle itself.
[This valuable point is highlighted by Yetzi’ot ha-Shabbat pp. 109-110 and Eizehu Reshut ha-Rabim, p. 210.] In
other words, if we were only measuring Sherbrooke Street itself, then according to the lenient school of poskim

11
massive pedestrian presence on the nearby streets of De Maissoneuve and “Ste. Catherine” in
downtown Montreal (both of which are within just a few blocks radius of Sherbrooke Street).21
[Moreover, if R. Feinstein’s novel stringency is accepted, any perceived discontinuity caused by
the intersection of Sherbrooke & Clarke (discussed in Section B) is irrelevant, since all streets,
whether continuous or not, contribute toward the sixty myriad that disqualifies an eiruv.]
In the final paragraph of Orach Chaim IV, no. 87, R. Feinstein writes that he is hesitant
to admonish those who construct an eiruv at variance with his novel stringency, because he has
not seen any Acharonim articulate his novel stringency. Subsequently, in 1987 [viz. one year
after R. Feinstein ascended to the Heavenly Academy,] the fourth volume of Teshuvot Achiezer
by R. Chaim Ozer Grodzinksi was posthumously published.22 In responsum no. 8 of that volume,
R. Grodzinski indeed articulates R. Feinstein’s novel stringency. Had R. Feinstein been aware of
this responsum of R. Grodzinski, perhaps he would have indeed admonished the public to refrain
from constructing an eiruv at variance with his novel stringency. Moreover, R. Feinstein’s
approach of counting all people in the neighbourhood appears to be accepted – in an even more
stringent form – by R. Joseph Shalom Eliashiv, according to an oral ruling reportedly issued on 9
Kislev, 5763.23 Remarkably, in contradistinction to R. Feinstein, R. Eliashiv is willing to count
all people in the streets of the entire city, and not just a twelve by twelve mil area.24 Indeed, R.

(cited supra, note 17), most vehicle passengers could be neglected since they never step foot on Sherbrooke Street
itself, as the vehicles are parked on side streets. But once one accepts R. Feinstein’s novel stringency to measure the
entire neighbourhood, including all the side streets, then many of the vehicular passengers must perforce be included
in the tally even according to the lenient school of poskim (cited supra, note 17), based on the few moments it takes
to walk from their houses to their cars parked outside.

21
In subsequently published responsa, viz. Iggerot Mosheh, Orach Chaim IV, nos. 87-88, R. Feinstein enuncitates a
leniency never mentioned in his previous responsum of Orach Chaim I, no. 139. Namely, R. Feinstein claims that
the sixty myriad pedestrians must be present in the street simultaneously [and within the twelve by twelve mil block
area] in order for the neighbourhood to be considered a public domain. However, Yetzi’ot ha-Shabbat p. 58 claims
that it is possible to accept the stringency of R. Feinstein’s earlier responsum without accepting the leniency of the
later responsa, since the leniency of the later responsa appear to be forced. Indeed, that is essentially the reported
oral ruling of R. Joseph Shalom Eliashiv, cited p. 59 of Yetzi’ot ha-Shabbat. Moreover, as pointed out by Yetzi’ot
ha-Shabbat, this “double stringency approach” (viz. to accept R. Feinstein’s earlier stringent responsum and to
bypass his later lenient responsa) is followed by R. Yitzchak Yaakov Weisz, Teshuvot Minchat Yitzchak VIII, no.
32.
22
This development is highlighted by The Contemporary Eruv (cited supra, note 17), p. 49.

23
Yetzi’ot ha-Shabbat, p. 59.

24
As mentioned supra, note 21, R. Eliashiv is also reportedly more stringent than R. Feinstein in the sense that he
does not require that all sixty myriad be outdoors in the streets simultaneously. Thus, R. Eliashiv is reportedly
enunciating a “triple stringency,” viz. to count all people in all the streets, to count them even if they are not there
simultenously, and to reckon the entire city rather than just an area of twelve by twelve mil. Yetzi’ot ha-Shabbat, pp.
65-66, reports that this “triple stringency” approach is also endorsed by R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach. Likewise,
Eizehu Reshut ha-Rabim, pp. 191-192 reports that both R. Auerbach and R. Eliashiv endorse the “triple stringency”
approach.
However, what is not mentioned by Yetzi’ot ha-Shabbat or Eizehu Reshut ha-Rabim is that a problem of
this “triple stringency approach” is that it does not easily explain how a kosher eiruv functioned in Warsaw until the
Holocaust. After all, there were more than sixty myriad citizens to Warsaw on the eve of the Holocaust, and
presumably that number of people visited the streets each day. In his responsa, R. Feinstein specifically takes into
account the Warsaw eiruv as a major historical precedent. [On the other hand, there is no indication that the Warsaw
eiruv encompassed a thoroughfare as demographically significant as present-day Montreal`s Sherbrooke Street,

12
Eliashiv’s more stringent approach appears to echo the posthumously published words of R.
Grodzinski, who never mentions a twelve by twelve mil limitation.
On the other hand, [i.e. possibly arguing in favour of leniency when applied to
Sherbrooke Street,] Chazon Ish (Orach Chaim 107:5) espouses the novel proposition that grid-
like cities can seal off the roads therein. If so, the many buildings on the grid-like blocks
surrounding the downtown core of Sherbrooke Street would negate Sherbrooke Street’s status as
mefulash. Nevertheless, this novel proposition is challenged by R. Aharon Soloveitchik in his
contribution to Beit Yitzchak vol. 28 (5756), pp. 175-181. Interestingly, R. Soloveitchik offers
evidence that the Chazon Ish himself may have retracted his own novel proposition: the
posthumously published responsum of R. Grodzinsky (mentioned above) employs Chazon Ish as
a consultant regarding constructing an eiruv in Paris, France. Although Chazon Ish’ novel
proposition should have meant that the grid-like blocks in Paris sealed off all the streets, as a
matter of halakhah le-ma‘aseh the Chazon Ish refused to rely on this in practice.25
An even more detailed challenge to Chazon Ish’ novel proposition (Orach Chaim 107:5)
is offered by Eizehu Reshut ha-Rabim, pp. 213-240. Quite significantly, Eizehu Reshut ha-Rabim
points out (p. 233) that a careful reading of even Chazon Ish’ own description of his leniency
reveals that it is only designed for a city with less than sixty myriad inhabitants. [Accordingly,
this would explain why Chazon Ish refused to apply his own novel leniency to Paris, since Paris
possessed (already in Chazon Ish’ era) sixty myriad residents.] If so, Chazon Ish’ novel
proposition would not help Sherbrooke Street if we are concerned regarding an upper margin of
error that exceeds sixty myriad.
In conclusion, this essay has calculated as a non-professional census that – including
vehicle passengers – there are an estimated 591,271 human beings who visit Sherbrooke Street
daily (-or, more specifically, the portion of Sherbrooke Street that is synonymous with Quebec
Route 138), as of the date of the composition of this essay. This census does not reach sixty
myriad, and so – assuming the statistical methodology is accurate – it would validate the
Westmount Eruv in principle. This essay has also illustrated arguments in favour as well as
against being concerned for the upper margin of error of the non-professional census which
might actually exceed sixty myriad in practice. It is beyond this student’s competence to arrive at
a definitive halakhic determination in weighing these arguments against one another. In the
opinion of this student, the fact that this essay has illuminated the circumstances surrounding the
Westmount Eruv represents a sufficient educational contribution to merit publication.26

potentially allowing for greater stringency when addressing the Westmount Eruv (as compared to the Warsaw
eiruv).]
25
As for R. Aharon Soloveitchik’s brother, viz. R. Joseph Ber Soloveitchik, although this writer is not aware of any
comment of his regarding the novel proposition of Chazon Ish, it is well known that R. Joseph Ber Soloveitchik
declined to build an eiruv in Boston where he resided, or on the campus of Yeshiva University in Manhattan where
he taught, and this despite the fact that Chazon Ish’ novel proposition should have authorized the construction of
eiruvin in Boston and in Manhattan. [See, however, the next paragraph of the main text, where it is observed that
Chazon Ish may limited his novel proposition to cities with less than sixty myriad. If that observation is correct, then
Chazon Ish’ novel proposition would have been irrelevant for Boston and Manhattan.]
26
Cf. R. Moshe Feinstein, Iggerot Mosheh, Orach Chaim IV, no. 89, who writes that he prefers not to arrive at a
definitive halakhic determination regarding whether it is possible to establish an eiruv in Manhattan. R. Feinstein
adds, though, that other halakhic decisors are authorized to rule on this particular issue as they determine to be
appropriate.

13
 F. DEVELOPMENTS FOLLOWING PUBLICATION IN THE
CANADIAN JEWISH NEWS

The above non-professional census tally was reported by this writer in his Canadian
Jewish News column of May 21, 2015 (corresponding to 3 Sivan, 5775), p. 40. Two weeks later,
on June 4, 2015, this writer was privileged to be contacted by R. Michael Whitman, who wrote
in an e-mail (inter alia):

“Please note that I am no longer associated with the Westmount Eruv and
I am no longer responsible for the Kashrut or Halachic standards of this
Eruv. I wish the best for the Westmount Eruv, those who care for it, and
those who benefit from it.”

Henceforth, as reported on the website of Congregation Shaar Hashomayim, the

Westmount Eruv was supervised by R. Adam Scheier, spiritual leader of that synagogue.27
Yet, several months later, on Nov. 3, 2015, the Mo ‘etzet Gedolei ha-Torah of the
Agudath Israel of America published the following opinion statement in Hamodia: The Daily
Newspaper of Torah Jewry, p. 2:

“Open Orthodoxy,” and its leaders and affiliated entities (including, but
not limited to, Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, Yeshivat Maharat, and
International Rabbinic Fellowship), have shown countless times that they
reject the basic tenets of our faith, particularly the authority of the Torah
and its Sages. Accordingly, they are no different than other dissident
movements throughout our history that have rejected these basic tenets.

We therefore inform the public that in our considered opinion, "Open

Orthodoxy" is not a form of Torah Judaism (Orthodoxy), and that any
rabbinic ordination (which they call "semicha") granted by any of its
affiliated entities to their graduates does not confer upon them any
rabbinic authority.

May [the Holy One, blessed be He,] have mercy on the remnant of His
people and repair all breaches in the walls of the Torah, and may we be
worthy to witness the raising of the glory of [the Holy One, blessed be
He,] and His sacred Torah."

Certainly, there is much to discuss regarding the meaning of this opinion of the Mo‘etzet
Gedolei ha-Torah.28 It might also be possible to distinguish the Open Orthodox movement as a

27
<http://www.shaarhashomayim.org/Eruv>. However, as of the present date of the publication of this essay, that
website is no longer operational, since the Westmount Eruv is indefinitely deactivated. [See further in main text.]

28
Already prior to the Mo‘etzet Gedolei ha-Torah opinion (and indeed prior to the coining of the term “Open
Orthodoxy”), R. J. David Bleich, Contemporary Halakhic Problems IV (KTAV Publishing, 1995), pp. xvii-xviii,
submitted [-bold emphasis presently added by this student]:

"In any such enterprise, issues must be presented within the framework of Halakhah as an
autonomous discipline with its own sources, its own dialectic and its own values. The

14
collective whole – critiqued as it is by the Mo‘etzet Gedolei ha-Torah opinion – from some of
the individuals who comprise the movement.29 For that matter, the Mo‘etzet Gedolei ha-Torah

values and mores of other disciplines dare not be permitted to intrude. It is not sufficient
that “politically correct” views of contemporary society not be accepted as dispositive;
they must be given no deference.
The halakhic enterprise, of necessity, proceeds without reference or openness
to, much less acceptance or rejection of, modernity. Modernity is irrelevant to the
formulation of halakhic determinations. Torah is timeless and eternal. Modern insights
may help us to understand and appreciate both principles and minutiae of Halakhah in
ways heretofore unknown, but they do not at all effect particular determinations of
Halakhah. Strides made in the modern age have facilitated observance of mitzvot with
ease and comfort. Although modernity has opened new vistas it has, at the same time,
created new problems. Modernity has also given rise to social as well as technological
phenomena unknown in days gone by. Those problems and those phenomena must be
appreciated by a halakhic decisor functioning in the modern age, but his decisions are
made within a transcendental framework in which the term “modernity” has no cognitive
meaning.”

Furthermore, R. Bleich, The Philosophical Quest: Of Philosophy, Ethics, Law and Halakhah, p. 55, posits:

"There are limits to controversy and diversity within every system of law. There are
parameters that serve to limit controversy with regard to more conventional areas of
Jewish law and there are also limits to legitimate diversity with regard to matters of
ideology and belief. A story is told of an American rabbinic scholar, the late Rabbi Jacob
Ruderman, who was head of the Ner Israel rabbinical seminary. Rabbi Ruderman once
made an extremely caustic remark to a visitor whom he held in rather low regard. He said
to him, "If you knew as many rabbinic responsa as I, you would be a gentile. If you were
acquainted with as many precedents for leniencies as I can cite, your lifestyle would not
be the lifestyle of an observant Jew." Why? Because that individual would have
eclectically selected each one of those leniencies and have conducted himself
accordingly. And, at some point, a person comporting himself in such a manner would
have placed himself beyond the pale of the halakhic community."

Presumably, then, the Mo‘etzet Gedolei ha-Torah opinion is vindicated by these messages of R. Bleich.
Now, regarding the question of Yeshivat Maharat in particular (identified as it is within the Mo‘etzet
Gedolei ha-Torah opinion), this writer believes that a halakhically acceptable solution would be to have its
graduates serve as Beth Jacob teachers and not as members of the rabbinate. See
<http://www.scribd.com/doc/180069059/A-Synagogue-Employing-a-Lady-in-a-Rabbinic-Capacity-doc>.
Additionally, regarding the question of brain death in particular [-an issue where the Agudath Israel of America
previously challenged Yeshivat Chovevei Torah; see <https://www.torahmusings.com/2011/01/statement-re-
statement-re-brain-death/>], this writer believes that the halakhicallly true solution is to require medically treating
brain dead patients as a matter of safek piku’ach nefesh, and likewise refrain from ever registering to receive an
organ from a brain dead patient, even in the Diaspora. See <http://www.scribd.com/document/375175373/Halakhic-
Bioethic>.
29
For example, this writer was privileged to deliver a speech at the Montreal sheva berakhot celebration of R.
Benjamin Schiller in 5761, applauding the groom’s acumen as a talmid chakham. [Subsequently, R. Schiller would
attend Yeshivat Chovevei Torah.] As another example, this writer has been privileged to enjoy the hospitality of R.
Avraham Weiss (founder of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah) and R. Dov Linzer (rosh yeshivah of Yeshivat Chovevei
Torah) at Hebrew Institute of Riverdale, where this writer has been occasionally invited to speak. On the last such
occasion, viz. Rosh Chodesh Kislev 5771, this writer attended [with prior authorization of R. J. David Bleich] the bat
mitzvah celebration of his niece, for which the gentlemen prayed in the beit midrash of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah.
[The ladies, whose service was not attended by any gentleman, prayed in the adjoining Hebrew Institute of
Riverdale. That event occurred prior to the Mo‘etzet Gedolei ha-Torah opinion.] And, as yet another example, this
writer enjoyed the experience of being hospitably greeted by R. Adam Scheier at Congregation Shaar Hashomayim
on the occasion of this writer’s neighbour Maitre Jeffrey Orenstein being called to the Torah (on a weekday) prior to

15
membership itself might occasionally benefit from self-introspection.30 Nevertheless, the essence
of the Mo‘etzet Gedolei ha-Torah opinion at hand appears difficult to ignore,31 and so this would
raise an independent question regarding the Westmount Eruv. After all, R. Scheier – the
supervisor of the Westmount Eruv following the self-recusal of R. Whitman from the same
capacity – is a graduate of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, a member of the International Rabbinic
Fellowship and a rabbinic advisory board member of Yeshivat Maharat.32 Accordingly, on Nov.
10, 2015, this writer contacted R. Whitman as well as R. Saul Emanuel (executive director of the
Jewish Community Council of Montreal) to inform them that the Mo‘etzet Gedolei ha-Torah had
issued an opinion that may hypothetically be of interest to the Westmount Eruv. Subsequently,
on Nov. 19, 2015, R. Emanuel responded by e-mail to R. Whitman as well as to this writer with
the following verdict: the Jewish Community Council of Montreal website now specifically
announces that the Westmount Eruv is supervised by R. Adam Scheier.
Thereafter, this writer discovered on May 22, 2018 that the “Eruvs in Greater Montreal”
website33 [to which the Jewish Community Council of Montreal website refers] announced in the
name of R. Scheier himself that the Westmount Eruv has been indefinitely deactivated. Thus, as
of the date of the publication of the present (revised and corrected) edition of this essay, it is
universally agreed that no Jew may carry within the Westmount Eruv on the Sabbath.

Tam ve-Nishlam Shevach le-(K)l Borei Olam

Acknowledgements: I am grateful to Ms. Roberta Capelovitch, resident of Westmount; Reb Daniel Eltes the son of
the tzaddeket gemurah Ms. Vivian Naimer [as per the Gemara, Yoma 47a (regarding Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kimchit)
that a woman who is outstanding in her righteousness exceptionally deserves to be honoured by having her name
invoked with her son’s identity], my chavruta in Mesekhet Eiruvin; Dr. Ronald Gehr, professor of civil engineering
at McGill University; and Reb Naftali ha-Levi Gulden, coach of the daf yomi shi‘ur at the Lubavitch Beit Midrash in
Montreal; for their insights which helped the composition of this essay. Any errors are solely the responsibility of
this student.

his wedding. [That event occurred prior to the Mo‘etzet Gedolei ha-Torah opinion and even prior to the
innovation/invention of Yeshivat Maharat altogether.]

30
See footnote 238 of <http://www.scribd.com/document/375175373/Halakhic-Bioethic>, which references poskim
who encourage R. Aryeh M. Kotler (be-mechilat Kevod Torato) to perform teshuvah for abandoning his first wife.
And see <http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2017/02/greenblatt-kaminetsky-heter-is-tamar.html> which references
poskim who claim that the license of mekach ta‘ut which R. Shmuel Kamenetzky (be-mechilat Kevod Torato) gave
to Ms. Tamar Epstein might benefit from re-evaluation, and that Ms. Epstein is actually still halakhically married to
her first husband.
31
See R. David Rosenthal, Why Open Orthodoxy is Not Orthodox (Yad Yosef Publications, 2016). Seemingly, the
principle that rumors cannot be glibly ignored (as per the Gemara, Niddah 61a) is germane. [The fact that individual
members of the Mo‘etzet Gedolei ha-Torah might occasionally benefit from self-introspection (as discussed supra,
note 30) does not necessarily negate its opinion, analogous to how (as reported by R. Joseph Ber Soloveitchik,
quoted by R. Hershel Schachter, Be-Ikvei ha-Tzon, p. 23) R. Velvel Soloveitchik distinguished between the fungible
need to protest individual transgressions vs. the paramount imperative to uphold the truth of the Torah.]
32
<http://www.yctorah.org/student/adam-scheier/>
33
<http://www.eruvmontreal.org>

16