Introduction
Well, it happened: Kedassia, after being dragged kicking
and screaming to support an eruv for the Tottenham neighborhood, allowed
the yungerleit to take over the show. These yungerleit in kovetz
Peolim LaTorah conjured up an excuse why only the Tottenham Eruv would be
allowed, but chas v’shalom to expand it any further. This is a real
tragedy. You see, dear readers, you should not have been naïve, thinking that
once you establish an eruv for part of a neighborhood Kedassia would
allow you to expand the eruv. To those who learnt the inyan, the
article in Peolim LaTorah screams let us collect all chumros in eruvin
in order to obstruct and prohibit the expansion of as many eruvin as
possible.[1]
The fact that the cabal dives right
into the issue of mechitzos without clarifying why any of these areas in
London would be classified initially as a reshus harabbim, demonstrates
their bias. Why didn’t the yungerleit from the get go clarify how these
areas fulfil the criteria of reshus harabbim, such as mefulash
u’mechavanim m’shaar l’shaar and shishim ribo? The answer is that
they are afraid to lay out their feeble arguments in their entirety. They
purposefully picked the most complex part of hilchos eruvin, mechitzos,
where they can easily distort the inyan, and the average person could
not mount a rebuttal.
In order to illuminate the paucity of
the arguments opposing a larger eruv, let us do so in a point
counterpoint argument style:
As an hakdamah let us start
with the text of the Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 345:7):
There are four defining conditions of
what constitutes a reshus harabbim: rechovos or shevakim[2]
[marketplaces/platyas] that are at least sixteen amos wide, that
is not roofed [mikorim], that is open and aligned from gateway to
gateway [mefulash m’shaar l’shaar], and has 600,000 people traversing it
daily [shishim ribo (sixty myriads) ovrim bo b’chol yom].
As most public roads are more than
sixteen amos wide and not roofed, most citywide eruvin would be
predicated on two criteria: Mefulash u’mechavanim and shishim ribo.
Our argument: The entire area is not classified as a
reshus harabbim, because, it does not fulfil the criterion of shishim
ribo.
Their argument: As per the Mishnah Berurah’s
argument that most Rishonim do not uphold the criterion of shishim
ribo l’chatchilah, we do not want to rely on this criterion.
Our argument: The Bais Ephraim does uphold shishim
ribo, l’chatchilah, and so do the overwhelming majority of poskim.
The Mishnah Berurah did not see the Bais Ephraim’s list of Rishonim.[3] In
fact, we can add to the Bais Ephraim’s tally of Rishonim, since
we know today of many more Rishonim who accepted the criterion of shishim
ribo [more than seventy accept the criterion and thirteen clearly do not[4]].
Hence, either we accept the fundament because this is the minhag or
because the overwhelming majority of Rishonim [and all of those from
Tzorfas and Ashkenaz, and at least four Gaonim], and the Rema uphold
the criterion l’chatchilah.[5]
Their argument: Alright, but the criterion is
conditional of a city not the street. London’s population is much greater than shishim
ribo, hence it would be classified as a reshus harabbim.
Our argument: No posek of stature maintains
that the criterion is conditional of a city.[6]
It was the mesorah
through the ages that the criterion of
shishim ribo is dependent on a single marketplace/street. The Divrei Malkiel (4:3) stated when writing
to the people erecting an eruv in the
city of Odessa, which had approximately shishim
ribo, that, “the minhag is to
erect eruvin even in the largest of
cities, and it does not concern us that they contain shishim ribo since the shishim
ribo is dispersed over all its streets.”[7]
Even Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l admitted that the
simple understanding of the Shulchan Aruch is that the criterion of shishim
ribo is conditional of a street and on a daily basis as he posits that the Shulchan Aruch
is referring to a sratya ⎯
and to say otherwise is a chiddush (Igros Moshe, O.C.
1:139:5). Rav Moshe added (ibid., 4:87) that since, historically, eruvin
had been erected in cities with populations exceeding shishim ribo, one
could not classify a city as a reshus harabbim solely on the basis of
the existence of a population of 600,000.
[Rav Moshe, maintained that the criterion of shishim
ribo when applied to a city required a population of three million, over a
twelve mil by twelve mil area (approximately 13 by 13 km). However,
just as he argued in Detroit, Michigan, he would not include the population of
the city of London proper in the tally of a Stamford Hill Eruv. Moreover, there
is no doubt that in an area of 13 by 13 km the population of London it is much
less than three million (it is somewhere between 1.5-2 million).]
Their argument:
Fine but, the
criterion of shishim ribo is not
conditional on people actually traversing the road, if the road would just
service shishim ribo it would be sufficient.
Our argument: This is simply incorrect. The fact
that the Shulchan Aruch uses the term shishim ribo ovrim bo, implies a
thoroughfare in continuous use and not merely the presence of 600,000 people in
the vicinity who would have the ability to utilize the street.
The Bais Yitzchak (Y.D. siman
136:3) responded to one who suggested that the criterion of shishim ribo is not conditional on
people actually traversing the road, whose mere presence in the area would be
sufficient, “[that] this is in opposition to most poskim including Rashi
and Tosfos.” The Maharsham argued (3:188), if the criterion of shishim ribo includes even those who occasional use the street, how
do we apply limits on the amount of time needed to fulfill the criterion.
Clearly this is not the method we use to calculate the criterion of shishim ribo.[8]
Their argument: But, shouldn’t we be machmir according
to even one posek?
Our argument: So, in conclusion of our debate
regarding your opposition to our reliance on the criterion of shishim ribo,
you are arguing that we need to follow shitos yachidos. We do not need
to agree with your chumros. However, even if we are machmir,
there are other criteria of a reshus harabbim that these areas in London
do not fulfil, such as mefulash u’mechavanim m’shaar l’shaar.
[1]
Their main
argument regarding the Bais Ephraim and pasei bira’os is actually
not their own, they are appropriating from other eino modeh beruvin without
giving credit; see more about this issue in note 20.
[2] The Shulchan Aruch in
345:7, uses the words rechovos and shevakim, which according to
most poskim are just alternative labels for marketplaces (see Metzudos
Tzion, Shir Hashirim 3:2; Mayim Rabim, siman 38, and
Bais Ephraim, siman 26 p. 44b). The Magen Avraham indicates
on the word rechovos that sratyas are included in these halachos
set forth by the Shulchan Aruch. In 345:8-9 the Shulchan Aruch
deals with mavo’os hamefulashim.
[3]
The poskim
have already called attention to the fact that the Mishnah Berurah had
obviously not seen the Bais Ephraim (Toldos Shmuel, 3:81:7,
3:86:8; Bais Av, 2:5:2; Divrei Yatziv, 2:173:1, and Even
Yisroel, 8:36). We can add that this is evident from the Mishnah Berurah
himself since he states that he did not possess the sefer Bais Ephraim (Bi’ur
Halachah, 208:9, s.v. Eino M’Vorech). The poskim postulate
that had the Mishnah Berurah seen the Bais Ephraim he would have paskened
like him that shishim ribo is an accepted fundament of a reshus
harabbim, and he would have agreed that even a Baal Nefesh could be
lenient and rely on the fact that the streets are lacking shishim ribo.
[4]
This is a
preliminary list; I will eventually publish a complete list with over seventy Geonim and Rishonim who uphold the criterion and thirteen who do not.
Gaonim - 1) Bahag, Berlin edition, p. 131. 2) Rav Amram Gaon, Halachos
Pesukos Min HaGaonim, siman 70.
3) Sar Shalom Gaon, Chemdah Genuzah, siman 70 and Sharei Teshuvah,
siman 209 (see also Sefer Ha’itim, ois 92). 4) The Gaon
mentioned in the Sefer Ha’itim, ois 206.
Rishonim - 5) Rashi, Eruvin 6a, 6b,
26a, 59a, 47a. 6) Baalei HaTosfos, Eruvin 6a, 26a, 59a, and Shabbos 6b, 64b. 7) Sefer Ha’itim, ois 92,
206, 209. 8) Rabeinu Shmuel, Or Zarua, ois 164. 9) Machzor Vitri,
Perek B'mah Isha, ois 31, 32. 10) Ra’avan, Shabbos 349. 11)
HaEshkol, Hilchos Tzitzis ois 31. 12) Ha’itur,
Hilchos Tzitzis, Shaar 3 Shaar Adom Chelek
1. 13) Ravyah, Hilchos Eruvin 379, 391. 14) HaManhig,
Hilchos Shabbos HaTzarichos ois 138.
15) Rokeach, Hilchos Shabbos 175. 16) Sefer
HaNer, Eruvin 6a, 59a. 17) Sefer HaTrumah, ois 214, 239. 18) Or Zarua,
Hilchos Shabbos siman 16, Eruvin 129. 19) Rid, Piskei Eruvin 6a,
59a, Tosfos Pesachim 69a and Teshuvos, siman 107. 20) MaHrach Or
Zarua, Piskei Eruvin Perek 2 ois 57. 21) Rivevan, Eruvin 6b, 59a.
22) Semag, Hilchos Shabbos p. 17. 23) Maharam
MeRotenberg, siman 31, Eruvin ois 9, 10. 24) RaaH, Ran (Hamyuchos),
Shabbos 6b. 25) Riaz, Eruvin Perek 1:5,
5:5. 26) Talmid HaRashba, Chiddushei Eruvin, 2a, 59b. 27) Mordechai, Shabbos 64b, 100a. 28) Smak,
Mitzvos Hatluyos B’Shabbos p. 296,
299. 29) Hagahos Maimonios, Eruvin Perek 5:2, 5:4. 30) Rosh, Beitzah 24a, Eruvin 6a
(see also Kitzur Piskei HaRosh, Perek 1:8). 31) Tur, O.C. 345, 364, 392.
32) Ramak, Piskei (Rabeinu Mendel
Kloizner) Shabbos 6a, Hagahos Ashri, Eruvin 6b, 20b. 33) Rabeinu
Yerucham, Toldos Adom V’Chavah 12:4,
12:17. 34) Orchos Chaim, Hilchos Shabbos ois 284. 35) HaAgudah, Perek 5:56. 36) Tsedah
LaDerech, Perek 42, 46. 37) Sefer HaNeyar, Hilchos Eruvin p. 51. 38) Hagahos
Ashri, Eruvin 6b, 20b. 39) Nimukei Yosef, Hilchos Tzitzis. 40) HaAgur,
siman 537.
The following is
a list of Rishonim who oppose the
criterion of shishim ribo:
1) Rambam, Hilchos Shabbos 14:1. 2) Hashlama,
Eruvin 6a. 3) Ramban, Shabbos, 57a, and
Eruvin 59a. 4) Sefer HaMeoros, Eruvin
6a. 5) Rashba, Teshuvos HaRashba siman 722. 6) Hagahos
Mordechai, Shabbos Perek 6. 7) Ritva, 59a. 8) Magid Mishnah, Shabbos
14:1. 9) Meiri, Bais HaBechirah Shabbos 57a, and Eruvin 6b, and Chidushim
Eruvin 6b. 10) Ran, Shabbos Perek 6, Chidushim Eruvin 6a. 11) Rivash,
siman 405. [Rabeinu Tam, Rashbam, and
Yereim on the Mishkenos Yaakov’s/Mishnah
Berurah’s list of those opposing the criterion are debatable and today can
be listed with those who maintain that shishim
ribo is a criterion of a reshus
harabbim (at least regarding Rabeinu
Tam and the Rashbam).]
[5]
While the Bais
Meir questions (as cited in the Biur Halachah, 345:7) what the Rema’s
opinion is, the Bais Ephraim (and even the Mishkenos Yaakov) and
all the other poskim cite additional proof that the Rema does
uphold the criterion of shishim ribo.
[6]
Some argue that
from the Achiezer it is evident that he maintains that the criterion of shishim
ribo is conditional of a city. However, they are simply incorrect.
This is what the Achiezer writes: Paris is definitely a reshus
ha’rabbim me’d’Oraysa since it contains shishim ribo traversing
therein even though not every thoroughfare includes shishim ribo, just
as Yerushalayim and Mechuzah did not have shishim ribo traversing all of
their roads. A close reading reveals that the Achiezer necessitates at
least some thoroughfares that would need to fulfil the requirement of shishim
ribo traversing it, and only then would the connecting roads of the entire
city be classified as a reshus harabbim. Therefore, it is incorrect to
assert that the Achiezer’s position regarding shishim ribo is
conditional of a city and not a road since at least some thoroughfares would be
required to have shishim ribo traversing it.
[7] These are some of the
additional poskim who clearly
maintain that shishim ribo is
dependent on the street: Levush
(345:7); Perishah (O.C. 325:8); Pnei Yehoshua (Shabbos
5b); Sedei Haaretz (Y.D. p. 29:3); Zera Emes (3:34); Bais Meir
(Shabbos 5b); Bais Yaakov (Eruvin 6a); Yad Dovid (Eruvin 55a); Shulchan Aruch
HaRav (363:44); Bais Ephraim (p.
46); Mishkenos Yaakov (p. 126); Chiddushi Harim (siman 4); Yeshuos Malko (siman 27); Mishnah Berurah (Shaar
HaTzion, 345:25) [the Mishnah Berurah
indicates this by the usage of the phrase, “derech hamavoi hamefulash,” ― it is important to note, the Mishnah
Berurah’s (345:24) primary issue is whether the shishim ribo are required to traverse the street every day of the
year or whether occasional use of the street by 600,000 people would be
sufficient, see also Toldos Shmuel,
3:86:10]; Minchas Elazar (3:4); Bais Av (2:5:2); Maharshag (2:25); Chazon Ish
(107:6); Mahari Stief (siman 68); V’yaan Yoseph (131:1, 155:1, 195:2); Divrei Yatziv (173:4); Rav Shmuel Wosner zt”l (in Shevet HaLevi,
6:41); Rav Yechezkel Roth zt”l (in Emek HaTeshuvah 5:19), and see also the shaila to the Chacham Tzvi in siman 37.
[8] Besides for the above
mentioned Bais Yitzchak and Maharsham, the Divrei Chaim (Lekutim siman
3); Yeshuos Malko (O.C. siman 27); Sefas Emes (Shabbos, 6b); Divrei Malkiel (4:3); Bais Av (2:5:2:3), and Minchas Yitzchak (8:32), all agreed that
the criterion of shishim ribo is only
met when 600,000 people actually traverse the street.
Those who suggest that the Bais Ephraim’s understanding of
the Ritva, that the mere presence of shishim ribo in the vicinity
would classify a street as a reshus harabbim, are mistaken. The Gedolei Haposkim (mentioned above,
the Maharsham, and Minchas Yitzchak) understood the Bais
Ephraim otherwise. The only question regarding the Bais Ephraim’s position
was whether the requirement of shishim ribo traversing the street is
every day or would on most days suffice.
Finally, even according to this faulty argument, it is mindless to
claim that the mere presence of 600,000 people in the vicinity of the street
would classify it as servicing shishim ribo. If people from the vicinity
rarely utilize the street, why should they ever be included in the tally?
No comments:
Post a Comment