Part 4: REBUTTAL TO THE LAWS OF AN ERUV

2:2B - The criteria of a reshus harabbim

The Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 345:7) gives four defining conditions of what constitutes a reshus harabbim: rechovos or shevakim[14] [marketplaces/platyas] that are at least sixteen amos wide, that are not roofed [mikorim], that are open and aligned  from gateway to gateway [mefulash m’shaar l’shaar], and have 600,000 people traversing it daily [shishim ribo (sixty myriads) ovrim bo b’chol yom].

Since all four criteria have to be realized for the area to be classified as a reshus harabbim, if even one criterion is not met, an eruv of tzuras hapesachim can be erected.[15]

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.

2:3A - The criterion of mefulash u’mechavanim

The text of the Shulchan Aruch reads:

“What is a reshus harabbim? Marketplaces that … are not walled and even if they are walled but they [the marketplaces] are open from gateway to gateway [mefulash m’shaar l’shaar], they would then be classified as a reshus harabbim ….”

The Magen Avraham (345:6; based on the Bais Yoseph) and most poskim[16] assert that mefulash m’shaar l’shaar infers mefulash u’mechavanim m’shaar l’shaar, meaning the marketplace is aligned from gateway to gateway.

2:3B - How do we define the criterion of mefulash u’mechavanim

From a simple reading of the Shulchan Aruch, it is apparent that the criterion of mefulash m’shaar l’shaar is conditional of a walled marketplace and not a walled city.[17] Consequently, the city gate that the Shulchan Aruch is referring to is the sha’ar of the marketplace and not the sha’ar of the city walls.

Hence, the overwhelming majority of poskim uphold that the criterion of mefulash m’shaar l’shaar as it pertains to city roads is not conditional of a city encompassed by walls.[18]  

The following are some of the poskim who maintain that mefulash u’mechavanim m’shaar l’shaar is not conditional of a city encompassed by walls:

The Mishnah Berurah (364:8), when describing the cities of his times, stated that there were streets that were sixteen amos wide and mefulash u’mechuvanim m’shaar l’shaar. Therefore, a Baal Nefesh should be stringent since in order to erect an eruv in these cities, they would have needed to rely on the fact that the street did not have shishim ribo traversing it. As we know that most towns in his times were not walled, we can deduce that he accepted the criterion of mefulash u’mechuvanim as not being dependent on a walled city.

The Divrei Malkiel (4:3) states that to find a street in a large city which is mefulash, open from one end of the city to the other, is unheard of, and that is why the minhag is to erect eruvin even in the largest of cities. He wrote this teshuvah regarding Odessa, a city that was not walled.

Rav Shlomo Dovid Kahane zt”l (Divrei Menachem, O.C. vol. 2, pp. 42-43), one of the main rabbanim of Warsaw before World War II, posited that the heter to erect an eruv in a large city such as Warsaw, which was unwalled from the year 1877 (Encyklopedia Warszawy, 1994 p. 187), was universally accepted as the streets were not mefulashim u’mechuvanim m’shaar l’shaar. More so, he claimed, a small city would have a greater issue establishing an eruv since its streets would be mefulash. In a small city, there is usually one main street running straight through the center of the town, as opposed to a large city where the streets are generally not straight from city gate to city gate. [See footnote for an additional list of poskim.[19]]

---

[14] 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.  

[15] See note 5.

[16] Besides the above mentioned Magen Avraham see also:  Olas Shabbos (345:6); Tosfos Shabbos (345:13); Elya Rabbah (345:13); Pri Megadim (Aishel Avraham, 345:6); Shulchan Aruch Harav (345:11); Mishnah Berurah (345:20), and Aruch Hashulchan (345:15).

[17] It is patently clear from the Rishonim [since they argue that Yerushalayim was open upon its length and width, and was mefulash u’mechavanim m’shaar l’shaar, Ritva, Eruvin 22a; Or Zarua, Hilchos Eruvin siman 129, and Meiri, Eruvin 6a, 20a], that only the entryways to the commencement and conclusion of the mavo’os/roads are categorized as the gateways [she’arim], and the intersecting roads do not establish additional gateways to the street [e.g. it is not sufficient that each segment of a street between intersections is mefulash]. Hence, the criterion of mefulash u’mechavanim m’shaar l’shaar is conditional on the road being literally straight from end to end through the city limits.   

[18] It is important to examine the meaning of the word mefulash so we can clarify why some Rishonim only mention mechuvanim m’shaar l’shaar in conjunction with a walled city. 

Tosfos (Eruvin 6a) states:

רב אמר תורתו כמפולש: ואפי' גרסינן דלתות איכא למימר "דמפולש גמור" הוא וכו' ואין לתמוה למה יהיה מבוי עקום חמור "ממפולש גמור"

The Rashba (Eruvin 6a) posits:

וההוא דמבוי העשוי כנדל: אבל כשהוא פתוח לשתי רשיות הוא צריך לסבב וע"כ נראה כמפולש מפני שעוברים בתוכו משער לשער

The Rosh (first Perek Eruvin siman 6) submits:

ולישנא דתורתו כמפולש לא משמע כפירושו דמשמע דתורת מבוי שהוא עקום תורתו כאילו היה מפולש ביושר בלי עקמומות

The Ran (Eruvin 6a) advances:

מבוי עקום: אבל אחרים פירשו דתורתו כמפולש היינו כאילו היה  מבוי אחד ישר ומפולש

From the above Rishonim, we can discern that a mavoi akum [crooked ally/street] is never called a mavo hamefulash [open ended alley/street] — only that its laws are similar to a mavo hamefulash. Thus, we see from the terminology of the Rishonim (in reference to hilchos Eruvin; see Teshuvos HaRashba, vol. 2 siman 95) that a mavo hamefulash denotes an alleyway/street that runs straight from end to end and does not indicate a curved ally/street at all. This is the rationale why the Olas Shabbos, Magen Avraham, Tosfos Shabbos, Elya Rabbah, Pri Megadim, Shulchan Aruch Harav, Mishnah Berurah, and Aruch Hashulchan, define mefulash as being mechuvanim m’shaar l’shaar because they are following the Rishonim who describe a mavo hamefulash as running straight from end to end and not curved at all. Only a street running straight from end to end is identified as being mefulash.

Now we can clarify why some Rishonim only mention the requirement of mefulash in reference to an open city, but for a walled city they add the condition of mechuvanim m’shaar l’shaar. In an open city, these Rishonim only need to cite the requirement of mefulash since, as detailed above, it denotes mechuvanim [straight] as well; however, in a walled city there is a possibility that the street, even if it is mefulash u’mechuvanim, ends at the city wall [in which case the street would be encompassed by three mechitzos]. Hence, these Rishonim add the condition of mechuvanim m’shaar l’shaar that the street needs to be open and the gateways/shaarim need to be aligned straight through [connecting to the srtayas outside of the city] in order to be classified as a reshus harabbim.

[19] The following is a list of some additional poskim who maintain that mefulash u’mechavanim m’shaar l’shaar, is not conditional of a city encompassed by walls: Mayim Rabim (siman 38, p. 39b; in regards to sratyas and mavo’os hamefulashim); Pri Megadim (Aishel Avraham, 364:2, Mishbetzes Zahav, 363:18); Bais Meir (siman 363:29); Bais Ephraim (siman 26 44b; in regards to sratyas and mavo’os hamefulashim); Tzemach Tzedek (Shabbos 6a; in regards to sratyas and mavo’os hamefulashim); Mahari Asad (siman 54); Shoel U'Maishiv (1:2:87); U'Bacharta B'Chaim (siman 117), and Maharsham (3:188).

Furthermore, we can add the following, the Magen Avraham (345:6; based on the Bais Yoseph) and most poskim (Olas Shabbos, Tosfos Shabbos, Elya Rabbah, Pri Megadim, Shulchan Aruch Harav, Mishnah Berurah, and Aruch Hashulchan) assert that mefulash m’shaar l’shaar infers mefulash u’mechavanim m’shaar l’shaar, meaning runs straight from gateway to gateway. Therefore, since all Rishonim (and Achronim) maintain that mefulash is a fundament of a reshus harabbim, even in a city that is not walled (e.g. Rashi, Eruvin, 59a; Ravyah, Eruvin, siman 379; Rokeach, siman 175; Rid, Piskei, Sukkah 43a, and the majority of Rishonim who mention the criterion of mefulash without the qualifier of city walls), and the Gedolei HaPoskim uphold that, mefulash infers mechavanim, hence all city streets would need to be mefulash u’mechavanim m’shaar l’shaar to be classified as a reshus harabbim, irrespective if the city is walled or not.