Part 12: REBUTTAL TO THE LAWS OF AN ERUV

The Sefer – Page 54 (continued):

In Chapter One, Section II, A, we discussed that a public domain must be sixteen amos wide and unroofed to qualify as a reshus harabim. (37)

Rebuttal: The omission of the criterion of mefulash u’mechavanim in the above (main) text is perplexing.  There are other English seforim that were published regarding eruvin, and they had no compunctions to write about the criterion of mefulash.  In any case, how can one omit a criterion that was the basis of some large city eruvin (see below)? It is simply egregious that the authors omitted the criterion of mefulash u’mechuvanim m’shaar l’shaar.   

 

The Sefer – Footnote 37:

ע׳ רש״י דף נ"ט: ד״ה ואין לה וז״ל: ולאו מפולשת היא ולא דמי לדגלי מדבר, עכ״ל. ושם בדף ו: כתב וז״ל: שערי העיר מכוונים זה כנגד זה, וזהו קולא גדולה שלכאורה יוצא דאפילו רחוב שישלו התנאים של רה״ר מכל מקום אם הוא מתעקם קצת ואין שעריו מכוונים ממש לא הוה רה״ר. ועי בבית אפרים סי׳ כ״ו שכתב וז״ל: וע״כ לא בעינן שיהא מפולש משער לשער אלא בסרטיא שהוא דרך העובר בתוך העיר ואין ב״א מתקבצים שם, אלא שעוברים דרך שם, ולכן אם אינו מפולש ומכוון משער לשער לא הוי רה״ר דהא לא מסתגי להו להדי, עכ״ל. משמע דצריך מכוון כדי שיהא נוח לילך שם, ואם אינו מפולש לא הוה רה״ר אפילו אם אין לו מחיצות. ...

Rebuttal: Is mefulash u’mechavanim something to hide from the English speaking public that it had to be relegated to a Hebrew footnote? Is the criterion so esoteric that it does not deserve mention in the main text?

In any case, this entire argument is simply absurd. If a street meets all the other criteria of a reshus harabbim, why is it a major leniency to also require that the street be mefulash u’mechuvanim m’shaar l’shaar [run straight from gateway to gateway] in order to classify the street as a reshus harabbim? If mefulash u’mechuvanim m’shaar l’shaar is a criterion of a reshus harabbim and the street does not meet this requirement, then it would not be classified as a reshus harabbim, period. Mefulash u’mechuvanim is a criterion just like the requirements that the street needs to be 16 amos wide and not be roofed.

Moreover, how could the authors have failed to mention the following Gedolei HaPoskim, the Mahari Asad (siman 54); Divrei Malkiel (4:3), and Rav Shlomo Dovid Kahane zt”l (Divrei Menachem, O.C. vol. 2, pp. 42-43) who maintain that mefulash u’mechuvanim m’shaar l’shaar is the criterion that allows us to establish eruvin even in the largest of cities?

The Divrei Malkiel 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, 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 not walled from the year 1877, see 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 problem 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.

Following this, the omission of the criterion of mefulash in the text must be because the authors of this sefer have an agenda; the criterion of mefulash would allow eruvin even in the largest cities.

 

The Sefer – Footnote 37 (continued):

...אבל ע׳ באגרו״מ שהביא דעת כמה ראשונים דלא בעינן שהשערים מכוונים ואפילו לאותם דבעינן מפולש כתב דה״מ בעיר שיש לו חומה, ודלא כהבית אפרים הנ״ל. וע״ש שהביא ראיה לדבריו מדברי הראבי״ה ח״א הלכות עירובין סימן שצ״א וז״ל: משמע דעיירות שלנו שהם מוקפים חומה ואין מכוונים שעריהם משער לשער שהם כרמלית, עכ״ל. משמע דהצורך במפולש הוא רק אם יש לו חומה. וע׳ במשנת רב אהרן סי׳ ו'. ...

Rebuttal: First of all, the authors are incorrect. Rav Moshe never mentioned this particular Ravyah (the Ravyah cited by Rav Moshe was siman 379, which does not mention anything about a walled city).

Now, let us 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 mavoi hamefulash [open ended alley/street] — only that its laws are similar to a mavoi hamefulash. Thus, we see from the terminology of the Rishonim (in reference to hilchos Eruvin; see Teshuvos HaRashba, vol. 2 siman 95) that a mavoi 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 reason why the Olas Shabbos (345:6); Magen Avraham (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) define mefulash as being mechuvanim m’shaar l’shaar because they are following the Rishonim who describe a mavoi 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 the Ravyah (siman 391, and other Rishonim) only mention the requirement of mefulash in reference to an open city, but the Ravyah adds the condition of mechuvanim m’shaar l’shaar for a walled city. In an open city, the Ravyah only needs 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, the Ravyah adds the condition of mechuvanim m’shaar l’shaar that the street needs to be open and straight from gateway to gateway in order to be classified as a reshus harabbim.  

Furthermore, it is important to note that Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l posited that any street would need to be mefulash [open] to be classified as a reshus harabbim, and only the requirement of mechuvanim m’shaar l’shaar [running straight from gateway to gateway] is conditional of a walled city. However, this is clearly in opposition to the Magen Avraham, Tosfos Shabbos, Elya Rabbah, Pri Megadim, Shulchan Aruch Harav, Mishnah Berurah, and Aruch Hashulchan who maintain that the definition of mefulash [open] is mechuvanim m’shaar l’shaar. Since these poskim posit that mefulash and mechuvanim m’shaar l’shaar are one and the same, and all agree that mefulash is a criterion of all streets, these poskim would uphold that the streets would need to be mefulash u’mechuvanim m’shaar l’shaar even in an unwalled city. Therefore, since it is the Gedolei HaPoskim who maintain that even in an unwalled city mefulash u’mechuvanim is a criterion of a reshus harabbim, the failure to mention it in the text of the sefer proper is a major omission and is indefensible. 

 

The Sefer – Footnote 37 (continued):

...וע׳ במשכנות יעקב סי׳ ו׳ דאף לדעת רש״י לא בעינן מכוון ממש. ...

Rebuttal: On the contrary, the Mishkenos Yaakov stated exactly otherwise; Rashi requires precisely straight. This is what the Mishkenos Yaakov writes (siman 122 p. 142):

"רק רש״י ז״ל כתב כמה פעמים מכוון משער לשער בפ״ק דעירובין גבי כיצד מערבין רה״ר כו׳ ושם ע״ב גבי ירושלים כ׳ שהיה רה״ר שלה מכוון משער לשער ומפולש כו׳ משמע דבעי מכוון ביושר ממש והדבר צ״ע לדינא."