The Sefer – Page 54 (continued):
Additionally, there is a disagreement among Rishonim
whether there is an additional requirement of shishim ribo, the presence of
600,000 individuals, similar to the encampment in the desert,(38) which was
populated by 600,000 individuals (the concept of shishim ribo will be explained
below).
Rebuttal:
It is fascinating that so many piskei halachah seforim
today feel a need to mention that there is a machlokes Rishonim
regarding shishim ribo. Why do
these authors deem it important to cite a machlokes Rishonim when, in
fact, it is the Achronim whom we follow? If the authors feel a need to
mention that this issue is mired in a disagreement, then they should have
stated in the text that there is a machlokes Achronim regarding the
criterion of shishim ribo, and then only mention that this disagreement is
based on the Rishonim in the footnote. [Evidently, the reason why this
disagreement is always mentioned is because of the fact that the Mishnah
Berurah spends a considerable amount of time on this machlokes in
the Bi’ur
Halachah, 345:7. However, since it is well known that the Mishnah
Berurah’s list has been superseded, there really is no reason to mention
this disagreement anymore.]
The Sefer – Footnote 38:
ע׳ בית יוסף סי׳ שמ״ה סעיף ז׳ שהביא מחלוקת ראשונים, וע׳
במחבר שם שהביא ב' דעות...
Rebuttal:
It should be noted from the get go that many
if not most poskim maintain that the Shulchan Aruch upholds the
criterion of shishim ribo (see Section One, note 25). Furthermore, all poskim
(besides for the Bais Meir) argue that the Rema (O.C.
346:3, and 357:3), on whom we Bnei Ashkenaz rely on, maintains that we accept
the criterion of shishim ribo.
The Sefer – Footnote 38 (continued):
...וע׳ בבה״ל שם ד״ה שאין
שם ששים רבוא שחשב דעת המקילים ודעת המחמירים, והמקילים הרי הם: הבה״ג, ורש״י
בעירובין [דף ו׳ ודף נ״ס], וסמ״ג (לאוין סי׳ ס״ה), וסמ״ק, וספר התרומה, ורבינו מאיר, ורוקח, ודעה
א׳ בתוספות פרק במה אשה, והרא״ש פ"א דעירובין, והא״ז, והטור ורי״ו. והמחמירים הרי הם:
הרמב״ם, והר״ת, והרמב״ן, והרשב״א, והריטב״א, והר״ן בפרק במה אשה, והגהת מרדכי במסכת
שבת, והרשב״ם, והר״א ממיץ בספר יראים שלו, והריב״ש, והמאירי (שבת נז.) ...
Rebuttal:
The Mishnah Berurah (Bi’ur Halachah 345:7) is
actually citing the Mishkenos Yaakov’s count of Rishonim, but he did
not see that the Bais Ephraim disagreed with some of the Rishonim
on the list and added the names of many more Rishonim to those who
uphold that shishim ribo is a criterion of a reshus harabbim. The
Aruch HaShulchan (O.C. 345:17) adds that some of the Rishonim
whom the Mishkenos Yaakov cited were not yet published in the times of
the Taz and Magen Avraham, and, therefore, they did not have the
actual count of Rishonim who pasken against the criterion of shishim
ribo.
Therefore, many poskim
set out to count the actual number of Gaonim and Rishonim,
including those published recently from manuscript, who clearly pasken shishim
ribo is a criterion of a reshus harabbim and those who explicitly
maintain otherwise. As I demonstrate (see Section One, note 21), the
overwhelming majority of Geonim and Reshonim maintain that shishim
ribo is a criterion of a reshus harabbim (over 70 Geonim and Rishonim
uphold the criterion and only 13 do not).
Consequentially, since
the overwhelming majority of Rishonim maintain that shishim ribo
is a criterion of reshus harabbim, this matter is not up for debate
anymore, and perhaps the Mishnah Berurah would agree that shishim
ribo is an accepted fundament that all can rely on.
The Sefer – Footnote 38 (continued):
...וגם
דעת הריטב״א פרק כיצד מעברין כתב שם שרוב הגאונים סוברין כן. ...
Rebuttal: It should be
noted that, in all probability, when the Ritva mentions Gaonim,
he is referring to the Ramban and, in this case, possibly the Rashba
as well (see Mosad Rav Kook edition of the Ritva, Eruvin 59a,
n286; 67b, n411, and Torah Shelemah, vol. 15, p. 174). The fact is that
we do not know of even one Gaon who clearly stated that he was opposed
to the criterion of shishim ribo. Moreover, it is doubtful that the Ritva
was referring to the period that we refer to today as Gaonim since this
demarcation was established at a later date (ibid.). The term Gaonim at
that time included the period that we now refer to as the early Rishonim.
The Sefer – Footnote 38 (continued):
...ומסיק
]בבה״ל[ שם וז״ל: וע״כ בודאי יש להחמיר כסברא הראשונה וכמו שכתב הרש״ל והמשאת בנימין
וכו' ומ״מ אין בנו כח למחות ביד המקילין
שהם סומכין על הפוסקים העומדים בשיטת בה״ג ורש״י הנ״ל אבל כל ירא שמים בודאי יש
להחמיר לעצמו דבזמנינו יש ג״כ ר״ה מן התורה וממילא אין לסמוך על עירוב של צוה״פ דבעינן דוקא
דלתות וכו׳ עכ״ל. ...
Rebuttal: The
Bais Ephraim already noted that we do not follow the Masas Binyamin
and Yam Shel Shlomo regarding shishim ribo. Furthermore, the Elya
Rabah (345:14), writes that the Masas Binyamin and Yam Shel
Shlomo would agree that one could be lenient with an additional tzad
l’heter and rely on the criterion of shishim ribo (the Bi’ur Halachah, 345:7, also
mentions this Elya
Rabah).
The poskim have already
called attention to the fact that the Mishnah
Berurah had obviously not seen the Bais Ephraim’s list of Rishonim (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 utilized the Bais
Ephraim’s other sefarim, Sharei Ephraim and Mateh Ephraim, extensively,
and he states that he did not possess the sefer Teshuvos 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 accepted that shishim ribo is a 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.
The Sefer – Footnote 38 (continued):
...אבל
ע׳ בספר הלכות שבת בשבת מהגרמ״מ קארף במלאכת הוצאה סעיף מ״ג שמישב מנהג העולם ותמה
על הבה״ל הנ״ל שהשמיט כמה גאונים הרי הם הרב שר שלום גאון ורב האי גאון ובשערי
תשובה להגאונים סי' כ״ט ובספר העיתים (סי׳ ר״ח) בשם גאון, והאשכול בשם גאון בב׳
מקומות, וגם יש להוסיף דעת הרבי״ה ושבולי הלקט והראה והמרדכי פ״א דשבת והנמ״י סוף
הלכות ציצית. ועי״ש שישב התם מנהג העולם שסומכים להקל. ...
Rebuttal:
If the authors would have plumbed the depth of the inyan, they would have indicated that even the Bais
Ephraim’s list is much larger than the Bi’ur Halachah’s. As a matter
of fact, Rav Karp’s shlita’s list is far from complete, and as can be
discerned from what I wrote above (see Section One, note 21), there are many
more Rishonim that can be added.
The Sefer – Footnote 38 (continued):
...אבל
מ״מ שמענו בשם גדול א׳ שמ״מ ק׳ להקל בשיעור ששים רבוא שהרי יש לצרף דעת הראשונים
שבכלל אינם מצריכים ששים רבוא.
Rebuttal: This is nonsense. No halachic decisor would make this
claim, only some yungerleit who have no inkling of the halachic process.
The authors simply lifted this from the “Chevrah Hilchos Issurei Eruvin”
who are not interested in the emes but only in fabricating reasons to
negate eruvin.
The reason why this is so inane is because if we were to accept the opinion of any posek regarding how the fundament of shishim ribo is fulfilled, one could not then advance the uncertainty that there are Rishonim who do not allow for this criterion at all since the principle of shishim ribo has been accepted by that posek (and the overwhelming majority of poskim) as halachah p'suka, and to them it is not anymore a matter of debate, either because it is the minhag or because we now know that the majority of Rishonim accepted the criterion (this was argued emphatically by Rav Fishel Hershkowitz zt”l who stated that this is elementary).
No comments:
Post a Comment