The Sefer – Page 55:
The accepted practice for many generations follows the
opinion that shishim ribo is a requirement for a reshus harabim.(39)
Nevertheless, it was also accepted for ba’alei nefesh (scrupulous individuals)
to be stringent, and an individual who wishes to be stringent should not be
viewed as one who is questioning a long-standing minhag. Those who follow the
stringent view should not rely on an eruv that includes a city street that is
wider than sixteen amos, even if there is no presence of shishim ribo. The
discussion in the following paragraphs applies to individuals who do not follow
this stringency.
Rebuttal:
While the first part of
this paragraph is correct, the second part is incorrect. There has never been
an accepted practice to be stringent regarding the criterion of shishim ribo.
Most cities in Europe prior to WWII had streets that were sixteen amos wide;
therefore, they needed to rely on the criterion of shishim ribo. The
fact is that most people made use of their town eruvin, and for those
few who did not, it was because many times there were issues with the tzuras
hapesachim in pre-war Europe.
In any
case, since we now know that the overwhelming majority of Rishonim
maintain that shishim ribo is a criterion of a reshus harabbim,
there is no reason to be stringent. Furthermore, even if one would not want to rely
on the criterion of shishim ribo on its own, even a Baal Nefesh would
not need to be stringent in conjunction with a tzuras hapesach. Additionally,
the fundament of mefulash and the Chazon Ish’s shita in mechitzos
would allow a Baal Nefesh to carry in most city eruvin.
The Sefer – Footnote 39:
ע׳ ברמ״א סי׳ שמ״ו סעיף ג׳ שכל הרשויות שלנו כרמלית הן, במג״א
סי׳ שמ״ה ס״ק ז' וט״ז שם ס״ק ו',
ובפרמ״ג שם, ובתוספת שבת שם ס״ק ט״ו. אבל הגר״ז שמ״ה סעיף א׳ כתב וז״ל: ויש אומרים
שכל שאין ששים רבוא עוברים בו בכל יום כדגלי מדבר אינו רשות הרבים אלא כרמלית, ועל
פי דבריהם נתפשט המנהג במדינות אלו להקל ולומר שאין לנו עכשיו רשות הרבים גמורה
ואין למחות בידם שיש להם על מי שיסמכו (וכל ירא שמים יחמיר לעצמו). ...
Rebuttal: Actually, Rav Avraham Chaim Noeh zt”l
affirms that the words v’chol yira shomayim yachmir were not inked by the
Rav (Kuntras HaShulchan, 69). Moreover, since the Rav
maintains that once a reshus harabbim is encompassed by tzuras
hapesachim the issue is no more a matter of a d’Oraysa, there is no
doubt that he would agree that when a tzuras hapesach is being utilized
even a yirei shomayim can rely on the criterion of shishim ribo
(see Kanah V’Kanamon, 5:56).
The Sefer – Footnote 39 (continued):
...ובמ״ב
סי׳ שס״ד ס״ק ח׳ כתב שכן נהגו העולם להקל דבעינן ששים רבוא, אבל בבה״ל בסימן שמ״ה
לאחר שכתב דעת המחמירים ודעת המקילים סיים וז״ל: מ״מ אין בנו כח למחות ביד המקילין
שהם סומכין על הפוסקים העומדים בשיטת בה״ג ורש״י הנ״ל [דס״ל דדוקא בששים רבוא הו״ל
רה״ר] 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, עכ״ל. ובשס״ד לאחר שישב
קצת מנהג העולם גם שם סיים דיש לבעל נפש להחמיר. ...
Rebuttal: As mentioned above, the Mishnah Berurah’s
list of Rishonim has been superseded, so there is no doubt that a Baal
Nefesh/Yirei Shomayim does not need to be machmir.
The Sefer – Footnote 39 (continued):
...וע׳
בערוך השולחן ש״ג סעיף כ״ב דמשמע דאינו היתר ברור, ...
Rebuttal:
It should
be noted that the Aruch HaShulchan declared (Choshen Mishpat,
162:1) that one can force his neighbor to pay for a tzuras hapesach even
if he would want to be stringent since we follow the Rema that there is
no reshus harabbim because we accept the criterion of shishim ribo.
In any case, in siman 303, the Aurch HaShulchan is following the Mishkenos
Yaakov, and his list of Rishonim has been superseded. [Furthermore,
since the authors state that the Aruch HaShulchan maintained that one
should not rely on the criterion of shishim ribo, they should have
mentioned that the Aruch HaShulchan suggested an additional reason to
allow city eruvin today.]
The Sefer – Footnote 39 (continued):
...ומ״מ
גם לאחר מה שכתבו הגאונים הנ״ל עדיין לא נעקרה המנהג, וכן נוהגים בין בא״י בין
בחו״ל על פי הוראת הגדולים, וכן שמענו מהגר״ש מילר שיש לסמוך על מנהג העולם ולהקל.
Rebuttal: I thank the authors for mentioning that the minhag is to rely on the criterion of shishim ribo, but they neglect to mention the main point. The reason that we accept the criterion is because, as the Bais Ephraim declared, no one has a right to uproot a minhag that has been accepted by all the Ashkenazic Rishonim on whom we rely, even if they are in the minority; how much more so now since we know that they are the majority. Furthermore, the authors omitted that Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l maintained that, without a doubt, we rely on the criterion of shishim ribo (Igros Moshe, O.C. 5:24:10, and also 3:94:3; 5:19; see also more about this later on and in Section Three).
No comments:
Post a Comment