The Sefer – Page 56 (continued):
This is illustrated in the following applications:
Application A: City A has a population of 5 million
people. There is one main road that passes through the entire city and is used
by many of the residents to travel to and from downtown for work. It is
estimated that of the 1.5 million residents who work downtown, at least half of
them use this main road. This main road is considered a reshus harabim
according to all opinions,(42) since it is used by at least 600,000 people on a
daily basis.
Rebuttal: The
authors are conflating the issues. According to those poskim who
maintain that the criterion of shishim ribo is conditional of a street,
the population of the city has no bearing on the street if it should be
classified as a reshus harabbim because today the cities are not walled.
The daily traffic of today’s roads does not reflect the city’s population since
people do not converge on a particular main artery. People in various parts of
the city make use of different streets. Hence, this is not a matter of
estimation at all, but rather we would require an accurate tally of the people
traversing the street in order to assess if the street is a reshus harabbim. Additionally, according to those poskim
who maintain that the criterion of shishim ribo is conditional of a
street, even those traversing the street who are not residents of the city
would be included towards the tally of shishim ribo.
The Sefer – Footnote 42:
פשטות לשון השו״ע איזהו רה״ר וכו', וי״א שכל שאין ששים רבוא
עוברים בו בכל יום אינו רה״ר, ...
The Sefer – Footnote 42 (continued):
...וזהו
לשון הספר העיתים בשם הבה״ג: רה״ר דוכתא דדשין ליה שית מאה אלפין גברא ביומא כדגלי
מדבר (אלא דיש לדחות דדוכתא ר״ל בעיר) ...
Rebuttal: Nowadays
we know of two manuscripts of the Behag that mention the criterion of a
daily shishim ribo. (The simple meaning of the word duchta infers
place, which more likely refers to an area such as a town square than a city.)
The Sefer – Footnote 42 (continued):
...וכן
ברמב״ן שבת נז. בשם ספר התרומה כתב וז״ל: שעכשיו במקומות הללו אין בהם רה״ר גמורה
מפני שאין המבואות רחבים שש עשרה אמה ועוד שאין עוברים בהן ששים רבוא בכל יום (אבל
הספר התרומה עצמה הלכות שבת סי׳ רי״ד כתב וז״ל: והכרמלי' רחבה במקום שרבים רגילין אלא אינה רחבה
שש עשרה אמה או אין שולטין בה ששים רבוא דומיא דדגלי מדבר)...
Rebuttal:
In fact, what
we can derive from the Ramban is that he understood from the Sefer
HaTrumah that the word שולטין infers עוברים. This can be the underlying reason for the Ran’s
language, as well.
The Sefer – Footnote 42 (continued):
...וכיוצא
בזה במאירי שם וכן הוא בחידושי הר"ן על הרי״ף שם בשם ספר התרומה. ...
Rebuttal: Besides
the
above mentioned Rishonim (Behag, Ramban, Ran, and Meiri), the following Rishonim
also maintain that the criterion of shishim ribo is a daily requirement:
HaManhig (Hilchos Shabbos HaTzarichos ois
138); Ritva (Shabbos
57a); Rabeinu Pertz
(Eruvin 6a);
Rabeinu Yerucham
(Toldot Adom V’Chavah
12:4, 12:17); Shiltei
Giborim (Shabbos
2a, note 3), and Sefer
HaNeyar (Hilchos
Eruvin p. 51).
The Sefer – Footnote 42 (continued):
...ועי
במ״ב שמ״ה ס״ק כ״ד שכתב וז״ל: חפשתי בכל הראשונים העומדים בשיטה זו ולא נזכר
בדבריהם תנאי זה [של ששים רבוא בכל יום] רק שיהיו מצויין שם ששים רבוא, ולכאורה כוונתו
דהראשונים הנ״ל באמת חולקים הם על תנאי של ששים רבוא ורק דרך אגב הם מפרשים דלדעה
זו צריך שיהא בוקעים בכל יום. ...
Rebuttal: This
is a nice
explanation of how it is possible that the Mishnah Berurah did not recognize
that there are many Rishonim who indicate that the criterion of shishim
ribo is daily. However, it is inaccurate. How could the authors have missed
the fact that Rabeinu
Yerucham clearly states that the criterion is daily, and the
Mishnah Berurah includes Rabeinu
Yerucham in his list of Rishonim who uphold the fundament of shishim ribo [there are
other Rishonim, not mentioned
in the Mishnah
Berurah, that accept the fundament of shishim ribo and maintain
that it is a daily obligation, such as HaManhig and Sefer HaNeyar]. Furthermore,
it is absurd to argue that we consider an opinion regarding the criterion of shishim
ribo as only an offhand comment because it was
issued by those Rishonim who do
not uphold the fundament to begin with. Statements by Rishonim are never regarded as casual comments. Consequentially, there
is no explanation as to why the Mishnah Beurah missed the many Rishonim who maintain that shishim ribo is a daily requirement.
The Sefer – Footnote 42 (continued):
...ובאמת
אף שכמה אחרונים שבזמננו נתקשו בדעה זו, דבאמת ק' במציאות שיהו ששים רבוא בוקעים
ברחוב א׳ של ט״ז אמה, אבל ק' לדחותו לגמרי ומידי ספיקא לא נפקא, ולכה״פ לחומרא
צריך ליתן עליו חומרי כרמלית כגון לחושש מקום פטור שתחת י׳ טפחים יהא כמקום פטור
בכרמלית וכדומה. ...
Rebuttal: This
is fiction.
There are no Achronim who argue that it is nearly impossible for shishim
ribo to traverse a 16 amos wide street, only the authors and some yungerleit.
[See Section Three where the authors
advance their own argument and my rebuttal.] The yungerliet of the “Chevrah Hilchos Issurei Eruvin”
argue that in order for 600,000 people to traverse a 16 amos wide section
of a street, it would take a continuous stream of 16 people standing side by
side approximately ten and half hours — 37,500 [seconds] times 16 people [the
maximum number of people that could possibly stand side by side in a 16 amos
wide street] equals 600,000 people. This amount of time they claim would make
it an improbable occurrence. However, they are mistaken in the metzius. They
are assuming that a person can only take one step per second, when actually a
person can take at least two steps per second (see also Pesachim, 94a).
Hence, it would take half the time they claim, and therefore, it would make it
a real possibility that 600,000 people traverse a street on a daily basis.
In any case, the fact that the authors
would entertain this argument, which means they admit that this argument is in
opposition to the pashtus of the Shulchan Aruch and these Rishonim
(mentioned above), demonstrates the authors’ bias regarding city eruvin.
The Sefer – Footnote 42 (continued):
...ויש
שהצריכו ששים רבוא בהרחוב אבל לאו דוקא בכל יום: הרי הם תוס׳ שבת סד: וז״ל: ואנו
שאין לנו רה״ר גמור דכל רה״ר שלנו כרמלית היא שהרי אין מבואות שלנו רחבות י״ו אמה
ולא ס' ריבוא בוקעים בו, עכ״ל. וכן הוא בסמ״ק מצוה רפ״ב וז״ל: ורשות הרבים היא
סרטיא ופלטיא פי׳ רחב י״ו אמות ובקיעות של ס׳ ריבוא בני אדם בוקעין בו, עכ״ל.
ובבית הבחירה למאירי עירובין ו: וז״ל: ולא עוד אלא שגדולי הרבנים מוסיפין בו שאין
נקרא רה״ר אף ברוחב י״ו אא״כ רגילה בו דריסת ששים רבוא, עכ״ל. (אלא שבסוף כתב שזו
קולא יתירה.)
Rebuttal: I don’t understand why the authors only
mention that there is a diversity of opinions in the Rishonim and fail
to reveal that, besides for the Shulchan Aruch, many of the Gedolei HaPoskim
maintain that the criterion of shishim ribo is a daily requirement (Rav
Ovadia Bartenura, Shabbos 11:1; Levush, 345:7; Masas Binyamin,
siman 92; Perishah, O.C. 325:8; Olas Shabbos,
345:6; Zera Emes, 3:34; Tiferes Yisroel, introduction to Shabbos;
Shulchan Aruch HaRav, 345:11; Michtam L’David, siman 2; Bais
Meir, 364:2; Shulchan Atzei Shitim, 4:1:12; Bais Yaakov, Eruvin
6a; Yeshuos Yaakov, 345:5; Aishel Avraham 345:3, and Zivchei
Tezdek, siman 102).
Furthermore, it is difficult to derive
much from the omission by some of the Rishonim that shishim ribo
is a daily requirement. A case in point, the authors mention the Meiri
in Eruvin (6b) where he omits that shishim ribo is a daily
requirement; however, the Meiri in Shabbos (57a) clearly mentions
that the criterion of shishim ribo is a daily requirement. In any case,
it is fascinating that the authors would cite the Meiri as one of the Rishonim
who does not maintain that the criterion of shishim ribo is a daily
requirement, when the Meiri does not uphold the fundament of shishim
ribo altogether. The authors argued above that the Mishnah Berurah
did not cite those Rishonim who mentioned that the fundament is a daily
requirement, since they did not subscribe to the criterion to begin with. I
guess when it would help the authors in their opposition to city eruvin,
then all rules fall by the wayside.
Furthermore, in order to form
an opinion as to whether the criterion of shishim ribo is a daily
condition or not, it would be prudent to investigate the source of the
criterion, the Behag. Since some of the editions of the Behag do
not mention the criterion of shishim
ribo at all, some of the Rishonim did not actually see the
words of the Behag in the original. Thus, these Rishonim only
quoted what they heard in the name of the Behag regarding the criterion
of shishim ribo, and it did not include the provision that it is a daily
condition. However, now that we actually have the edition of the Behag
that mentions the criterion of shishim ribo and the Behag clearly
stipulates that the criterion is a daily condition, there is no doubt that b’chol
yom is provisional of shishim ribo.
No comments:
Post a Comment