The Sefer – Page
57:
Application B: City B has a population of 1 million
people. There are many roads that service the local neighborhoods and a few
main roads that pass through the entire city. When traveling long distances
across the city, these roads are the only practical route as the local roads
are too slow for travel on long trips. It is assumed that almost all residents
of the city must use all the main roads at least occasionally.(43) Many Poskim
consider these main roads a reshus harabim as well, since they are used by
600,000 people on occasion.
Rebuttal: As
we shall see in my rebuttal of the sources cited in the footnote (43), there
are almost no poskim who maintain that it would be sufficient if the shishim
ribo would just occasionally utilize the street. It is clearly illogical to
include in the tally one who only on occasion makes use of a street. As the Maharsham
argued (3:188), if the criterion of shishim ribo includes even those who
occasionally use the street, how do we apply limits on the amount of time
needed to fulfill the criterion? Clearly this is not the way the
criterion of shishim ribo is calculated.
The Sefer – Footnote 43:
הנה פשטות כל הראשונים שהבאנו לעיל דצריך בכל יום אין זה נחשב
בכל יום, וגם הראשונים שכתבו שבוקעים בהם ששים רבוא יש לומר דצריך לכל הפחות
שלפעמים יהא בהם ששים רבוא בחד יומא, אבל בכה״ג לעולם אין בהרחוב ששים רבוא. ...
Rebuttal: So
the authors admit that, according to the pashtus of many Rishonim,
the criterion of shishim ribo requires that they actually traverse the
street, and the only question was if the requirement was every day or would on
many days suffice to classify the street as a reshus harabbim. Furthermore, it is the simple reading of the Shulchan
Aruch that shishim ribo actually needs to traverse the street on a
daily basis.
Moreover, since the
criterion of shishim ribo is derived from the number of people who learnt
by Moshe Rabbeinu in machaneh Levia, it would be prudent to peruse the meforshim
on this issue to determine the frequency of their gathering. As a matter of
fact, the overwhelming majority of meforshim maintain that Moshe
Rabbeinu held forth at these gatherings on a daily basis, and all of Klal
Yisroel participated. Therefore, there should be no doubt that the criterion of
shishim ribo is a daily requirement.
The Sefer – Footnote
43 (continued):
...אבל
פשטות לשון רש״י שכתב עיר שמצוים בה...
Rebuttal: That
Rashi uses the word ir [city] is an entirely different argument
and is immaterial to the issue at hand, namely if the street would actually
need shishim ribo traversing it on a daily basis. In any case, as I
mentioned previously, according to Rashi, a city containing shishim ribo is only an example as to
how a thoroughfare can support such a population.
The Sefer – Footnote 43 (continued):
...וכן
מבואר בריטב״א עירובין נט. הובא בבה״ל בסי׳ שמ״ה סעיף ז׳ ד״ה שאין ששים רבוא,
שמצוים לבוא ואפילו אם באים מחוץ לעיר וכ״ש שרגילים לבוא מהעיר עצמו, ...
Rebuttal: Besides for this not being exactly the lashon
of the Ritva, the implication is incorrect. The Ritva is countering
Rabbeinu Tam’s issue with shitas Rashi [how is it possible that, at the
time a city was established, it was classified as an ir shel rabbim?].
The Ritva’s rejoinder was that Rashi does not require that shishim
ribo actually live in the city; it would be sufficient to include those who
come into the city in the tally. The Ritva’s response does not preclude
that shishim ribo would need to traverse the street itself in order for
it to be classified as a reshus harabbim. The only question according to
the Ritva’s understanding of Rashi is if the requirement of shishim
ribo traversing the street
is every day or would on most days suffice. In any case, the Ritva
in Shabbos (6a) stipulates, bokim bo shishim ribo. Evidently, he
maintains that the criterion is conditional of shishim ribo actually
traversing the street.
The Sefer – Footnote 43 (continued):
...וכן
הביא הבה״ל בשם הריא״ז והרמב״ן. ...
Rebuttal: The
Mishkenos Yaakov (who the Biur Halachah is following) did not
have the Piskei Riaz, only what was cited in his name in the Shiltei Giborim. In
fact, the Piskei Riaz clearly states (5:5:1) that shishim ribo
would need to traverse in the reshus harabbim [this just demonstrates
that the Rishonim interchange many of their words regarding the
conditions of the criterion]. It is important to note that the Shiltei
Giborim himself (Shabbos
2a, note 3) states that the criterion of shishim ribo is a daily
requirement.
The Ramban has
absolutely no relevance to this matter. The Ramban’s only argument was
that even according to Rashi an intercity road does not need to fulfill
the criterion of shishim ribo [in fact, the overwhelming majority of Rishonim
and Achronim do not follow the Ramban regarding this matter (see Section
One, note 30)].
The Sefer – Footnote 43 (continued):
...וע׳
במשכנות יעקב סי׳ ק״כ דלדבריו זה שכל א׳ מהששים רבוא משתמש בו לפעמים זה מספיק
לעשות רה״ר, ...
Rebuttal: The
Mishkenos Yaakov would not agree to the premise of this footnote. The
Mishkenos Yaakov argues that the Ritva and a few other Rishonim
maintain that even the accessibility of shishim ribo of the entire world
would be sufficient to classify the roads as a reshus harabbim.
Therefore, according to the Mishkenos Yaakov, the population of the city
does not play a role in the tally. In fact, no posek agrees to this chiddush
of the Mishkenos Yaakov. Furthermore, the Mishkenos Yaakov admits
that the other Rishonim who uphold the criterion of shishim ribo require
that shishim ribo actually traverse [each section of] the road.
The Sefer – Footnote 43 (continued):
...וכן
הביא מהר״ן בשם הראה וז״ל: דאפשר לומר דבאותו זמן אפילו שאר מדברות שהיה להם דרך
לשם לאותו מדבר הוי ר״ה דאע״ג דפירש רש״י ובה״ג דלא הוי ר״ה אלא של ששים רבוא לאו
דבעינן ששים רבוא אלא שיש כאן דרך לששים רבוא כלומר שיהא רגילין לילך שם אנשים
רבים תדיר כששים רבוא וכאן הרי היו השיירות מצויות של ששים רבוא ואף על פי שלא היו
כולם כאן בדרך כאחד, עכ״ל. ...
Rebuttal: The main argument of the RaaH [which is mentioned in the
Ran (Hamyuchos)] is that in order to fulfill the requirement of shishim
ribo we do not require that all the people traverse the road at the same
time [בדרך כאחד]. However, this does not preclude that there would actually need
to be 600,000 people who made use of the street in order to classify it as a reshus
harabbim. Additionally, the RaaH maintains that only people who routinely
utilize the street are included in the count of the criterion of shishim
ribo. Conversely, since today people can make use of all roads (because the
cities are not walled), many of our streets are only utilized occasionally by
the entire population of the city. Consequently, there is no city that would be
classified as a reshus harabbim today according to the RaaH’s
prescription of the criterion of shishim ribo.
The Sefer
– Footnote 43 (continued):
...וכן
בבית אפרים סי׳ כ״ו כתב שיהא דרך סלולה לס״ר המצויון שם בקירוב מקום ועוברים ושבים
שמה בכל עת עד שאפשר שביום אחד יעברו כולם בדרך ההוא וכו', עכ״ל.
Rebuttal: The Gedolei HaPoskim (Maharsham, 3:188 and Minchas Yitzchak, 8:32) have already stated that the simple understanding of the Bais Ephraim is that the shishim ribo would need to traverse the street itself for the street to be classified as a reshus harabbim, and the only question regarding his position was whether the requirement of shishim ribo traversing the street is every day or would on most days suffice.
No comments:
Post a Comment