The Sefer – Page
59 (continued):
However, private roads that are designated for members of
a residential development, and are not intended for the general public, have a
status of a mavoi.(49)
Footnote 49:
כך נראה שהרי יש
רשות להבעלים לשנותו אם יסכימו כולם והו״ל כהמבואות שבימי חז״ל. וכן שמענו מהגר״מ
רוזנר בשם הגרי״ש אלישיב זצ״ל דרחוב דשייך לשכונה לא צריך להחמיר וכ״ש בזה.
Rebuttal: See my previous
rebuttal.
The Sefer – Page 60:
According to the Rishonim that requires shishim ribo,
there are various ways to understand this requirement, as explained above.
There are those who understand that any city whose population exceeds 600,000
people is considered a reshus harabim. According to this understanding, there
are strong grounds to argue that only main streets are associated with the full
population of the city and are considered to be reshuyos harabim, and the side
streets are not accorded the same status.(50) According to the opinions that
the road itself must service 600,000 individuals either occasionally or every
day, the side streets obviously do not meet this criterion.
Rebuttal: I reiterate, none
of the Rishonim maintain that shishim ribo is conditional of the
city. A city containing
shishim ribo is only an example as to how a thoroughfare can support such a
population. Furthermore, there is almost no posek who upholds that
the criterion of shishim ribo is conditional on a street that services shishim
ribo. Shishim ribo would actually need to traverse the street (at
least occasionally) to be classified as a reshus harabbim.
The Sefer – Footnote 50:
כך שמענו מהגר״מ ברלין, אולם שמענו
מהגר״מ רוזנר ששמע מהגרי״ש אלישיב זצ״ל שאם יעלה מספר התושבים בירושלים ליותר
מששים רבוא שיש לאסור הטלטול בכל הרחובות אפילו הקטנים ביותר, אבל רחוב ששייך
לשכונה בודדת שהוא מנותק מעיקר העיר אינו בכלל זה.
Rebuttal: I reiterate, there
is almost no posek who upholds that the criterion of shishim ribo
is conditional on a street that services shishim ribo. Shishim ribo
would actually need to traverse the street to be classified as a reshus
harabbim. [I doubt that Rav Berlin maintains otherwise.]
Regarding Rav Elyashiv’s
opinion, as mentioned previously, this source is unreliable. In fact, what I
wrote previously regarding Rav
Elyashiv (in my rebuttal of footnote 44) is proof positive that this source is not to be trusted. Rav
Elyashiv is quoted in his sefer Ha’aros on Maseches Shabbos (6b)
as advancing numerous reasons why Yerushalayim does not fulfill the criterion
of shishim ribo (e.g. we require that the shishim ribo traverse
therein the entire day, that we do not include in the tally non-residents,
women, children, infirm, and non-Jews). Clearly, this source made up out of whole
cloth his claim that Rav Elyashiv would object to the Yerushalayim eruv today.
Moreover, Rav
Elyashiv allowed an eruv in Toronto, a city containing shishim ribo,
since it consisted of mechitzos, omed merubeh al haparutz. In any
case, most people carry in the Yerushalayim eruv notwithstanding the
fact that the city contains a population greater than shishim ribo.
The Sefer – Page
60 (continued):
According to Hagaon Rav Moshe Feinstein, if the city has
the density to be considered a machaneh Yisroel, as explained above, every
street even the dead-end streets(51) become part of the machaneh Yisroel and it
is forbidden to enclose them.
Footnote 51:כך שמענו מכמה תלמידים
Rebuttal: I reiterate, to suggest that even dead-end streets are included in the reshus harabbim is absurd. Even according to Rav Moshe’s shitos in eruvin, to claim that a street in machaneh Yisroel which was enclosed by three mechitzos would not have been classified as a reshus hayachid is incongruous. This is clearly in opposition to the Rambam. Those arguing this should learn through the inyan prior to making such ignorant statements in the name of Rav Moshe.
No comments:
Post a Comment