Wednesday, September 02, 2020

Part 3: REBUTTAL TO THE LAWS OF AN ERUV

 2:1 - Rectifying areas that are not encompassed by mechitzos

The above is referring to areas that are enclosed by mechitzos, which are inherently a reshus hayachid me’d’Oraysa. The following is regarding areas that cannot make use of mechitzos:

A tzuras hapesach[8] would reclassify a karmelis as a reshus hayachid. However, regarding a reshus harabbim, the Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 364:2) states that only delasos [doors to close the breaches] would rectify it and not a tzuras hapesach.

There is a machlokes haposkim whether or not the Shulchan Aruch’s requirement of delasos for a reshus harabbim is on a d’Oraysa level or only a requirement me’d’rabbanan.  However, many poskim maintain that only me’d’rabbanan is there a requirement of delasos; me’d’Oraysa, a tzuras hapesach would suffice to reclassify a reshus harabbim as a reshus hayachid.[9] Accordingly, since the requirement of delasos is me’d’rabbanan, we can be lenient [safek d’rabbanan l’kulla] and apply any additional heter to remove the obligation of delasos.[10]

However, since the Shulchan Aruch’s opinion is mired in a machlokes, and even according to the poskim who allow a tzuras hapesach for a reshus harabbim on a d’Oraysa level, we still have to contend with the requirement of delasos me’d’rabbanan, it is essential to establish the classification of an area ― is it or is it not a reshus harabbim? ― in order to ascertain whether or not a tzuras hapesach would suffice on all levels and according to the majority of opinions.

 

2:2A- Areas classified as a reshus harabbim

The Gemara (Shabbos, 6a) cites a Tosefta which states that there are three areas that can be categorized as a reshus harabbim [if they meet all the criteria; see further]: sratya, an intercity road;[11] platya, marketplace; and mavo’os ha’mefulashim, alleyways that open into the sratyas and platyas.[12] Our roads are usually classified as mavo’os hamefulashim since our marketplaces are typically indoors [which are essentially a reshus hayachid][13] and our intercity roads are highways, which are generally not incorporated into our towns.

Therefore, since our roads rarely if ever open on both ends into sratyas and platyas, they are not classified as a reshus harabbim. However, since [some insist that] there is a possibility that we may have sratyas and platyas that our mavo’os hamefulashim can open into, and some poskim also maintain that it would be sufficient to classify mavo’os hamefulashim as a reshus harabbim if they open into a karmelis, therefore, we have to define the criteria that render these areas a reshus harabbim.


[8] There are those who claim that the term eruv refers to eruvei chatzeiros and not to a tzuras hapesach. However the Gemara (Eruvin, 6a) calls a tzuras hapesach an eruv; see also the Piskei Rid (Shabbos 6a) for further proof that the term eruv applies to both the physical construct and the brachah.

[9] See Korban Nesanel (Succos 1:34:1); Pri Megadim (Rosh Yosef, Shabbos 6b); Shulchan Aruch HaRav (O.C. 364:4); Gaon Yaakov (Eruvin 11a); Rav Chaim of Volozhin zt”l (Otzar Reb Chaim Berlin, Shu"t Nishmas Chaim, p. 1); Tzemach Tzedek (Eruvin the end of Perek 5); Aishel Avraham (siman 345); Yeshuos Malko (O.C. 21); Avnei Nezer (O.C. 273:16, 279:2, 289:2); Aruch HaShulchan (O.C. 364:1); Levush Mordechai (4:4); Bais Av (2:9:3), and Kaf HaChaim (O.C. 364:12).

While the Bais Ephraim and the Chazon Ish maintain that a tzuras hapesach would not suffice on a d’Oraysa level, they uphold that in order to negate a tzuras hapesach we require shishim ribo to traverse therein (see Bais Ephraim siman 26, p. 49b, and Chazon Ish, O.C. 108:12). Consequently, since most eruvin do not have shishim ribo traversing through the tzuras hapesachim, there would be no requirement of delasos (even me’d’rabbanan).

[10] Avnei Nezer (O.C. siman 273:16, 279:2, 289:2); Kanah V’Kanamon (5:56); Livush Mordechai (4:4), and Bais Av (2:9:3).

[11] The Rishonim when discussing the classification of a sratya as a reshus harabbim clearly maintain that it is an intercity road (Rashi, Shabbos 6a; Rabeinu Yehonason M'Lunil, Shabbos 6a; Ravyah, Eruvin siman 379; Ramban, Eruvin 59a; Semag, Asin Drabbanan 1; Riaz, Shabbos, 1:1:17; Meiri, Shabbos 6a; Ritva, Shabbos 6a; Rabeinu Yerucham, Toldos Adom V’Chavah 12:4; Ran, Shabbos, Rif daf 2a; Shitas Hamyuchos LaRan, Shabbos 6a; Ohel Moed, Shar HaSabbos 13:2; Rivash, siman 405, and Nimukei Yosef, Eruvin, Rif daf 6a).

While Rashi, may at times label a sratya as a road that is traversed by the multitudes [as opposed to an intercity road], when he identified a sratya as an inherent reshus harabbim (Shabbos, 6a) he clearly maintained that a sratya is an intercity road. In any case, besides the fact that the preponderance of Rishonim clearly state that a sratya is an intercity road, Rashi upholds that any road included in a city, even the road that connects the intercity roads [which maybe are classified as sratyas], would need to satisfy all criteria of a reshus harabbim in order to be characterized as such (see Eruvin, 6b, Rashi ad loc. regarding Yerushalayim and Mechuza). Consequentially, it is irrelevant if Rashi, at times, defined a sratya as being inside of the city limits. Likewise, those Achronim (the Bais Ephraim and Avnei Nezer), who referred to a road included in a city as a sratya, maintain that it would need to satisfy all criteria of a reshus harabbim (besides maybe for Rav Chaim Volozhiner zt”l). [However, there is no doubt that the Bais Ephraim and Avnei Nezer maintained that inside of the city limits a sratya is not an inherent reshus harabbim.]  

[12] The following is a list of Rishonim who clearly maintain that a mavo hamefulash [alleyway] is not an inherent reshus harabbim, only when it links up with a sratya and platya is it classified as such: Shiltos (Parshas Beshalach siman 49); Rashi (Shabbos 6a, Eruvin 7a); Sefer Ha’itim (ois 206); Rabeinu Yehonason M'Lunil (Shabbos 6a); Ravyah (Hilchos Eruvin 379); Rambam (Shabbos 14:11); Rivevan (Eruvin 6a); Ramban (Eruvin 59a); Semag (Asin D’rabbanan 1); Rashba (Avodas Hakodesh, Beis Nesivos 3:1); Ritva (Shabbos 6a); Orchos Chaim (Hilchos Shabbos ois 231); Rabeinu Yerucham (Nesiv 12:4); Meiri (Shabbos 6a); Sefer HaNer (Shabbos 6a); Ran (Shabbos 2a); Ohel Moed (Shaar HaShabbos Derech 13:2); Nimukei Yosef (Shabbos 6a), and Rivash (siman 405).

However, some Achronim argue that it would be sufficient to classify a mavo hamefulash as a reshus harabbim if it would open into a karmelis [outside of the city limits]. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of poskim follow the Rishonim and maintain that a mavo hamefulash is only classified as a reshus harabbim if it opens into a reshus harabbim, a sratya or platya, but not if it opened into a karmelis, (for a succinct description of how the Shulchan Aruch, 345:7, relates to the Tosefta I would recommend the Shulchan Aruch Harav, 345:11).  

[13] See Bais Av, 2:6:4.

No comments:

PART 3: THE TRUTH REGARDING THE STAMFORD HILL ERUV

Their argument: But the Mishnah Berurah argues that most poskim uphold asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta , so according to most poskim the...