Part 7: REBUTTAL TO THE LAWS OF AN ERUV

 

2:4C - How the criterion of shishim ribo is calculated

From a simple reading of the Shulchan Aruch, it is apparent that the criterion of shishim ribo is conditional of the marketplace/street.

It was the mesorah through the ages that the criterion of shishim ribo is dependent on a single marketplace/street. [27] The Divrei Malkiel (4:3) stated when writing to the people erecting an eruv in the city of Odessa, which had approximately shishim ribo, that, “the minhag is to erect eruvin even in the largest of cities, and it does not concern us that they contain shishim ribo since the shishim ribo is dispersed over all its streets.”[28] [See more about this issue when we discuss Rav Moshe Feinstein’s shitos in eruvin (3:1).]

Furthermore, since the Shulchan Aruch uses the term shishim ribo ovrim bo, it implies a thoroughfare in continuous use and not merely the presence of 600,000 people in the vicinity who would have the ability to utilize the street.

The Bais Yitzchak (Y.D. siman 136:3) responded to one who suggested that the criterion of shishim ribo is not conditional on people actually traversing the road, whose mere presence in the area would be sufficient, “[that] this is in opposition to most poskim including Rashi and Tosfos.” The Maharsham argued (3:188), if the criterion of shishim ribo includes even those who occasional use the street, how do we apply limits on the amount of time needed to fulfill the criterion. Clearly this is not the method we use to calculate the criterion of shishim ribo.[29]

---

[27] The main argument cited by those who claim that the criterion of shishim ribo is conditional on a city (as opposed to a street) is that Rashi, the foremost supporter of this fundament, employs the word ir [city] when mentioning shishim ribo (Eruvin 6a):

ר"ה: משמע רחב שש עשרה אמה ועיר שמצויין בה ששים רבוא

However, there is a simple explanation as to why Rashi makes use of the word “ir” in reference to the criterion of shishim ribo. Rashi expounds in Eruvin 59b:

דרך עיירות להיות פתחי פילושיהן לאורכם ורה"ר עוברת מפתח לפתח וחלוקה לאורכה ... והני דרסי בהך רה"ר ... ורה"ר זו מחברתם שכולם מעורבין בה

Likewise, we find in Tosfos Rid (Eruvin 59b):

דדמי מבוי האמצעי לכל מבואות העיר הפתוחין לעיר, כמו המבוי לחצרות...  כך כל מבואות העיר דורסין על המבוי האמצעי כשרוצין לצאת מן העיר ולהיכנס

Similarly the Smag states (beginning of hilchos Eruvin):

וכן בתוך העיר ימצא רה"ר, כגון שרחוב שלה רחב שש עשרה אמה וכו' ומפולש משער לשער ובוקעין בו ס' רבוא

Rashi, Tosfos Rid, and the Smag are informing us as to how cities were planned. Cities in the past had a main road that all residents used to enter and exit the city [because most cities were walled], and this thoroughfare was the reshus harabbim of the city. Consequentially, when Rashi and the Rishonim who follow him use the word city in reference to shishim ribo, they are not signifying that the criterion is conditional on a city but only that the main thoroughfare in a walled city containing shishim ribo would be classified as a reshus harabbim if it is actually traversed by its entire population.

This follows why Tosfos (Eruvin, 6a), Rosh (Eruvin, siman 8), Ritva (Shabbos, 6a), Ran (Eruvin, 6a) and Meiri (Eruvin, 6b), when citing Rashi’s shita regarding shishim ribo, omit the word city because, as defined by Rashi, a city containing shishim ribo is only an example as to how a thoroughfare can support such a population.

Following this we can extrapolated that since the populace of today’s cities — because they are not walled — make use of many thoroughfares, it is not a given that the main arteries are actually traversed by its entire population. Consequentially, even if a city contains a population of shishim ribo, it is almost certain that no street would be classified as a reshus harabbim since they are not traversed by the city’s entire populace [it should be noted that this is similar to the Aruch HaShulchan’s approach, 345:19-22].

[28] These are some of the additional poskim who clearly maintain that shishim ribo is dependent on the street: Levush (345:7); Perishah (O.C. 325:8); Pnei Yehoshua (Shabbos 5b); Sedei Haaretz (Y.D. p. 29:3); Zera Emes (3:34); Bais Meir (Shabbos 5b); Bais Yaakov (Eruvin 6a); Yad Dovid (Eruvin 55a); Shulchan Aruch HaRav (363:44); Bais Ephraim (p. 46); Mishkenos Yaakov (p. 126); Chiddushi Harim (siman 4); Yeshuos Malko (siman 27); Mishnah Berurah (Shaar HaTzion, 345:25) [the Mishnah Berurah indicates this by the usage of the phrase, “derech hamavoi hamefulash,” ― it is important to note, the Mishnah Berurah’s (345:24) primary issue is whether the shishim ribo are required to traverse the street every day of the year or whether occasional use of the street by 600,000 people would be sufficient, see also Toldos Shmuel, 3:86:10]; Minchas Elazar (3:4); Bais Av (2:5:2); Maharshag (2:25); Chazon Ish (107:6); Mahari Stief (siman 68); V’yaan Yoseph (131:1, 155:1, 195:2); Divrei Yatziv (173:4); Rav Shmuel Wosner zt”l (in Shevet HaLevi, 6:41); Rav Yechezkel Roth shlita (in Emek HaTeshuvah 5:19), and see also the shaila to the Chacham Tzvi in siman 37.

[29] Besides the above mentioned Bais Yitzchak and Maharsham, the Divrei Chaim (Lekutim siman 3); Yeshuos Malko (O.C. siman 27); Sefas Emes (Shabbos, 6b); Divrei Malkiel (4:3); Bais Av (2:5:2:3), and Minchas Yitzchak (8:32), all agreed that the criterion of shishim ribo is only met when 600,000 people actually traverse the street.

While it is beyond the scope of this essay, suffice it to say that those who suggest that the Bais Ephraim’s understanding of the Ritva, that the mere presence of shishim ribo in the vicinity would classify a street as a reshus harabbim, are mistaken.  The Gedolei HaPoskim (mentioned above, the Maharsham, and Minchas Yitzchak) understood the Bais Ephraim otherwise. The only question regarding the Bais Ephraim’s position was whether the requirement of shishim ribo traversing the street is every day or would on most days suffice.

Furthermore, all those who claim that there are additional poskim who uphold this condition in the criterion of shishim ribo, are incorrect, as all their claims are hearsay posited by the Chevrah Hilchos Issurei Eruvin (while it is beyond the scope of this essay, suffice it to say that all of their arguments have been negated).