Part 8: REBUTTAL TO THE LAWS OF AN ERUV

 2:4D - Does the criterion of shishim ribo pertain to all areas

There is no doubt that all areas included in city limits — such as sratyas [if they can be classified as such], platyas, and mavo’os hamefulashim — would require shishim ribo to traverse its confines in order to be classified as a reshus harabbim. However, some Rishonim and Achronim maintain that if the sratya is outside of the city limits, it would not need to include shishim ribo traversing it. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of Rishonim and Achronim maintain that even outside of the city limits, a sratya would also require shishim ribo traversing it in order to be classified as a reshus harabbim.[30]     

2:4E - How the criterion of shishim ribo can be employed for citywide eruvin

City roads are classified as mavo’os hamefulashim, and even if [one would argue that] some of our roads are classified as sratyas and platyas, since they are not traversed by shishim ribo, these areas which are sixteen amos wide fail to meet this criterion; hence, they cannot be deemed as a reshus harabbim, and tzuras hapesachim would suffice to enclose the area.[31]

---

[30] While the Ramban, and Piskei Rid, maintain that a sratya would not need to fulfil the criterion of shishim ribo, they clearly state that they are referring to a sratya that is an intercity road, outside of the city boundaries. The few Achronim (Bais Yaakov and Yeshuos Malko) who follow these Rishonim are also referring to an actual intercity road, outside of the city limits, and only those roads would not need shishim ribo traversing therein to be categorized as a reshus harabbim. However, those poskim who refer to the main road inside of the city limits as a sratya (Bais Ephraim and Avnei Nezer), uphold that it would need to fulfil the criterion of shishim ribo to be classified as a reshus harabbim (besides for maybe Rav Chaim Volozhiner zt”l).

Moreover, the overwhelming majority of Rishonim (Rav Amram Gaon, Hilchos Psukos, siman 70; Sar Shalom Gaon, Sharei Teshuvah siman 209; HaEshkol, Hilchos Tzitis, ois 31; Smak, Mitzva 282; Rosh, Beitzah, 3:2; Ritva, Shabbos 6a, and Terumas Hadeshen, siman 55, and the over twenty Rishonim that state that there is no reshus harabbim today at all, which would include sratyas) and Achronim disagree with the Ramban and Tosfos Rid, and maintain that there is no difference between roads inside the city and those that are outside of the city, both would need to fulfil the criterion of shishim ribo to be classified as a reshus harabbim.  

[31] Even one of the above fundaments would be sufficient ground to permit an eruv of tzuras hapesachim l’chatchilah. Moreover, even if one would allege that according to some Achronim (and contrary to the overwhelming majority of poskim) the above fundaments would not allow an eruv, nevertheless, they would have to agree that each issue is still at the very minimum a safek. Consequentially, we are left with a sfek sfek sfeika, and we would therefore go l’kula even if the matter was a d’Oraysa. Lest one think that sfek sfeika is not utilized in these situations, one should peruse the Yeshuos Malko (O.C. siman 21); Avnei Nezer (O.C. 273:16, 279:2), and Levush Mordechai (4:4).