Section Three
What Follows is an
Analysis and a Refutation in a Linear Fashion of the Chicago Community Kollel Publication,
Encounters, December 21, 2018, Entitled City Eruvin,
Encounters:
The
Definition of Reshus Harabim
The
defining criterion of a reshus harabim is public access. A shared parking lot
of a large residential building is not considered a reshus harabim since the
general public is denied access to the lot (other reasons may also apply as
explained below). Additionally, we derive several requirements from the
structure of the Jewish encampment in the desert. For example, the Gemara
proves that the public domain in the desert was sixteen amos wide. Hence we
derive that a reshus harabim must be at least sixteen amos wide. Similarly, a
thoroughfare that has a roofed structure above it is not considered a reshus
harabim since the reshus harabim in the desert did not have a roof. The reshus
harabim in the desert was regularly travelled by 600,000 individuals. While the
Gemara does not mention this, one may suggest that for a thoroughfare to be
considered a reshus harabim, it must be frequented by 600,000 individuals. This
question is debated by the Rishonim as explained below.
Rebuttal:
While
we derive all the criteria of a reshus harabbim from the diglei
hamidbar, the Pnei Yehoshua, Bais Meir, Bais Ephraim,
and the Mishkenos Yaakov (and just about all the other Achronim)
maintain that we derive the fundament of shishim ribo specifically from
the number of Yidden who learnt by Moshe Rabeinu in machnah Levia. [Hence,
these Achronim maintain that the criterion is conditional of the street
and not the city.]
Encounters:
The
Opinions of Rambam and Rashi
The
Rambam and others are of the opinion that only the primary characteristics of a
reshus harabim are derived from the Mishkan. According to this view, the
traffic volume is considered incidental and is not a defining factor in a
reshus harabim. This would mean most of our public roads, provided that they
are wider than sixteen amos, are considered a reshus harabim. According to this
opinion, making an eruv using tzuros hapesach would not be an option in any of
our modern day cities.
Rebuttal:
This
is irrelevant since we do not pasken like the Rambam regarding
the criterion of shishim ribo. Moreover, the Rambam would allow
most eruvin because the streets are not mefulash u’mechavanim (see
Bais Yosef) and since most city streets are encompassed by more than three
mechitzos (and the Rambam maintains lo asu rabbim u’mevatlei
mechitztah).
While
the Mishnah Berurah, following the Mishkenos Yaakov, may have
cast doubts on the criterion of shishim ribo (since he maintains that
most Rishonim do not uphold the fundament), the poskim who
followed him uphold the criterion (Bais Av, 2:5; Mahari Stief, siman 68; Rav Moshe zt”l,
Igros Moshe, O.C. 5:24:10; Minchas Yitzchak, 2:50; Divrei
Yatziv, 173:4; Minchas Shlomo, 2:36:2:6; Even Yisroel, 8:36; Tzitz
Eliezer, 10:13, 13:32, 14:90, and Rav Shmuel Wosner zt”l, Shevet
HaLevi, 8:97:6). Some poskim even mentioned that the Mishnah
Berurah did not see the Bais Ephraim’s rebuttal of the Mishkenos
Yaakov’s list of Rishonim (Toldos Shmuel, 3:81:7, 3:86:8; Bais
Av, 2:5:2; Divrei Yatziv 2:173:1, and Even Yisroel, 8:36).
Moreover, we now know that the tally of Rishonim who uphold the
criterion is even greater than the Bais Ephraim knew of. Thus, there is
no doubt that we accept the criterion of shishim ribo l’chatchilah. Furthermore,
those Rishonim (as I mentioned previously regarding the Rambam) who
do not support the criterion of shishim ribo would rely on the fundament
of mefulash u’mechavanim, and that in many situations mechitzos
can be utilized to enclose the area.
Encounters:
The
Opinion of Rashi
According
to Rashi, a reshus harabim must have that same volume of traffic as found in
the midbar. Accordingly, any street that does not serve 600,000 individuals is
not considered a reshus harabim. Depending on how we compute this volume, this
opinion would allow an eruv in many, or perhaps all, modern day cities.
Rebuttal: The most
important opinion, the Shulchan Aruch’s, clearly maintains that the
criterion is conditional of the street and not the city (even Rav Moshe
acknowledged that this is the pashut p’shat in the Shulchan Aruch;
see Igros Moshe, O.C. 139:5). 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment