The Alter Rebbe and Pirtzos

The following is a wonderful negation of a member of the Anti-Eruv Cabal. This person is typical of the Cabal; his goal is to vitiate eruvin at any cost. His arguments demonstrate that he objected first and then came up with a reason for doing so afterwards. As I have previously written, to argue that 16 amos negates mechitzos is am haraatzus, as even the Mishkenos Yaakov admits that it is not a shiur pirtzah. As set forth in this takedown, to argue that the Alter Rebbe maintained that 16 amos is a shiur pirtzah is am haraatzus as well. There is no doubt in my mind that the following essay cannot be refuted.

Click on images to enlarge:

The Boro Park Eruv Campaign - "Keep It Up"

People do not realize that the upkeep of an eruv cost money. It is many times taken for granted. Support you local eruv. 
 

A Lesson in Reading Comprehension

I was recently forwarded a message written by one who claims to know the sugya of eruvin. Among other shtusim, he mentioned the following:

“I recently saw a review of a pro eruv person on a certain sefer on Eruvin, and he asks on the Mechaber of that Sefer, why that Mechaber even brings down this Machlokes Horishonim about Shishim Ribui, if it is not even nogeah, since we Lehalocho dont Pasken like this Shita, as it has already been accepted in all the Achronim? Such a question is a basic reflection of a certain attitude to the entire discussion.”

He is clearly referring to my rebuttal of the Laws of an Eruv. As usual, this individual has a reading comprehension issue. This is what I wrote: 

The Sefer [The Laws of Eruv] – Page 54 (continued):

Additionally, there is a disagreement among Rishonim whether there is an additional requirement of shishim ribo, the presence of 600,000 individuals, similar to the encampment in the desert, which was populated by 600,000 individuals (the concept of shishim ribo will be explained below).

Rebuttal: It is fascinating that so many piskei halachah seforim today feel a need to mention that there is a machlokes Rishonim regarding shishim ribo.  Why do these authors deem it important to cite a machlokes Rishonim when, in fact, it is the Achronim whom we follow? If the authors feel a need to mention that this issue is mired in a disagreement, then they should have stated in the text that there is a machlokes Achronim regarding the criterion of shishim ribo, and then only mention that this disagreement is based on the Rishonim in the footnote. [Evidently, the reason why this disagreement is always mentioned is because of the fact that the Mishnah Berurah spends a considerable amount of time on this machlokes in the Bi’ur Halachah, 345:7. However, since it is well known that the Mishnah Berurah’s list has been superseded, there really is no reason to mention this disagreement anymore.]

To spell it out: The reason why these piskei halachah seforim write about the machlokes Rishonim is because they are trying to sow doubt for the heter of large city eruvin. When one mentions a machlokes Rishonim, it sounds like there is a real possibility that the criterion was not accepted l’halachah.  This is the crux of why these seforim mention the Rishonim.

Furthermore, I clearly write that there is a machlokas Achronim. Evidently, this message poster has a reading comprehension issue. As to his argument that my argument is a, “basic reflection of a certain attitude to the entire discussion,” well, mum shebuch al tomer lechavercha. One whose entire “attitude” is how can we find reason to negate an eruv is accusing one who is pro-eruv as having a, “certain attitude.” The hypocrisy is palpable.

Then, again, after reading what this self-proclaimed gaon in everything and what other members of his family have to say, I will add that they simply do not know what they are talking about. They demonstrate a lack of havana in the sugya, particularly with their argument regarding pirtzos tes-zayin. They demonstrate that they learnt much of the inyan through lekutim and not from source material. There is so much fodder to dismantle. I truly hope that others will do the job.

I reiterate: The criterion of shishim ribo is accepted, l’chatchila, according to the vast majority of poskim. Either we accept that the minhag was to uphold this fundament of a reshus harabbim or that we now know that it was accepted by all Rishonim of Tzarfas and Ashkenaz (we now know [through kisvei yados] that this includes the Rashbam and Rabbeinu Tam). It’s important to note that when the Ritva on Mesches Eruvin was first published in 1729, it influenced many of the poskim regarding shitas Rashi. The Ritva (59a) argued that most poskim (Rishonim) disagreed with shitas Rashi, including Rabbeinu Tam. Following this Ritva, some poskim were reluctant to rely on the criterion of shishim ribo [e.g. Bais Meir, Mishkenos Yaakov/Mishnah Berurah, and the Tzemach Tzedek].

To read into earlier Achronim that the criterion of mefulash u’mechavanim is conditional of a walled city is am haaratzus. To argue that the Bais Ephraim, or any other posek, maintains that pirtzos tes-zayin is me’d’Oraysa is am haarazus (even the Mishkenos Yaakov had to admit that this is incorrect; it is not a shiur pirtzah).

 

Part 6: THE TRUTH REGARDING RT. 9 AND AN ERUV IN LAKEWOOD

Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l and an eruv in Lakewood

While, according to Rav Moshe zt”l, we would not be able to rely on the criterion of mefulash u’mechavanim, there is no doubt that he would allow that we can rely on the fundament of shishim ribo.

 Let’s explore Rav Moshe’s shitos regarding the criterion of shishim ribo:

Like most poskim, Rav Moshe originally maintained (Igros Moshe, O.C. 1:109) that the criterion of shishim ribo was dependent on the street having shishim ribo traversing it. However, he later (ibid., 1:139:5) formulated his chiddush in which shishim ribo, when applied to a city, was not dependent on a street but over a twelve mil by twelve mil area [approximately 8.1 by 8.1 miles]. Rav Moshe added that the criterion of shishim ribo ovrim bo would require a sizable population living and commuting into the twelve mil by twelve mil area so that it could physically satisfy the condition of 600,000 people collectively traversing its streets. When these criteria are met, the area would be classified as a reshus harabbim and a tzuras hapesach would not be adequate; delasos at the pirtzos would be needed. However, at this time, Rav Moshe did not quantify how many people would be required to live in this twelve mil by twelve mil area.

In the first teshuvah quantifying how many people would be required to live in this twelve mil by twelve mil area, Rav Moshe stated (ibid., 4:87) that since in the past eruvin had been erected in cities with populations exceeding shishim ribo, one could not classify a city as a reshus harabbim solely on the basis of the existence of a population of 600,000. He then added that, although the actual number of inhabitants could possibly vary according to the city, Brooklyn would most likely require four to five times shishim ribo. In the final two teshuvos which followed regarding Brooklyn, we see that Rav Moshe codified his chiddush that the requirement is, "just about three million people," (ibid., 5:28:5) or, "at least five times shishim ribo," (ibid., 5:29) which could amount to even more than three million people. Consequently, in the Chicago eruv pamphlet (West Rogers Park Eruv, 1993 p. 23), it is stated that Rav Dovid Feinstein zt”l was in agreement that according to his father's shitah there must be a minimum of three million people in order for the city to be defined as a reshus harabbim.

[It’s important to note that Rav Moshe maintained the above regarding shishim ribo only as it applied to a city. However, with regard to a sratya (intercity road), Rav Moshe stated (ibid., 1:139:5, 4:87, 5:28:16) that the shishim ribo would need to traverse a particular section of the road on a daily basis to be classified as a reshus harabbim.]

As there is no 8.1 by 8.1 mile area in Lakewood encompassing a population even close to three million, no doubt Rav Moshe would allow an eruv consisting of tzuras hapesachim anywhere in Lakewood, even if it included the segment of Rt. 9 running through the city.

 

In Summation

1: The segment of Rt. 9 that runs through Lakewood, even if it would be classified as a sratya, would need to fulfil all criteria of a reshus harabbim.

2: Rt. 9 as it runs through Lakewood is not mefulash u’mechavanim m’shaar l’shaar and, therefore, is not classified as a reshus harabbim; tzuras hapesachim to close the breaches would be sufficient.

3: Additionally, Rt. 9 does not fulfill the condition of shishim ribo and, hence, would not be classified as a reshus harabbim; tzuras hapesachim to close the breaches would be sufficient.  

4: Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l would not consent to almost all eruvin in Lakewood, not just one that would encompass Rt. 9. Hence, the fact that there are many eruvin in Lakewood demonstrates that we do not follow his shitos in eruvin. Therefore, there is no specific reason according to Rav Aharon not to include Rt. 9 in an eruv.

5: Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l would allow an eruv of tzuras hapesachim anywhere in Lakewood, even if it included the segment of Rt. 9 running through the city, since Lakewood does not fulfil his understanding of the criterion of shishim ribo. 

Part 5: THE TRUTH REGARDING RT. 9 AND AN ERUV IN LAKEWOOD

Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l and an eruv in Lakewood

Rav Aharon zt”l argued that we do not accept the criterion of shishim ribo, therefore, he reasoned that the heter to establish eruvin in pre-war Europe was the criterion of mefulash u’mechavanim.  However, Rav Aharon subsequently argued that only in very specific cases can we rely on the criterion of mefulash u’mechavanim.[14]  

Following this, we can conclude that, if we were to follow Rav Aharon’s shitos in eruvin, no city eruv — past or present, large or small (as long as it contained a street that was sixteen amos wide) — would be allowed. Thus, it is simply irrational to compel the world to follow Rav Aharon in eruvin since the minhag clearly does not follow his shitos.

Hence, it is not Rt. 9 that is the issue according to Rav Aharon’s chiddushim in eruvin. Almost all streets in Lakewood would be classified as a reshus harabbim according to Rav Aharon’s shitos, and he would be opposed to encompassing almost all of them with an eruv. The fact that Lakewood is populated with many eruvin demonstrates that even in Lakewood the minhag was/is not to follow Rav Aharon’s chiddushim on the inyan.

---

[14] It is beyond the scope of this essay to explicate the possibility that Rav Aharon would admit that some of Lakewood’s roads would need to be mefulash u’mechavanim to be classified as a reshus harabbim. 

Part 4: THE TRUTH REGARDING RT. 9 AND AN ERUV IN LAKEWOOD

How the criterion of shishim ribo is calculated

The text of the Shulchan Aruch reads:

“What is a reshus harabbim? Marketplaces that are sixteen amos wide … and there are those who say [vyeish oimrim] that if they [the marketplaces] do not have 600,000 people traversing it daily [shishim ribo (sixty myriads) ovrim bo b’chol yom], they are not a reshus harabbim.”

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. 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.”[9] [See more about this issue when we discuss Rav Moshe Feinstein’s shitos in eruvin.]

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, their 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 way the criterion of shishim ribo is calculated.[10]

Additionally, it is apparent from the Gedolie Haposkim that shishim ribo would need to traverse each section of the road to fulfil this criterion. The Rishonim and Achronim maintain that we derive the fundament of shishim ribo specifically from the number of Yidden who learnt by Moshe Rabeinu in machnah Levia.[11] Consequently, in order to fulfil the criterion of shishim ribo, we would require that 600,000 people gather over one area comparable to the way Yidden congregated in one place by Moshe Rabeinu.

In fact, many Achronim clearly maintain[12] that the criterion is only fulfilled if shishim ribo traverse through one segment of the road, and we do not included the entire length of the road in the tally.[13]

Consequently, if shishim ribo does not traverse the segment of the sratya that runs through the city, it is not classified as a reshus harabbim.  

The section of Rt. 9 that runs through Lakewood is clearly not traversed by shishim ribo; hence, it is not classified as a reshus harabbim. 

---

[9] 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 that  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, Shevet HaLevi, 6:41; Rav Yechezkel Roth zt”l, Emek HaTeshuvah 5:19, and see also the shaila to the Chacham Tzvi in siman 37.

[10] Besides for 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.

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).       

Finally, even according to this faulty argument, it is mindless to claim that the mere presence of 600,000 people in the vicinity of the street would classify it as servicing shishim ribo. If people from the vicinity rarely utilize the street, why should they ever be included in the tally?

[11] Rabeinu Yonason, Shevuos, Mishna 1; Rivevan, Shabbos 2a; Pnei Yehoshua, Shabbos 5b; Bais Meir, Shabbos 5b; Bais Yaakov, Eruvin 6a; Bais Ephraim, the end of siman 26; and the Mishkenos Yaakov, siman 121 p. 125.

[12] Divrei Malkiel, 4:11; Bais Av, 2:5:2:3; and see also: Bais Ephraim, siman 26, p. 47a; Mishkenos Yaakov, siman 120 p. 107, and Yeshuos Malko, siman 27.

[13] It should be noted that Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l maintained (Igros Moshe, O.C. 1:139:5, 4:87, 5:28:16), with regard to a sratya outside of the city limits, that the shishim ribo would need to traverse a particular section of the road on a daily basis to be classified as a reshus harabbim. See more about Rav Moshe’s shitos in eruvin a little further on. 

Part 3: THE TRUTH REGARDING RT. 9 AND AN ERUV IN LAKEWOOD

How do we define the criterion of mefulash u’mechavanim

The text of the Shulchan Aruch reads:

“What is a reshus harabbim? Marketplaces that … are not walled, and even if they are walled but they [the marketplaces] are open from gateway to gateway [mefulash m’shaar l’shaar], they would then be classified as a reshus harabbim ….”

The Magen Avraham (345:6; based on the Bais Yoseph) and most poskim[6]  assert that mefulash m’shaar l’shaar infers mefulash u’mechavanim m’shaar l’shaar, meaning the marketplace is aligned from gateway to gateway.

From a simple reading of the Shulchan Aruch, it is apparent that the criterion of mefulash m’shaar l’shaar is conditional of a walled marketplace and not a walled city. Consequently, the gateway that the Shulchan Aruch is referring to is the sha’ar of the marketplace and not the sha’ar of city walls.

Hence, the overwhelming majority of poskim uphold that the criterion of mefulash m’shaar l’shaar as it pertains to city roads is not conditional of a city encompassed by walls.  

The following are some of the poskim who maintain that mefulash u’mechavanim m’shaar l’shaar is not conditional of a city encompassed by walls:

The Mishnah Berurah (364:8), when describing the cities of his times, stated that there were streets that were sixteen amos wide and mefulash m’shaar l’shaar. Therefore, a Baal Nefesh should be stringent since to erect an eruv in these cities, they would need to rely on the fact that the street did not have shishim ribo traversing it. As we know that most towns in his times were not walled, we can deduce that he accepted the criterion of mefulash as not being dependent on a walled city.

The Divrei Malkiel (4:3) states that to find a street in a large city which is mefulash, open from one end of the city to the other, is unheard of, and that is why the minhag is to erect eruvin even in the largest of cities. He wrote this teshuvah regarding Odessa, a city that was not walled.

Rav Shlomo Dovid Kahane zt”l (Divrei Menachem, O.C. vol. 2, pp. 42-43), one of the main rabbanim of Warsaw before World War II, posited that the heter to erect an eruv in a large city such as Warsaw, which was not walled from the year 1877 (Encyklopedia Warszawy, 1994 p. 187), was universally accepted as the streets were not mefulashim u’mechuvanim m’shaar l’shaar. More so, he claimed, a small city would have a greater issue establishing an eruv since its streets would be mefulash. In a small city, there is usually one main street running straight through the center of the town as opposed to a large city where the streets are generally not straight from city gate to city gate. [See footnote for an additional list of poskim.[7]]

Hence, even in a city not encompassed by walls, just like all city roads, the segment of the sratya which runs through the city would need to fulfil the criterion of mefulash u’mechavanim m’shaar l’shaar to be classified as a reshus harabbim [unlike an intercity road, outside of the city limits].

The section of Rt. 9 that runs through Lakewood is clearly not precisely aligned[8] from end to end; hence, it is not classified as a reshus harabbim.

---

[6] Besides for the Magen Avraham the list includes: Olas Shabbos, 345:6; Tosfos Shabbos, 345:13; Elya Rabbah, 345:13; Prei Megadim, Aishel Avraham, 345:6; Shulchan Aruch Harav, 345:11; Mishnah Berurah, 345:20, and Aruch Hashulchan, 345:15.

[7] The following is a list of some additional poskim who maintain that mefulash u’mechavanim m’shaar  l’shaar, is not conditional of a city encompassed by walls: Mayim Rabim, siman 38, p. 39b; in regards to sratyas and mavo’os hamefulashim; Pri Megadim, Aishel Avraham, 364:2, Mishbetzes Zahav, 363:18; Bais Meir, siman 363:29; Bais Ephraim, siman 26 44b; in regards to sratyas and mavo’os hamefulashim; Tzemach Tzedek, Shabbos 6a; in regards to sratyas and mavo’os hamefulashim; Mahari Asad, siman 54; Shoel U'Maishiv, 1:2:87; U'Bacharta B'Chaim, siman 117, and Maharsham, 3:188.

Furthermore, we can add that the Magen Avraham (345:6; based on the Bais Yoseph) and most poskim (Olas Shabbos, Tosfos Shabbos, Elya Rabbah, Prei Megadim, Shulchan Aruch Harav, Mishnah Berurah, and Aruch Hashulchan) assert that mefulash m’shaar l’shaar infers mefulash u’mechavanim m’shaar l’shaar, meaning runs straight from gateway to gateway. Therefore, since all Rishonim (and Achronim) maintain that mefulash is a fundament of a reshus harabbim even in a city that is not walled (e.g. Rashi, Eruvin, 59a; Ravyah, Eruvin, siman 379; Rokeach, siman 175; Rid, Piskei, Sukkah 43a, and the majority of Rishonim who mention the criterion of mefulash without the qualifier of city walls), and the Gedolie Haposkim uphold that mefulash infers mechavanim, hence, all city streets would need to be mefulash u’mechavanim m’shaar l’shaar to be classified as a reshus harabbim, irrespective if the city is walled or not.

[8] No one of stature argues that the criterion of mefulash u’mechavanim m’shaar l’shaar does not imply precisely aligned from end to end. The Miri clearly states (Eruvin 6a) that the fundament of mefulash u’mechavanim is understood as precisely aligned from end to end. There is no other definition of mechavanim m’shaar l’shaar but precisely straight from end to end. [In fact, even those few poskim who maintain that the criterion of mechavanim m’shaar l’shaar is conditional of a walled city never argue that mechavanim does not imply precisely aligned from end to end.]    

Part 2: THE TRUTH REGARDING RT. 9 AND AN ERUV IN LAKEWOOD

What classifies a road as a sratya

The Rishonim, when discussing the classification of a sratya as a reshus harabbim, clearly maintain that it is an intercity road, which is not included in the city.[3] Therefore, most roads running through a city are clearly not categorized as sratyas. 

However, the question arises regarding the classification of the segment of a sratya that continues through the town itself. Do we consider this section as a continuation of the intercity road, and hence, halachically, it would be comparable to a sratya that runs out of the city limits [and for it to be classified as a reshus harrabim, the segment would not need to fulfil all of its criteria]? Or, is it that since this segment is part of the city proper, its halachic classification would be equivalent to the cities mavo’os [and it would need to fulfil all criteria of a reshus harabbim to be labeled as such]?

 

Does the segment of a sratya that continues through the town itself need to fulfil all criterion of a reshus harabbim

The above issue can be resolved by perusing Rashi. In fact, regarding Yerushalayim and Mechuza, Rashi (Eruvin, 6b) upholds that any road included in these cities, even the central road that connects the intercity roads/sratya, would need to satisfy all the criteria of a reshus harabbim. Hence, the Ramban [see introduction] and the few Achronim who follow him would no doubt allow that even according to Rashi the section of a sratya running through the city would need to fulfil all criterion of a reshus harabbim.

Likewise, those Achronim , (the Bais Ephraim and Avnei Nezer), who refer to a sratya as being included in a city maintain that it would need to satisfy all criteria of a reshus harabbim.      

Hence, it is irrelevant how we classify the segment of the intercity road running through the city as it would, according to the Rishonim and Achronim, need to fulfill all criterion of a reshus harabbim. 

Moreover, the overwhelming majority of Rishonim[4] and Achronim disagree with the Ramban and maintain that there is no difference between roads inside the city and those that are outside of the city. Both would need to fulfill the criterion of shishim ribo to be classified as a reshus harabbim.

The Rama (357:3) maintains that a sratya even outside of a city requires shishim ribo to be classified as a reshus harabbim. We, Benei Ashkenaz, follow the Rama. The overwhelming majority of poskim uphold the Rama’s opinion, so there is no doubt that we rule leniently in this matter. Consequently, there is no doubt that any part of a road that could possibly be classified as a sratya would need to fulfil at least the criterion of shishim ribo to be categorized as a reshus harabbim.  

 However, as demonstrated above from Rashi, any road running through a town, even if we would label it a srtaya, would need to fulfil all criteria of a reshus harabbim including mefulash u’mechavanim[5] and shishim ribo.

---

[3] Rashi, Shabbos 6a;  Rabbeinu Yonason MeLunel, 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, Toldot Adom V’Chavah 12:4; Ran, Shabbos, Rif pagination, daf 2a; Shitas Hamyuchos LaRan, Shabbos 6a; Ohel Moed, Shar HaSabbos 13:2; Rivash, siman 405, and Nimukei Yosef, Eruvin, Rif pagination, daf 6a.

[4] 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 who state that there is no reshus harabbim today at all, which implies that even sratyas would not be classified as such.

[5] Unlike the criterion of shishim ribo, the criterion of mefulash u’mechavanim m’shaar l’shaar has no bearing outside of the city; hence, I am only referring to the segment inside of the city proper.   

Part 1: THE TRUTH REGARDING RT. 9 AND AN ERUV IN LAKEWOOD

 

Introduction

The main argument in opposition to encompassing Rt. 9 with an eruv in Lakewood is predicated on classifying it as a sratya or intercity road. Once it is classified as a sratya, the Ramban maintains that even Rashi would deem a sratya as a reshus harabbim without fulfilling the criterion of shishim ribo/sixty myriads. Furthermore, they claim, even if we do require that a sratya fulfil the fundament of shishim ribo, no doubt the criterion is satisfied if the road just services 600,000 people. We do not require that shishim ribo actually traverse the road itself. Additionally, if Rt. 9 is classified as a sratya, they argue, we do not require that it fulfill the fundament of mefulash u’mechavanim m’shaar l’shaar/open from gateway to gateway to be classified as a reshus harabbim.[1] An additional argument bandied around regarding Rt. 9 is that Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l was opposed to including the highway in an eruv in Lakewood. As we shall see, dear friends, these arguments are without merit.  

In order to understand why these arguments are incorrect, we need to explore the halachos of reshus harabbim. 

 

What is a reshus harabbim

The Gemara (Shabbos, 6a) cites a Tosefta, which states that there are three areas [capable of being classified as] a reshus harabbim: sratya [an intercity road], platya [marketplace], and mavo’os hamefulashim [alleyways that open into the sratyas and platyas]. Our roads are usually classified as mavo’os hamefulashim, since our marketplaces are typically indoors [which are essentially a reshus hayachid], and our intercity roads are highways, which are generally not incorporated into our towns.

The Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 345:7) gives four defining conditions of what constitutes a reshus harabbim: rechovos or shevakim[2] [marketplaces/platyas] that are at least sixteen amos wide, that are not roofed [mikorim], that are open and aligned from gateway to gateway [mefulash m’shaar l’shaar], and have 600,000 people traversing them daily [shishim ribo (sixty myriads) ovrim bo b’chol yom].

According to the overwhelming majority of poskim, since all four criteria have to be realized for the area to be classified as a reshus harabbim, if even one criterion is not met, an eruv of tzuras hapesachim can be erected.

As most public roads are more than sixteen amos wide and not roofed, most citywide eruvin would be predicated on two criteria: mefulash u’mechavanim and shishim ribo.

While most roads in Lakewood are clearly classified as mavo’os hamefulashim, some argue that Rt. 9 should be categorized as a sratya, and hence, it would not need to fulfil all criteria of a reshus harabbim. In order to demonstrate the fallacy of this argument, we need to define what classifies a road as a sratya and what its halachic implications are.

---

[1] According to all, a sratya outside of the city proper, would halachically not need to fulfill the criterion of mefulash u’mechavanim m’shaar l’shaar. 

[2] The Shulchan Aruch in 345:7 uses the words rechovos and shevakim, which, according to most poskim, are just alternative labels for marketplaces (see Metzudos Tzion, Shir Hashirim 3:2; Mayim Rabim, siman 38, and Bais Ephraim, siman 26 p. 44b). The Magen Avraham indicates on the word rechovos (345:5) that sratyas are included in these halachos set forth by the Shulchan Aruch. In 345:8-9 the Shulchan Aruch deals with mavo’os hamefulashim.