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.
No comments:
Post a Comment