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.]