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 However, since it is well known that the Mishnah Berurah’s list has been superseded, there really is no reason to mention this disagreement anymore.]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).