PART 1: THE TRUTH REGARDING THE STAMFORD HILL ERUV

 

Introduction

Well, it happened: Kedassia, after being dragged kicking and screaming to support an eruv for the Tottenham neighborhood, allowed the yungerleit to take over the show. These yungerleit in kovetz Peolim LaTorah conjured up an excuse why only the Tottenham Eruv would be allowed, but chas v’shalom to expand it any further. This is a real tragedy. You see, dear readers, you should not have been naïve, thinking that once you establish an eruv for part of a neighborhood Kedassia would allow you to expand the eruv. To those who learnt the inyan, the article in Peolim LaTorah screams let us collect all chumros in eruvin in order to obstruct and prohibit the expansion of as many eruvin as possible.^[1]

The fact that the cabal dives right into the issue of mechitzos without clarifying why any of these areas in London would be classified initially as a reshus harabbim, demonstrates their bias. Why didn’t the yungerleit from the get go clarify how these areas fulfil the criteria of reshus harabbim, such as mefulash u’mechavanim m’shaar l’shaar and shishim ribo? The answer is that they are afraid to lay out their feeble arguments in their entirety. They purposefully picked the most complex part of hilchos eruvin, mechitzos, where they can easily distort the inyan, and the average person could not mount a rebuttal.  

In order to illuminate the paucity of the arguments opposing a larger eruv, let us do so in a point counterpoint argument style: 

As an hakdamah let us start with the text of the Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 345:7):

There are four defining conditions of what constitutes a reshus harabbim: rechovos or shevakim^[2] [marketplaces/platyas] that are at least sixteen amos wide, that is not roofed [mikorim], that is open and aligned from gateway to gateway [mefulash m’shaar l’shaar], and has 600,000 people traversing it daily [shishim ribo (sixty myriads) ovrim bo b’chol yom].

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.

Our argument: The entire area is not classified as a reshus harabbim, because, it does not fulfil the criterion of shishim ribo.

Their argument: As per the Mishnah Berurah’s argument that most Rishonim do not uphold the criterion of shishim ribo l’chatchilah, we do not want to rely on this criterion.

Our argument: The Bais Ephraim does uphold shishim ribo, l’chatchilah, and so do the overwhelming majority of poskim. The Mishnah Berurah did not see the Bais Ephraim’s list of Rishonim.^[3] In fact, we can add to the Bais Ephraim’s tally of Rishonim, since we know today of many more Rishonim who accepted the criterion of shishim ribo [more than seventy accept the criterion and thirteen clearly do not^[4]]. Hence, either we accept the fundament because this is the minhag or because the overwhelming majority of Rishonim [and all of those from Tzorfas and Ashkenaz, and at least four Gaonim], and the Rema uphold the criterion l’chatchilah.^[5]

Their argument: Alright, but the criterion is conditional of a city not the street. London’s population is much greater than shishim ribo, hence it would be classified as a reshus harabbim.

Our argument: No posek of stature maintains that the criterion is conditional of a city.^[6]

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.”^[7]

Even Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l admitted that the simple understanding of the Shulchan Aruch is that the criterion of shishim ribo is conditional of a street and on a daily basis  as he posits that the Shulchan Aruch is referring to a sratya ⎯ and to say otherwise is a chiddush (Igros Moshe, O.C. 1:139:5). Rav Moshe added (ibid., 4:87) that since, historically, 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.

[Rav Moshe, maintained that the criterion of shishim ribo when applied to a city required a population of three million, over a twelve mil by twelve mil area (approximately 13 by 13 km). However, just as he argued in Detroit, Michigan, he would not include the population of the city of London proper in the tally of a Stamford Hill Eruv. Moreover, there is no doubt that in an area of 13 by 13 km the population of London it is much less than three million (it is somewhere between 1.5-2 million).] 

Their argument: Fine but, the criterion of shishim ribo is not conditional on people actually traversing the road, if the road would just service shishim ribo it would be sufficient.   

Our argument: This is simply incorrect. The fact that the Shulchan Aruch uses the term shishim ribo ovrim bo, 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, whose 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 method we use to calculate the criterion of shishim ribo.^[8]

Their argument: But, shouldn’t we be machmir according to even one posek?

Our argument: So, in conclusion of our debate regarding your opposition to our reliance on the criterion of shishim ribo, you are arguing that we need to follow shitos yachidos. We do not need to agree with your chumros. However, even if we are machmir, there are other criteria of a reshus harabbim that these areas in London do not fulfil, such as mefulash u’mechavanim m’shaar l’shaar. 

---

^[1] Their main argument regarding the Bais Ephraim and pasei bira’os is actually not their own, they are appropriating from other eino modeh beruvin without giving credit; see more about this issue in note 20. 

^[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 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.  

[3] The poskim have already called attention to the fact that the Mishnah Berurah had obviously not seen the Bais Ephraim (Toldos Shmuel, 3:81:7, 3:86:8; Bais Av, 2:5:2; Divrei Yatziv, 2:173:1, and Even Yisroel, 8:36). We can add that this is evident from the Mishnah Berurah himself since he states that he did not possess the sefer Bais Ephraim (Bi’ur Halachah, 208:9, s.v. Eino M’Vorech). The poskim postulate that had the Mishnah Berurah seen the Bais Ephraim he would have paskened like him that shishim ribo is an accepted fundament of a reshus harabbim, and he would have agreed that even a Baal Nefesh could be lenient and rely on the fact that the streets are lacking shishim ribo.

^[4] This is a preliminary list; I will eventually publish a complete list with over seventy Geonim and Rishonim who uphold the criterion and thirteen who do not.

Gaonim - 1) Bahag, Berlin edition, p. 131. 2) Rav Amram Gaon, Halachos Pesukos Min HaGaonim, siman 70. 3) Sar Shalom Gaon, Chemdah Genuzah, siman 70 and Sharei Teshuvah, siman 209 (see also Sefer Ha’itim, ois 92). 4) The Gaon mentioned in the Sefer Ha’itim, ois 206.

Rishonim - 5) Rashi, Eruvin 6a, 6b, 26a, 59a, 47a. 6) Baalei HaTosfos, Eruvin 6a, 26a, 59a, and Shabbos 6b, 64b. 7) Sefer Ha’itim, ois 92, 206, 209. 8) Rabeinu Shmuel, Or Zarua, ois 164. 9) Machzor Vitri, Perek B'mah Isha, ois 31, 32. 10) Ra’avan, Shabbos 349. 11) HaEshkol, Hilchos Tzitzis ois 31. 12) Ha’itur, Hilchos Tzitzis, Shaar 3 Shaar Adom Chelek 1. 13) Ravyah, Hilchos Eruvin 379, 391. 14) HaManhig, Hilchos Shabbos HaTzarichos ois 138. 15) Rokeach, Hilchos Shabbos 175. 16) Sefer HaNer, Eruvin 6a, 59a. 17) Sefer HaTrumah, ois 214, 239. 18) Or Zarua, Hilchos Shabbos siman 16, Eruvin 129. 19) Rid, Piskei Eruvin 6a, 59a, Tosfos Pesachim 69a and Teshuvos, siman 107. 20) MaHrach Or Zarua, Piskei Eruvin Perek 2 ois 57. 21) Rivevan, Eruvin 6b, 59a. 22) Semag, Hilchos Shabbos p. 17. 23) Maharam MeRotenberg, siman 31, Eruvin ois 9, 10. 24) RaaH, Ran (Hamyuchos), Shabbos 6b. 25) Riaz, Eruvin Perek 1:5, 5:5. 26) Talmid HaRashba, Chiddushei Eruvin, 2a, 59b. 27) Mordechai, Shabbos 64b, 100a. 28) Smak, Mitzvos Hatluyos B’Shabbos p. 296, 299. 29) Hagahos Maimonios, Eruvin Perek 5:2, 5:4.  30) Rosh, Beitzah 24a, Eruvin 6a (see also Kitzur Piskei HaRosh, Perek 1:8). 31) Tur, O.C. 345, 364, 392. 32) Ramak, Piskei (Rabeinu Mendel Kloizner) Shabbos 6a, Hagahos Ashri, Eruvin 6b, 20b. 33) Rabeinu Yerucham, Toldos Adom V’Chavah 12:4, 12:17. 34) Orchos Chaim, Hilchos Shabbos ois 284. 35) HaAgudah, Perek 5:56. 36) Tsedah LaDerech, Perek 42, 46. 37) Sefer HaNeyar, Hilchos Eruvin p. 51. 38) Hagahos Ashri, Eruvin 6b, 20b. 39) Nimukei Yosef, Hilchos Tzitzis. 40) HaAgur, siman 537.

The following is a list of Rishonim who oppose the criterion of shishim ribo:

1) Rambam, Hilchos Shabbos 14:1. 2) Hashlama, Eruvin 6a. 3) Ramban, Shabbos, 57a, and Eruvin 59a. 4) Sefer HaMeoros, Eruvin 6a. 5) Rashba, Teshuvos HaRashba siman 722. 6) Hagahos Mordechai, Shabbos Perek 6. 7) Ritva, 59a. 8) Magid Mishnah, Shabbos 14:1. 9) Meiri, Bais HaBechirah Shabbos 57a, and Eruvin 6b, and Chidushim Eruvin 6b. 10) Ran, Shabbos Perek 6, Chidushim Eruvin 6a. 11) Rivash, siman 405. [Rabeinu Tam, Rashbam, and Yereim on the Mishkenos Yaakov’s/Mishnah Berurah’s list of those opposing the criterion are debatable and today can be listed with those who maintain that shishim ribo is a criterion of a reshus harabbim (at least regarding Rabeinu Tam and the Rashbam).]

^[5] While the Bais Meir questions (as cited in the Biur Halachah, 345:7) what the Rema’s opinion is, the Bais Ephraim (and even the Mishkenos Yaakov) and all the other poskim cite additional proof that the Rema does uphold the criterion of shishim ribo.  

^[6] Some argue that from the Achiezer it is evident that he maintains that the criterion of shishim ribo is conditional of a city. However, they are simply incorrect.      

This is what the Achiezer writes: Paris is definitely a reshus ha’rabbim me’d’Oraysa since it contains shishim ribo traversing therein even though not every thoroughfare includes shishim ribo, just as Yerushalayim and Mechuzah did not have shishim ribo traversing all of their roads. A close reading reveals that the Achiezer necessitates at least some thoroughfares that would need to fulfil the requirement of shishim ribo traversing it, and only then would the connecting roads of the entire city be classified as a reshus harabbim. Therefore, it is incorrect to assert that the Achiezer’s position regarding shishim ribo is conditional of a city and not a road since at least some thoroughfares would be required to have shishim ribo traversing it.

^[7] 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, 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 (in Shevet HaLevi, 6:41); Rav Yechezkel Roth zt”l (in Emek HaTeshuvah 5:19), and see also the shaila to the Chacham Tzvi in siman 37.

^[8] 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.     

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?