B"H

Maran wrote in his Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayim, section # 364, item # 2, that a public domain of itself is not permissible to carry objects through it on the Sabbath day except where there are doors, and even so, such doors must be locked at night. For example, such as when a man owns two adjacent houses and a public thoroughfare runs between them. In order for him to be permitted to carry objects from one house to the other, he must first attach doors at both ends of the two houses that run parallel along the street, making the road in between them like unto a private courtyard.[1] Maran requires here that such doors be shut and locked at night. He goes on to say, however, that there is another exponent of our laws (Maimonides) who
says that although the doors are not locked at night, but are only capable of being locked, it suffices to render the public domain permissible for carrying objects through it on the Sabbath (see: Maimonides, Mishne Torah, Hilchos Shabbos 17:10). A general rule with Maran states that where he brings down a first anonymous teaching, followed by another opinion under, "there are those who say, etc.," the halachic ruling to follow is always the first
anonymous teaching.

In Yemen, the practice was somewhat different, viz., to rely strictly upon the ruling of Rambam (Maimonides) in this regard. When, for example, a man owned two adjacent houses and a public thoroughfare ran between them, it was sufficient in rendering the area in between them permissible by attaching doors at both ends of the two houses that ran parallel along the street, even though those doors were not locked at night. Likewise, the walled cities of Yemen , although they were equipped with gates that were capable of being shut and locked, were rarely ever locked at night. (see: footnote # 1 for a discussion on this subject). Still, the people and elders of the city relied upon Maimonides and viewed their city as one large private domain, permitting the carrying of objects from one place to another place
within the city on the Sabbath day.[2]

* * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOOTNOTES:

[1] cf. Eruvin 6a-b, where a discussion is raised about whether it is sufficient to attach either stakes or horizontal rafters at both ends of two houses that run parallel along a street in order to render the public thoroughfare in between permissible, or whether he would have to attach doors to make the space in between them permissible. A statement once made by Rabbi Yochanan is then brought down to shed light on the matter. He said: "The city of Jerusalem , had it not been for her gates which are locked at night, a man would become
culpable over her as he would over a public domain [when he simply carried objects from one place to another place within the city]." RASHI, following his own line of thought, explains here that Jerusalem had open-ended highways running directly from one end of the city to the next, and that these roads were traversed by 600,000 persons each day, which reasons gave it its status of being a public domain. The great Spanish Rabbis rejected RASHI's claim that a public domain required that there be 600,000 passerby's each day. They would have, no doubt, explained differently what gave Jerusalem its status of being a public domain. Here, the insinuation is to the city's roads within the city and which lead unto the city's gates (which, in turn, open into the public thoroughfares outside the city). The thoroughfares, in this case, are compared to when one kind finds its own kind and thereby becomes aroused; making two equal elements in the mixture join to become working agents.
מצא מין את מינו וניעור
The discussion in the Gemara (ibid.) moves from asking about how to render a public thoroughfare permissible, at first thought, to asking about how to render an open alleyway (to which there are entrances to courtyards on either side) permissible when it opens at both ends into a public thoroughfare. It concludes there with several cases where the alleyways in certain cities of Babylonia, which same alleyways were opened into public thoroughfares, were made with doors that were never shut nor locked at night, but only capable of being locked. These doors were sufficient to break-off continuity, as it were, in the public domain (i.e. when the public roads met other roads traversed by the public, and join to become one single entity).
[2] So did I hear from Rabbi Yoseph Qafih, of blessed memory.

quote:

A general rule with Maran states that where he brings down a first anonymous teaching, followed by another opinion under, "there are those who say, etc.," the halachic ruling to follow is always the first
anonymous teaching.

This apparently is not a universally held opinion. It is held by, among others, Rav Ovadiah Yosef (brought in the Yalkut Yosef). However, the Ben Ish Chai and the Kaf HaChayim, among others, hold "Stam V'Yesh, Halacha K'Yesh" except in cases of Hefsed M'Rubeh [substantial loss].

I find it interesting that Sefardi Poskim cannot agree on such a basic point.

B"H

Rebbe Yisroel,

The general rule (where he brings down a first anonymous teaching, followed by another opinion under, "there are those who say, etc.," the halachic ruling to follow is always the first anonymous teaching) was apparently accepted by the Mishna Berura (The Rebbe "Chefetz Chaim"). See: Mishna Berura,Orah Hayim, section # 364, item # 2, small item # 8.

This is the first that I've heard that the matter is disputed.

Have a good Shabbos!

David

quote:

Originally posted by David Ben-Abraham:
B"H

Rebbe Yisroel,

The general rule (where he brings down a first anonymous teaching, followed by another opinion under, "there are those who say, etc.," the halachic ruling to follow is always the first anonymous teaching) was apparently accepted by the Mishna Berura (The Rebbe "Chefetz Chaim"). See: Mishna Berura,Orah Hayim, section # 364, item # 2, small item # 8.

Maybe, but he was an Ashkenazi!

Shabbat Shalom.

B"H

Because of the profound words of this great teacher and Rabbi, Chefetz Chaim, I felt an urgent need to translate this section of his writings for the sake of our members on the Global Yeshiva. The Hebrew is followed by an English translation.


(משנה ברורה, סי' שס"ד, סעיף ב', סעיק קטן ח')

"ויש אומרים וכו'. מדהעתיק המחבר דעה ראשונה בסתמא ודעה השניה בשם יש אומרים, משמע דדעתו כדעה הראשונה. והנה מדברי השולחן ערוך מוכח דאין מערבין רשות הרבים כי אם בדלתות. ובעירות שלנו, שמנהג העולם לתקן על ידי צורת הפתח אף שרחובותיה רחבין הרבה ומפולשין משער לשער, וגם פעמים רבות הולך דרך המלך תוך העיר, ומדינא הוי רשות הרבים גמור על ידי זה, וכדלעיל בסי' שמ"ה, ועל כרחך דסומכין על היש אומרים שבסימן שמ"ה דרשות הרבים לא הוי אלא אם כן ששים רבוא בוקעין בו, וזה אין מצוי (פרי מגדים). אמנם באמת הרבה ראשונים חולקין על היש אומרים הנ"ל, כמו שכתבנו שם בסי' שמ"ה, ועל כן אף דאין למחות לאחרים הנוהגים להקל על ידי צורת הפתח, שכן נהגו מעולם על פי דעת הפוסקים המקילין בזה, מכל מקום כל בעל נפש יחמיר לעצמו שלא לטלטל על ידי צורת הפתח לבד."

"[QUOTE]: 'And there are those who say, etc.' Seeing that the author has copied down the first opinion anonymously, and the second opinion under the name of 'there are those who say,' etc., it stands to reason that his own opinion inclines to that first opinion. And, lo, from the words of the Shulhan Arukh it is proven that they do not make an eiruv in the public domain except by doors. But in our own cities, where the custom of the world is to fix [an eiruv] by way of setting up what appears to be an entranceway,[1] even though its roads are very wide and open-ended, as they run from one entranceway to the next, not to mention that frequently the king's highway runs in the very midst of the city, from a pure halachic standpoint [the city] has become an indisputable public domain because of this. (And just as it is stated further on, supra. section # 345). Wherefore, having no other choice, it is for this very reason that they rely upon [the words there], 'there are those who say,' in section # 345, [where someone had said] there is no public domain except where there are 600,000 persons traversing in it [daily], and this is hardly common (Peri Megadim). But really, in truth, many of the early exponents of our laws are in disagreement with the [so-called], 'there are those who say,' mentioned above, just as we have written there in section # 345. Therefore, even though we are not to scold others who act leniently by way of their setting up what appears to be an entranceway [in the public domain],[2] seeing that they have always done so in accordance with the opinion of those exponents of our laws who are lenient in this regard, at any rate, every man of character ought to be strict with himself, and not to carry forth objects [in the public domain] by the reliance on what appears to be only an
entranceway."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

FOOTNOTES:


------------------------------------------------

[1] The Talmud says that it is possible to set up what appears to be an entranceway by propping up two cane reeds, vertically, and laying one cane reed across them, horizontally.
[2] That is, without doors or gates that close.

quote:

[1] The Talmud says that it is possible to set up what appears to be an entranceway by propping up two cane reeds, vertically, and laying one cane reed across them, horizontally.

An Artscroll footnote near daf gimel of Bava Basra (regarding the thinkness of a dividing wall) refers to a section in Eruvin apparently describing the size of bricks used for a similar purpose as these cane reeds.

I have not yet read there what it actually says.

In case the opinion there in Eruvin is that it only works for a wall of a minimum thickness of a brick, perhaps there is something to reconcile with this footnote that a reed would work.

Rob,

Over there is referring to a Korah, the beam that is put horizontally over the entrance of an alleyway in order to carry in it. It needs to be a Tefach wide so that you may put an Oreach (a 1 and a half Tefach brick) on it. The extra quarter of Tefach that sticks out from both sides would be where you would put the cement.

What R' Dovid is referring to is a Tzuras Hapesach, which consist, besides a horizontal component like the Korah, but also two posts. That's why it's a different contraption with different Shiurim.

David Ben Abraham,
Based on the Rambam we can't rely on shishim ribo for an eruv.
There are other shitot used to allw eruvim today. although I believe they are under machloket as well
Based on what do the teimain accept the eruvim made in cities today?

B"H

Baruch,

If I understand your question correctly, the Yemenites have always relied upon Rambam, who does not require that there be 600,000 persons traversing a place for it to be called "Rashus Horabim."This is the opinion of the vast majority of Sephardic poskim: Maran, Ravad, Rav Yitzhaq al-Fasi, Haran, etc. This means, practically speaking, that we do find the public domain in almost every place, where cars and pedestrians travel, but on the condition that the road or pavement is at least 16 cubits broad.

The "eiruv" which is made in the cities today, by encircling the city with a cord or rope, and setting up "Tzuras Hapesach" (צורת הפתח), or what merely appears to be an entranceway, is not relied upon by most Yemenites and Jews of Sephardic origin. This is because for an "eiruv" to be effective, there must be a real fence, or wall, or a continuity of buildings surrounding the city (and where the built-up spaces are greater than the empty spaces in between each building). This simply does not exist.

David

David Ben-Abraham.

I agree with everything you said. It doesn't seem like according to the Rambam and most Spharadi poskim we can rely on the eruv. Even Ashkenazi poskim like the Mishna Brurah argued against shishim ribo.
But most Yemanites in Israel do hold by the eruv. It is possible that like on other issues they just adopted the common practice.
But I thaught I heard from someone that they rely on other criteria like mechitzot.

Didn't Rav Kapach allow allow the eruv based on his interpretation of the Rambam?
Would the Brooklyn Eruv which is based on mechitzot be accepted according to the Rambam?

I was told that the standard for when bushes can be used to form part of a natural eruv that the standard is that they have to be dense enough that a cat cannot get through.

Am I remembering this accurately?

Would any cat-owners agree that it is possible for there to be such a bush?

quote:

Originally posted by Baruch:
David Ben-Abraham.

IDidn't Rav Kapach allow allow the eruv based on his interpretation of the Rambam?
Would the Brooklyn Eruv which is based on mechitzot be accepted according to the Rambam?

Baruch,

I really don't know the answer to your questions. I'll need more time to research this. Perhaps Rebbe Chaim knows about the Brooklyn "eiruv" and could answer your question.

David

I am interested in understanding the machloket in the Brooklyn eruv to understand the concepts. I am also curious how it applies to cities in Israel. I don't live in Brooklyn so Brooklyn isn't specifically relavent to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Yisroel Phillips:
However, the Ben Ish Chai and the Kaf HaChayim, among others, hold "Stam V'Yesh, Halacha K'Yesh" except in cases of Hefsed M'Rubeh [substantial loss].

I find it interesting that Sefardi Poskim cannot agree on such a basic point.

Actually everyone agrees that "Stam v'Yesh Halacha k'Stam". The issue of disagreement is why did the Beis Yosef bring the "Yesh" at all. R' Ovadia Yosef and the Chida are of the opinion that it is purely out of respect, but the "Yesh" has no halachic significance. The Ben Ish Chai and the Kaf HaChayim are of the opinion that even though the primary halacha is like the "Stam", one should preferably follow the more stringent "Yesh" unless there are extenuating circumstances. The Shach writes very similar to the latter opinion.

What about the issues of mefulash and mechitzot regarding modern cities?
I was interested in understanding both sides of the machloket.

B"H

Baruch,

As you know, most roads leading into our cities are "mefulash," that is, open-ended. Depending on whether you are among those that accept the view that the roads within our cities do not require 600,000 persons traversing through them to be considered "Rashus Horabim," then in most cases, cities today are a combination of "Rashus Horabim" (Public Domain), and "Rashus Hayachid" (Private Domain), and "Carmelit" (an area which would include yards adjacent to one's house, fields, etc.), besides those many undefined areas of "Makom Patur" (An exempt premise).

Could you please define for me what you mean by "Mechitzot?" (i.e. "partitions")

David

David Ben-Abraham,
Thank you for trying to answer my questions.
I actually understand the issue of shim ribo. The Mishna Brurah gives an excellent discussion on this , and also makes very good arguments against it.

Some people say that our cities are not reshut harabim because of other criteria, besides the issue of shishim ribo.

Mefulash
Some say that our streets today aren't really mefulash.
I have a hard time understanding this, and just want to learn what their argument is about.
see the following link
http://eruvonline.blogspot.com/search/label/Mefulash
(this link is from an obviously pro eruv site so just pro eruv opinions are presented)

Mechitzot
Some claim that the houses form mechitzot or walls that sorround the neighborhood. The length of the pritzot between the houses are
less than the length occupied by the houses so the majority of the length is walled.
What I don't understand about it is that the spaces between some of the houses is more than 10 amot. The Rambam and Shulchan aruch say that if it is greater than 10 amot you would need a tsurat petach between the open spaces.
So I am not clear about this.

B"H

Baruch, Shalom!

My understanding of alleyways, at least with regard to the word "mefulash," is that there are only two kinds. "Mevoi mefulash" - "an open-ended alleyway, at its two extreme entrances;" and "Mevoi setum" - "a closed alleyway, at one of its entrances."

So with regard to roads that are "mefulash," it would seem to me that we are talking here about the same thing, and that they are "open-ended," the opposite of "setum," and not necessarily that they must run in a straight line clean through the city.

As for the "mechitzot" being referred to as the houses which surround a city, I still find a problem with this, just as you do, seeing that in most cases the "pritzot" (open areas) are greater than the built-up areas.

David

quote:

So with regard to roads that are "mefulash," it would seem to me that we are talking here about the same thing, and that they are "open-ended," the opposite of "setum," and not necessarily that they must run in a straight line clean through the city.

I agree with you. I am not sure what they base their interpretation that it must be straight.

quote:

As for the "mechitzot" being referred to as the houses which surround a city, I still find a problem with this, just as you do, seeing that in most cases the "pritzot" (open areas) are greater than the built-up areas.

In some places the built up areas may be greater than the "pritzot". However I think than even in those cases there is a problem because some of the "pritzot" are greater than 10 amot.
Thus overall the built up places are the majority but the open areas are greater than 10 amot. From my understanding of the Rambam and the shulchan aruch in order for a pirtza which is greater than 10 amot to be valid you need to do a tzurat petach between each such pirtza (in this case between the houses).

[QUOTE]
In Yemen, the practice was somewhat different, viz., to rely strictly upon the ruling of Rambam (Maimonides) in this regard. When, for example, a man owned two adjacent houses and a public thoroughfare ran between them, it was sufficient in rendering the area in between them permissible by attaching doors at both ends of the two houses that ran parallel along the street, even though those doors were not locked at night. Likewise, the walled cities of Yemen , although they were equipped with gates that were capable of being shut and locked, were rarely ever locked at night. (see: footnote # 1 for a discussion on this subject). Still, the people and elders of the city relied upon Maimonides and viewed their city as one large private domain, permitting the carrying of objects from one place to another place
within the city on the Sabbath day.[2]
[QUOTE]
I believe you are conflating reshus harabbim with a heter tiltul. Even if one paskens like the Rambam, some poskim argue that delasos without a tzuras hapesach are not sufficient to enable carrying. In other words, the delasos would only classify the area as a karmelis, and the tzuras hapesach would make it a reshus hayachid.

Additionally, even according the first shita in the Shulchan Aruch, most poskim would agree that an area enclosed by three mechitzos that are omed merubeh al haparutz would be classified as a reshus hayachid notwithstanding its pirtzos. The Shulchan Aruch in 364 is referring to a mavoi enclosed by two mechitzos and not three. Hence the need for delasos.