Go to Our New Site
| Go to Our New Site
|
Read-Only Topic|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
 |
Particularly regarding yesh omrim shishim ribo ovrim bo there is a major machlokas regarding which shita does the Shulchan Aruch accept (see Yabia Omer, 9:33). |
|||
|
|
|
Most Ashkenazi poskim disagree with the Mishnah Berurah regradig shishim ribo. |
|||
|
|
|
Actually there are eruvin that rely on mechitzos. |
|||
|
|
|
The Gedolie Achronim maintain that mefulash and mechuvanim are one and the same. It is a modern day argument that they are separate. Mefulash is a fundament of reshus harabbim and according to the majority of Achronim, if a street is not straight from end to end, it is not classified as a reshus harabbim. |
|||
|
|
|
Most poskim understand mefulash m’shaar l’shaar as meaning mefulashim u’mechuvanim m’shaar l’shaar, open and running straight from city gate to city gate (Bais Yosef, 345:8; Magen Avraham, 345:6; Pri Megadim, Aishel Avraham, 364: 2; Bais Ephraim, O.C. 26; Tiferes Yisroel, introduction to Shabbos; U’Bacharta B’Chaim, siman 123; Shoel U’Maishiv, 2:87; Yehudah Yaleh, O.C. siman 54; Mahari Slutsk, O.C. siman 11; Minchas Elazar, 3:4, and Mishnah Berurah, 345:20). |
|||
|
 |
Duvid, Yashar Koach! I think it's Rambam who does not agree with this opinion. David |
|||
|
|
|
B"H
The "rashus horabim" (Public Domain) according to Rambam: Rambam, in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbos 1:1), writes: "[Of the four domains], one is the rashus horabim. It is the place wherein traverses the public, but on the condition that it is not covered by a ceiling, and that it has at its breadth sixteen cubits or more, and that it has no gate, neither is [it] located within the confines of a walled city, (seeing that a city, had it been encompassed by a wall, and it contained doors and locks, is not a public domain). Now there are legal issues pertaining to it, which we shall explain in the 5th chapter of Eruvin. However, a public domain is, for example, the wilderness areas and the forests where the roads open-up into them. " Note: This is all that Rambam had to say about a "rashus horabim," when giving an overall view of the four domains, and he makes no reference there whatsoever about the roads within an unwalled city having to run in a direct line from one end of the city to the next in order for them to be called a public domain. * * * * * * |
|||
|
 |
True the Rambam did not say more than that.
I am not sure that most other poskim did say the streets have to be straight either. Did the Shulchan Aruch say that the streets have to be straight? |
|||
|
|
|
In regards to the Rambam’s opinion relating to mefulash see the Kesef Mishnah on Shabbos 14:4. The Shulchan Aruch maintains that mefulash is a criterion (345:7).
|
|||
|
|
|
B"H
Duvid, RASHI (Eruvin 6b, s.v. yerushalayim) is the first to say that where a road passes through a walled city in a straight and uninterrupted course, entering in from one gate of the city and going out through another gate of the city, that that city - on account of its road which runs in a straight course – is deemed a Public Domain. RASHI, moreover, makes it a requisite that the same road be traversed by 60 myriads (60 X 10,000) of people, and have a breadth of 16 cubits[1] for the same walled city to be deemed a Public Domain. MARAN, in his Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayim, section # 345, item # 7, ruled in accordance with RASHI, making a "rashus horabim" (Public Domain) not only any road that has the width of 16 cubits, and which has no covering or ceiling, neither is encompassed by a wall or fence, but also that road which runs in a straight course within a walled city. Unlike RASHI, Maran does not require that there be 60 myriads of people passing through the city in order for it to be called a "rashus horabim."[2] RAMBAM (Hilchos Shabbos, ch. 14) obviously had a different spirit, and makes no requirement for roads to pass in a straight course, &c. Note that, according to Maran, not in all instances must a road run in a straight course in order for it to be considered a "Public Domain." Rather, it is contingent upon there being a walled city where, in this case, the road must pass uninhibited and in a straight course for it to be considered a "Public Domain." So, too, if the city's gates were to be shut and locked at night, it would no longer be considered a "Public Domain." Still, if those city's walls had fallen down (as in the case of Jerusalem's walls when certain breaches were made in the wall during the war with Rome, even though its thoroughfares according to RASHI ran in a straight course), the city would no longer have the name of "rashus horabim, but "Carmelit!" Thus do we find stated explicitly about Jerusalem in Eruvin 101a, s.v., Gemara on the Mishnah: לא יעמוד אדם ברשות היחיד ויפתח ברשות הרבים Now the reason Jerusalem became, in this case, a "Carmelit" is because the broken down places were greater than the built-up places. On either side of the wall which remained there were stony fields, as well as gardens and footpaths not extending to a breadth of 16 cubits. Maran would agree that our cities today are a combination of "Public Domain" and Carmelit and Private Domain, since they are mainly unwalled (parazot), and do not have a continuous build-up of houses around its periphery in order to render it like unto some walled city. The open-spaces are simply far greater than the built-up areas. The matter of walled cities being required to have roads running through them in a straight course, from one end to the next, in order for them to be considered a "Public Domain" is still a disputed issue. David ------------------------------------------------ FOOTNOTES: [1] A cubit, according to the Chazon Ish , has the length of 60 cm. This would mean 16 cubits is equal to 9 metres 68 cm. (a little less than 31 ft. 6 inches). According to Rabbi Chaim Naeh, the cubit is only 48 cm., meaning 16 cubits is equal to 7 metres 68 cm. (a little more than 25 ft.). The last and least noted opinion is that cubit used in Yemen, which came to roughly 54 cm., meaning 16 cubits is equal to 8 metres 64 cm. (about 28 ft. 4 inches). [2] Some have noted that Maran contradicts himself. In the Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayim, section # 302:1, he ruled that there is no "Public Domain" at our own present time and age. Yet, in Orah Hayim, section # 345:10, he first brings down an anonymous opinion stating that there is today a "Public Domain," followed by an anonymous opinion stating that there is not a "Public Domain" today. 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. Where RASHI, in the Mishnah of Eruvin 59a, explains "a single man's town" (vs. the public's town) as meaning a town wherein there does not always enter 600,000 persons, Maran rejects this explanation, and rules in his Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayim, section # 392:1, that a "single man's town" (vs. the public's town) is a town that has been purchased by a single individual. |
|||
|
|
|
Many poskim disagree and maintain that Maran does require shishim ribo (see Yabia Omer, 9:33). This is a major machlokas, and you are simplifying the opinions. Most Rishonim and Achronim (especially the Ashkinazim) accept shihsim ribo as a criterion of reshus harabbim.
I reiterate, see the Kesef Mishnah regarding the Rambam and Mefulash. Actually, in most large cities the houses are omed merubeh al haparutz. Consequentially, these cities are a reshus hayachid mi’d’Oraysa. Until lately, no one ever claimed that the criterion of mefulash is dependent on a walled city. I challenge you to find one Achron who maintained as such (only Rav Moshe Feinstein and Rav Aharon Kotler did so). The Tur clearly stated that it is a criterion without it being dependent on a walled city, and so do all the Achronim. The Shulchan Aruch is referring to a walled street, hence, if it were mefulash, it would nevertheless be classified as a reshus harabbim. “Now the reason Jerusalem became, in this case, a "Carmelit" is because the broken down places were greater than the built-up places. On either side of the wall which remained there were stony fields, as well as gardens and footpaths not extending to a breadth of 16 cubits.” This is a matter of great dispute (particularly between the Bais Ephraim and the Mishkenos Yaakov), and you are simplifying it immensely. |
|||
|
|
|
B"H
Actually, Rav Duvid, I did see the "Kesef Mishne" on Rambam (Hilchos Shabbos 4:1), and Maran there seems to disagree with RASHI, not Rambam, in calling Jerusalem a "Carmelit." According to Rambam, every walled city that has gates that can be shut at night is a large "Private Domain," not a "Carmelit." The only reason that Shlomo Hamelekh (King Solomon) enacted the "eiruv" in such places was only for "appearance sake" (on account of the masses that dwelled together), but not because the city was ever a "Public Domain" or "Carmelit." Maran (in his commentary "Kesef Mishne") also calls a walled city a "Private Domain," just as Rambam calls it, but while trying to explain RASHI in Eruvin 6b, Maran (ibid.) seems to say that Jerusalem was special in that its roads ran in a direct course, breaking the city in half, and where there were no longer three joining walls on either side of the divided city so that it could be considered otherwise a "Private Domain" - just like any court yard. RASHI was, obviously, pressed into a corner, so-to-speak, when he saw that the Gemara (supra., Eruvin 101a) calls Jersualem a "Carmelit" after its walls had been breached, and this is precisely what prompted him to say in Eruvin 6b (s.v., yerushalayim) that the city of Jerusalem, without its gates being locked at night, was considered a "Carmelit." Rambam disagrees with this view. As for the varied opinions of the poskim about the necessity of there being 600,000 people traversing the roads for them to be considered a "Public Domain," the vast majority of Sephardic poskim disagree with this view. However, RASHI, Rabbeinu Asher, etc. hold the opposite view. In my next post to you, I'll list them for you. You will see that it is a long list, clearly divided down the spectrum. That is why, in my view, it is best for the "G-d fearing" to be apprehensive about our roads today, taking the advice of the Mishne Berura in this regard, as stated above. David |
|||
|
|
|
B"H
Rav Duvid, Let me first thank-you for maintaining this discussion. Yishar Koach! You have premised in one of your previous posts that the poskim claim that Maran's own view of a Public Domain is that it must be traversed by 600,000 souls daily. Had this actually been his view, why then doesn't he say so explicitly when describing the criteria that makes up a Public Domain in section # 345, item # 7, of his Shulhan Arukh? Rather, he only mentions it in the context of it being a disputed issue. But that this issue is not, by any means, an issue which is widely agreed upon, I shall first proceed to list those that hold the view, requiring that our roads be traversed by 600,000 individuals each day for them to be considered a "Public Domain." This list will be followed by those who oppose that view. Those that hold to this view are: Sar Shalom Gaon (Teshuvos Hageonim – Chemda Genuzah, responsum # 70); RASHI (Eruvin 6a) and a host of expositors that followed in his path, viz., Tosefos (Shabbos 64b); Rabbeinu Asher (Piskei Harosh, first chapter of Eruvin, item # 8); Rabbi Avi Ha'ezri, who is known as "the Raviah" (section # 216); Rabbi Yaakov, son of Rabbeinu Asher, who is known as "the Tur;" the TAZ, or Turei Zahav (section # 345:7); Rabbi Moshe Iserlisch, known as the RAMA (section # 345:7); the Magen Avraham (section # 345:7); the Chayei Adam (General Rule # 49, halacha # 13); Sefer Mitzvos Gedolos, or what is known as "the Smag"); Sefer Mitzvos Katanos, or what is known as "the Smak"); the Rokach (section # 175); the Chatam Sofer (responsum # 99, from the year anno mundi 5587), among others. But those who are opposed to this view are: the author of "Halachos Gedolos" (attributed to Rabbi Shimon Kiara from the Geonic period); Rambam (Hilchos Shabbos, chapter 14); Maran (Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayim, section # 345:7, based on the general rule that when he brings down an anonymous opinion, followed by "there are those who say," we are to accept as halacha the first anonymous ruling); Rabbi Yaakov Meir, known as "Rabbeinu Tam;" Ramban (Shabbos 57a); Rabbeinu Nissim, known as Haran (Shabbos 57a); Rabbi Shlomo ben Avraham Aderet, known as the RASHBA (Questions & Responsa, vol. I, responsum # 724); Rabbi Menahem Hameiri, known simply as Hameiri; Harav Hamagid; Rabbi Yom-Tov Allashevilli, known as the Ritva; Harashbam; Harivash (Questions & Responsa, responsum # 7 – 405); Rabbi Aharon Halevi, author of Sefer Hachinuch; Peri Megadim; Biurei HAGRA, the Gaon of Wilna (section # 392, small items # 1-2); the Mishna Berura, among others – a great school of poskim who hold the opposite view! Moreover, in that Rabbi Avraham ben Dovid, known as the Ravad, did not object to anything Rambam had to say about "rashus horabim," it would appear that he, too, agreed with Rambam. Otherwise, he would have made his objections known! You also wrote that what we have written about Jerusalem becoming thereafter a "Carmelit" (Eruvin 101a) and that "on either side of the wall which remained there were stony fields, as well as gardens and footpaths not extending to a breadth of 16 cubits, etc.," was, in your opinion, an "over-simplified" statement, considering that there were other explanations given by the exponents of our laws. In answer, I wish to call your attention to the first mentioning of Jerusalem, in Eruvin 6b, when she was then considered a "Public Domain." Rabbi Yohanan had 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]." By the same token, when she ceased being a Public Domain by virtue of the breaches that had befallen her walls, and was now a "Carmelit," anybody living in the city who ventured to carry forth objects outside of their houses on the Sabbath day, carried those objects into a "Carmelit" - a thing which is clearly prohibited to do beyond four cubits by a rabbinic ordinance. Tosefta Shabbos 1:4 defines a "Carmelit" by bringing vivid examples of places that are neither Public or Private domains: "The sea, the valley [wherein are not to be found plots marked-off by stone-hedges], the carmelit, the [immediate area surrounding a] colonnade, the threshold [that lies before one's door], are neither like unto a Public Domain, or like unto a Private Domain, yet it is not permissible to carry forth [objects] into them [on the Sabbath day]…" In another place, we are given the example of "a field of thorns," a place obviously not meant for a private dwelling, or a public thoroughfare. The general rule to grasp here is that almost anything which is neither a Public nor Private Domain, and has the space of at least 4 X 4 handbreadths square, and is at least 3-handbreadths high without reaching the height of 10 handbreadths, can be a "Carmelit" – including a person's yard that is not closed-in by a fence. CORRECTION: In my second post before this last one, in footnote # 2, it should be corrected to read: "Some have noted that Maran contradicts himself. In the Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayim, section # 303:18, he ruled that there is no "Public Domain" at our own present time and age, etc." With deepest regards, David |
|||
|
|
|
I had only mentioned the Kesef Mishna regarding the Rambam and mefulash. Additionally, there is no machlokas between Rashi and The Rambam. Please relearn the Kesef Mishna. |
|||
|
|
|
I really do not want to get into the discussion regarding Maran and shishim ribo particularly because, as I mentioned, the Yabia Omer has a thorough discussion of this inyan. You are conflating Rishonim and Achronim. This is a list of the overwhelming majority of Gaonim and Rishonim who maintain that shishim ribo is a fundament of reshus harabbim: 1. Bahag, (Berlin edition) p. 131. 2. Rav Natronai Gaon, Sharei Teshuvah, siman 209. 3. Rav Amram Gaon, Halachos Pesukos, siman 70. 4. Sar Shalom Gaon, Chemdah Genuzah, siman 70. 5. Rav Hai Gaon, Otzar HaGaonim Shabbos 6a. 6. Rashi, Eruvin 6a, 6b, 26a, 59a, 47a. 7. Tosfos, Eruvin 6a, 26a, 59a, and Shabbos 6b, 64b. 8. HaEshkol, Hilchos Tzitzis ois 31 and Hilchos Eruvin ois 64. 9. Sefer HaTrumah, 64:214, 72:239. 10. Semag, Hilchos Shabbos p. 17. 11. Sefer Ha’itim, ois 92, 206, 209. 12. Ra’avan, Shabbos 349. 13. Piskei HaRid, Eruvin 6a, 59a, Pesachim 69a. 14. Rokeach, Hilchos Shabbos 175. 15. Ravyah, Hilchos Eruvin 379, 391. 16. Riaz, Eruvin Perek 1:5, 5:5. 17. HaAgudah, Perek 5:56. 18. Rivevan, Eruvin 6b, 59a. 19. HaAgur, siman 537. 20. Piskei Rabeinu Mendel Kloizner (Ramak), Shabbos 6a. 21. Rabeinu Yerucham, Toldot Adom V’Chavah 12:4, 12:17. 22. Or Zarua, Hilchos Shabbos siman 16, Eruvin 129. 23. Maharam MeRotenberg, siman 31, Eruvin ois 9, 10. 24. Smak, Mitzvos Hatluyos Ba’aretz p. 296, 299. 25. Tsedah LaDerech, Perek 42, 46. 26. Machzor Vitri, Perek B'mah Isha, ois 31, 32. 27. Haitur, Hilchos Tzitzis, Shaar 3 Shaar Adom Chelek 1. 28. Rosh, Beitzah 24a, Eruvin 6a (see also Kitzur Piskei HaRosh, Perek 1:8). 29. Hagahos Ashri, Eruvin 6a, 20b. 30. Sefer HaNeyar, Hilchos Eruvin p. 51. 31. Hagahos Maimonios, Eruvin Perek 5:2, 5:4. 32. Mordechai, Shabbos 64b, 100a. 33. Orchos Chaim, Hilchos Shabbos ois 284. 34. Tur, O.C. 345, 364, 392. In light of the above, you are clearly incorrect regarding the Behag. More so even the Ran (Shabbos 6a) admits that the Behag maintains that shishim ribo is a fundament of a reshus harabbim. Additionally, according to the Bais Ephraim, the Rabbeinu Tam and the Rashbam do not argue on Rashi. You are incorrect regarding the Pri Megadim (see Mishbetzes Zahav, 345:6 and Aishel Avraham, 345:7). Regarding the Achronim, most maintain that it is a fundament. However, there was a major machlokas between the Bais Ephraim and the Mishkenous Yaakov. Clearly the Bais Epharim - who maintains that shishim ribo is a fundament - was the one who was accepted (at least by the Ashkenazim) since almost every town had an eruv relying on shishim ribo. The Mishnah Berurah followed the Mishkenos Yaakov. Regarding Yerushalayim, I will ask you the following question which will help you realize that this is a complicated issue. According to the overwhelming majority of Rishonim and Achronim who maintain that we pasken lo asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta, why should Yerushalayim require delasos since there probably was at least pasei bira’os left, even with the breaches. This was a major machlokas between the Bais Ephraim and the Mishkenos Yaakov, and, as I mentioned, you are grossly oversimplifying the matter. |
|||
|
|
|
B"H
Rav Duvid, -One Small Emendation- Where we had previously written: "Some have noted that Maran contradicts himself. In the Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayim, section # 303:18, he ruled that there is no 'Public Domain' at our own present time and age," etc. Upon careful consideration of this subject, we have concluded beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no contradiction to be found in the words of Maran whatsoever. Indeed, in his Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayim, section # 303:18, Maran writes that there is no "Public Domain" at our own present time and age. But, there, in Maran's own words, he was only trying to play the role of an advocate for those women who would otherwise find they transgress a prohibitive command by donning their jewellery within courtyards that were not equipped with an "eiruv." For this purpose, Maran quotes from the Tur (Orah Hayim, section # 303), bringing down the words of Rabbeinu Tam and the "Ba'al Haterumos," in an effort to show that these women could still find some saving grace had they done so. However, Maran's own views are plain. In Orah Hayim, section # 345:7, he first brings down an anonymous opinion stating that there is today a "Public Domain," followed by an anonymous opinion stating that there is not a "Public Domain" today. A general rule with Maran states that where he brings down a first anonymous teaching &c. Hopefully, this will allay all doubts as to Maran's view on this issue, and especially as discussed in Rabbi Ovadia Yoseph's "Yabia Omer" 9:33. See: "Biur Halacha" of Rabbi Israel Meir Hacohen, author of the Mishna Berura, on section # 345:7, s.v., ויש אומרים שכל וכו , for additional proofs concerning Maran. Please excuse my terseness, but if you're looking for additional names of gedolim (rishonim and acharonim) that hold that "rashus horabim" is not dependent upon "shishim ribo," that is the place to look! The names of the mephorshim that you listed were, primarily, repeating what RASHI had to say. As for what you called "errors" in my partial list of "disputing Rabbis," namely, when I cited the Bahag (Baal Halachos Gedolos) amongst those who hold the view that there is a "Public Domain" in our present day and age, my intention was to that edition of Bahag which is found in our Talmudic Academies today, based after the Vatican Codex. In it, there is no reference to the Public Domain being contingent upon "shishim ribo." So, here, it is a question of which version is the credible version, and whether or not the Bahag retracted his statement. The Mishna Berura has reasoned that if the "Public Domain" was actually contingent upon 600,000 people traversing the roads daily, we would have at least heard some mention about this very important "condition" in our Mishnah, or in the supplement to our Mishnah, known as the Tosefta. Rather, nothing whatsoever appears about this in our ancient books on Oral Law! The Talmud (Shabbos) does, however, mention the wilderness (מדבר) at the time of the exodus being a Public Domain on account of "shishim ribo" who passed through it. The novelty in saying so was that a wilderness, where there are no marked roads, and where it is never considered to be a Public Domain on ordinary accounts, was made on this one occasion a Public Domain, by virtue of the fact that the entire nation of Israel passed through it! Yet, even there, the Talmud did not imply that in all places for there to be a Public Domain there must be "shishim ribo." As for your question, the four planks (פסים) that are erected in the midst of a public road, in order to permit people to draw water from a well that is built in the very midst of that public road, even though the public should pass by it, or through it, does not effectually render the space marked off by those planks a "Public Domain." Instead, it remains a "Private Domain," in spite of the public. So why, in the case of Jerusalem's walls, was it necessary for them to be fixed with gates that could be closed and locked at night? Are not its walls sufficient to render that place a "Private Domain?" Or even when the walls had actually fallen down, were there not at least "four partitions" (mechitzos) that rose up to a height of 10 handbreadths to render the entire city as one large "Private Domain," just as in the case of the "four planks?" The answer is simple. The four planks are a clear, recognizable feature in the landscape that the area marked off is a "Private Domain," meant to allow men to draw water from the well. The city of Jerusalem, on the other hand, was not easily discerned as being a "Private Domain" when broad public roads entered within the city from without, and continued uninterrupted within the city itself, making it appear to have the same status as the roads without. 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 So, here, it was necessary to have the entrances equipped with shutting gates. The gates became the recognizable feature, in this case. Once the walls had fallen down, it was obvious to all that the city was no longer a "Private Domain." Even that which remained of its wall was never intended to be used like the provision made for a well or cistern built on a public road, when it was sufficient to erect "four planks" (פסים) around the well. Besides, there was also a limit at how far these could be distanced from one another. David |
|||
|
|
|
Rav David Ben-Abraham
You are not clarifying anything since there are poskim who maintain that Maran does not argue on the vyesh omrim. Actually, the Pri Megadim that you mention maintains that Maran does not argue on the yesh omrim. The Mishnah Berurah is basically just following the Mishkenos Yaakov. We do not follow the Mishkenos Yaakov as can be discerned from the fact that all towns in Europe erected eruvin relying on shishim ribo. Even the Mishkenos Yaakov’s own town established an eruv. The fact is that the Mishanh Berurah did not see the list of Rishonim that I mentioned, and didn’t see the Bais Ephraim. They are not just “mephorshim” they are Rishonim. So what if these Rishonim are just mentioning what Rashi said they are not arguing. More so, you are not correct most of them are not just stating what Rashi posited. Additionally, I cited five Geonim who lived before Rashi. The fact is that there are Rishonim that state that the Behag was the source of shishim ribo. Consequentially, the edition of the Behag that requires shishim ribo is very reliable. No one claims that the Behag retracted from what is stated in the Berlin edition. It is obvious that while the Rishonim had this version of the Behag the Achronim didn’t. Well, we do have this version today. As a matter of fact I didn’t begin to quote the overwhelming majority of Achronim who maintain that shishim ribo is a fundament. This question predates the Mishnah Berurah. Actually the Rishonim ask this on the shitas Behag/Rashi. Nevertheless most Rishonim do allow shishim ribo as a criterion. Therefore, this is not a question on those who follow the yesh omrim it is a question on the Rishonim. Additionally, the Behag is a major part of the mesorah and we can rely on him. As a matter of fact there are some suggestions as to the source of shishim ribo is Shas. I will not argue the issue of pasei bira’os on this venue, since it is not the format for this. Suffice to say as long as you do not know the relevant arguments between the Bais Ephraim and the Mishkenos Yaakov (and the Chazon Ish) you are grossly oversimplifying the issue. |
|||
|
|
|
B"H
Rav Duvid, Could you please post for us the relevant arguments between the Bais Ephraim and the Mishkenos Yaakov (and the Chazon Ish)? You wrote that "Halachos Pesukos" was among the books requiring that there be "shishim ribo" (600,000 people traversing the roads daily) for there to be a Public Domain. In my copy of "Halachos Pesukos," written by Rabbi Yehudai Gaon (published in Jerusalem by "Ahavas Shalom" Publishers, P.O.Box 5515, Jerusalem), I could not find the condition that you stated. Instead, I found these words: הלכות עירובין – "...ואסיר לטלטולי מידי בשבתא ארבעה גרמידי ברשות הרבים דכתיב ויצו משה ויעבירו קול במחנה. מעשות לא נאמר אלא מהביא, שהיו מביאין דרך רשות הרבים ולא דרך רשות הרבים, דאורח מלכה הוא דאסיר ליה לאיניש לטלטולי ארבע אמות היכא דליכא עירוב. אלא אפילו בין מבוי למבוי, בין מבוי לחצר, בין חצר לחצר, בין מחצר לבית, בין בית לבית, ובין מן בית לחצר אסור לטלטולי ארבע אמות אלא אם כן עירובו, שנ' לא תוציאו משא מבתיכם ביום השבת." (Translation) Hilchos Eruvin – "…Now it is forbidden to carry forth any object on the Sabbath four cubits within the Public Domain, as it is written: 'And Moses then commanded, [saying], Pass the word in the camp [etc.]' It does not say, '[to cease] from doing,' but rather, '[to cease] from bringing,' seeing that they would bring [what things they had] through the Public Domain, as also not through the Public Domain. For the king's highway is that which is prohibited unto a man to carry [aught] four cubits [within it] where there is no eiruv. [Not only the king's highway], but even [to carry objects] between one alleyway to another alleyway, [or] between an alleyway to a courtyard, [or] between two courtyards, [or] from a courtyard to a house, [or] between two houses, or from a house to a courtyard, it is [altogether] forbidden to carry forth [objects] four cubits unless he had made in it an eiruv, as it is written: 'Ye shall not take out a burden from thine houses on the Sabbath day.' " Nowhere is there to be found in the above work any mention that these prohibitions are contingent upon there being "shishim ribo." Please note: The Magen Avraham wrote in Orah Hayim, section # 252:6 that in his native land, where they did not hold to the opinion of those that say there is a Public Domain today, it was permissible for a tailor to go forth from his house at twilight on the eve of the Sabbath while carrying a needle in his hand, even though he might forget that the needle is in his hand, and carry it, inadvertently, four cubits within the public roads. This, it is assumed, the Magen Avraham permitted because of two doubts that came into play here. One, the doubt of his ever actually meeting up with a "Public Domain;" Two, the doubt that he would actually forget to return his needle before nightfall. מכלל ספק ספקא מותר לכתחילה What was, therefore, plain unto the Magen Avraham as not being an absolute necessity (that is, no need to take extra precautionary measures on account of the public roads that crisscrossed in his own lands), was unto the "Halachos Pesukos" a cancellation of the commandment. For there is no "sefek sefeka" in this case, so long as the roads meet the condition of 16 cubits broad! Could you also please copy for me the text requiring "shishim ribo" from the source that you mentioned? My printed copy of "Halachos Pesukos" is based after an old Yemenite manuscript brought here to Israel from Yemen, and which was taken to London, and from there to Letchworth, England, and finally sold to the Toronto University in Canada. (It formerly belonged to the Solomon Sassoon Collection.) To the best of my knowledge, there are only two extant manuscripts of this ancient work in the entire world. The Yemenite manuscript bears Babylonian Supralinear punctuation, and was written in circa 940 C.E. (You mentioned Rav Amram Gaon as being the author of your "Halachos Pesukos." Could we be talking about two different books?) David |
|||
|
|
|
I really don’t have the time to post regarding possibly the most complicated issues at this time. Please see the relevant poskim in the original. This is a world famous machlokas that is a must for anyone who wants to know the inyan. No one should argue about this issue before learning through these poskim.
The Halachos Pesukos is in Hilchos Tzitzes, siman 70. I am glad that this is your only question regarding my list. |
|||
|