In
summation: 1) Brooklyn would not be classified as a reshus
harabbim since there is no street where 600,000 people traverse any section
of it on a daily basis.
2) Even
if one does not agree that the criterion of shishim ribo is conditional
of a street, no part of Brooklyn would be classified as a reshus harabbim
since there is no street that is mefulash u’mechuvan on one side to a platya
and on the other side to a sratya.
3) Even
if one would argue that the criterion of mefulash is only conditional of
a walled city and that the criterion of shishim ribo is conditional of a
city, nevertheless, the entire borough would be classified as a reshus
hayachid me’d’Oraysa since the streets are encompassed (on four sides) by mechitzos
habbatim, and, moreover, the borough is bounded on three of its sides by mechitzos
which are omed merubeh al haparutz.
Furthermore,
even if one would allege that according to some poskim the above criteria
would not remove from Brooklyn the classification of a reshus harabbim,[14]
nevertheless, they would have to agree that each issue is still at the very
minimum a safek. Consequentially, we are dealing with a sfek sfek sfeika,
and we would therefore go l’kula even if the matter was a d’Oraysa.[15]
How much more so, according to the Alter Rebbe, once a tzuras hapesach
was established the issue would not be a matter of a d’Oraysa only of a d’rabbanan.
It
is important to note that the Alter Rebbe maintains (362:19) that one should be
stringent and follow the Rambam who considers a tzuras hapesach a
valid mechitzah only when utilizing at the minimum two mechitzos which
are omed merubeh al haparutz (Shulchan Aruch, O.C. 362:10).
Where this is not the case, each pole can be no more than ten amos apart
from the other. However, since the proximity of property lots in Brooklyn is
such that they are omed merubeh al haparutz ― particularly the fences
that surround the property lots ― an eruv in Brooklyn could be
classified as a Rambam eruv.
[14] Of course, it is
always possible to cite shitos yachidos to argue that an area is classified
as a reshus harabbim; however, ruling according to shitos yachidos
is not the correct approach in halachah. [The Chasam Sofer writes (Y.D.
37) that if we were to collect all the shitos ha’ossrim we would not be
able to eat bread or drink water.] Even more so, in hilchos reshuyos and
eruvin, since all criteria have to be met for the area to be classified
as a reshus harabbim, even if we were to employ a shitas yachid
regarding reshus harabbim that would then disqualify the eruv
based on only one criterion, the other conditions would not be met and an eruv
would be permissible l’chatchilah. Consequently, to invalidate an eruv,
one would have to selectively choose from disparate shitos yachidos ― which in many cases
are contradictory ― and that is an
unjustifiable approach to halachah. The reality is that if someone learns hilchos
reshuyos and eruvin with an open mind, he would realize that since
it is almost impossible to meet all the criteria of a reshus harabbim,
creating an eruv l’chatchilah is a real possibility.
[15] The Tzemach Tzedek states (Eruvin,
5:6) that since shitas Rashi was not accepted by most of the Rishonim
and most poskim do not agree that a tzuras hapesach would
reclassify a reshus harabbim as a reshus hayachid, a yorei
shomayim should not employ these criteria. However, as I mentioned
previously, the Rebbe assumed that we do rely on the criterion of shishim
ribo l’chatchila. Moreover, today we know of additional Rishonim and
that most Achronim maintain that a tzuras hapesach would
reclassify a reshus harabbim as a reshus hayachid. Consequently,
there is no reason not to enact these criteria as a sfek sfeka.
Furthermore,
the Tzemach Tzedek would classify Brooklyn as a reshus hayachid
because the streets are not mefulash u’mechavanim on one side to a sratya
and on the other side to a platya. Moreover, even if one would argue
that the Tzemach Tzedek would categorize our streets as sratyas
and platyas, the fact that the borough is encompassed by mechitzos
which are omed merubeh al haparutz would classify the city as walled and
the Tzemach Tzedek would definitely require the streets to be mefulash
u’mechavanim, as well.
Consequently, even
if one would argue that these criteria are not applicable, they would have to
admit that, at the minimum, the Tzemach Tzedek would accept that these
issues are a sfek sfek sfeika, and thus, even (on requirements me'd'rabanan) a yorei shomayim can
rely on the fact that Brooklyn would not be classified as a reshus harabbim.
No comments:
Post a Comment