What Is A Reshut Harabim?
The question as to what constitutes a "public domain" has practical ramifications in that whilst a karmelit can be converted into a private domain - reshut hayachid, using tzurat hapetachim to fill in the un-walled gaps (assuming that more of the perimeter is made up of walls than gaps), a reshut harabim can only be converted into a reshut hayachid using delatot - doors12.
The thirty ninth category of "malachah" - activity or work, forbidden on Shabbat is hotza'ah - carrying or transferring an object from a reshut hayachid to a reshut harabim or vice versa. As with all other malachahs, carrying is forbidden on Shabbat as it was a necessary part of building the Tabernacle in Biblical times (see Shabbat 49b). When assembling and disassembling the Tabernacle, the Levites would carry the planks that made up its walls on and off wagons, and from here we derive the prohibition, since the wagons were a reshut hayachid and the wilderness would have been a reshut harabim (see also Shabbat 96b). Therefore carrying is only permitted within a reshut hayachid.
The Gemara (Shabbat 6a) clarifies this by listing four domains with examples: private and public domains, a karmelit - an area with characteristics of both private and public domains, and a "makom patur" - an area with none of the characteristics of either a public or private domain. Whilst one is allowed to carry to/from a makom patur from/to a private or public domain, one may not carry to/from a karmelit from/to a private or public domain. There the Gemara describes a reshut harabim as an open public thoroughfare that is at least sixteen amot (plural of amah) wide - the width of the procession of wagons that were used to carry the Tabernacle in the desert, and gives some examples. A braisa is then quoted which also lists examples of a reshut harabim but adds the example of a desert. Tosfot asks why "desert" was omitted from the earlier list, and concludes that it refers to the 40-year travels of the Children of Israel in the desert, and that it was omitted from the original list was because the desert was only a reshut harabim whilst the Children of Israel were there, but nowadays a desert might not be.
We learn two important principles from this conclusion: firstly, that an area can gain or lose its status of a reshut harabim over time depending on how busy it is; and secondly, that the number of pedestrians that travel in an area can define whether or not it is a reshut harabim - not necessarily how wide it is. Since we know from the census in the Torah that the Children of Israel numbered 600,0003, we conclude that an area is only a reshut harabim if at least 600,000 people - "shishim ribo" - travel through it4. It is also noteworthy that although the Children of Israel could never be said to occupy the whole of the desert at any one time, the fact that 600,000 of them were in a part of the desert - and were free to travel anywhere within it, meant that the whole of the desert was classified as a reshut harabim.
Elsewhere5the Gemara discusses whether or not "asu rabim u'mevatlei mechitztah" - would a reshut hayachid become a reshut harabim if many people were to travel through it? The majority of halachic authorities hold that it would not, as per the opinion of the Sages in this Gemara.
When the Shulchan Aruch6 describes the four domains, it defines four characteristics of a reshut harabim: a street or marketplace that is at least sixteen amot wide7 [this excludes the pavement or any parking bays (Nesivos Shabbat, 3:1:2)], that is open and not roofed, and runs straight from city gate to city gate - mefulash m'shaar l'shaar8. R Moshe Feinstein held that a street would not be considered mefulash if it is intersected by a roofed area, such as a bridge9. Most authorities understand mefulash m'shaar l'shaar as meaning mefulash u'mechuvanim m'shaar l'shaar, open and running straight from city gate to city gate, although they only apply it to a walled city. There is disagreement as to whether the gates need to be neulos ba'laila - closed at night, or just reuyos linol - fit to be closed7. This broad definition is quite strict as it would include most public streets and so would prevent an eruv including such areas.
After this list, the Shulchan Aruch adds: "there are those who say that if it does not have 600,000 people traversing it daily it is not a reshut harabim." The fact that shishim ribo is added as a "yeish omrim" - "another opinion," would usually show that it is a minority opinion and not the definition to follow. This is because although the halachic authorities were split as to whether or not to adopt shishim ribo, the three authorities the Shulchan Aruch usually turns to for a ruling all side against shishim because they felt shishim ribo was large and too lenient10. Even in today's large cities, R Moshe Feinstein has suggested one would struggle to find a street or neighbourhood through which 600,000 people travelled11.
The Aruch Hashulchan (345:18) - the key halachic authority of its time, holds that since shishim ribo was so prevalent one could not rule against it. The Beit Efraim (#26) also follows this opinion. The Mishkanos Yaacov (#120) rejects shishim ribo on the grounds that the Biblical prophet Nechemiah berates the Jewish people for carrying on Shabbat at a time when there weren't 600,000 people living in the whole of Israel, let alone in any one place12. If there weren't enough people to make up shishim ribo, there would have been no reshut harabim in the whole of Israel, so how could the Jews of the time have done anything wrong by carrying on Shabbat - at that time there was not yet the concept of a karmelit? The Mishnah Brurah10, the main halachic authority of the early twentieth century, catalogues the disputing opinions and concludes that since shishim ribo is only given as a "yeish omrim" in the Shulchan Aruch, one can rely on it but it is preferable not to.
There is an important discrepancy between Rashi and the Shulchan Aruch. Rashi holds that a city with 600,000 residents is a reshut harabim, whereas the Shulchan Aruch calculates shishim ribo based on how many people leave home and use the streets. R Moshe Feinstein originally followed the Shulchan Aruch and maintained that shishim ribo was dependent on the street. However, later13 he introduced a novel interpretation and calculated that shishim ribo, when applied to a city was not dependent on a street, but over a twelve mil by twelve mil area. Hence, the criterion of shishim ribo would require a sizable population living and commuting into a twelve mil by twelve mil area so that it could satisfy the condition of shishim ribo collectively walking in its streets. He subsequently calculated for this to be the case, and for shishim ribo to use the streets of a city, four or five times 600,000 people would have to actually live in the city, and that is "just about three million people,"14 but even he admitted that this was a new interpretation and that those who took shishim ribo literally were justified in their approach.
Although other authorities assessed each street on a case by case basis15, R Moshe only used this definition for a city. However, with regard to an intercity road - sratya, he stated that shishim ribo would have to traverse the road itself every day16 as per the original Shulchan Aruch. There is a difference of opinion as to whether one counts the people that pass a single point on the road or if the total number of travellers who use the street are counted. Some modern day authorities17 have been stricter on this point and have said that any arterial road that services a population of 600,000 would be a reshut harabim.
The rabbis discuss how frequently shishim ribo have to travel on a road for it to be considered a reshut harabim - does a road become a reshut harabim if shishim ribo travel on it only at busy times or do they have to travel on it regularly? Whilst the Shulchan Aruch6 seems to take a lenient view when it says shishim ribo has to pass the street every day for it to be a reshut harabim, there are those who maintain that the shishim ribo only need traverse the street most days of the year18 - even the Mishnah Brurah is reluctant to accept the view of the Shulchan Aruch on this.
There are authorities who maintain that drivers of motor vehicles and train passengers are not counted in shishim ribo and that only pedestrians (holchei regel) are included19. This is because a vehicle in itself is considered a reshut hayachid, and therefore its occupants are not part of the total.
Arguably no other issue has divided halachic authorities as much as defining what constitutes a reshut harabim. It only serves to emphasise the need for individuals to consult with their local rabbi for help in all halachic decisions.
1 Mishnah Brurah 364:2 2 a reshut harabim also impacts on other aspects of halachah - such as returning a lost object, which have different laws depending on which type of domain it is found in, but the definition of a reshut harabim in these other cases is different. 3 Exodus 12:37, Numbers 2:32. Tosfot points out that this number is only the eligible males and so the actual count would have been much higher. However this is the number explicitly stated in the Torah so we follow that. 4 this is the view of Rashi to Eruvin 6a (and to Eruvin 59a). Another source for this comes from Brachos 58a where it is ruled that the blessing on seeing a multitude ("ribo") of Torah scholars is also only said when one is in the presence of 600,000 scholars 5 Eruvin 20a, 22a 6 Aruch Chaim 345:7 based on the braisa quoted in Shabbat 6a 7 based on Shabbat 99a 8 Shulchan Aruch: Aruch Chaim 364:2 9 Igrot Moshe 1:140 10 see Biur Halachah: Aruch Chaim 345:7 for a listing of the opinions that hold either way 11 Igrot Moshe 3:94, 5:24:10 12 Nechemiah 13:15 13 Igrot Moshe 1:139:5 14 Igrot Moshe 5:28:5 15 Beit Ephraim: Aruch Chaim #26 16 Igrot Moshe 5:28:16 17 the book Simchas Yisrael quotes this view from both R Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and R Yosef Shalom Eliashiv 18 Maharsham 3:188, Minchas Yitzchak 8:32:1, Igrot Moshe 4:87 19 Beit Ephraim: Aruch Chaim #26, Maharsham 1:162 etc. although Igrot Moshe 4:87 refutes this