The Earlier Sources for the Position That There Is No Reshus Harabim Today

The position that a Torah-level reshus harabim requires shishim ribo did not begin with the Alter Rebbe. It comes from an old dispute among the Rishonim about how closely the public domain of later cities must resemble the encampment of the Yidden in the Midbar.

That dispute produced two substantial lines of halachic authority. One reads the Midbar model as including a public of six hundred thousand. The other holds that the Gemara establishes the physical characteristics of reshus harabim without making the number of people an additional condition.

Understanding those two lines is necessary for understanding the later statement that "there is no reshus harabim today."

The Talmudic and Rambam baseline

The Gemara derives central features of reshus harabim from the Midbar, including the width of the public way. The Rambam, Hilchos Shabbos 14:1, likewise defines reshus harabim through the physical character of public places and roads. Among the conditions he states are:

וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה רֹחַב הַדֶּרֶךְ שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה, וְלֹא תִהְיֶה עָלָיו תִּקְרָה.

The public way must be sixteen amos wide and not roofed. The Rambam does not state a condition of six hundred thousand.

Absence by itself would not prove that the Rambam consciously rejected such a condition. But later Rishonim understood the disagreement explicitly and said so.

Rashi and the shishim-ribo tradition

Rashi makes the connection to six hundred thousand directly. On Eruvin 6a, his definition of reshus harabim includes a public place sixteen amos wide, with the relevant openness, and a city in which six hundred thousand are found. Tosafos there summarizes the position:

רה"ר רחב י"ו אמות ומפולש משני צדדים משער לשער ומצויין בה ששים רבוא

Tosafos adds that the Behag also requires דריסת ס' רבוא, the passage or public use of six hundred thousand.

The same approach appears in Rashi on Eruvin 59a. Explaining an "individual's city," Rashi writes:

שלא היו נכנסין בה תמיד ס' רבוא של בני אדם ולא חשיבא רה"ר דלא דמיא לדגלי מדבר

It was a city into which six hundred thousand people did not regularly enter, and therefore it did not have the significance of a reshus harabim corresponding to the encampment in the Midbar.

These formulations are important for another reason. They speak variously of a city in which six hundred thousand are found, of their public passage, and of six hundred thousand entering a city regularly. The early formulation is therefore broader than a single modern slogan about a turnstile-style count at one point on one street.

Tosafos records the difficulty

Tosafos on Eruvin 6a records Rabbeinu Tam's challenge from the wagon routes in the Midbar. Those routes were treated as reshus harabim, yet six hundred thousand people did not stand beneath or pass through each wagon route at once.

Tosafos records a further question. If the number is being copied from the Midbar, why count the six hundred thousand men recorded in the Torah but not the women, children and erev rav who were also present? The answer given is that the halachic model uses the number expressly counted in the Torah.

The discussion itself shows that shishim ribo was not a simple numerical datum. From the beginning, the Rishonim had to define what aspect of the Midbar's public life the number represents.

Ramban rejects the requirement

The Ramban, in his chiddushim to Eruvin 59a, quotes Rashi's position and notes that it is also found in the Behag. He treats that pedigree with respect:

ולא ידענו מנין לו לרש"י כן שלא הוזכר בתלמוד בשום מקום אבל בהלכות גדולות נמצא כן והרי הדבר תלוי באילנות גדולות

The view rests on "great trees," but the Ramban says that he does not know the Talmudic source for making six hundred thousand a condition.

After examining the matter, he concludes:

וסוף דבר אין לנו אלא מה שהוזכר בתלמוד רשות הרבים שש עשרה אמה ... ושאינו מקורה ... אבל דיורין לא ילפינן

His conclusion is that the defining requirements are those stated in the Gemara, including the sixteen-amah width and the fact that the way is not roofed. He does not derive a population condition.

This is not a dispute over whether six hundred thousand existed in a particular medieval town. It is a dispute over the definition itself.

The Rivash states the objection explicitly

The Rivash, responsum 405, takes the same side in particularly clear language:

מה שמוזכר בשאלה בחשיבות רשות הרבים ששים רבוא בוקעין בו אינו עיקר ... לפי שלא נזכר בתלמוד בשום מקום

He continues that the Ramban and Rashba agreed with this approach and notes that the Rambam did not mention a requirement of six hundred thousand. For the Rivash, the number is not part of the essential Talmudic definition.

This line of Rishonim is important when reading later Poskim. The stringent side is not a late effort to dismiss a generally accepted shishim ribo rule. It is an old and substantial interpretation of the Gemara.

From the Tur to the Shulchan Aruch

The Tur, Orach Chaim 345, incorporates six hundred thousand directly into his description of reshus harabim. His wording combines the street's physical characteristics with וששים רבוא עוברים בו, six hundred thousand passing through it.

The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 345:7, is structured differently. It first gives the physical definition of reshus harabim. It then adds:

וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים שֶׁכֹּל שֶׁאֵין שִׁשִּׁים רִבּוֹא עוֹבְרִים בּוֹ בְּכָל יוֹם אֵינוֹ רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים

The shishim ribo requirement is recorded as a yesh omrim, not as the only definition on the page.

That same two-level structure is later carried into the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch.

The Taz and the phrase "we have no reshus harabim"

The Taz on Orach Chaim 345:6 discusses the two opinions and the practice of his time. He lists major authorities on both sides, then turns directly to the familiar phrase:

ובפי העולם מורגל עכשיו שאין לנו ר"ה הוא כדעת הי"א

The expression commonly used by people, that "now we have no reshus harabim," is, he says, כדעת הי"א, according to the opinion of the yesh omrim.

He therefore concludes that someone who wishes to be stringent may be stringent for himself, while he should not protest the widespread practice of those who rely on the lenient authorities.

That formulation is very close to the language later used by the Alter Rebbe. It also fixes the meaning of the slogan. "We have no reshus harabim" was understood as the practical consequence of following the shishim ribo opinion in the cities then under discussion. It did not mean that the contrary Rishonim had disappeared from halacha.

What the Alter Rebbe inherited

By the time of the Alter Rebbe, the halachic background therefore contained several distinct propositions:

1. Public ways must satisfy the physical conditions of reshus harabim.
2. According to Rashi, Behag and many other Rishonim and Poskim, shishim ribo is an additional condition derived from the Midbar.
3. According to Ramban, Rivash and other major authorities, no such numerical condition is part of the Talmudic definition.
4. The Shulchan Aruch records shishim ribo as a yesh omrim.
5. The Taz recognizes a widespread minhag based on that opinion while preserving the stricter position for personal stringency.

The Alter Rebbe's rulings on reshus harabim continue this layered structure. His statement about there being no full reshus harabim in the places of his time can only be understood correctly when the older dispute remains visible behind it.