Allowing Carrying Using an Eruv Chatzerot: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
Allowing Carrying Using an Eruv Chatzerot (view source)
Revision as of 19:09, 9 March 2023
, 9 March 2023→From whom can one do sechirut reshut
| Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
#It is possible to do sechirut reshut from the person himself, his wife, or his worker who can use the area.<reF>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 382:11</ref> | #It is possible to do sechirut reshut from the person himself, his wife, or his worker who can use the area.<reF>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 382:11</ref> | ||
#It is possible to do sechirut reshut from a landlord who rented it to a non-Jew generally it is possible to do sechirut reshut from the landlord unless the landlord left items in the renter's house or could kick the renter out whenever he wants.<reF>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 382:18</ref> | #It is possible to do sechirut reshut from a landlord who rented it to a non-Jew generally it is possible to do sechirut reshut from the landlord unless the landlord left items in the renter's house or could kick the renter out whenever he wants.<reF>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 382:18</ref> | ||
# It is possible to do sechirut reshut from the king on behalf of all of his non-Jewish citizens if either (1) the king is the owner of the land and could house his soldiers and their equipment in the houses of his citizens whenever he wants,<Ref>Bet Yosef 391:1, Shulchan Aruch O.C. 391:1. Biur Halacha 391:1 s.v. shelo quotes Chacham Tzvi 6 who limits this to where the king could declare whenever he wants without consulting his citizens. Dirshu 391:12 quotes Ginat Veradim who says that this leniency does not apply if the king must consult his advisers before declaring war.</ref> or (2) the king owns the streets and can confiscate the street and move it somewhere else.<reF>Rivash 710, Rama 391:1, Mishna Brurah 391:12. This is unlike Taz 391:3 who doesn't rely on this reason alone, but Shaar Hatziyun 391:5 quotes most achronim who disagree.</ref> Nowadays, in democracies the first reason usually does not apply.<ref> | # It is possible to do sechirut reshut from the king on behalf of all of his non-Jewish citizens if either (1) the king is the owner of the land and could house his soldiers and their equipment in the houses of his citizens whenever he wants,<Ref>Bet Yosef 391:1, Shulchan Aruch O.C. 391:1. Biur Halacha 391:1 s.v. shelo quotes Chacham Tzvi 6 who limits this to where the king could declare whenever he wants without consulting his citizens. Dirshu 391:12 quotes Ginat Veradim who says that this leniency does not apply if the king must consult his advisers before declaring war.</ref> or (2) the king owns the streets and can confiscate the street and move it somewhere else.<reF>Rivash 710, Rama 391:1, Mishna Brurah 391:12. This is unlike Taz 391:3 who doesn't rely on this reason alone, but Shaar Hatziyun 391:5 quotes most achronim who disagree.</ref> Nowadays, in democracies the first reason usually does not apply.<ref>For example, in America, the third amendment took away the ability for government to house soldiers in citizen's homes. Dirshu 391:10 quotes that the Steipler (Karna D'igarta 2:96) and Shevet Halevi (8:97:14 and 8:77:2:8) held that it is impossible to do sechirut reshut from the government today since their rights of forcing people to house soldiers is severely restricted. Karna D'igarta 2:96 writes that the king's right to house soldiers in the houses of the citizens used to be effective for sechirut reshut (Shulchan Aruch 391:1), but today that right is only because the government has control over the citizens but not their houses. See Dirshu 391:10 who quotes Minchat Yitzchak 9:110 based on Chazon Ish that there's no way to be socher reshut in Israel because there's no dina d'malchuta in Israel. Nonetheless, Dirshu there also quotes that Chazon Ish actually allowed a sechirut reshut from the municipal government. </ref> | ||
#Some poskim allow doing sechirut reshut from the municipal government because the government has the ability to use people's homes in cases of emergency.<ref>Fundamentally, this concept was raised by Rav Yitzchak Karo that if the king can house his troops in the houses of the citizens he is considered like the owners. Then it is possible to do sechirut reshut with him. Shulchan Aruch O.C. 391:1 codifies this concept. Biur Halacha 391:1 s.v. shelo quotes Chacham Tzvi 6 who challenges this because the king today can't start a war on his own without agreement from the people. Maharsham 5:33 notes this issue but nonetheless is lenient to allow sechirut reshut from the municipal government. Shevet Halevi 8:97:14 writes that nowadays this leniency is very weak but we can be lenient since some poskim hold that sechirut reshut is no longer necessary. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Orchot Shabbat v. 3 ch. 28 fnt. 148) raised another possibility that it is possible to sechirut reshut from the government because they can use people's home in the case of emergency. Even though the prime minister could not create a state of emergency independently, together with the government officials they could. If so, doing a sechirut from one of their representatives is sufficient.</ref> Other poskim reject this leniency.<ref>Rav Elyashiv (Orchot Shabbat v. 3 ch. 28 fnt. 148 and Dirshu 391:10)</ref> | |||
#Some poskim allow doing sechirut reshut from the government because they can close the streets.<ref>Fundamentally, this idea was raised by the Rivash 710 who writes that the king who owns the streets and is able to take away a street from the people even if they repay them without another street can do sechirut reshut. He compares this to a non-Jewish owner who rents out house to a non-Jewish renter, where if the non-Jewish owner can kick out his tenant he can do the sechirut reshut (Gemara Eruvin 65b, Shulchan Aruch O.C. 382:18). Rama 391:1 codifies this Rivash. Mishna Brurah 391:12 quotes the achronim who accept this Rama, unlike Taz 391:3 who doesn't rely on Rama's reason alone. Shevet Halevi 8:77:2:8 applies this Rivash and Rama to our streets today in Chicago to allow sechirut reshut from the government.</ref> Others don't allow this today because the government doesn't own the streets.<ref>Chachmat Lev 13 notes that Rivash (reflected by Rama) is clearly based on the fact that the king owned the streets and can kick people out, but the government today doesn't own the streets.</ref> Even according to those who rely on this sechirut reshut, it is only effective to allow carrying from Jewish homes to the public areas such as the streets but not into non-Jewish homes.<ref>Rivash 710, Rama 391:1, Mishna Brurah 391:13, Shevet Halevi 8:77:2:8</ref> | |||
#Some poskim allow doing sechirut reshut from the police chief since they are like a worker for the citizens.<ref>Dirshu 382:57 quoting Chazon Ish 82:9</ref> | |||
#In an apartment building, some poskim allow doing sechirut reshut from the superintendent.<Ref>Shevet Halevi 8:77:2:8</ref> Others hold that it is only possible to do sechirut reshut from the superintendent if he could do some activities that isn't technically allowed in the public areas of the building outside of his duties of his work and people wouldn't care.<ref>Orchot Shabbat v. 3 ch. 28 fnt. 148 based on Chazon Ish 82:33</ref> | |||
===Non-Jewish tenants=== | ===Non-Jewish tenants=== | ||
# If a non-Jew is a guest at a Jew's house no sechirut reshut is necessary.<Ref>There are several ways to permit a non-Jew who is a guest at a Jew's house: 1) The non-Jew is only staying there less than 30 days and doesn't visit there regularly. In that case, Shulchan Aruch O.C. 384:1 based on Yerushalmi, Rosh, and Tur that no sechirut reshut is necessary. 2) If the owner can remove the non-Jew (''matzuy lsalkinhu'') a sechirut reshut isn't necessary. This is the view of Gra 382:3 and Biur Halacha (384:1 s.v. eino). 3) The owner only let the non-Jew into his house intending that he wouldn't forbid him from carrying on Shabbat (לא השאיל או השכיר לו על דעת שיאסר עליו). This is the logic of Rashba (Avodat Hakodesh 4:103) codified by Rama 382:1. Bet Meir disagrees on the basis of Rambam. Mishna Brurah (Shaar Hatziyun 382:6, Biur Halacha 384:1 s.v. eino) is hesitant to rely on this Rashba unless it is also possible to remove the non-Jew whenever he wants, in which case even according to Rambam and Gra sechirut reshut isn't necessary. Shulchan Aruch Harav 384:1 does not apply this logic unless the non-Jew is staying there permanently for like a year but if he's just a guest this logic does not apply. Biur Halacha 384:1 s.v. eino quotes this. [Rashba himself does rejects this entire leniency in his Chiddushei Harashba 72a, Avodat Hakodesh (Bet Hanetivot 4:60), and Responsa (Meyuchasot Lramban 220) according to the manuscript version. Nonetheless, Maggid Mishna and Rama based on Rashba (Avodat Hakodesh 4:103) rule like this reason alone. Also, see Chidushei Hameiri 61b who quotes that Ramach, Ramban, and Rashba all held of this leniency.]</ref> | # If a non-Jew is a guest at a Jew's house no sechirut reshut is necessary.<Ref>There are several ways to permit a non-Jew who is a guest at a Jew's house: 1) The non-Jew is only staying there less than 30 days and doesn't visit there regularly. In that case, Shulchan Aruch O.C. 384:1 based on Yerushalmi, Rosh, and Tur that no sechirut reshut is necessary. 2) If the owner can remove the non-Jew (''matzuy lsalkinhu'') a sechirut reshut isn't necessary. This is the view of Gra 382:3 and Biur Halacha (384:1 s.v. eino). 3) The owner only let the non-Jew into his house intending that he wouldn't forbid him from carrying on Shabbat (לא השאיל או השכיר לו על דעת שיאסר עליו). This is the logic of Rashba (Avodat Hakodesh 4:103) codified by Rama 382:1. Bet Meir disagrees on the basis of Rambam. Mishna Brurah (Shaar Hatziyun 382:6, Biur Halacha 384:1 s.v. eino) is hesitant to rely on this Rashba unless it is also possible to remove the non-Jew whenever he wants, in which case even according to Rambam and Gra sechirut reshut isn't necessary. Shulchan Aruch Harav 384:1 does not apply this logic unless the non-Jew is staying there permanently for like a year but if he's just a guest this logic does not apply. Biur Halacha 384:1 s.v. eino quotes this. [Rashba himself does rejects this entire leniency in his Chiddushei Harashba 72a, Avodat Hakodesh (Bet Hanetivot 4:60), and Responsa (Meyuchasot Lramban 220) according to the manuscript version. Nonetheless, Maggid Mishna and Rama based on Rashba (Avodat Hakodesh 4:103) rule like this reason alone. Also, see Chidushei Hameiri 61b who quotes that Ramach, Ramban, and Rashba all held of this leniency.]</ref> | ||
