Allowing Carrying Using an Eruv Chatzerot: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
Allowing Carrying Using an Eruv Chatzerot (view source)
Revision as of 15:56, 21 March 2023
, 21 March 2023→Carrying within a Building
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
#If the food is eaten in the middle of Shabbat, it is still permitted to carry for that Shabbat, but the food must be replaced for the next Shabbat.<ref>Mishna Brurah 368:16</ref> | #If the food is eaten in the middle of Shabbat, it is still permitted to carry for that Shabbat, but the food must be replaced for the next Shabbat.<ref>Mishna Brurah 368:16</ref> | ||
==Carrying within a | ==Restrictions even with an Eruv Chatzerot== | ||
#Some achronim hold that even if there is an eruv still it is forbidden to carry from one chetzer to another chetzer unless there is a door between them. It would be permitted to carry from one chetzer to another through the street where they made an eruv. For example, if there are two backyards with a fence between them and no gate, according to this opinion it is forbidden to carry or throw something over the fence, even though there is an eruv. However, most poskim are lenient about this.<ref>Magen Avraham 372:3 is strict based on Rashi that the leniency of eruv chatzerot doesn't allow going from one chetzer to another unless there is a way to make an eruv between name, namely there is a door between them. However, Even Haozer (to Magen Avraham 372:3), [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=49576&st=&pgnum=243 Tosefet Shabbat 372:6], Pri Megadim E"A 372:3, and Aruch Hashulchan 372:12 disagree. Once it is permitted to include all of the houses and chatzerot in the eruv, they're all joined together and it is completely permitted to carry from one to another. Mishna Brurah 372:27 and Netivot Shabbat 32:17 are lenient like Even Haozer unlike Magen Avraham.</ref> | |||
#It is forbidden to carry kelim that were in the house when Shabbat started to a karpef even if it is less than a beyt saatayim, even if there is an Eruv chatzerot.<ref>Magen Avraham 372:1. Biur Halacha 372:1 s.v. oh writes that this question of Magen Avraham depends on a major dispute between the rishonim and only in an extenuating circumstance should one be lenient. Biur Halacha quotes Chemed Moshe who is lenient if there's an eruv. Chazon Ish 88:26 and Netivot Shabbat (ch. 12 fnt. 3) quote this Biur Halacha.</ref> | |||
# If there is an embassy it is forbidden to carry into that embassy kelim that were in one's house at the beginning of Shabbat even if there is an eruv.<ref>Netivot Shabbat (ch. 37 fnt. 93). The reason is that the communal sechirut reshut doesn't work to permit the embassy.</ref> | |||
# Many poskim hold that it is forbidden to carry into a non-Jew's house even if there is an eruv.<Ref>One reason for this is that the sechirut reshut today is effective according to most poskim for the streets but not private homes. Netivot Shabbat 37:27 notes this that even a sechirut reshut from the government for the streets, which helps for the eruv, doesn't allow carrying in a non-Jew's house on Shabbat. Fundamentally, this is based on Rama 391:1. Netivot Shabbat (ch. 37 fnt. 94) also raises the halachic possibility that even sechirut reshut and eruvin only permit carrying in Jewish homes and the streets but not the non-Jewish homes. He says he didn't see the poskim raise this issue. </ref> | |||
==Carrying without an Eruv Chatzerot== | |||
# It is permitted to carry kelim from one chetzer to another chetzer even without an eruv chatzerot. The reason for eruv chatzerot is to allow carrying utensils of the house to the chetzer or from the chetzer to the house.<Ref>Eruvin 89a, Shulchan Aruch O.C. 372:1</ref> | |||
# If kelim of the house got into a chetzer in a permitted fashion or accidentally in a forbidden fashion, many poskim hold that it is permitted to then carry them in the chetzer, while others hold that it is forbidden. The lenient opinion holds that the primary gezerah was only about transferring from one domain to another but not within the chetzer. The stringent opinion views the chetzer like a reshut harabbim once there's no eruv, with respect to the kelim of the house.<Ref>Biur Halacha (372:1 s.v. she'ma) notes that it is a dispute between the rishonim whether kelim that were originally in the house can be moved in the chetzer if brought there in a permitted or forbidden fashion. Rashi (Shabbat 130b) and Tosfot (Eruvin 91b) hold that it is permitted, while Rashba (Avodat Hakodesh 3:2:109) holds it is forbidden. Even Haozer, Bet Meir, and Rabbi Akiva Eiger all seem to be strict, while Shulchan Aruch Harav (372:1 and 388:1) and Chazon Ish 104:22 are lenient. Avnei Nezer OC 301:17 is strict and argues Tosfot agrees with Rashba. Biur Halacha doesn't resolve the question. Netivot Shabbat 26:11 also quotes this dispute and doesn't resolve it.</ref> | |||
##Based on the above, if a person is in a place without an eruv and he wore his jacket to shul, can he take it off and carry it more than 4 amot in the shul? If the jacket was at his house when Shabbat started and he wasn't wearing it, it has the status of a kli ha'bayit. Once he wore it to shul, many poskim would permit him to carry it in shul since he's not moving it from chetzer to chetzer. However, some poskim would forbid this since the jacket is a kli ha'bayit and can't be moved more than 4 amot in the chetzer.<Ref>Rashi and Tosfot are lenient, while Rashba is strict. Shulchan Aruch Harav 372:1 and Chazon Ish are lenient, while Even Haozer, Bet Meir, Rabbi Akiva Eiger, and Avnei Nezer 301:17 are strict. Biur Halacha doesn't resolve this question.</ref> | |||
#Some poskim are very strict about this and forbid carrying a kli that in a permitted or forbidden way got into a house to move it more than 4 amot. Most poskim argue that this is permitted.<ref>Even Haozer holds that it is forbidden to carry a kli that came from a chetzer into the house more than 4 amot. Bet Meir argues that this is permitted since moving items inside a house was never included in the gezerah of chazal. Biur Halacha is lenient about this point. Netivot Shabbat 26:11 is also lenient.</ref> | |||
## If someone's coat was in shul when Shabbat started (because he wore it there before Shabbat) and then he wears it home, according to the stringent view he may not carry the coat more than 4 amot in his house if there's no eruv. However, most poskim are lenient about this since the rabbis never made a gezera of eruv chatzerot within someone's private home.<ref>Even Haozer would forbid this, but most poskim reject this stringency (Biur Halacha 372:1 s.v. she'ma).</ref> | |||
==Carrying within a building== | |||
===Apartment Buildings=== | |||
#If a person lives in an apartment building with other Jews, an eruv chatzerot is necessary in order to carry within the building on Shabbat.<ref>Eruv KeHilchato (Rabbi Avraham Ades, p. 149)</ref> Some say that if there is an eruv in town one doesn't need a specific eruv chatzerot for the building even if one doesn't hold of the eruv.<ref>[http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19979&pgnum=223 Or Letzion 2:23:13]</ref> | #If a person lives in an apartment building with other Jews, an eruv chatzerot is necessary in order to carry within the building on Shabbat.<ref>Eruv KeHilchato (Rabbi Avraham Ades, p. 149)</ref> Some say that if there is an eruv in town one doesn't need a specific eruv chatzerot for the building even if one doesn't hold of the eruv.<ref>[http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19979&pgnum=223 Or Letzion 2:23:13]</ref> | ||
===Dorms=== | |||
#Some say that if students live in a dorm with other Jewish students and everyone eats together in the cafeteria, an eruv chatzerot isn't necessary in order to carry in the dorms on Shabbat.<ref>Avnei Yishfeh O.C. 5:73 holds that if all of the students eat together in the cafeteria there's no need for an eruv chatzerot. [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/803011/Rabbi_Hershel_Schachter/Eiruvei_Chatzeiros Rav Hershel Schachter ("Eiruvei Chatzeiros," min 35-40)] says that Rav Soloveitchik held that the students in the dormitory in Yeshiva University should make an eruv chatzeirot, however, the general assumption is like Rav Moshe and there's no need for an eruv chatzeirot.</ref> | #Some say that if students live in a dorm with other Jewish students and everyone eats together in the cafeteria, an eruv chatzerot isn't necessary in order to carry in the dorms on Shabbat.<ref>Avnei Yishfeh O.C. 5:73 holds that if all of the students eat together in the cafeteria there's no need for an eruv chatzerot. [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/803011/Rabbi_Hershel_Schachter/Eiruvei_Chatzeiros Rav Hershel Schachter ("Eiruvei Chatzeiros," min 35-40)] says that Rav Soloveitchik held that the students in the dormitory in Yeshiva University should make an eruv chatzeirot, however, the general assumption is like Rav Moshe and there's no need for an eruv chatzeirot.</ref> | ||
===Hospitals=== | |||
#Some poskim are lenient not to require an eruv chatzerot in a hospital, but it is better to do so to satisfy all opinions. If someone on staff lives there permanently then there's no need for eruv if all of the patients would be there for less than 30 days. However, sometimes no one lives in the hospital or patients stay for more than 30 days an eruv should be necessary. The reason for the the poskim who are lenient is because the hospital could move patients from room to room.<ref>Netivot Shabbat 34:13 writes that it is possible that hospitals don't need an eruv because the staff could move patients from room to room.</ref> | |||
===Hotels=== | ===Hotels=== | ||
#If a person visits a hotel for a Shabbat, some say that an eruv chatzerot isn't necessary in order to carry in the hotel on Shabbat, while others require it.<ref>Igrot Moshe 1:141 holds that utensils of the hotel owner or apartment building owner is considered tefisat yad so that those staying there are like his guests and don’t need an eruv chatzerot. Chazon Ish OC 92, Minchat Yitzchak 4:55:5, and Dvar Avraham 3:30 are strict. Minchat Yitzchak requires an eruv chatzerot for Jews staying in a hotel. Chazon Ish holds that any utensils that are lent out to the guests or renters aren’t considered tefisat yad of the owner. [http://www.star-k.org/articles/kashrus-kurrents/501/the-travelers-halachic-guide-to-hotels/ Rav Tzvi Goldberg on star.org] and [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/795045/Rabbi_Chaim_Eisenstein/Halacha_from_the_Daily_Daf--Eruvin_85-86-_Is_an_Eruvei_Chatzeiros_Necessary_in_a_Hotel- Rabbi Eisenstein's shiur on yutorah.org] summarize the topic as well. [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/803011/Rabbi_Hershel_Schachter/Eiruvei_Chatzeiros Rav Hershel Schachter ("Eiruvei Chatzeiros," min 34-39)] agrees with Rav Moshe since the hotel can leave heavy furniture in the rooms that indicates that really everyone is guests by the hotel owner and there's no need for an eruv chatzerot. Additionally, if all of the food for the hotel comes from the same kitchen there's no need for an eruv chatzerot.</ref> | #If a person visits a hotel for a Shabbat, some say that an eruv chatzerot isn't necessary in order to carry in the hotel on Shabbat, while others require it.<ref>Igrot Moshe 1:141 holds that utensils of the hotel owner or apartment building owner is considered tefisat yad so that those staying there are like his guests and don’t need an eruv chatzerot. Chazon Ish OC 92, Minchat Yitzchak 4:55:5, and Dvar Avraham 3:30 are strict. Minchat Yitzchak requires an eruv chatzerot for Jews staying in a hotel. Chazon Ish holds that any utensils that are lent out to the guests or renters aren’t considered tefisat yad of the owner. [http://www.star-k.org/articles/kashrus-kurrents/501/the-travelers-halachic-guide-to-hotels/ Rav Tzvi Goldberg on star.org] and [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/795045/Rabbi_Chaim_Eisenstein/Halacha_from_the_Daily_Daf--Eruvin_85-86-_Is_an_Eruvei_Chatzeiros_Necessary_in_a_Hotel- Rabbi Eisenstein's shiur on yutorah.org] summarize the topic as well. [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/803011/Rabbi_Hershel_Schachter/Eiruvei_Chatzeiros Rav Hershel Schachter ("Eiruvei Chatzeiros," min 34-39)] agrees with Rav Moshe since the hotel can leave heavy furniture in the rooms that indicates that really everyone is guests by the hotel owner and there's no need for an eruv chatzerot. Additionally, if all of the food for the hotel comes from the same kitchen there's no need for an eruv chatzerot.</ref> | ||
| Line 62: | Line 77: | ||
* Lev Aharon 1:31 is lenient because they eat together, matzuy lsalek, he wouldn't rent to guests so that they would asur on each other, they use things together like bathrooms kitchen, only have one exit to street, and tefisat yad. He’s lenient even if the owner isn't there. It is unclear if lenient without first reason. | * Lev Aharon 1:31 is lenient because they eat together, matzuy lsalek, he wouldn't rent to guests so that they would asur on each other, they use things together like bathrooms kitchen, only have one exit to street, and tefisat yad. He’s lenient even if the owner isn't there. It is unclear if lenient without first reason. | ||
* [https://www.star-k.org/articles/kashrus-kurrents/501/the-travelers-halachic-guide-to-hotels/#_ftnref24 Star-K] quotes whether hotels need eruv chatzerot as a dispute between Rav Moshe and the Dvar Avraham whether an eruv chatzerot is necessary in a hotel.[https://www.crcweb.org/ask_rav/shabbosinhotel.php CRC] applies Rav Moshe’s teshuva to hotels as well. Both Star-K and CRC do not raise the other issues which invalidate that leniency even according to Rav Moshe.</ref> | * [https://www.star-k.org/articles/kashrus-kurrents/501/the-travelers-halachic-guide-to-hotels/#_ftnref24 Star-K] quotes whether hotels need eruv chatzerot as a dispute between Rav Moshe and the Dvar Avraham whether an eruv chatzerot is necessary in a hotel.[https://www.crcweb.org/ask_rav/shabbosinhotel.php CRC] applies Rav Moshe’s teshuva to hotels as well. Both Star-K and CRC do not raise the other issues which invalidate that leniency even according to Rav Moshe.</ref> | ||
==Sechirut Reshut== | ==Sechirut Reshut== | ||
===What is sechirut reshut?=== | ===What is sechirut reshut?=== | ||
| Line 82: | Line 98: | ||
# 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> | # 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 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 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. Netivot Shabbat 37:27 allows doing sechirut today from the government who can change the streets. He adds that since they can change the streets it is like they're the owners.</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> | #Some poskim allow doing sechirut reshut from the police chief since they are like a worker for the citizens.<ref>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> | #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> | ||
