{"id":7673,"date":"2016-01-21T09:00:32","date_gmt":"2016-01-21T07:00:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/?p=7673"},"modified":"2017-11-15T13:04:04","modified_gmt":"2017-11-15T11:04:04","slug":"01-21-09","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/01-21-09\/","title":{"rendered":"09. In Practice"},"content":{"rendered":"
In practice, most observant Jews follow the lenient position and carry in cities, relying on an eruv<\/em> of the tzurat ha-peta\u0125<\/em> type. This leads to an interesting question: given that half of the poskim<\/em> are stringent, believing that an eruv<\/em> of the tzurat<\/em> ha<\/em>–peta\u0125 <\/em>type is not sufficient in cities with streets wider than sixteen amot<\/em> (and that it is irrelevant how many people pass through), how is it that most observant Jews follow the lenient position? After all, it is a case of doubt pertaining to a Torah law, where we are normally stringent.<\/p>\n The simple answer is that in rare cases, when dealing with an issue in which it is very difficult to be stringent, sometimes the custom takes hold to rely on a lenient opinion even though there is a possible Torah violation at stake. Furthermore, it truly is difficult to follow the stringent position here, as that would mean that no one could go out on Shabbat with anything in his pockets, even tissues and the like, which are sometimes necessary. Additionally, families would not be able to visit one another, because one may not push a stroller in a reshut ha-rabim<\/em>, and there would be no way to bring diapers, bottles, and so on. Since there is no alternative, and given that half of the poskim<\/em> are lenient, we can rely on the lenient position in this case.<\/p>\n We should add that the poskim<\/em> are not really evenly divided in this case. As we will see, some poskim<\/em> ruled that there are additional requirements that must be met in order for an area to be considered a reshut ha-rabim<\/em> by Torah law. If we take these requirements into account, it turns out that according to most poskim<\/em>, today\u2019s streets would not qualify as a reshut ha-rabim<\/em>. Therefore, an eruv<\/em> of the tzurat ha-peta\u0125<\/em> type is sufficient. First, according to some poskim<\/em>, an area is considered a reshut ha-rabim<\/em> by Torah law only when the street bisects the entire city in a straight line. If it is slightly crooked, it is no longer a reshut ha-rabim<\/em>. Most cities do not have a main street that is completely straight, and thus we may rely on an eruv<\/em> of the tzurat ha-peta\u0125<\/em> type. Second, some poskim<\/em> feel that since our streets are laid out such that every street is intersected by another street, all the streets are considered enclosed by a wall on three sides. Accordingly, they do not qualify as a reshut ha-rabim<\/em> by Torah law, and an eruv<\/em> of the tzurat ha-peta\u0125<\/em> type is sufficient (AHS and \u0124<\/em>azon Ish<\/em>). There are additional reasons to be lenient, as explained in the notes.<\/p>\n When we combine all these opinions, it turns out that according to the majority of poskim<\/em>, today\u2019s streets are considered a karmelit<\/em>, and carrying in them can be permitted with an eruv<\/em> of the tzurat ha-peta\u0125<\/em> type.<\/p>\n Nevertheless, according to many, since a Torah prohibition may be at stake, le-khat\u0125ila<\/em> it is proper not to rely on an eruv<\/em> of the tzurat ha-peta\u0125<\/em> type in a place where there are streets wider than sixteen amot<\/em>.[9]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n
<\/a>