In Summation:
1)
Many city streets are encompassed by mechitzos habatim on three sides,
that are omed merubeh al haparutz; alternatively, many cities can
utilize existing structures as mechitzos, and notwithstanding the
criteria of a reshus harabbim contained therein, the area is deemed a reshus
hayachid me’d’Oraysa, and tzuras hapesachim can be utilized to
rectify the breaches.
2)
If mechitzos are not being utilized, many poskim maintain that me’d’Oraysa
a tzuras hapesach would suffice to reclassify a reshus harabbim
as a reshus hayachid. Accordingly, since the requirement of delasos
is me’d’rabbanan, we can be lenient [safek d’rabbanan l’kulla]
and apply any additional heter to remove the obligation of delasos.
3)
Even if one would argue that it is not universally accepted that a tzuras
hapesach would suffice to reclassify a reshus harabbim as a reshus
hayachid, we can establish an eruv of tzuras hapesachim in
most cities since we do not have a reshus harabbim/sratya and platya
for the mavo’os hamefulashim/our streets to open into.
4)
Even if one would argue that our streets do not need to open into a sratya/platya,
we can rely on the fact that our streets do not meet two criteria of a reshus
harabbim ― shishim ribo and mefulash u’mechavanim ― and
therefore, an eruv consisting of tzuras hapesachim can be
established.
5)
Rav Moshe zt”l would allow most city eruvin, since they do not
meet the criterion of shishim ribo, and the fact that most city streets are
encompassed by mechitzos habatim on three sides; alternatively, many
cities can utilize existing structures as mechitzos.
No comments:
Post a Comment