REGARDING THE ERUV FOR SEPHARDIC COMMUNITIES

Concerning the possibility for Sepharadim to rely on an

Eruv made around a portion of any city by constructing
surot hapetah (door frames).

Teshuvah of our Mentor and Leader

The Splendor of Our Generation

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef "

Rishon Lesiyon

CONCLUSION OF RAB OVADYA:

That is what I see as true. That is also why I instructed an eruv to be built using door
frames to save those that blatantly transgress the prohibition of carrying on Shabbat. And
as an extra -- but not legally necessary measure, I instructed them to announce that all
the people who are benei Torah and didnt normally carry before should continue their
custom of not carrying, and that the eruv was only made for those who were transgressing
the prohibition. Whats more is that those who are stringent not to make an eruv are
actually being exceedingly lenient, for they allow the desecration of Shabbat to
continue by people carrying in a public domain. The [sages] have already said in Besa
(16b) about a rabbi who prohibited the making of an eruv haserot on yom tov that falls on
Friday, that his ruling began badly, for the damaging of many people is surely considered
bad. This must also be the reasoning of the Rosh for writing so harshly against the
stringent one. See also Hatam Sofer (99). I also ruled to make an eruv in the city of Los
Angeles. By my advice they brought in an important rabbi who was a member of the
religious council in Jerusalem to make the eruv according to law. I have recently seen
that my dear friend R Shalom Mashash (ZL) in Shemesh Umagen III (Orah Hayim, 84)
agreed with me in law and practice on this issue saying that my words were clear and
proper and needed no strengthening at all.

IN CONCLUSION, those that carry on Shabbat in a public domain by an eruv made with
door frames, have basis to do so, and according to many authorities it is allowed even
according to Maran. The sages of Jerusalem also wrote that we have no true public
domain today and an eruv of doorways therefore is sufficient to carry in these days.
Nevertheless he who trembles at the word of G-d and completely refrains from carrying

1
will be blessed. Such a person may still, however, give keys or a siddur and the like to
someone who does carry to carry it for him, even if the person that carries is over the age
of misvot (bar or bat misvah). Vehanah lahem leYisrael, im enam neviim benei neviim
hem.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IN THIS TESHUVAH HACHAM OVADIA

"HAS PERMITTED AN ERUV MADE BY SURAT HAPETAH (DOOR
FRAMES) RATHER THAN ONE MADE WITH ACTUAL DOORS (OR WALLS).
AN ERUV OF SURAT HAPETAH IS A LOWER GRADE ERUV THAN ONE
MADE OF WALLS. FOR WALLS ENCLOSE EVEN A PUBLIC DOMAIN BY
TORAH STANDARDS AND RENDER IT PRIVATE. THE ERUV IN
BROOKLYN IS MADE OF WALLS. THEREFORE, BASED ON THIS
TESHUVAH, IT IS CERTAINLY PERMITTED ABSOLUTELY. FOR ALL THE
DOUBTS BROUGHT IN THE TESHUVAH ABOVE WERE ONLY TAKING
INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THERE MAY BE AN ACTUAL PUBLIC
DOMAIN BY TORAH STANDARDS (WHICH CANT BE FIXED WITH DOOR
FRAMES I.E.POLES AND STRINGS). WHEN USING ACTUAL WALLS EVEN
PUBLIC DOMAINS BY TORAH STANDARDS CAN BE ENCLOSED
HALACHICALLY.

HERE IS THE FULL TEXT OF THE SHEELA

AND TESHUVAH
Concerning the possibility for Sepharadim to rely on an eruv made around a
portion of any city by constructing surot hapetah (door frames).

The teshuvah was originally printed in Hebrew in Yabia Omer IX, Orah Hayim, 33
and is translated and distributed to all with the permission and authorization of the
eminent author. Any amendments made from the original Hebrew to the body of the
teshuvah itself were requested by the eminent author. The footnotes, section
headings, and biographical notes were added by the translator. This English version
was reviewed by Rabbi Shimon Alouf ".

QUESTION:

I was asked if we, the Sepharadim, who follow the rulings of Maran (Rabbi Yosef
Karo)1[1] author of the Shulhan Aruch, may rely on an eruv made with door frames as is
common practice, and thereby carry from a private domain (reshut hayahid) to a public
domain (reshut harabim).

2
ANSWER:

Contradiction in Marans ruling HYDAs interpretation (stringent)

A) The argument among the Aharonim2[2] with regards to Marans opinion as to

what constitutes a public domain (by Torah standards) is well known. [The argument
stems from the fact that] in Shulhan Aruch (Orah Hayim, 345:7) Maran wrote:

What is a public domain? Streets that are 16 amot wide (or more),
that are not enclosed. Some say that if there are not 600,000 people
passing through the street every day it is not considered a public
domain.

It is also well known that whenever Maran writes two laws and begins one plainly
and begins the other with the words some say we always rule according to the
plain law rather than the one introduced with some say. Yet, [with regards to
our issue,] elsewhere in Shulhan Aruch (Orah Hayim, 303:18) Maran wrote:

These days our women are accustomed to going out [to public domains] with
jewelry that is prohibited to carry by law, [yet] it is better they do so
unintentionally than intentionally3[3]. Still, there are some that put merit in the
womens practice based on the opinion that permits wearing jewelry in a
courtyard that hadnt been fixed with an eruv. And being that we dont have
actual halachic public domains today, all our public domains are halachically
considered as a carmelit4[4] thus it is like a courtyard without a fixed eruv
where [carrying jewelry] is permitted.

R. Hayim Yosef David Azoulay (HYDA)5[5] wrote in Birkei Yosef (345:2) that
based on these two sources Maran holds like the plain halacha brought first, that
states that we do have a genuine public domain by Torah standards even without
600,000 people walking through it daily. And what Maran wrote in chapter 303 of
Shulhan Aruch was only to find merit in the womens practice. Whats more, is
that even in chapter 303 he wrote plainly that it was prohibited for women to do
so. The HYDA also wrote this in Mahazik Beracha (303:2). See also: Tosefet
Shabbat (303:36); Shiyurei Keneset Hagedolah (345, Hagahot Bet Yosef, 3);
Michtam Ledavid Pardo (Ch. 2, pg. 4a); Yismah Lev Gagin (Orah Hayim, 5);
Kiryat Hannah David II (Orah Hayim, 61) among others that concur with
HYDAs opinion.

The Lenient Opinions Outnumber the Stringent Ones

3
B) Furthermore, the HYDA also wrote in Birkei Yosef in the name of Morenu Yaakob
Faraji (printed in the latters responsa Chapter 59) that:

One should not include the opinion which requires 600,000 people to
establish a public domain because the majority both in number and authority
hold that 600,000 isnt necessary to establish a public domain. Whats more
is that it is the opinion of R. Yishak Alfasi (Ryf) and R. Moshe Ben Maimon
(Rambam).

It is true that the stringent opinions that dont require 600,000 are great and powerful.
Among them are:

1) Rambam

2) Ramban

3) Rashba

4) Ritba

5) Ran

6) Magid Mishneh

7) Ribash.

(As I have written in Yabia Omer, V, Orah Hayim, 24:1). Nevertheless, those that are
lenient are also very great and many. For the lenient opinion is held by:

1) Baal Halachot Gedolot (as cited in Tosafot Eruvin, 6a, s.v. Kesad )" who
writes: The definition of public domain is a place that 600,000 people walk through
every day similar to [Yisrael traveling under their] flags in the desert.

2) Rashi (Eruvin, 6a, s.v. Reshut Harabim ;" ibid, 6b; ibid, 47a; ibid,
59a)

3) Tosafot (Shabbat, 6b, 64b; Eruvin, 6a)

4) Rosh (Eruvin, Ch. 1:8; Besa, Ch. 3:2)

5) Sefer Haitim (Ch. 92, pg. 113)

6) Teshuvot Hageonim (Shaarei Teshuvah, 209; Hemda Genuzah, 70)

7) Sefer HaEshkol (Albek ed., Laws of Sisit, pg. 203)

4
8) Mahzor Vitri (31 & 41)

9) Rabenu Tam as brought in the Shibolei Haleket (106)

10) Rokeah (end of 175)

11) Raaban (349)

12) Raavya (391, pg. 448) writes:

Our cities are [public domains by standards] of the rabbisas is understood

from the ruling of Rabenu Tam that I heard in his name. For he ruled like R
Anani bar Sason that said when an area is roped off, courtyards are permitted and
public domains are prohibited. This is what the women relied on to carry their
jewelry for these days we have no real public domain according to Torah law (and
it therefore is considered like a courtyard which is permitted).

See also:

13) Or Zarua II (53);

14) Sefer HaItur, (3:1);

15) Rabenu Yishaya Matrani (Eruvin, 6a);

16) Ryd (107);

17) Sefer HaTerumah (239);

18) Samag;

19) Samak;

20) Rabenu Shimshon ben Avraham (Hagahot Maimoniyot, end of Hilchot Shabbat, Ch.
16);

21) Rabenu Simha;

22) Maharam of Rotenburg (Short Responsa, 69);

23) Mordechi (Perek Hazorek, 375; Perek Hadar, 509);

24) Orhot Hayim (Shabbat, 284);

25) Seda Laderech (pg. 96a);

5
26) Piskei Rikanti (91);

27) Besamim Rosh (359).

Cf. Bet Yosef (Even Haezer, 42, s.v. Masati Katuv Beshem Ribbi Hayim Haaroch "
) ' . Many Aharonim also concur that 600,000 people is
necessary to establish a public domain in Torah law. Among them are:

28) Maharitas (251)

29) Maharil (138)

30) Teshuvot Hadashot II (40)

31) Aguda

32) Terumat Hadeshen

33) Maharyo (cited in Turei Zahav 345:6)

34) Maharashdam (Orah Hayim, 4)

as well as others.

[Even] the HYDA disputed the words of R Yaakob Faraji whom we brought earlier
saying that the majority of opinions were in fact on the lenient side rather than the
stringent side. The Magen Avraham and the Turei Zahav also wrote that the majority of
opinions hold leniently, and in light of what Ive written there are very many with us who
hold the opinion of Rashi (and that 600,000 are necessary).

Mishnah Berurah questions whether 600,000 must pass through daily; proof is
brought that it is indeed necessary.

C) Still, the Mishnah Berurah6[6] (345:24) opposed the fact that Maran wrote some
require 600,000 people passing through every day saying that:

I have searched through all the Rishonim7[7] who hold this way and havent
found one that required the people to be passing through every day.

Maharsham (Responsa III, 188) was also asked about this point from another
rabbi. The rabbi inquired saying that it didnt seem to him that 600,000 people
needed to actually pass through daily, rather, that the street be suitable for this.
Maharsham answered this point saying that the Bet Ephraim already dealt with

6
 this question and rejected it by saying that 600,000 people did indeed need to
actually pass through daily, and that he (Maharsham) didnt see a definitive
reason to disagree with the Bet Ephraim. Thus, any city without 600,000 people
passing through daily is not a public domain. Yet I wonder how they did not see
the words of the Ran (beginning of perek Bameh Isha) in the name of the Baal
Haterumah? He wrote:

These days, we have no public domain according to Torah, for we dont

have 600,000 people passing through every day

The Ramban also wrote this in the name of the Baal Haterumah. Also, I already
brought the Baal Halachot Gedolot above who wrote it explicitly, as did the
Meiri (Shabbat, 57a, pg. 213), Rabenu Yeroham (Netiv 12, pg. 70c), and Rabenu
Ovadia Mibartenura (beginning of Perek Hazorek). Cf. Igrot Moshe I (Orah
Hayim, 139, Anaf 5); Maharsham III (188, s.v. Umeata ;)" Minhat
Yishak VIII (32, s.v. Vhasheelah Hasheniyah ')" .

Contradiction in Marans ruling R. Yishak Tayebs interpretation (lenient)

D) One that sees clearly [will note] the words of the brilliant Morenu Harav Yishak
Tayeb8[8] in Erech Hashulhan (345:2) who wrote:

Maran holds that if 600,000 people do not pass through every day it is
NOT a public domain -- which is in accordance with the opinion he
brought introduced with some say -- for he plainly wrote in Chapter 303
that 600,000 is required. Whats more, it is evident from his ruling at the
beginning of chapter 325 where he writes that it is permitted to send food
with a gentile via a public domain to a violent gentile or to a gentile in a
situation where not sending it would cause animosity. And in Bet Yosef it
is explained that the reasoning for this law brought in the Hagahot
Maimoniyot (Hilchot Shabbat, 6) in the name of the Or Zarua is that we
have no public domain today since there is not 600,000 people walking
through it.

This is not how HYDA understood Marans opinion. Yet, the Bet Ephraim (Orah
Hayim, 26) also proved that Marans opinion leaned more towards the lenient side
and that there cant be a public domain without 600,000 people walking through
it. The Erech Hashulhan also added as a rule (based on Bet David): that in cases
where Maran brings a plain halacha in the way it is worded in the Talmud, and
follows with a halacha preceded with some say, he holds like the some say.
The reason being, that in the plain halacha he didnt specifically include the point
written in the second halacha. And the second halacha is brought to define the
first. If that is so, then that is the case here as well. For in chapter 345 he only
wrote the law as brought in the Talmud and then defined it in the opinion

7
beginning with some say. Therefore, he holds halacha is like that opinion. This
is how Genoei Yerushalayim wrote in Admat Kodesh II (2) in the wording of the
question, as well as Sedei Haares III (Yoreh Deah, 10, pg. 29, col. 3) that wrote:

We have no real public domain today as Maran wrote in Shulhan

Aruch 303:18.

And although it is possible to explain Marans reasoning for the ruling in chapter
325 above differently, as I explained in my book Livyat Hen (pg. 114) that it is
permitted because one who carries from a private domain to another private
domain via a public domain is exempt from bringing a korban (i.e. not prohibited
from the Torah but still prohibited by the rabbis) according to Ramban, Rashba &
Ritba. The Hazon Ish also ruled this way as halacha (62:19). It is a Shevut
Deshvut9[9]. However, since Maran already wrote in the Bet Yosef that the reason
is because we dont have a public domain these days, it is certain that when he
ruled that way in Shulhan Aruch it was for the same reason. Compare Rabbi
Hayim Palachis words in Lev Hayim I (99, s.v. Veaharei )" who wrote
similarly, as well as Morenu R Y. Germon as cited in Avraham Ezkor (Pg. 63,
col. 4). Extrapolate from there and establish it in our case.

Ben Ish Hai is stringent

In Rabbi Yosef Hayims10[10] Rav Berachot (Shin, Letter gimel) he brings

Marans responsa Avkat Rochel (29) where he was asked whether it is permitted
for a gentile to bring bread and other needs for a meal via a public domain and
rules against it as Rambam did (Hilchot Shabbat, 6) who holds there are public
domains these days. R Yosef Hayim then deduced that since Maran wrote
differently in Bet Yosef and Shulhan Aruch (and was lenient), and we are not sure
which was written last, we must be stringent in accordance with the opinions of
HYDA, Kenesset Hagedolah, and Tosefet Shabbat who say it is prohibited.

Others are lenient

Yet, Rabbi Shelomo Eliezer Alfandari wrote (Orah Hayim, 9) that even
though it seems Maran is stringent in Avkat Rochel, he doesnt establish the law
that way. Rather, he is simply concerning himself with the stringent opinions.
Still, we have not alleviated doubt and common tendency is to follow the lenient
approach. Also, the author of Vayomer Moshe (Orah Hayim, 6) wrote that
Morenu Harav A. Hajaj and Morenu Harav M. Shamama both fully endorsed the
words of the Erech Shulhan (that we have no real public domain today) to be
followed as practical halacha. He rewrote it in his book Vaydaber Moshe (5, s.v.
Veod Ki )" . The author of Zera David (8) also wrote that Marans
opinion leans towards leniency, and it is quoted in Simhat Cohen VII (45, pg.

8
 119). Also Maharamaz is quoted in R. Yosef Buchris Zichron Yosef (7, pg. 12)
saying:

We hold like the Erech Hashulhans opinion in Maran and we are lenient,
and that this is the way all the early judges of Tunisia ruled. See also the new
Zivhei Sedek III (101, pg. 192) who wrote that the great and saintly R. Eliyahu
Mani ZTL testified to the fact that the brilliant Rishon Lesiyon R. Yom Tov
Elyakim ZTL answered in a response to a question saying all the cities of
Europe have already accustomed themselves to follow the opinion, that although
the streets may be wider than 16 amot we still consider them to be carmelit and
are only prohibited by the rabbis. R. Moshe Pardo also said that this was the
custom of the city of Bombay.

The Zivhei Sedek III (102) continued to write that:

It is a case so simple that without a doubt there is a need for 600,000 people to pass
through every day to determine a place to be a public domain. For this is what we
learned from the way Yisrael traveled by their flags in the desert! Therefore, the city
of Bombay followed the lenient opinion. The Turei Zahav (345:6) also wrote that
The majority of authorities are lenient. It is also commonly known that we have no
public domain today -- which follows the opinion of some say as brought in chapter
345, thus the custom of the city of Bombay has its foundations from their great sages
in accordance with the opinion of the majority.

See also Shevitat Yom Tov (Orah Hayim, 6) in the response of R H. Yaakov Danon
who wrote:

In my opinion, Marans opinion is not clearly established; does he rule like Rambam,
or like Rashi who requires 600,000 people? [although] Marans opinion is left uncertain,
there is room to allow [carrying], for many doubts (sefekot) can be included in the issue.

Doubt has not been alleviated

However, in Rav Pealim I (Orah Hayim, 22, s.v. Teshuvah )" R. Yosef
Hayim writes:

It is well known that there are a great many authorities who hold that we have
actual public domains today. I also wrote elsewhere that there are many who hold
that this is the opinion of Maran, and we have accepted the rulings of Maran. And
although there are those that understand Maran as being of the opinion that we
dont have public domains today, this is not the main approach, and the people of
Bombay should follow our decision in this matter.

(Compare Rav Pealim IV (Orah Hayim, 16). See also Shoel Venishal V (Orah Hayim,
52) who also agreed to the opinion of HYDA brought above -- that Marans opinion is
that we do have public domains today. Compare Tevuot Shemesh I (65, pg. 161); Emek

9
Yehoshua VI (20); Mikveh Hamayim (3); Shoshanim LeDavid Sabah (Orah Hayim, 61).
In the end, we still have not alleviated doubt for there are opinions that go both ways.

Nevertheless, the majority is lenient

E) Maran ruled in Shulhan Aruch (364:2):

A public domain (by Torah standards) cant be made permissible by an eruv. Instead, it
requires doors that are locked at night. Some say that even if they arent actually locked
but capable of being locked it is permitted.

The Mishnah Berurah (ibid:8) commented on this saying:

It seems that Maran the Mehaber holds like the first opinion, because he wrote it
plainly. It is thus clear from the Shulhan Aruch that the only way to establish an eruv in a
real public domain is with actual doors. Thus, we are forced to say, that the custom in our
cities to establish an eruv using only door frames (even though the streets are quite wide
and it renders them actual public domains by Torah standards) is based on the lenient
opinion which requires 600,000 people passing through [to render it a public domain]
which is not the casehowever, above in chapter 345 in Biur Halacha I cited many
Rishonim that argue on the law [brought by Maran as] some say. Therefore, all those of
spirit should be stringent on themselves and refrain from carrying in an eruv that was
established with door frames alone. Nevertheless, those that are lenient shouldnt be
reprimanded for that is what was always done.

Still, according to what I wrote above, that most of the authorities are, in fact, of the
lenient opinion and hold if there are not 600,000 people passing through it every day it is
NOT a public domain. Therefore, people certainly have what to rely on in order to be
lenient with an eruv made with door frames.

and there are other criteria that need to be met to establish a public domain

However, the Mishna Berurah wrote in the Biur Halacha (364:2, s.v. Veahar "
) that the reason we rely on an eruv of door frames is based on Rambam who ruled
according to R. Elazar in the Talmud (Eruvin, 20a) that a multitude of people do not
nullify [the presence of ] walls (that render a domain private). [R. Zalman also ruled this
way in his Shulhan Aruch (ibid:4) saying that by Torah standards door frames are
considered absolute walls, and it is only by rabbinic standards that actual doors are
required]. The Hazon Ish (107:4) agreed as well that we follow R. Elazar and not R.
Yohanan, being that the baraita there is according to R. Elazar and it is brought there as

10
law. Rambam ruled this way in Hilchot Shabbat (7:37). This is also the opinion of the
Hagahot Maimoniyot there. Thus, according to Rambams opinion, it is certain that door
frames are sufficient walls by Torah standards and there is only a rabbinic prohibition
remaining. In fact, it introduces a double doubt11[11]: a) perhaps the only true public
domain by Torah standards is when 600,000 people pass through it daily. And even if we
find that to be false, b) perhaps door frames are sufficient by Torah standards to render
the domain private. The Mishnah Berurah still ended by saying that it is difficult to be
lenient here since the majority of authorities [including] Rif, Rosh, and Samag copied the
opinion of R. Yohanan (who says if actual doors are not in place and locked [one who
carries] would need to bring a sin offering) as law. Yet, if this is the reasoning of the
Mishnah Berurah, it is not definitive, for the Zivhei Sedek (101:158) wrote that a double
doubt can be established even by using a minority opinion against the majority even
when the majority opinion has already been set as law. Rather, it must be that the
Mishnah Berurah refused to use a double doubt because he felt that both sides of the
doubt (a&b above) were minority opinions, and that even those who hold that 600,000 is
necessary are against a majority who hold it is not necessary and a public domain can be
established without that. But according to what I explained earlier, that is not the case!
For in truth the majority is in fact those who hold 600,000 are necessary. And that being
the case, a double doubt can surely be implemented. See also Simha LeIsh (Orah Hayim,
3) concerning an event that occurred in the year 5641, when R. Akivah Yosef Shulzinger
(author of Lev HaIvri) wanted to make an eruv in Jerusalem to enable moving things
from public to private domains and vice versa. He did it by erecting door frames. R.
Yishak of Prague opposed it based on the fact that the Sepharadim who accepted the
rulings of Maran were forbidden to carry just as before. This was because the conclusion
of the Talmud (Eruvin, 6a) was that public domains could only be permitted by actual
doors, and that is just how Maran ruled. He also ruled plainly that we have public
domains these days, as HYDA explained. Thus, who would be so bold and carry against
the ruling of Maran under a Torah prohibition? The brilliant Rishon Lesiyon Yisa
Beracha responded to this opposition saying:

Although it is true that we have accepted Marans rulings, in this case we have
found his opinion to be under dispute. Therefore, he who condemns those that are
lenient must be great, for many Aharonim (among them Erech Hashulhan) hold
that Marans opinion is actually to be lenient. So, leave Yisrael it is better for
them to do it unintentionally and unaware than intentionally for the eruv was
already made and it is considered done.

The Rishon Lesiyon again wrote in his book Simha LeIsh (end of ch. 6) that:

11
 Nowadays, the permit to make an eruv of door frames is everywhere. For it is
commonly said that we have no public domains today and if we tell them it is
prohibited to carry they wont listen to us, and it is a misvah not to say what will
not be listened to. I furthermore, will not keep from saying that it is by this
leniency that I openly carry things out of the walls of the old city.

It is also difficult that R. Ovadia Hadaya wrote in his book Yaskil Avdi VIII (Orah Hayim,
17:17) that I do not know where Maran said our eruv does not work. Go see what the
nation does! Everyone in Eres Yisrael makes eruv and we have never heard a protesting
voice. For how is it that he did not know Maran plainly wrote that 600,000 is not
necessary to establish a public domain, and that the only way to allow carrying in a
public domain is with actual doors. It is only our custom to rely on door frames.
Nevertheless, the custom of the entire world is to be lenient with an eruv of door frames
based on the some say opinion brought in Shulhan Aruch that states that 600,000
people are necessary to establish a public domain. In which case a door frame eruv is
permitted as explained by the Mishnah Berurah above. See also Yaskil Avdi I (Orah
Hayim, 11) that expounds greatly on the issue of public domain these days, as well as
Yaskil Avdi V (Yoreh Deah 27:4 end of pg. 104).

Intersections render cities to be non-public domains

(leniency of Hazon Ish)

F) However, the brilliant giant of the generation, Hazon Ish12[12] (107:5 and on) cited
the [stringent] words of the Mishna Berurahs Biur Halacha mentioned above and
commented on it saying:

These days, all the streets and marketplaces in the larger cities are considered
private domains, for they are all surrounded with three walls rendering them so.
Therefore, the permit to make an eruv by door frames for our cities is extensive
and clear.

This is also explained in the responsa of the brilliant R A.Z. Margaliyot in Mishkenot
Yaakov MiKerlin (119):

12
 Being that our streets are perpendicular to one another even though one may
extend from one end of the city to the next, since they intersect and form grids,
they are considered private domains by Torah standards.

This is based on the opinion of the Ritba brought in his hidushim (Shabbat, 6a) in the
name of Rashi (Eruvin, 6a, s.v. Reshut Harabim )" that a public domain is
only when the streets are straight from one end of the city to the other, for that is similar
to Yisraels travels under their flags in the desert. Ritba commented on this saying that:
This is also how it is defined in the Talmud Yerushalmi only that not all the
commentators agreed with it. This is also brought in the Ritbas hidushim on Eruvin, 6a
(pg. 48) in the name of Rashi. See also the printers footnote ibid. Compare the Raabya
(391, pg. 447) who wrote:

We hold like the commentary of Rashi who said that public domains can only be
with streets that are wider than 16 amot and stretch in a straight line from one end
of the city to the other this is not found in the entire kingdom. Also, there can be
no hills or valleys. This was also the opinion of my father and teacher Rabbi
Yoel.

(Also see ibid, pg. 443). R Menashe Klein "13[13] also brought the words of the
Hazon Ish mentioned above in his book Mishneh Halachot VIII (61) that these days we
dont have streets that stretch straight from one end to the other, for they are intersected
with other streets that go opposite directions and this renders them as if enclosed by
walls. They therefore are NOT considered public domains. He continued to write that the
words of the Hazon Ish are like medicine to the eyes, and it is wonderful he wrote this for
based on the words of the Hazon Ish our permit to make an eruv is clear and extensive in
its application to our cities. Also, R Y. Shteif (68) wrote:

I have found that the Or Zarua wrote in hilchot Eruvin (129) that door frames
work even to enclose a public domain of Torah standards, providing that there are
rows of houses (or the like) on two sides. If that is so, than it is certainly permitted
in our cities for our streets are surrounded by houses on all sides. The Rashba also
wrote that according to Rambam door frames work for public domains of Torah
standards in this manner. So wrote R Zalman in his Shulhan Aruch (364:4) that

13
 door frames work to enclose public domains by Torah standards, and it is only a
stringency of the rabbis to prohibit it. It thus seems that this is what is relied upon
everywhere there is an eruv erected using door frames. For we hold that there is
no real public domain by Torah standards today, and although the Mishnah
Berurah in Biur Halcha wrote that those who rely on the authorities that say
there is no public domain today is not sturdy because they are the minority, still,
according to what Ive written there is a huge basis to erect an eruv made of door
frames.

This is certainly so according to the fact that the majority opinion is held by those who
are lenient. And with the allowance to use houses as walls on two sides there is definitely
a major basis to make an eruv of door frames. My good friend the brilliant R Yisrael
Yaakov Fisher also wrote this in Even Yisrael VIII (36) that according to the Hazon Ish
we have an extensive permit to establish an eruv with door frames WITHOUT ANY
CONCERN. This was also written in Or Lesiyon I (Orah Hayim, 30) based on the Hazon
Ish mentioned above. R Michel Epstein also wrote something similar in Aruch
Hashulhan (345: 20). Cf. Divrei Malchiel IV (end of ch. 3); Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata
(17, footnote 21).

One who sees clearly [will note] the responsa of the Rosh (Principle 68) who wrote to a
scholar named R Yaakov son of Moshe DeValencia who prohibited carrying in an eruv
made by door frames after all of Yisrael have already been accustomed to allow carrying
by erecting door frames. The Rosh wrote to him as follows:

I have already informed you that none of your proofs contain criteria for any
substantial prohibitions. I have also warned you to retract your prohibition! But I
have been told that you still stand in your rebellion causing multitudes of people
to violate the prohibition of carrying on Shabbat. Therefore I command you to
establish an eruv within two weeks for if you refrain from doing so as I have
ruled, I will excommunicate you because you are disputing [the ruling of] all the
giants of Yisrael that lived until today.14[14]

You can clearly see how much trouble that great sadik went through to establish
eruv so that the people wouldnt come to sin. Uchdavar ish haElokim retet. When I
visited America I saw to my distress women coming in multitudes to the Synagogue with
pocketbooks on their shoulders as if the prohibition of carrying on Shabbat didnt even
exist. Therefore, I instructed the rabbis who heed my rulings to make an eruv in New
Jersey and not follow the opinion of those who want to be stringent on this issue. The

14
reasoning of the stringent opinion was that the cars in the street numbered more than
600,000 every day, and according to all opinions that renders a domain public. I told him
that in my opinion the 600,000 had to be on foot and not in cars. For cars are a private
domain in and of themselves we certainly didnt have anything like them while
traveling through the desert! Therefore, they do not count as part of the 600,000. Yeshuot
Malko (27) wrote similarly with regards to trains saying that even though they carry
many people they do not render a domain public because the cars are totally enclosed
making them private domains themselves. This is precisely the case with cars.
Maharsham also wrote in the name of Bet Ephraim that the 600,000 need to be on foot
similar to the travels of Yisrael through the desert. I also have seen R Menashe Kleins
book Mishneh Halcahot VII (60, pg. 47d, s.v. Vehineh )" who wrote:

Even though R Moshe Feinstein15[15] wrote in Igrot Moshe that it didnt make sense
to be lenient due to the fact that a car is a private domain his reasoning is not definitive,
and for us it does make sense. For we require a public domain that people can walk
through, and no one can walk in these streets because they are designated for cars.
Therefore, there is no public domain here at all.

That is what I see as true. That is also why I instructed an eruv to be built using door
frames to save those that blatantly transgress the prohibition of carrying on Shabbat. And
as an extra -- but not legally necessary measure, I instructed them to announce that all
the people who are benei Torah and didnt normally carry before should continue their
custom of not carrying, and that the eruv was only made for those who were transgressing
the prohibition. Whats more is that those who are stringent not to make an eruv are
actually being exceedingly lenient, for they allow the desecration of Shabbat to
continue by people carrying in a public domain. The [sages] have already said in Besa
(16b) about a rabbi who prohibited the making of an eruv haserot on yom tov that falls on
Friday, that his ruling began badly, for the damaging of many people is surely considered
bad. This must also be the reasoning of the Rosh for writing so harshly against the
stringent one. See also Hatam Sofer (99). I also ruled to make an eruv in the city of Los
Angeles. By my advice they brought in an important rabbi who was a member of the
religious council in Jerusalem to make the eruv according to law. I have recently seen
that my dear friend R Shalom Mashash (ZL) in Shemesh Umagen III (Orah Hayim, 84)
agreed with me in law and practice on this issue saying that my words were clear and
proper and needed no strengthening at all.

IN CONCLUSION, those that carry on Shabbat in a public domain by an eruv made with
door frames, have basis to do so, and according to many authorities it is allowed even
according to Maran. The sages of Jerusalem also wrote that we have no true public
domain today and an eruv of doorways therefore is sufficient to carry in these days.
Nevertheless he who trembles at the word of G-d and completely refrains from carrying
will be blessed. Such a person may still, however, give keys or a siddur and the like to

15
someone who does carry to carry it for him, even if the person that carries is over the age
of misvot (bar or bat misvah). Vehanah lahem leYisrael, im enam neviim benei neviim
hem.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IN THIS TESHUVAH HACHAM OVADIA

"HAS PERMITTED AN ERUV MADE BY SURAT HAPETAH (DOOR
FRAMES) RATHER THAN ONE MADE WITH ACTUAL DOORS (OR WALLS).
AN ERUV OF SURAT HAPETAH IS A LOWER GRADE ERUV THAN ONE
MADE OF WALLS. FOR WALLS ENCLOSE EVEN A PUBLIC DOMAIN BY
TORAH STANDARDS AND RENDER IT PRIVATE. THE ERUV IN
BROOKLYN IS MADE OF WALLS. THEREFORE, BASED ON THIS
TESHUVAH, IT IS CERTAINLY PERMITTED ABSOLUTELY. FOR ALL THE
DOUBTS BROUGHT IN THE TESHUVAH ABOVE WERE ONLY TAKING
INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THERE MAY BE AN ACTUAL PUBLIC
DOMAIN BY TORAH STANDARDS (WHICH CANT BE FIXED WITH DOOR
FRAMES I.E.POLES AND STRINGS). WHEN USING ACTUAL WALLS EVEN
PUBLIC DOMAINS BY TORAH STANDARDS CAN BE ENCLOSED
HALACHICALLY.

16