QUESTION

A family has a premature baby in the NICU. Barukh Hashem (thank God), the baby is doing okay, but he needs to remain there until he gets bigger and stronger.

The parents have two other very young children at home, and they want to be with their children while also being present for their baby in the hospital. The mother is planning to go back and forth over Shavuot and Shabbat using pre-ordered Ubers. The father can either bike or take an Uber.

Is there a preference between biking and taking an Uber?

ANSWER

If the hospital is outside the eruv, he should take the pre-ordered Uber. Riding a bike outside the eruv raises serious issues of hotza’ah (carrying from one domain to another), and one would also have to be extremely careful not to carry anything else.

If the hospital is within the eruv, then there is a significant safek (doubt) whether there is any technical issur (prohibition) involved in riding a bike on Shabbat. Even so, in this case, my preference would still be that he take the pre-ordered Uber, preferably an electric Uber, if possible.

Background: Bikes on Shabbat

The reasons given by poskim (halakhic authorities) as to why one may not ride a bike on Shabbat are generally the following (see, for example, Tzitz Eliezer 7:30):

1. One might fix a flat tire, which would be a prohibition of metaken kli (repairing a utensil or implement).
2. One might go outside the eruv.

Of course, we do not make new gezeirot (rabbinic decrees) nowadays.

It is not enough to say that, had Chazal (the Sages) known about bicycles, they would have forbidden them. Maybe they would have compared bike riding to playing a musical instrument, because of shema yetaken (lest one come to fix it), or to riding a horse, because of shema yachtoch zemorah (lest one cut off a branch).

But that kind of reasoning is highly questionable as a basis for creating new issurim (prohibitions).

In other words, from a formal halakhic perspective, the question is only whether bike riding fits into an existing rabbinic category. It is not enough to say that, because bike riding shares the same underlying concern as another prohibition, Chazal would have expanded that prohibition to include bikes as well.

There is also an important discussion in the Ben Ish Chai (Shu”t Rav Pe’alim 1, Orach Chaim 25) of ten cited in discussions of biking on Shabbat. His teshuva discusses a related case of a kind of pedal-powered wagon or rickshaw, though not exactly a modern bicycle.

His argument is that the person does not directly move the wagon. Rather, the rider pushes the pedals, the pedals move the wheels, and the wheels move the wagon. He therefore treats the movement of the wagon as koach kocho (an indirect result of one’s force), which he argues is not a de’oraita (Torah-level) violation of hotza’ah, even in a reshut harabbim (public domain).

I have difficulty applying that argument to a standard bicycle. First, even in the case of the wagon, it is not obvious to me that this should be considered koach kocho. The pedals, gears, wheels, and frame are all part of one integrated mechanism. It seems closer to a direct extension of the rider’s action than to a separate secondary force.

Second, even if one accepts the Ben Ish Chai’s argument regarding the wagon, a bicycle seems even less conceptually separate from its wheels. The frame and wheels are one unit. If the wheels are being moved by the rider’s force, it is difficult to say that the bicycle as a whole is only being moved by koach kocho.

Therefore, I would not rely on the claim that riding a bicycle is merely koach kocho and therefore not carrying.

That being said, in many places outside an eruv, the area may not be a true reshut harabbim but rather a karmelit (a rabbinic-level public domain). In that case, the concern may be derabbanan (rabbinic) rather than de’oraita. One could then argue, based on the Ben Ish Chai’s discussion of kocho (one’s direct force) in a karmelit, that the act may be reduced further to a shevut de-shevut (a double rabbinic prohibition). That argument is at least understandable, even if I would not treat biking outside the eruv as simple or ideal.

In any event, one would have to be extremely careful not to carry anything else while biking, including something as small as a water bottle. The Ben Ish Chai himself writes that the rider must be careful not to take or carry any object with him at all.

Broader Framing: Technical Issur vs. Kedushat Shabbat

That being said, if we are honest with ourselves, we should acknowledge that the original reason behind the prohibition against riding a horse may have less to do with a gezeirah (rabbinic decree) that one might cut off a branch, as the Bavli claims (Beitza 36b), and more to do with the fact that riding a horse is seen as an inherent violation of kedushat Shabbat (the sanctity and character of Shabbat).

Riding a horse is conceptually about travelling, going out into the world, moving quickly, and so on. A central theme of Shabbat, by contrast, is presence, quiet, and slowing down, as the pasuk says, al yeitzei ish mimkomo bayom hashvi’i (let no person leave his place on the seventh day – Shemot 16:29). That is why the paradigm example of chillul Shabbat befarhesya (public desecration of Shabbat) is Elisha ben Avuyah riding a horse in the public domain (Chagigah 15a). It is also highly visible.

The takeaway for us, who follow the Bavli, is that while riding a bike is likely not an issur derabbanan (formal rabbinic prohibition) when done within the eruv, it could very much be a compromise of kedushat Shabbat from a non-formal halakhic perspective.

And let us not forget that riding a bike, unlike riding a horse, requires much more exertion, effort, sweating, and the like.

Pre-ordering an Uber, on the other hand, is amirah le-nokhri (asking a non-Jew to perform an action on Shabbat). If one makes it an electric Uber, which one can and should do if possible, then it is a shevut de-shevut, and permissible in this case (SA OH 307:5).

In my opinion, although others might disagree, there is much less uvda de-chol (weekday-like activity) in being driven in a car than there is in biking a few miles.

It is worth noting that the Ramban, who is the source for the de’oraita concept of shevut (Shabbat rest) as the sanctity and experience of Shabbat separate from any formal issur, emphasizes tircha (exertion and burden) as the primary concern. He also states explicitly that issues of amirah are not a problem of the de’oraita concept of shevut (Ramban on Vayikra 23:24).

These judgments are admittedly subjective, and reasonable people may weigh the atmosphere of Shabbat differently.

Returning to This Case

So, if the hospital is outside the eruv, he should take the pre-ordered Uber. Even if there is room to discuss whether biking outside the eruv may be only derabbanan in many contemporary settings, especially where the area is a karmelit, I would not make biking the preferred option. It raises serious hotza’ah concerns, and one would have to be extremely careful not to carry anything else.

If the hospital is within the eruv, then it comes down to this:

1. A technical violation, namely amirah le-nokhri, with an override, but less of a compromise of kedushat Shabbat;

or

2. No clear technical violation, but more of a compromise of kedushat Shabbat.

For that reason, my preference would be that he pre-order the Uber. This will also give him more time with the kids at home or with his wife and their baby at the hospital.

As stated, I respect those who think the second option is the right choice here, and also those who would say that riding in an Uber is more of a compromise of kedushat Shabbat.

Important reminder: He must have the Uber driver open and close the car door for him so as not to turn on the interior light, which may be a de’oraita violation, since the lights are often incandescent.