Talk:Eruv

Theological basis for Eruv

Would like to see more about the theological basis for (a) the prohibition and (b) the Eruvs. It's rather out of context at the moment. I understand the prohibition is against "work"? [1] and [2] are quite interesting, but I'm not sure how accurate. Morwen - Talk 16:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The term "mal'acha" employed by the Torah is commonly translated as "work", but this is too narrow. The Mishnah enumerates 39 actions that are considered work on Shabbat (they are listed there), and carrying objects outside one's personal domain is one of these. This is why Orthodox Jews hook their house keys into their belts - to make them part of a chain and to avoid carrying them in their pockets.

In fact, there are four domains: (1) personal, (2) public, (3) common and (4) an exempt place. A "public domain" (reshut harabbim) is rarely found, but carrying here is always forbidden. Most public places full under the definition of a "common" (carmelith). An eruv legally redefines this area by marking its entrances and exits, and enables people in this area to carry.

I'll revise the article at some point. I am not an expert in this area at all. The above is basically all I really know. JFW | T@lk 21:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why there is a section in this article dedicated to "activities permitted inside an eruv." Assuming you hold by the eruv, everything is permitted to be carried, with regards to the prohibition of carrying. The following section that lists things that are still prohibited inside an eruv refers to totally different prohibitions that are not at all relevant to the subject of eiruvin (e.g. muktzeh, boneh, etc). I'm going to basically delete that paragraph if no one has a good justification for this. DLand 16:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep the wording. People often assume that an eruv allows the carrying of any and all objects. The first item relates to muktseh. The umbrella issue relates to boneh, etc. The text should be modified to explain why these items are excluded from the general permissive characteristic of the eruv. Alansohn 16:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I changed it (though I still have my doubts about writing to people's misconceptions vs. writing a factual and encyclopedic article). What do you think? DLand 16:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

plurality

The page uses three different plurals: eruvim, eruvin, and eruvs. Can we agree on one? I vote for eruvin; it matches the masechta, and seems to be the most common.Bensandler 20:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree - lets go for eruvin. eruvs is an obvious englishication of th word, and eruvim is just plain wrong. --Bachrach44 20:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I updated it to eruvin.Bensandler 18:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

fiat boundaries

An external link was recently added regarding "fiat boundaries". My first reaction was to delete it as irrelevant, but upon reading that reference, I see some ideas about creating politically-demarcated areas... or something like that, perhaps. Anyway, my point is that before adding such a link, there ought to be something in article about how Eruv uses those concepts. If someone can add such text to the article, then the link is good and should stay. If not, I will delete that link. --Keeves 03:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

the Eruv itself

Though the article referred to "the bread itself," it never referred to the bread as an antecedent. I have added a little bit on what "the bread" is and its significance. I also cleaned up some grammar/specificity issues.--Mattcarl 13:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Mytikkun 01:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)== Statistical Claims ==

The section entitled "Disagreements between Orthodox groups" uses the words "many" and "most" without any statistics to back it up. It states, "most later rabbinic authorities ... dispute that [an eruv] is possible anywhere in New York City," and, "the [Flatbush] eruv's supporters have been ostracized and the majority of Orthodox Jews in Flatbush do not use the eruv." Considering that a) there are several eruvin in Manhattan endorsed by a wide spectrum of rabbis (YU eruv endorsed by many roshei yeshiva; Manhattan eruv supported by all major synagogues, etc), and b) that the Flatbush eruv hechsher states that it is kosher according to "all halachic authorities," this claim would at best seem to skew to one point of view. Certainly a claim that the majority of Orthodox Jews do not use the eruv needs to be backed up with cited statistics; similarly, the claim regarding "most later rabbinic authorities" needs to cite more than one (R' Moshe), who is known to have a "daat yachid" - a singular opinion - on eruvin.

Please comment on any objections to removing such claims and neutralizing the description of disputes within the Orthodox communities in New York regarding eruvin.

PS. "One of the oldest disputes in the United States revolves around the issue of an eruv in Manhattan"? How about the Civil War? Aren't we getting a little carried away here? -- Bensandler 04:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I made those changes; thanks. And I'll add a note for future editors: Please do not change back, even if you bring statistics to back up your claims, showing that "these 20 authorities say A, and only 5 say B", because the other side will respond showing that 10 of those A authorities are not generally accepted, while you missed 10 B authorities. Let's just leave it with words like "some" and "others", and skip the "many" and "most", okay? This is an encylopedia, not a halacha handbook. --Keeves 12:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I would remove these words from under the heading Disagreements between Orthodox groups, “because Flatbush and Boro Park are criss-crossed by some extremely busy streets such as Ocean Parkway that most rabbis deem to be a reshut harabim ("public domain") thus making any eruv built across it invalid in their view.” This is erroneous since according to those who maintain that the shishim ribo has to traverse the street itself, Ocean Parkway does not come close to meeting this requirement. According to Rav Moshe the issue is regarding an area over twelve mil by twelve mil and not a single road. If Ocean Parkway is classified as a sratya, even Rav Moshe would require the shishim ribo to traverse the Parkway itself, and there is nowhere near that number.Mytikkun 18:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I reiterate Ocean Parkway does not figure in the matter at all. It does not have shishim ribo traversing it.Mytikkun 00:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There are three views regarding the criterion of shishim ribo: 1) It is conditional of the street. 2) It is conditional of a city. 3) It is conditional of a twelve mil by twelve mil area (Rav Moshe Feinstein). Only according to view number one could Ocean Parkway be an issue. Since the Parkway has nowhere near shishim ribo, it is not an issue at all.Mytikkun 01:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Establishing an Eruv

It would be useful to indicate that establishing an eruv requires a certificate signed by a government official, and that the certificate transfers a sense of ownership of public land to the eruv participants (http://www.bostoneruv.org/faq.htm). Most readers are not aware of this. Perhaps this should be placed above the list of contents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.253.120.205 (talk • contribs) 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a property of only one of the three kinds of eruv the article discusses, so I don't believe it belongs in the intro, which needs to introduce all three. It's already in the "controversies" section (as the issue of this permission has sometimes been controversial), and I added some additional content on it to the discussion of the appropriate kind of eruv, Eruv Chatzerot. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

When I saw yesterday's changes, I had some feelings that I wanted to discuss here. I'm glad that Unsigned and Shirahadasha have already started the ball rolling. I agree with both of you, that the article should talk about the owndership issues, and that it should not be in the intro. But the recent changes are not entirely accurate, and that's what I want to discuss. I presume that Unsigned's reference to the Boston Eruv FAQ was for this paragraph: You need to get permission from every organization or entity whose property you use as part of the border of your Eruv. Now, if a fence is located along the rear of a building or along a parkway and you are not modifying it in any way and the land is part of the city or state, we subsume the permission needed to "use" the fencing for the Eruv under the permission or "reshut" that is required to be obtained from the city, state, province, etc. and for this one too: After all legal contracts with all the utilities, agencies, organization and all are completed, the "reshut" (permission) to lease the land located within the Eruv for a pretty long time (we used 99 years) must be secured. We created a certificate-sized document attesting to the fact that for the transfer of 1 silver dollar between the Greater Boston Eruv Corporation and each of the entities with whom we needed to create the lease, that the area within the Eruv would belong to the GBEC for only the purpose of carrying on Shabbat and Yom Tov that falls on Shabbat and Yom Kippur. The problem is that these "entities" are not only the "public property" which yesterday's edits named (roads, parks, city hall, etc.) but it also refers to private property -- the stores, factories, and homes of all the residents. ALL of this property gets leased to the Eruv Committee for the purpose of carrying on Shabbat. This is a required preliminary, which creates a sort of legal unified ownership, prior to the "Eruv Chatzerot" which is more of a social unified owndership. My problem is that I'm not sure of the best way to incorporate this into the article. Now that the issue has been raised I do not want to shy away from it. But at the same time, I want the article to be very clear that this leasing is explicitly for no purpose other than for the religious convenience of the Jewish community. If the wrong words are used, it could be misinterpreted to refer to some sort of insidious plot to take over entire cities, which is certainly not true. --Keeves 11:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Caution well taken. Perhaps WP:BOLD should be amended to advise caution in some areas where angels fear to tread. Feel free to remove the added material and await expert opinion and consensus before making a change in this area, with due regard to how certain choices of language might be perceived. . Best, --Shirahadasha 20:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

But it not true that a certificate is required. Verbal agreement is sufficient. AFAIK all Brooklyn eruvin are based upon a once-upon-a-time grant of permission by former Borough President Howard Golden to establish eruvin in the borough, which is assumed to include the necessary transfer of reshut, not only for eruvin established at that time by the people at that meeting, but by any Jew, at any time. Zsero 00:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Zsero is correct. Verbal agreement is sufficient.Mytikkun 04:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

While there is no doubt that Rabbi Feinstein was considered by many the greatest posek in America it is not universal. Mytikkun (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Malibu Eruv

The controversy surrouding the expansion of the Malibu eruv resulted in signifiant national media attention in October-November 2006 and seems to merit mention here. I have added a short section.

Splitting articles

I am going to split this article into several articles to represent the different types of Eruvin. This article will discuss the Eruv used to carry on Shabbat because that is the most common usage of the word "Eruv" in the English-speaking world. Eruv (disambiguation) will link to Eruv tavshilin and Eruv techumin.

Some of the interwiki links will need to be updated. The current Hebrew interwiki is to "Eruv techumin." I wasn't able to find an article on Eruv chatzerot in the Hebrew Wikipedia. Shalom ^Hello 14:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

confusing

As someone unfamiliar with this notion, I am finding this article very hard to understand. It almost feels like a legal brief or one of those bits of a math book where they formally define something that we already intuitively understand. I think it would be very helpful for someone to contribute an opening paragraph that gives a better sense of what is going on here; it can be rough and possibly inaccurate in places -- just mark those places and refer people to later in the article. Sdedeo (tips) 23:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed from the intro some text which refers to an earlier version of the article. Does this help? --Redaktor 23:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Still very confusing for me! Here's the text:

Eruv (Hebrew: עירוב‎, also spelt Eiruv or Erub, plural: Eruvin) is a Hebrew word meaning "mixture", and refers normally to eruv for carrying (Hebrew: עירוב חצרות‎, eruv chatzerot).

The validity of an eruv requires a fence — either real or symbolic — that surrounds an area containing anything from a single private home and its yard, to an entire Jewish neighborhood, permitting carrying within its boundaries. In contemporary Jewish discourse, "an eruv" frequently refers to this symbolic "fence," (actually "doorframe/s") rather than the eruv itself

OK, so eruv means "mixture" (like a soup?) Then I am told it refers to "mixture for carrying" (i.e., a soup that I can carry around?) Then I am told there needs to be a fence! (I'm being a bit joking, because after reading the whole article I think I understand things a little better -- but this is pretty much how I encountered it before.) But OK just to show my ignorance, basically when people use the word "eruv" they mean "a fenced-in place defined so that certain activities, proscribed by Jewish law in other spaces, may be performed within"? That's not the prettiest sentence of course! Sdedeo (tips) 00:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: this is a problem when I edit General Relativity, e.g., it's hard to know what people in ignorance will make of things. Happy to serve as your ignoramus if you want to work together on the intro. Sdedeo (tips) 01:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Malarkey, or effective way?

The Rabbinic prohibition of muktza, against carrying objects whose use is prohibited. For example, since writing and lighting fires are prohibited on Shabbat, writing utensils and matches cannot be carried by the prohibition.

The Biblical prohibition of building. This prohibition finds a common application in the use of umbrellas. Opening an umbrella is considered by some to be analogous to erecting a tent, a kind of building activity. Since umbrellas cannot be used, they are considered muktzah and cannot be carried.

These prohibitions would seem to require there to be a clearly defined "purpose" for all objects, even if it is possible to use them in ways other than that purpose. Is the prohibition against carrying matches or against lighting them? Against carrying umbrellae or opening them? The pen, or the ink, or the usage of the ink to make intelligible orthographic marks on a surface? This is a non-trivial distinction, and only one of the two alternatives seems to be logically consistent. Would an expert please address this?

Yes, I understand the futility of what I'm asking. --76.224.86.43 (talk) 05:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a chain of inference here. The muktza prohibition is against touching things whose primary use is prohibited on shabbat. Why the primary use is a prohibited activity will vary from object to object, see 39 categories of activity prohibited on Shabbat for a list of prohibitted activity categories. Not being able to carry things is simply a logical consequence of not be able to touch them. The reasons for the prohibition on the primary use will vary with the prohibited activity involved. Lighting a fire is prohibited on shabbat. Since the primary use of matches is to light a fire, the muktza prohibition prohibits touching matches. This is why they cannot be carried. Similarly, building is prohibited on shabbat. Opening an umbrella has been ruled to be analagous to erecting a tent, a prohibitted building activity. For this reason, its use is prohibited, so touching it (and hence carrying it) is also prohibited. The halakhic method of legal reasoning indeed frequently assumes that objects have a distinct primary use which is assumed to be clearly definable, and it does not matter that the object might be usable for something else. The primary use of objects in questionable cases is decided, as other aspects of Jewish law, by rabbinic ruling (See Posek. The primary-purpose assumption sometimes results in interpretive difficulties in contemporary rabbinic decision-making, but things like matches and umbrellas have been considered fairly straightforward. The harder cases lie elsewhere. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh??

This article is ridiculously impossible to understand. And I'm not exaggerating, i can't see how anyone can understand what this article is talking about.