An eruv ([ʕeˈʁuv]; Hebrew: עירוב, "mixture", also transliterated as eiruv or erub, plural: eruvin ([ʕeʁuˈvin]) is a ritual enclosure that some Jewish communities, and especially Orthodox Jewish communities, construct in their neighborhoods as a way to permit Jewish residents or visitors to carry certain objects outside their own homes on Sabbath and Yom Kippur. An eruv accomplishes this by integrating a number of private and public properties into one larger private domain, thereby avoiding restrictions on carrying objects from the private to the public domain on Sabbath and holidays.
An eruv allows Jews to carry, among other things, house keys, tissues, medication, or babies with them, and to use strollers and canes. The presence or absence of an eruv thus especially affects the lives of people with limited mobility and those responsible for taking care of babies and young children.
- 1 Definition
- 2 Tradition regarding eruv
- 3 Communities with eruvin
- 4 Controversies
- 5 Legal status
- 6 Disagreements among Orthodox groups
- 7 See also
- 8 References
- 9 External resources
It is referred to as "transferring between domains" in English. In Hebrew it is מוציא מרשות לרשות / הוצאה and the exact translation is "transferring something from one domain type to another domain type".
The tractate distinguishes four domains: private, public, semi-public and an exempt area. It holds that the transfer of an article from a private to a public domain is Biblically forbidden; transferring an article between a semi-public to a private or public domain is Rabbinically prohibited; transferring of an article between an exempt area and any other domain is permissible; carrying an article four amos (about 1.7 m) may be forbidden in a public or semi-public domain and permitted in a private domain or exempt area; and carrying inside a private domain or between private domains may be permissible.
For these purposes "transferring" means "removing and depositing", so carrying an article out of one domain type and returning to the same domain type without setting it down in the interim into a different domain type does not constitute transference from one domain type to another domain type.
The definition of public and private domain is related to its relative amount of enclosures, not on strict ownership. This is a particularly complex area of law, as the definitions of private and public domains are intricate, although clear. Background knowledge, and definitions, of domain types must be understood to fully understand the laws of transference in this context. This law is often referred to as carrying. This is a misnomer. Carrying within a domain type is perfectly permitted, with limits of four amos in a public domain. It is the transference between domain types that is considered a creative activity for the purposes of Sabbath observance.
Indeed, what an eruv accomplishes is a merger of different domain types into one domain type, making carrying within the area enclosed by the eruv no different from carrying within a room of a house (i.e. one domain type, namely a private domain), which is permitted.
- "Let no man leave (go out) his place on the seventh day"
Jeremiah 17:21–22 has also been interpreted in order to justify this prohibition.
Tradition regarding eruv
According to tradition, the eruv must be made of walls or doorways at least ten tefachim in height, or approximately 1 m (40 inches). In public areas where it is impractical to put up walls, doorways are constructed out of wire and posts. Those doorways, which often serve no practical purpose, are often referred to as eruv, which is a misnomer.
If the properties enclosed are owned by more than one person, then all the properties must be combined by the acquisition or rental of some right to the properties, and the designation of a meal that is shared by all property owners. The designation of the meal is called an eruv chatzeiros (combining of courtyards) and it is from that, that the term eruv is derived.
A community eruv refers to the legal aggregation or "mixture" under Jewish religious property law of separate parcels of property meeting certain requirements into a single parcel held in common by all the holders of the original parcels, which enables Jews who observe the traditional rules concerning Shabbat to carry children and belongings anywhere within the jointly held property without transgressing the prohibition against carrying a burden across a property line on Jewish Sabbath. The legal aggregation is set up to have effect on Shabbat and Yom Kippur only; on all other days, including Yom Tov, ordinary property ownership applies. A valid aggregation has a number of requirements including an agreement among the property-holders and an aggregation ritual.
One of the requirements of a valid aggregation is that all the parcels must lie within a chatzer, or walled courtyard. For this reason, this type of aggregation is more properly known as an eruv chatzerot (Hebrew: ערוב חצרות), an "aggregation of courtyards," to distinguish it from other types of rabbinically-ordained mixture procedures that also have the name eruv.
In modern times, when housing is not typically organized into walled courtyards, rabbinic interpretation has permitted this requirement to be met by creating a continuous wall or fence, real or symbolic, surrounding the area to be aggregated. The fence is required to have certain properties and consist of structural elements such as walls or doorframes. When the fence is symbolic, the structural elements are often symbolic "doorframes" made of wire, with two vertical wires (often connected to utility poles) and one horizontal wire on top connecting them (often using utility wires). The use of symbolic elements permits an eruv to make use of utility poles and the like to enclose an entire neighborhood of a modern city within the legal aggregation. In contemporary Jewish discourse, "an eruv" frequently refers to this symbolic "fence" that creates and denotes the boundaries of a symbolic "walled courtyard" in which a halakhicly (from "halakha," meaning the body of Jewish law) valid property aggregation can take place, rather than to the aggregation or legal status of the properties.
Eruv for carrying
There are 39 categories of activity prohibited on Shabbat. On Shabbat (Jewish Sabbath), the traditional interpretations of Jewish law forbid moving an object from one domain to another, no matter its weight or purpose.
While there is no explicitly written Biblical prohibition in the Five Books of Moses for carrying objects between domains on the Sabbath, the Oral Torah cites two sources which refer to this prohibition. "Let no man go out of his place on the seventh day" (Ex. 16:29). This verse is in the context of collecting the Manna bread. The Rabbis said, "Let no man go out of his place with a receptacle in his hand." According to this, the Manna cannot be collected on Sabbath because it cannot be carried into the Israelites' homes.
Second, "So the people were restrained from bringing" (Ex. 36:6). This verse explains that the Israelites refrained from bringing further materials for the construction of the Tabernacle. The Rabbis believe that this event occurred on Sabbath, not just because no more supplies were needed, but also because the people were not allowed to carry those supplies to the Levite camp. The Rabbis derive the prohibited actions of Sabbath from the actions that were performed to construct the Tabernacle. Based on this, one explanation is that since this verse is written in the context of the Tabernacle, it is appropriate to derive further that the people ceased to carry on Sabbath.
According to Jewish law as understood by the Talmud, this prohibition encompasses three actions:
- Moving an object from an enclosed area (such as a private home, public building, or fenced-in area) to a major thoroughfare,
- moving an object from a major thoroughfare to an enclosed area, or
- moving an object more than four cubits within a major thoroughfare.
To prevent confusion over exactly what constitutes a major thoroughfare, the rabbis expanded the ban to any area that was not fenced or walled in.
An additional, rabbinic prohibition, which Jewish religious tradition ascribes to the court of King Solomon, forbids carrying in any area that was shared by the occupants of more than one dwelling, even if it is surrounded by fences or walls. But, in this case of areas surrounded by walls, carrying was allowed through the use of an eruv. The eruv consists of a food item – in general bread – that is shared by all dwellers. By means of this shared meal, all the dwellers are considered as if they were living in a common dwelling, thus exempting them from the added prohibition.
The prohibition against carrying on Sabbath is mentioned in the prophecy of Jeremiah, who warned the people of Jerusalem to "beware for your souls and carry no burden on the Sabbath day" (Jeremiah 17:21).
And it shall be if you hearken to Me, says the Lord, not to bring any burden into the gates of this city on the Sabbath day and to hallow the Sabbath day not to perform any labor thereon, Then shall there enter into the gates of this city kings and princes sitting on David's throne, riding in chariots and with horses, they and their princes the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and this city shall be inhabited forever. (Jeremiah 17:24–26)
The Radak, a medieval Jewish commentator on the Prophets, opined that the reason Jeremiah referred to carrying a burden through the gates of the city is that Jerusalem had an eruv and its walls formed the boundary, so carrying within the city was permitted. This view that an entire city could have an eruv influenced later views that an eruv could encompass a "courtyard" covering a wide area. The Radak also held that the reference to "kings" rather than a single king refers to future kings yet to come, and hence that this prophecy, with its stress on the importance and redemptive power of observing the prohibition against carrying a burden on Shabbat outside an eruv, remains available to this day. The Talmud, in Tractate Shabbat, opined that consistent observance of Shabbat could bring redemption to the Jewish people.
The eruv chatzerot, or "mixed [ownership of] courtyards/domains", operates so that all the residents treat the entire area as their common "home". In the case of an enclosed courtyard with multiple tenants, from a legal standpoint it is already a private domain. However, because of its multiple tenants, it appears to be a public domain (when it is not). To by-pass the problem of what appears to be a public domain, all tenants share in the responsibility of pooling together certain foodstuffs to make the courtyard appear again to be a private or single domain. In other words, it is a religious-legal mechanism that transforms an enclosed shared living area (e.g., a courtyard) into a common one. In order to be enclosed, the area must be surrounded by a wall, fence, or tzurot ha-petah, "doorframes". Otherwise carrying is still prohibited in accordance with the earlier prohibition, as above.
In many cases—for example, within a hospital, nursing home, school campus, apartment complex, or a walled city—the demarcation of the shared area consists of real walls or fences.
These fences can also be made symbolically, using stakes and a rope or wire to demarcate doorframes. When an eruv is made to demarcate a contemporary Jewish neighborhood, a symbolic fence is typically constructed in this fashion, using utility poles and wires as well as any solid walls available. Thus, a modern eruv is commonly composed of a series of "doorframes," with the poles forming the doorposts (lechi, pl. lechai'in) and the wire forming the lintel (korah). A natural wall such as a river bank or steep hill can also be used as part of the eruv (in certain limited cases and even then it is disputed), as can an actual wall of a building.
As mentioned above, the term "eruv" in modern Jewish usage often refers to the rope or string that creates a symbolic "walled courtyard". However the term, in formal use as a legal term of Jewish law, refers to the process of sharing ownership within the enclosed domain. This is conducted using the norms and procedures of Jewish law, which has a law of property ownership and transfer distinct from the law of the surrounding society. The property transfer needed to create a shared domain on Shabbat under Jewish law is formally effected today by having one resident give some "bread" to another resident to keep, to create a joint ownership of food for the whole community. This is usually done by the rabbi of the community to ensure that it is done correctly, and the bread is usually matzo to ensure that it will be edible and usable for a long time. (It is usually replaced once each year.) In the Talmud and other classic rabbinic sources, the term eruv refers to the bread itself. Because the domains are enclosed and legally transferred to shared ownership, carrying objects within an eruv keeps them within a single domain, and hence does not break the prohibition of transferring objects from a private to a shared domain on Shabbat. Creating an eruv that involves public property requires the local government to permit a limited transfer of its domain (in addition to government permissions for placing markers on government property that may be required as a matter of local government law).
No rabbis dispute the existence of the concept of eruv. However, in practice, some rabbis do disagree about the technical requirements of a valid eruv, and might therefore instruct their followers that certain eruvin are not valid and should not be used.
In general, authorities agree that eruvin are subject to certain restrictions: they can be located in only certain places; may not be of indefinite size; and are subject to a number of limitations.
For example, a prohibition against walking too far outside city boundaries (techum, see Eruv techumin) limits the possible size of an eruv. In similar manner, a prohibition against carrying in a "public" area has traditionally been interpreted narrowly to cover only the busiest of thoroughfares. Nonetheless, this prohibition limits an eruv to including only neighborhoods and streets that can be characterized as "private" or "semi-private". There are disagreements among authorities about the extent and correct interpretation of some of these limitations. In addition, the size of an eruv can be limited by a number of practical considerations. For example, the requirement that the eruv boundary be thoroughly checked each week and any needed repairs made before sunset on Friday limits the area that can be practically covered by a manageable eruv. The sensitivity of utility and public works crews about disturbing eruv-related attachments when making repairs can vary widely. Political and institutional differences, or differences about the correct interpretation of the relevant Jewish law, can also result in separate areas maintained by separate organizations.
Coping without an eruv
Many of those living in areas without an eruv are accustomed to life without one and have adapted their Shabbat practices accordingly. However, those who live in a place that has an eruv and are visiting a place without one, or if the eruv is temporarily out of service (perhaps due to wind or snow damage), may have difficulty making adjustments. Equally, those with young children, certain medical complaints and certain disabilities often feel trapped during Shabbat.
Even without an eruv, there is no problem with wearing clothing outside, provided that it is normal clothing and being worn in its normal manner, as it is considered secondary to, and "part of," the person himself. The same is true for most medical items that are attached to the body and can be considered secondary to it, such as a cast, a bandage, or eyeglasses.
Rabbinic authorities (poskim) historically have differed about the use of a cane, wheelchair, or other similar devices by the less-able-bodied. Some have allowed their use even without an eruv and others have not. In recent years, however, the majority of poskim have leaned toward allowing these devices, since, if they were prohibited, disabled individuals might attempt to leave their homes on Shabbat without the device(s) and therefore risk serious injury.
Loose medicines may not be carried; most authorities have agreed that it is preferable that one who constantly needs medication remain at home rather than transgressing Shabbat by carrying medication. But, if such a person leaves home, then comes in need of medication, it is permissible under the laws of Pikuach nefesh to break Shabbat and bring the medication to the person. A small number of authorities in recent years have been permitting carrying the medication, however, since such a person may be tempted to leave home without it, and then his/her life may be endangered thereafter.
Most authorities[who?] also allow the wearing of jewelry by women. There are differing customs regarding the wearing of jewelry watches by men. As men's jewelry for the purpose of adornment has become more common in recent generations, the wearing of a watch by a man is accepted,[by whom?] provided that the watch is visible to others and is not covered by a sleeve.
In communities without an eruv, it is customary to create belts, bracelets, necklaces, or similar wearable objects incorporating housekeys so that the keys can be worn rather than carried when going outdoors. To be validly "worn" rather than "carried", the key needs to be an integral part of the belt, bracelet, or other item rather than simply attached to it. It may be either an adornment if worn in a manner visible to others or a component needed to keep the wearable object fastened. Special "shabbos belts" and similar items that incorporate this property are sold in religious stores. A tallit may be worn while walking to/from the synagogue. Prayer books and other books may not be carried; either they must be brought to the synagogue prior to Shabbat or else the congregation's prayer books must be used.
Checking the eruv
The boundaries of an eruv must be checked regularly. If the boundary is not complete and contiguous in every element (i.e., one of the elements of the boundary is missing or broken), no valid eruv can exist that shabbat, and carrying remains prohibited. Eruv associations, in general, maintain hotlines or web sites informing communities of the status of the eruv on Friday afternoon.
Activities prohibited even within an eruv
Though a valid eruv enables people to carry or move most items outdoors on Shabbat, all other Shabbat restrictions still apply. These prohibitions include:
- Handling (or, according to some, moving) objects that are muktzah, whether indoors or outdoors.
- Opening an umbrella, which is analogous to erecting a tent, and falls under the category of construction. Since umbrellas may not be opened, they are muktzah.
- Typical weekday activities (uvdin d'chol), 'to protect the sanctity of Shabbat'. The precise scope of this prohibition is subject to a wide range of rabbinic opinion.
- Moving or carrying items in preparation for a post-Shabbat activity (hakhana), unless one has a legitimate use for them on Shabbat itself.
- Many sports and sport-related activities: Many authorities consider balls muktzah; others do not. In general, sports that result in holes or ruts being carved into the playing surface may be played only on surfaces that are not subject to such damage. Exercise of any kind is forbidden on Shabbat unless it is done solely for the pleasure of the activity itself, rather than for health or some other reason.
An eruv techumin (Hebrew: עירוב תחומין "mixed borders") for traveling enables a traditionally observant Jew to travel by foot on Shabbat or a Jewish holiday beyond the 2,000 cubit (one biblical mile) limit imposed by rabbinic restriction. The Jew prepares food prior to Shabbat, or prior to any holiday on which they plan to travel farther than is normally allowed on such days. Orthodox Judaism prohibits motorized transportation, although the presence of an eruv for carrying permits certain types of non-motorized transport, such as strollers and wheelchairs.
An eruv tavshilin (Hebrew: עירוב תבשילין, lit. 'mixed cooked food items') is made in the home on the eve of a holiday with a work proscription that directly precedes the Sabbath. It is made by taking a cooked item and a baked item, and placing them together. It is common to use a piece of cooked egg, fish, or meat as the cooked item and a piece of bread or matzah as the baked item. It is needed because while it is allowed to cook and transfer fire on holidays (unlike the Sabbath and Yom Kippur, when these activities are forbidden), these activities are allowed to be done for use on only the holiday, and not for the next day. The eruv tavshilin makes it possible to begin preparing for the Sabbath before the holiday, and continue doing so. The foods of the eruv tavshilin are traditionally eaten on the Sabbath day following the holiday.
Eruv in Conservative and Reform Judaism
Although Conservative Judaism's Committee on Jewish Law and Standards enacted an exception to the general rules of Sabbath observance to permit driving to attend a synagogue, it otherwise formally requires the same rules of Shabbat observance as Orthodox Judaism with respect to carrying a burden. Therefore, Conservative Judaism's rabbinate requires the use of an eruv for ordinary carrying outside this exception. Compliance with the formal requirements varies. In general, conservative authorities and organizations have not attempted to build or develop rules for eruvin distinct from ones established by Orthodox authorities and organizations.
Communities with eruvin
In Israel, almost every Jewish community is enclosed by an eruv. Outside Israel, there are over 150 community eruvin, as well as thousands of private ones enclosing only a few homes, or linking a synagogue to one or more nearby homes. Most major cities in North America have at least one, often surrounding only the Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods rather than the entire city. Outside North America, there are eruvin in Antwerp; Amsterdam; Bury, Greater Manchester; Johannesburg; London; Melbourne; Perth; Strasbourg, Sydney; Gibraltar; Venice, and Vienna
In August 2010 it was reported that a planning application had been submitted to the Metropolitan Borough of Bury, on behalf of the Whitefield Hebrew Congregation, for the creation of a 4-mile (6.4 km) eruv around 1 square mile (2.6 km2) of Whitefield. The construction of the eruv would allow the 700 Orthodox Jewish families living in the area to carry out activities normally prohibited on the Hebrew shabbat (sabbath), such as carrying keys, pushing prams and using wheelchairs. The Whitefield eruv would be the first to be constructed in the United Kingdom outside London.
The installation of eruvin has been a matter of contention in many neighbourhoods around the world, with notable examples such as the London Borough of Barnet; Outremont, Quebec; Tenafly, New Jersey, and Westhampton Beach, New York.
As the property-owner is the owner of the public streets, sidewalks and the utility poles on which symbolic boundaries are to be strung, some authorities have interpreted Jewish law as requiring the local government to participate in the process as one of the property owners by agreeing to creation of the eruv, and to give permission for the construction of a symbolic boundary on its property. In addition, because municipal law and the rules of utility companies, in general, prohibit third parties from stringing attachments to utility poles and wires, the creation of an eruv has often necessitated obtaining permissions, easements, and exceptions to various local ordinances. These requirements that government give active permission for an eruv have given rise to both political and legal controversy.
This article possibly contains original research. (February 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
In the United States, legal controversies about an eruv in a community often focus on provisions of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which addresses relations between government and religion. Opponents of an eruv typically take the view that the government participation in the eruv process necessary to approve its construction violates the First Amendment's prohibition of governmental establishment of religion. Proponents take the view that it constitutes a constitutionally permissible accommodation of religion rather than an establishment. Proponents have also argued that the Free Exercise Clause affirmatively requires government acceptance, on the grounds that government interference with or failure to accommodate an eruv constitutes discrimination against or inhibition of the constitutional right of free exercise of religion.
In Tenafly Eruv Association v. Borough of Tenafly (309 F.3d 144), Judge Ambro, writing for the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals, held that Eruv Association members had no intrinsic right to add attachments to telephone poles on Borough property and that the borough, if it wished, could enact a general, neutral ordinance against all attachments to utility poles that could be enforced against the eruv. However, Judge Ambro held that in this case, the Borough had not enacted a genuinely general or neutral ordinance because it permitted a wide variety of attachments to utility poles for non-religious purposes, including posting signs and other items. Because it permitted attachments to utility poles for secular purposes, the court held, it could not selectively exclude attachments for religious purposes. The United States Supreme Court declined to hear the case. It was subsequently cited as precedent by a number of other federal courts deciding disputes between an eruv association and a local government.
In Outremont, a neighbourhood in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, the city adopted a policy of removing eruv wires. The Hasidic community obtained an injunction preventing such action by the city authorities.
In general, state law has dealt with whether and to what extent government can permit or assist the erection and maintenance of boundary demarcations on public property. It has not dealt with the nature of the aggregation agreement or recognized an eruv as having legal effect or as implementing a meaningful change in real property ownership or tenancy. For purposes of accident liability, trespass, insurance, and other secular matters occurring on Shabbat, State law treats the properties within an eruv as continuing to be separate parcels.
Disagreements among Orthodox groups
There are instances where various Orthodox rabbis dispute both the validity of an eruv or whether an eruv can in fact be built in a certain neighborhood.
One of the oldest halakhic disputes in the United States revolves around the issue of an eruv in Manhattan (which is an island bordering an estuary that is connected to the Atlantic Ocean), in New York City. Some halakhic opinions refer to an island's reinforced walls against an ocean as contributing to and forming a 'natural' eruv, and this view had been relied upon by rabbis[who?] in the early part of the twentieth century to permit their followers to carry on shabbat in Manhattan. In the 1950s, a proposal by Rabbi Menachem Mendel Kasher to establish an eruv in Manhattan gained the support of many prominent rabbis, including Rabbis Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, Dovid Lifshitz, and Ephraim Oshry, and the Kopishnitzer, Novominsker and Radziner Rebbes. Other authorities, such as Rabbis Aharon Kotler and Moshe Feinstein, raised objections, and a major controversy ensued. In the end, the opponents Agudas Horabonim issued a declaration opposing it.
In June 2007, the East Side portion of the internal Manhattan Eruv was completed, offering an eruv within Manhattan to Orthodox Jews living on the East, Upper East, and Upper West Sides. There are also two eruvin in Manhattan's Washington Heights neighborhood, one covering the Yeshiva University area and another that is part of Mount Sinai Jewish Center and covers the Fort Washington area.
Another ongoing dispute is the status of two inter-connected eruvin in Brooklyn: The Flatbush eruv and the Boro Park eruv . The Boro Park eruv, from its initial construction, was not accepted by most of the Hasidic community though acceptance there has increased over time and was rejected by most of the non-Hasidic "Lithuanian yeshiva" communities. The Flatbush eruv was originally built with the support of the Modern Orthodox community and was later enhanced with the support of some local so called non-Modern Orthodox families. It was totally rejected by the many "Lithuanian yeshiva" communities led by the rosh yeshivas ("deans") of the large yeshivas Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin, Mir yeshiva, and Yeshiva Torah Vodaas that are based in the Flatbush section of Brooklyn. In the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, there is some dispute over the making of an eruv, with Rabbi Zalman Leib Teitelbaum, the Satmar Rebbe of Williamsburg leading the opposition to an eruv.
- See Rashi and Ibn Ezra on the Torah. Talmud Eruvin 17b
- Talmud Shabbos 96b
- Translation and Radak commentary from Rabbi A.J. Rosenberg. Mikraoth Gedoloth: Jeremiah Vol. 1. Judaica Press, 1985 (2005 printing) p. 152.
- Maimonides, Mishne Torah (Hil. Eruvin 1:5).
- Survey of Recent Halakhic Periodical Literature Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought vol. 16 (1977) No 5, p. 88-91.
- Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff: Carrying Nitroglycerin on Shabbos Yeshiva.co.
- Rabbi Dovid Rosenfeld: Carrying Keys on Shabbat Aish.com.
- Rabbi Daniel Schloss. "Laws of Shabbat: Building and Demolishing". Aish Hatorah.
- Shulchan Aruch OC 308:45
- Shulchan Aruch OC 301:1–2
- Shulhan Arukh (Orach Chaim § 397:1–3); Maimonides, Mishne Torah (Hil. Shabbath 27:1); ibid., Mishne Torah (Sefer HaMitzvoth, s.v. Negative Command # 321); Maimonides’ Mishnah Commentary, on Eruvin 3:5; Rabbi Isaac Al-Fasi, Halakhot (BT, Eruvin, end, 5a, s.v. ומלערב); Sefer HaChinukh, s.v. בשלח, section # 24; Babylonian Talmud (Eruvin 17b; 51a; Sotah 27b; 30b); Mekhilta on Exodus 16:29; Targum pseudo-Yonathan Ben Uzziel on Exodus 16:29
- "Wiener Eruv: Status". Eruv.at. Retrieved 2016-08-21.
- Anon (27 August 2010). "Eruv is a big step nearer". Jewish Telegraph. Prestwich: Jewish Telegraph. p. 1.
- Kalmus, Jonathan (26 August 2010). "Manchester plans eruv". The Jewish Chronicle. Manchester: The Jewish Chronicle. Retrieved 29 August 2010.
- Tenafly Eruv Association v. Borough of Tenafly, 309 F.3d 144, American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, October 24, 2002
- "Rosenberg v Outremont (city), Quebec Superior Court, File No 500-05-060659-008, 2001-06-21". Lex View. 2001-09-06.
- Handbill by five rabonim reaffirming the Agudas Horabonim's prohibition on the Manhattan Eruv
- "Ritual Fence Set for Jews in Manhattan Is Extended". The New York Times. Retrieved 2016-08-21.
- "A Translucent Wire in the Sky". The New York Times. Retrieved 2016-08-21.
- "Map". Yueruv.org. Retrieved 2016-08-21.
- "Eruv". Retrieved 2016-11-12.
- "Rabbi Adam Mintz: A Chapter in American Orthodoxy: The Eruvin in Brooklyn" (PDF). Retrieved 2017-07-11.
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Eruv.|
- Eruv.org – Eruv Info, FAQ, and Global Eruv Directory
- Eruv.org – Global List of Eruvin with websites, maps, and contact information
- BBC Eruv FAQ
- Eruvonline Blog
- Boston Eruv FAQ
- String Theory article, Harpers Magazine
- Barry Smith, The Ontology of the Eruv, from C. Kanzian (ed.), Cultures: Conflict – Analysis – Dialogue, Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag, 2007, 403–416.
- Adam Mintz, The History Of City Eruvin, 1894–1962
- Jennifer Cousineau (Spring–Summer 2005). "Rabbinic Urbanism in London: Rituals and the Material Culture of the Sabbath". Jewish Social Studies. 11 (3): 36–57. doi:10.1353/jss.2005.0021. Retrieved 2007-06-13.