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)

Mytikkun (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2012 (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)

There are some Poskim (such as the Baal HaTanya) that hold that a Reshus HaRabbim does not have to have Shishim Ribuy, it only needs to be 16 amos long. According to these opinions, It would be nearly impossible to construct an eruv in Flatbush, Manhattan or Boro Park for that that matter without bona fide delasos. leviklehYou’re simply incorrect. There are numerous other issues that have to be met in order to classify an area as a reshus harabbim. Besides for which, the Tanya does upholds the criterion of shishim ribo. Mytikkun (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact is the Manhattan Eruv was established in 1962.Mytikkun (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2009 (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

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 ownership 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)

There was a handbill promoting the Manhattan eruv that was removed from this article. Without the handbill promoting the eruv this article does not represent a balanced view of the controversy. I am therefore removing the handbill prohibiting the Manhattan eruv. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mytikkun (talk • contribs) 03:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

When was it ever in the article, and who removed it? As near as I can tell, it has never been here. It probably does belong, so why don't you add it, instead of removing the other one? חכמים המה להרע ולהיטיב לא ידעו (See Eruvin 26a). -- Zsero (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: I added it for you. Is that what you had in mind? -- Zsero (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes this is what I had in mind. Thank you. A while ago I put it up and they kept on removing it. Lets see if they let it stay put.Mytikkun (talk) 03:02, 24 August 2009 (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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawaiianchief (talk • contribs) 04:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The fault may be in the reader, not in the article. Any particular section you found difficult, and any suggestions on how it might be made clearer? -- Zsero (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

How can the reader be at fault? this is an encyclopedia, which by nature is meant to inform someone on any given subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.162.77.10 (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

And yet there are many people who would find any given WP article incomprehensible. Starting with those who don't understand English, and going on from there. Every article assumes a certain base of knowledge on the reader's part. A complaint that an article is incomprehensible is meaningless without any indication of what the reader found hard to understand, and why. -- Zsero (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Who is realistically the target audience of this article? It will definitely not be an Orthodox Jew, because an Orthodox Jew would never look for eruv information on Wikipedia. The only expectation would be the list of sources, so they can go directly to the source. So that means that Reform, Conservative, secular, and non-Jews are the target audience. What previous knowledge can one honestly expect from that target audience? About eruv, nothing. About Shabbat, above the very basics (commanded by Hashem and it comes from the Torah), not much. Too many "experts" on a topic write their articles for other experts, when in reality, a true expert on a topic is not going to use Wikipedia. Zzmonty (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a counter-example: I am not Jewish, but did know the basic idea of what an eruv is. I know much more than most about Shabbat laws (having served as a Shabbas goy on several occasions ;-) but am nothing like an expert. I found the article very informative, hardly written for an expert audience, but simply an educated audience interested in learning about a specific subject; i.e. exactly what an encyclopedia is expected to do. Robert Ullmann (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Frequency of inspection

User:Bachrach44 removed the claim that eruvin must be inspected weekly, because "differetn eruvin are checked at different times. Don't make blanket statements."

Are there in fact eruvin that don't need to be inspected weekly? Why would that be? That their entire circumference is sturdy enough that they're unlikely to fail, and/or that they have a long and reliable history of not failing from week to week? Can anyone supply an example of such an eruv? -- Zsero (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I certainly could, however it would be OR. Many eruvin are checked weekly, many are checked more or less often. Part of it simply depends on the border of your eruv - if one border is, say, a river wall, then that piece probably doesn't get checked as often. It all depends on who your rabbinic authority is for your particular eruv. When I get home I can check rav. Bechofer's book (The Contemporary Urban Eruv) to see exactly what he says about it if you'd like a more direct quote. --Bachrach44 (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'll be busy tonight (I probably won't have a chance to get online again before shabbat), but I can get back to you on this some time on Sunday. --Bachrach44 (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I checked Bechofer's book. The book is almost entirely about building an eruv, not maintaining one. He makes a one-line reference to checking, and then sites a footnote. Unfortunately, my copy is missing one page, and that footnote happens to be on the missing page (grrrrr). I also checked Mishnah Torah and the Mishnah Brurah and came up with nothing - neither one mentions checking eruvin at all. I found this curious so I asked a rabbi who builds a lot of eruvin, and he told me that the subject has really only come up in the last 20-50 years, which is why the issue isn't mentioned in any of the classic sources, and advised me to turn to more modern ones. I did some internet digging and found Chaim Jachter's halacha files which has advice for building and maintaining eruvin. Although he clearly seems to recommend checking on Friday, and cites a source I've never heard of before, he does say that it's up to the local rav and the eruv's posek. (I've seen it done both ways). --Bachrach44 (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the classic eruv in Europe was a rope across each entrance to one street, and it didn't need much checking. Anyone passing by could glance up, and if it was down he could alert people. The issues of big urban eruvin didn't come up until the 19th century.

Now I can see that if one has an eruv that's completely solid wall, with no fragile bits at all, then it might not require checking all that often. But where do such eruvin actually exist? I'm not saying that all of an eruv needs weekly checking, but I doubt that there's an eruv of any significant size that requires no weekly checking. Do you know of any counterexamples?

The procedure for checking my local eruv involves careful inspection of the more fragile bits, but also a quick drive past the solid bits just to make sure they haven't been knocked down, as sometimes happens. The only bit that doesn't get at least a cursory check every week is one short stretch that's made up of people's back yards overlooking a highway, and if that collapsed we'd hear of it on the news. (About 20 years ago the Melbourne eruv actually was affected by a cliff collapsing onto the road below it.) -- Zsero (talk) 05:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the relevant fn (#181):

It is customary to inspect municipal eruvin weekly. See Yesodei Yeshurun, ibid., pp. 331-332 for a discussion of the sources upon which the custom is based. I am indebted to Rabbi Ari Zivotofsky for the information that there are some communities that are very stringent when it comes to this inspection, to the extent that when Yom Tov falls on a Friday and precludes an effective inspection, these communities will not rely on an inspection conducted on Wednesday or Thursday before Yom Tov, and will assume the eruv to be invalid for the following Shabbos. Thus, the parameters of inspections are very subjective, and it is not necessarily possible to extrapolate from the guidelines of a community with an eruv that is subject to frequent manipulation by utility companies, etc., to a community with an eruv that is rarely disturbed, and vice versa.

The text to which it is attached is:

It is unclear how often the slope must be surveyed. Riverbanks and hillsides are obviously susceptible to natural erosion and artificial alteration. Professional surveys are extended and expensive projects. It is thus impractical to survey slopes weekly. The parameters of various eruvin are liable to differ significantly. The hillsides and riverbanks in some eruvin may tend to remain stable over long periods of time, while in other eruvin they may be subject to frequent natural and artificial forces that are liable to diminish their gradients. It seems that the Rav Ha'Machshir (certifying rabbinic authority) of an eruv must set specific guidelines for every eruv differently, based on the specific situation in that place at that time.

rabmny (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)talk

Thank you, rabmny (who is the author of the book in question). -- Zsero (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Erev

Question: I did a search for the term "Erev," which means evening, or something thereabout. Why does Erev redirect to Eruv, which is about boundaries and the artificial enclosure for Shabbos? 24.63.24.231 (talk) 04:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Controversies

I took out the bit about the St Ives rabbi using "words to the effect of". In the context of a controversy, quotations should be of exact words. And in any case a citation is needed. See further AJN Watch 12 July 2010. --Rofish (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

"limited transfer of domain" and "leasing"

The current article has a citation needed tag about the statement that establishing an eruv requires limited transfer of domain from someone to someone else. According to this web site [3], at least one eruv involved leasing land to an eruv organisation. It seems to me that these topics need fleshing out. Does anyone have any good references describing what actually happens? Olorinish (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

According to [4], an eruv is a "means to render" public territory as "a private domain." According to [5], an eruv reclassifies "a lot of public space as private." This is an important point, and should probably be in the introduction. Does anyone object to me placing it there? Olorinish (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

As noted in the main article, "public domain" and "private domain" here refer to concepts specific to Jewish law that have nothing to do with who has property rights over an area according to secular law. I'll attempt to clarify the language used in that section and find a source. A reader who sees that making an eruv involves a "transfer of [government] domain" might conclude that property rights are being affected, in reality it is simply a symbolic grant of permission that has no power with respect to secular law. This is source of endless misunderstanding about eruvin, with people thinking that actual land is being given to a religious group by the government. Ayid7891 (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure the phrase "unrelated to legal ownership" in the introduction is accurate. If an eruv group requests a lease from a local government, and it is refused because the government does not approve of the "transfer" concept, wouldn't that make the eruv ineffective? Maybe phrasing such as "a classification which does not limit the area's use by others" would be better. Olorinish (talk) 11:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I wrote "unrelated to legal ownership" in a description of the concept of "public domain" and "private domain". I think this is accurate, the "domain" of an area in Jewish law is based on enclosedness, and thus orthogonal to legal ownership based on title. You can have a "public domain" that is privately owned and a "private domain" that is owned by the government.

But I see what you mean, the establishment of an eruv might involve the property owner giving permission, so might have something to do with legal ownership even if it doesn't affect it. So maybe "a classification that has no effect on legal ownership"?

I think trying to break it down further (e.g. "does not limit use by others") will result in something impercise. It is possible to legally grant ownership without limiting use by others (think a shared easement). Ayid7891 (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Creating an eruv might not have an effect on legal ownership, but it might include leasing of land by a government agency to a private group. The article should state that clearly. You seem to be stating that the definitions of "public domain" and "private domain" are different in Jewish law than for speakers of standard English. Can you point to a link which discusses this? If that is true, then maybe the introduction should include something like "According to Jewish law, the distinction between public and private domains is determined by enclosedness rather than legal access." Olorinish (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Eruvin in Conservative and Reform Judaism

About:

  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 of this exception.

This talk section currently contains only a context-less quote from the main article. It previously had a discussion about the quote as well (which seems to have been a joke), but that discussion was removed long ago leaving just the quote. Should this section be removed? Ayid7891 (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

the case of the undefined pronoun

One section begins with this sentence:

It is referred to as "transferring between domains" in English.

The most natural referent of "It" would normally be the subject of the article, but that seems unlikely, so what is "It"? The forbidden act? Something else? —Tamfang (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Whitefield, Greater Manchester

The text on the proposed eruv was copied to this article on 21 Aug. 2016. There is now a similar proposal for an eruv in Hale and Hale Barns which featured in BBC Radio 4's programme Sunday broadcast 21 Aug. 2016.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eruv. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080922173856/http://mtsinaishul.com:80/maps/eruv.cfm to http://www.mtsinaishul.com/maps/eruv.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Need for added lechi

I am not an expert, but my understanding is that to be part of a valid doorframe, the wire must be at the top of the pole. Plastic pipes and the like are attached to utility poles in situations were the wire does not cross the pole at the very top, but further down. In those cases the added pipe goes from the ground to the level of one of the wires, and the pipe become the lechi, not the pole. Since adding the pipes seems to be a source of controversy in some areas, I think this detail, assuming I have it right, should be added.--agr (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Good point. Done. Ar2332 (talk) 06:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Public vs. semi-public

In this edit [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eruv&type=revision&diff=956016476&oldid=955580447 ], the word "public" was changed to "semi-public." However, a typical eruv includes streets and sidewalks, which are public properties. Would anyone object if I changed it back? Olorinsh20 (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

It's actually correct. If you read the prior few paragraphs, it's referring to a carmalit, which is a semi-public domain. An eruv can't be made in a fully public domain under biblical law. Under rabbinical law you can't carry in a carmalit eithery, except with an eruv. Once you build an eruv, then you can carry in a carmalit, or semi-public domain. All these domains, are under Jewish law, not what is public/private in terms of secular law such as streets/roads, etc. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

In technical halachic language, streets are "semi-public". In common language, they are "public". It is a challenge to use these incompatible terminologies in the article and still remain comprehensible. Possibly there is a better way to do it than how we do now. In this case, the sentence is about halacha so "semi-public" is the correct term. Ar2332 (talk) 05:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Could someone point to a good online definition of "carmalit" regions? What determines whether a region is considered carmalit-compatible? Olorinsh20 (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Start here maybe? Ar2332 (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

What happens if eruv is broken?

Suppose it is broken and you don't realise this. Thinking there is an eruv, you go around carrying your items. Later you learn the eruv was not "valid". Why does it matter? Does God promise a punishment for such violations? The article somehow avoids this whole topic of why it matters. Equinox ◑ 19:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

In general in Judaism, unintentional sins get either less punishment (compared to intentional sins), or no punishment. Whether there is less punishment or no punishment depends on the sin and the circumstances. Ar2332 (talk) 06:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Zero concerns over this at all?

I am a little curious why absolutely nobody is concerned that an ancient blood-cult is marking entire hectares of public space for their own private blood-cult reasons. If scientologists were found to be secretly marking capital cities as their own territory, there'd be an uproar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.38.226 (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey friend, I'm starting a cult and declaring your house sacred ground. Are you terrorized yet? —Tamfang (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I mean yeah, if a cult owns a major city like New York, that's insane! 125.253.50.18 (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

If a pizzeria publishes a map saying “We deliver in this area”, does it claim ownership over that area? —Tamfang (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

If a pizzeria was placing wires or string over entire cities, as part of an ancient blood cult, yes we should be concerned and yes they are likely claiming ownership of that area. Especially when the pizzeria has a weird obscure derogatory word for non-pizzeria restaurants. 125.253.50.26 (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)