Talk:Eruv

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks - I updated it to eruvin.Bensandler 18:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  plurality 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  fiat boundaries 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Splitting articles 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Malarkey, or effective way? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Huh??

message: 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)
thread_title: Erev

message: 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)
thread_title:  Controversies 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Eruvin in Conservative and Reform Judaism 

message: One section begins with this sentence:
:
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)
thread_title:  the case of the undefined pronoun 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Whitefield, Greater Manchester 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: Good point. Done. Ar2332 (talk) 06:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for added lechi 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Start here maybe? Ar2332 (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public vs. semi-public 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What happens if eruv is broken? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Zero concerns over this at all?