In Outremont, a locale in [[Montreal]], Canada, the city adopted a policy of removing eruv wires. The Hasidic community obtained an injunction preventing such action by the city authorities.<ref>[http://www.culturalrenewal.ca/lex/lex-47.htm Rosenberg v Outremont (city)]</ref>
In Outremont, a locale in [[Montreal]], Canada, the city adopted a policy of removing eruv wires. The Hasidic community obtained an injunction preventing such action by the city authorities.<ref>[http://www.culturalrenewal.ca/lex/lex-47.htm Rosenberg v Outremont (city)]</ref>
In the [[Elstree]] and [[Borehamwood]] neighboroods of [[Hertfordshire]], a petition was circulated in [[2007]] condemning the proposed eruf on the grounds that it would constitute the establishment of a "Jewish state". <ref> "New London Ervu", ''Dateline World Jewry'', [[World Jewish Congress]], [[September]], [[2007]]</ref>
===Disagreements between Orthodox groups===
===Disagreements between Orthodox groups===
Revision as of 19:47, 4 October 2007
This article discusses the eruv for carrying. For other types of eruv, see Eruv (disambiguation).
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.
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 eruv surrounding a community in Jerusalem
An additional, rabbinic prohibition, which Jewish tradition ascribes to the religious court of King Solomon, prohibits carrying in any area that was shared by the occupants of more than one dwelling, even if 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 - generally 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.
Eruv chatzerot
The eruv chatzerot, or "mixed [ownership of] courtyards/domains", operates so that all the residents treat the entire area as their common "home". 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, as can an actual wall of a building.
As mentioned above, the term "eruv" in modern Jewish usage refers to this rope or string, but the term actually 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 concept of an 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. The examples of an eruv considered in the Talmud involved the sharing of courtyards and other relatively small areas. The subsequent expansion of the concept to include entire neighborhoods and entire cities has been controversial ever since its inception in the Middle Ages,[citation needed] and there are disagreements within Rabbinic literature to this day about how large an eruv can be.
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 which are attached to the body and can be considered secondary to it, such as a cast, bandage or eyeglasses. Rabbinic authorities differ about the use of a cane or wheelchair by the infirm: some allow their use even without an eruv and others do not. Most authorities also allow the wearing of jewelry by women. There are differing customs regarding the wearing of watches by men.
The presence of a valid eruv enables people to carry or move virtually any item outdoors on Shabbat (in the absence of other restrictions). However, a variety of other prohibitions still apply, and otherwise prohibited items cannot be carried. Other prohibitions which are commonly applicable even within an eruv include:
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 Biblicalprohibition 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.[1] Since umbrellas cannot be used, they are considered muktzah and cannot be carried.
The Rabbinic decree of uvdin d'chol, against performing typical weekday activities to protect the sanctity of Shabbat.
The Rabbinic decree of hakhana, against carrying or moving items in preparation for post-Shabbat activity to protect the sanctity of Shabbat.
Controversies
The installation of eruvin has been a matter of contention in many neighbourhoods around the world, classic examples are Barnet, England; Outremont, Quebec; and Tenafly, New Jersey.
In the United States, the issue is often framed legally as whether the stringing of the eruv to public property violates the First Amendment's prohibition of a governmental establishment of religion, and popularly as whether it violates a "separation of church and state."
In Outremont, a locale in Montreal, Canada, the city adopted a policy of removing eruv wires. The Hasidic community obtained an injunction preventing such action by the city authorities.[2]
In the Elstree and Borehamwood neighboroods of Hertfordshire, a petition was circulated in 2007 condemning the proposed eruf on the grounds that it would constitute the establishment of a "Jewish state". [3]
Disagreements between Orthodox groups
There are instances where various Orthodox groups, headed by their rabbis, dispute both the validity of an eruv or if an eruv can in fact be built in a neighborhood.
Letter from 14 rabonim supporting the Manhattan eruv, 1960Prohibtion by the Agudas Horabonim, 1962
One of the oldest halakhic disputes in the United States revolves around the issue of an eruv in Manhattan (which is actually an island), in New York City. Some halakhic opinions refer to an island's reinforced walls against an ocean as contributing to and forming an eruv, and this view had been relied upon by some of the older rabbinate in the early part of the twentieth century. Other, more recent authorities, such as Rabbi Moshe Feinstein who lived in Manhattan, dispute that this is possible anywhere in New York City[4][5].
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[6]. There are also two eruvs in Manhattan's Washington Heights, one covering the Yeshiva University area[7] and another covering the Fort Washington area[8].
Another ongoing dispute is the status of two inter-connected eruvin in Brooklyn: The Flatbusheruv and the Boro Parkeruv. The Boro Park eruv was built and accepted by much of the Hasidic community but rejected by some of the Hasidic and non-Hasidic "Lithuanianyeshiva" 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 non-Modern Orthodox yeshiva families and Hasidic rebbes. 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.
.jpg)
