The Manhattan Eruv
atlasobscura.com
atlasobscura.com
Another one of these sidesteps was that you can't turn on the TV on the sabbath, but there's nothing stopping you from visiting your friend who happens to have the Spurs game on.
I'll be a little bemused if I die and it turns out there's an afterlife, and in fact it was all a game of rules that you could play with like that.
The point about watching the game...thats not really permissible according to many Rabbis, its just an excuse your friend made because its much worse to take an action that completes an electrical circuit (similar to biblical prohibition of lighting a fire) than to just look at something happening...but there is clear guidance about what you are allowed to even read or look at on Shabbos. This is just human nature...we all do the best we can with who we are at any given moment...the Eruv though is a very different mechanism.
According to Jewish law there are 4 categories of domains: 1) Public (Large area, heavy traffic), 2) Semi-public (most of what we would consider public), 3) Private, 4) Permitted (a small distinct area in the public domain). Carrying in the semi-public domain is biblically permitted, but rabbinically prohibited due to its similarity to a public domain. An allowance was made to carry in the semi-public domain if a symbolic eruv is put up to distinguish it from a public domain.
Knowing very little of the "rules" and on the way they are followed, I have always been intrigued by this thingy here (Halachic switch):
> When you slide the on/off button, you’re moving an isolated piece of plastic. It is purely mechanical, and is not attached to anything electrical (electro-mechanically isolated). This is done at a time when you see a green Status Light, which provides 100% assurance that the relevant components within the switch are inactive. Subsequently, after a random interval, the device will activate and determine the position of the plastic by flashing an internal light pulse. The attached light fixture will be triggered only after the switch overcomes two failure probability processes – one prior to this light pulse and one after it. Halachically, your action is simply the movement of an isolated piece of plastic with no implications of causation.
The TV hack is basically an urban legend. I’ve never met anyone who actually uses it, and it definitely violates several rules.
I don't imagine that a chipped stone on top of Jerusalem's wall in 600 BC would have made the walled city not walled for the purposes of an Eruv. Manhattan is an island, wouldn't it be enough for the community to declare the shoreline the border of the city? (Or maybe I'm trying to apply logic in a place where it's superseded by authority...)
[1]: https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/eruv-manhattan-invisib...
There is nothing that would physically prevent a 'wall' being put around the planet and deeming the planet a community.
Is the wall to show people where the boundaries are or to show God?
It all seems to meaninglessly arbitrary.
Bonkers if you ask me. There are three biblical areas
> ...reshut ha-yahid (a private domain) and reshut ha-rabbim (a public domain). Any other area is considered a makom patur (an exempt area)
Then Rabbis made up a fourth:
> To avoid inadvertent violations of Shabbat, however, the rabbis introduced a fourth type of domain called a karmelit. This category includes some areas that would be considered a reshut ha-yahid on a biblical level and some areas that would be considered a makom patur on a biblical level.
Which ends up with some oddities that seem to conflict with biblical dictate...
> while an open field is a biblical makom patur [an exempt area], on a rabbinic level it is a karmelit [treated like public domain].
Then the whole discourse degenerates into this...
> Rabbi Yosef Teomim, author of an important commentary on the Shulhan Arukh called the Pri Megadim, raised the possibility that the tzurat ha-petah is only effective in enclosing an area according to rabbinic law. According to biblical law, however, the tzurat ha-petah is ineffective. Subsequently, using a tzurat ha-petah to enclose an area that is considered to be a “public domain” on a biblical level would simply be an insufficient means to convert it into a “private domain.” A karmelit, however, is considered a makom patur on a biblical level and is only considered “public” by the rabbis; thus by erecting a rabbinically sanctioned enclosure, one successfully converts it into a “private domain.”[4]
Every input here just leads to more questions, ultimately I think little of it would make actual sense to me even I studied a lifetime's worth of doctrine.
To avoid a rabbit hole conversation I bow out and just chalk this up to humans being humans. Others are obviously free to think whatever they like, I have no problem with that.
Your friend doesn't have to just happen to have the game on. You can even invite your friend over to your house to watch the game. You just can't be the one to operate the TV, as using electric appliances is considered work.
It's amazing how much extra effort is required to consider yourself resting on Saturday. People will also take the stairs to avoid the work of elevators and walk to temple to avoid the work of driving.
Over the years Rabbis have clarified and expand these definitions to understand how they relate to the current generation and modern world. This is a long conversation.
Ultimately, the general idea is "we create during the week and on sabbath, separate ourselves from that creative energy and just enjoy our handiwork, just as the creator of the world did... this is why even plucking a blade of grass would be forbidden..anything that creates either through adding or removing things is in the framework of how Shabbat laws are interpreted...
As I understand it in my lay background.
That’s the point. In a society, it’s advantageous for the few if most are busy following the rules. Once a critical mass of people break the rules, it’s chaos. But breaking the rules here and there, under the guise of plausible deniability, allows a small group to benefit greatly.
Apparently, if someone is technically jewish, you can't tell them to break sabbath rules. So before my father left for the day, Steve kept telling him about all the great stuff playing on TV.
My father did not get the hint.
http://www.kolelrio.com.br/index.php/eruv-ipanema/
http://www.kolelrio.com.br/index.php/eruv-copacabana /
Interestingly, it appears that mountains and buildings can also count as part of the border, in addition to the string.
https://jewishjournal.com/news/los_angeles/community/6241/
Both the NYC and LA Eruv have realtime updates for status that are taken as seriously as datacenter uptime. You can call virtually any Schul/temple in the Eruv to know its immediate status from a rabbi.
http://eruv.nyc/ https://www.laeruv.com/
devout jews dont so much as pick up a house key without knowing the Eruv status, while some not-so-devout will intentionally avoid knowing its status as this isnt technically considered breaking the mitzvos.
> ...devout jews dont so much as pick up a house key without knowing the Eruv status
Well, except, the only time you need to know the status of the eruv is on shabbat (the sabbath), and if you are someone who needs to know the status of the eruv on shabbat, you are also not going to use a phone or computer on shabbat, so.
Perhaps you might check the status just before shabbat. But surely you are exagerating at least somewhat. (I personally was aware of eruvim but was not aware there was a way to check it's status based on monitors, and personally have no idea how popular it is to do so. I just know nobody's making a phone call to check eruv status before picking up their keys on a Saturday morning!).
The NYC eruv status web page (http://eruv.nyc/) currently says "Last Checked: 1/2/2020", so I believe you were exagerating somewhat to say "immediate" status as well. It does say "It features an announcement each Friday about the status of the eruv" -- so it sounds like, yup, check it Friday afternoon before the sabbath starts, and that's the only time it's updated too cause nobody has any reason to check it any other time, okeydoke.
https://www.npr.org/2019/05/13/721551785/a-fishing-line-enci...
If you believe that the Torah is the literal and infallible word of god, then any apparent loopholes must be intentional - indeed, to believe otherwise would be tantamount to blasphemy. Who are you to try and second-guess God's intentions when his words are right there in black and white?
Personally, I find these creative interpretations of Jewish religious law to be an endless source of fascination. It speaks to a vibrant, conscious engagement with religious practice rather than the mindless observation of old rites. It might seem weird, but there's absolutely nothing careless or half-assed about it. The immense scholarly effort to figure out whether (for instance) an electric shaver is kosher is itself an act of deep religious devotion.
https://library.yctorah.org/2018/05/is-my-electric-shaver-ko...
1) everything, even apparent loopholes, must be included intentionally, and 2) these laws must be formulated in a way that's flexible enough to conform to changing realities, while sturdy enough not to devolve into ambiguity.
The case of the Eruv offers an example of exactly that.
You're right, that the original commandment, as stated, is pretty clear. Carrying outside of (or between) private residences on the Sabbath is prohibited.
The Sabbath is meant to be a day of rest, so the restriction on carrying things to and from anywhere outside of your home would all but force families to stay in-doors, with each other.
BUT... if the demands or realities of a different (i.e. less than ideal) time were to change so that such an arrangement placed too onerous a burden on worshipers, then the law has an escape clause.
Through the incredibly meticulous and tedious construction of a sprawling boundary, any space could become technically "private."
The rationalization would be that though this was a loophole, the sheer difficulty of exploiting it would signal that practitioners of the Sabbath (and especially the Rabbinic authorities needed to approve and supervise an Eruv) literally had no other option than to sidestep the commandment as originally intended.
It's worth noting that relatively few Jewish laws have such escape clauses.
The thinking is that it signals only those laws for which ideal circumstances are required to actually observe them. To be clear, the original commandment always holds (because even when you do construct an Eruv, let's say, you still must have the original commandment in mind), but there is a threshold after which observing this stricture in a surrogate manner is deemed acceptable.
That turned out way longer than I expected...
In fact, some of the controversy around building Eruvin in large cities like Manhattan is that large cities may have certain features that make them a public domain according to the biblical prohibition, thus making an Eruv of this kind impossible.
"In frustration, Rabbi Eliezer finally cries out, "If the halakha is in accordance with my opinion, Heaven will prove it." From Heaven a voice is heard, saying, "Why are you differing with Rabbi Eliezer, as the halakha is in accordance with his opinion in every place that he expresses an opinion?" Rabbi Joshua responds, "It [the Torah] is not in heaven" (Deuteronomy 30:12). He responds in this way because the Torah, which was given by God to mankind at Sinai, specifically instructs those who follow it that they are to look to the received Torah as their source and guide. The Torah says, "It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will go up to heaven for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?' Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?' No, the word is very near to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart for you to observe" (Deuteronomy 30:12-14).
Rabbi Joshua's response then expresses the view that the work of law is a work of human activity, and that the Torah itself supports this legal theory. The Torah is not a document of mystery which must have its innate meaning revealed by a minority, but it is instead a document from which law must be created through the human activity of debate and consensus. Rabbinic literature was capable of recognizing differing opinions as having a degree of legitimacy (Yer. Ber. 3b), yet the community remains united and the ruling which is ultimately followed comes through proper jurisprudence. As such, Rabbi Eliezer's miraculous appeals represent a differing legal theory and were outside of proper jurisprudence which meant that they would not be followed. Instead the Jewish community followed the ruling of the majority in this issue and in others. The Talmud asks how God responded to this incident. We are told that upon hearing Rabbi Joshua's response, God smiled and stated, "My children have triumphed over Me; My children have triumphed over Me.""
Maybe, I'm not an expert in Judaism, but this comparison with that description:
> it's like the [...] Catholic papal infallibility doctrine
...shows a deep failure to understand the doctrine of papal infallibility, and makes me suspect the characterization of the Jewish understanding is equally flawed.
Compare "It is not in heaven" with ""Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
No, it doesn't. Either in theory (where the direction of effect is the reverse described and there is no retroactivity) or in practice (where the theoretical restrictions on the applicability of the doctrine mean that on any issue where there is otherwise any controversy, the doctrine doesn't force a resolution it just expands the debate to include whether any papal statements ever made on the issue met the criteria for infallibility.)
> Compare "It is not in heaven" with ""Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
The latter isn't related to the basis for the doctrine of infallibility (whether papal or ecclesiastical) but it is part of the basis of doctrine around the priestly role in confession.
And yes retroactively - "You bind on earth" is present tense, "will be bound in heaven" is future tense - unless this is a translation artifact there is a clear causal ordering specified here.
Yes, and it refers not to changing what God wanted in the past (which would be retroactive, but isn't what a present tense action having future tense effects would indicate; it's not “whatever you bind on Earth will have been bound in Heaven”, which would plausibly describe a retroactive effect, or alternatively or pre-ordained one) but the future consequences of sin. Again, the quote you point to is the basis for doctrine about absolution of sin in confession, not the ecclesiastical infallibility either in general or in the specific form of papal infallibility, which are not closely related doctrines.
It has also an official website where people can check if the eruv is up or down: http://eruv.nyc/
I was always wondering how the Manhattan eruv was a “valid” one by orthodox Judaism since a street like Broadway — or really any street — is a dirshus haRabbim which can hold over 600,000 people at once (and perhaps does once a year, also counting the subway).
An eruv originally was supposed to unite “private” domains into one super-domain. The tradition holds that it was instituted by King Solomon himself, to unite Jews who otherwise would not be able to carry things to their neighbors.
So I checked — and it turns out that the rabbinate which oversees it is actually not orthodox, but reconstructionist or something. It is based on Monsey, which is home to many orthodox Jews, so hearing that the eruv is overseen by Monsey sounds like it’s orthodox.
I don’t know any orthodox Jews who use it. And eruvin are basically used by orthodox Jews.
(Fun fact: it doesn’t go through Moshe Feinstein’s old neighborhood, Chelsea, where I used to live, because he opposed it. Another rabbi who opposed any eruvin — even kosher ones — was Menachem Shneerson of Chabad. So in crown heights there is an “eruv dispute” between the orthodox, who use it when they eg walk strollers with their children on Shabbat, and the ultra-orthodox, who refuse to use it and post signs that it’s not to be used: https://forward.com/news/345405/brooklyn-eruv-feud-spreads-t... ).
I think this is an interesting topic for Hacker News because the people here often investigate rules and reasons for them, and this whole topic — even the Talmud eruv rules themselves — is about rules and hacking in a way.
http://www.aishdas.org/rygb/eruvp3a.htm
https://www.jewishpress.com/judaism/halacha-hashkafa/carryin... and
https://www.koltorah.org/halachah/the-laws-of-creating-an-er... for example.
(It's reshus or reshut btw, not dirshus )
2. This is a good background for its institution.
http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%203%20Buchman.pdf
3. It's overseen by an Orthodox group. (It's used by Orthodox Jews, so not sure why you would expect otherwise).
https://www.jewishcenter.org/manhattan-eruv.html
This is religious checkboxing. You check off all the boxes, and you're good. Islam is very much like that. Ultra-orthodox Judaism is close. Catholicism is more about intent, leading to a system based on being made to feel guilty.
Enough theology for today.
I believe until recent history Christianity also prohibited loans and debt, or at least usury debt.
I'm not doubting it, the contrary, it seems quite plausible to me and exciting enough that I'd like the source! Rather than "some guy on HN said that some rabbis said something like" heh. And for more study.
You obviously have no idea how much the Rabbis (or even the layman Orthodox) believe this stuff.
It makes no sense that the people who gave up their lives rather than give in on minutiae didn't believe in G-d.
Without sources, your claim should be dismissed as projection or wishful thinking.
Citation brought bellow in this thread, whether or not it implies what I believe it implies is probably not an argument to be had here.
> You obviously have no idea how much the Rabbis (or even the layman Orthodox) believe this stuff.
You obviously have no idea how different the notion of G-d as taught by some Rabbis is from the one that is presented to the layman Orthodox. For that matter the way that the Pope thinks of G-d today is not the same that the layman Christian does. And I don't believe that all of them believe in G-d allegorically but I think the foundational ones mentioned in the Talmud did, the Rambam (Maimonides) too probably.
> It makes no sense that the people who gave up their lives rather than give in on minutiae didn't believe in G-d.
It makes the same amount of sense for a literal belief as it does for an allegorical one, the 'minutiae' is a symbol for the underlying principle of self-determination.
> Without sources, your claim should be dismissed as projection or wishful thinking.
Precisely.
1700 years ago is roughly the canonization of the Mishnah, but since the story is presented as a legend in the Talmud it would probably be more accurately attributed to the authors of the Talmud some centuries later.
Pressing Bake turns the oven on after a random delay, if you didn't press Bake the oven wouldn't turn on at all. Ergo you turned the oven on, no matter how much you lawyer speak your way around it.
Just reinforces how ludicrous the meaningless rules are, that surround all religions.
Which is by the by to the point -- if the rules are there, the amount of effort spent to creatively discount them feels like nothing other than blatant cheating. A sleight of hand.
Note also my response to your second comment to my original -- OP said nothing of it needing to be used before the sabbath. In terms of the eruv, what may be a gentle convenience or exception for a few neighbouring houses, or relations, seems to really stretch when it encompasses tens of thousands+ in multiple city regions. Though I note from other comments regarding Feinsten, if accurate, that some noted Jewish scholars appear to have thought the concept stretched the point too.
I am not an eruv or even a Jewish law expert, but I can assure you though that Rabbi Moshe Feinsteins positions were widely accepted in the Orthodox Community and his opinions are not only well documented and sourced, they are studied today much like court precedents are set. There are obviously differing view points, but in order to disagree with him and be listened to, one would need to extensively show their math and support their dissenting opinion with reliable sources and case history...
In general, the rule of thumb around Jewish law atleast for Orthodox Jews is, "ask your local orthodox rabbi." And interestingly enough, when interviewing for synagogue and pulpit positions, one of the common questions asked of Rabbi Applicants is "who do you ask your religious and halachik questions to?" Central to the faith is collaboration and discussion at the highest levels and if you arent stumped constantly and discussing with mentors and peers, you by default disqualify your credentials to most Ultra Orthodx Jews.
Religion is an exploit of faith to allow power to beget more power, just like any other "isms" like capitalism, fascism, socialism, etc etc.
I wont pretend to understand consciousness or the human experience...but I like to be pragmatic, and from a pragmatic perspective, I dont see the utility of your belief about religion and faith and power structures...its an almost helpleas viewpoint that rejects everything as imaginary and malleable...and I dont see the value in that in my own beliefs and philosophy.
So now I'm not sure how to interpret.
As difficult as it may seem to many people, the "hacks" are grounded in sound but nuanced reasoning...the cases that make no sense logically are typically mistaken application...the talmud is literally rabbis disproving these ideas based on logic all the time.
The name is a misnomer because the baking function can only be used on Jewish holidays (Passover, Sukkot) when baking/cooking is permitted (okhel nefesh) whereas on Sabbath cooking is forbidden.
Rather, sabbath mode is things like... a sabbath mode elevator just goes up and down all day stopping at every floor, so nobody needs to press any call or floor buttons. A sabbath mode oven, what it actually does, it just stay on all day (disabling features that will turn it off if unattended for a few hours), so you can just leave it on at a relatively low temperature all day and put things in and out of it, without starting a fire yourself. (It is starting the fire that is forbidden not making use of it). (In some cases a timer you set in advance before the sabbath is okay though, so perhaps a sabbath mode oven could have a timer you set Friday afternoon telling it to turn on and/or off at some point in the future).
HOWEVER. In general. I think there is a larger point. As someone who does not particularly believe in God, but still has some respect for following disciplines like this: You say the rules are "meaningless" -- but I would say the rules are meaningful only because of the meaning WE give them, the effect they have on us, the meaning we find in them.
If you don't believe in God, that's the only kind of meaning there is, anyway, right? Or you believe everything is meaningless in a kind of nihilism, which is something some people do, but I don't believe it's what most of us atheists do or is the only option.
So the rules of shabbat can be "meaningful" because of the meaning we find in them, because of the _experience_ of following them, which may be an experience that we find meaningful, especially when done with a community doing it consistently. Shabbat is a good example, because I find it to be so, having some experience with observing it in a community; it is a pleasurable and personally meaningful experience with no need to believe in God to make it so. So whether a modification of a 'strict' rule would make sense would depend as much on the effects it has on the practice as anything else.
I don't think religious Jews usually look at it quite this way (although not as different as you may think either); but the Amish, for instance, I think are closer to this. It's not exactly that God said don't use cars so you go to hell if you use a car; it's what effect do cars have on our lives and communities, and do we want those effects, and it might be okay to use a car sometimes in ways that minimize those effects for a greater good (say, an ambulance, perhaps).
As they become no longer of their time, it becomes the rule that is significant and the heritage, and becomes the heritage rather than the reason it might have been instituted way back when. Yet just about every society develops habits and rituals. Occasionally they turn out to be counter-productive to the adherents in a modern world. Now you certainly raise a good point about the experience of following -- the ritual itself can take on importance, and the community benefits are well known. Decline of community appears to be implicated in no end of modern problems, and whether secular or religious, anything that preserves it is to be lauded.
I'm surprised at the discussion spun up from the oven feature -- seems like some manufacturers may interpret the feature differently to others. Which is correct, and which right for Judaism, I'm unqualified to say. A sabbath mode elevator is, to my mind, a much more obvious and clean workaround that seems to preserve the spirit of the underlying idea.
As an atheist with Jewish background who is thinking more about Jewish traditions these days, some thoughts are: The act of figuring out as a community the details of the rules (or 'exceptions' of they seem so) in the face of changing social conditions can itself be meaningful. It can produce meaning related to bringing people into a community of discussion and debate in which decisions are made, or of authoritarian following the orders of a designated leader who decides how you are to interpret the rules, or some combination thereof.
It's all full of meaning, very meaning-producing. It may be intentional or unintentional, the kind of meaning we'd want or not want. Once you are an atheist -- or otherwise don't believe that there is a God who speaks to us in human language giving commands -- it actually frees you (singular or plural) up to alter the practices to produce the meaning you want.
As an atheist of Protestant heritage I've wondered on the secret sauce of religion that brings the obviously stronger sense of community, as it appears to run deeper than faith, and whether there are ways to achieve that in a secular context. Perhaps particularly difficult in an era when individual choice and consumerism is promoted as paramount. :)
But Jewish practice generally/traditionally is really big on "community" as a focus and priority, and religiously observant Jews would agree that's so, in general, I think. They would of course probably say that the reason they do things the way they do, though, is because God said so, the end.
But as outside "sociologists" or "anthropologists" we can have our own interpretations, although perhaps it's rude.
But then, for some interesting additional anthropology, I know increasing numbers of atheist/agnostic Jews, not from Orthodox communities, who I think have attitudes toward Jewish practice along the lines we are talking about...
You can read about typical sabbath mode's on ovens, as well as other appliances, on wikipedia, which also has some info about how much consensus there is about the legality of various approaches.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath_mode#Oven
For ovens, it does indeed say "With some Shabbat mode ovens that are controlled using a keypad to set the temperature, there is a random delay triggered after a button is pressed before the temperature change takes place", but after going over other more common "sabbath modes" on ovens.
I suppose there may be some rabbi who permitted this, but I would love to hear the reasoning. This is definitely NOT what Sabbath mode usually is.
Edit: here is the rabbinic authority that worked with GE to develop the Sabbath mode. They explicitly state that adjusting temperature on the Sabbath is not allowed. Again, I don't know why that feature exists as it does not provide any benefit from a Jewish perspective. https://www.star-k.org/articles/articles/kosher-appliances/a...
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/935286/jewish...
It's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
Plus, this is literally just a filament. If you didn't specifically go looking for it you'd never notice it.
It sounds like you're trying to apply reason to religion, which is just never going to work.
I don't think you've ever met Judaism, every single thing in it is carefully reasoned over. The [unprovable] "axioms" if you will, might not be ones you would pick, but given those axioms everything else flows logically.
Anyway,
A wall encloses a space. A wall can have doorways obviously, and still enclose a space.
What if you made the entire wall out of doorways?
And that's what an eruv is, it's a series of doorways all right next to each other. There are certain rules on how you construct an eruv, otherwise it's not considered a doorway, but rather an opening.
What makes a button hole? It's not just the space, but also the frame of stitching that surrounds it.
So to use your analogy the suit would need to be made of many frames like that connected together.
What else makes a button hole? Well they are usually in a nice straight line, so you suit would have to be the same way, you could not have a messy pattern of random placement.
Keep going, what are the other essential elements of a button hole? Etc..
Take it to the full extreme, every element debated and defined and you would start to approach the way the thought process works.
(An eruv has a ton of very strict restrictions on its construction, otherwise it doesn't count. Superficially it seems simple, just a string, but actually getting all the details right takes a lot of effort.)
Actually, I am Jewish, and I stand by my statement.
Displays of religious (or anti-religiois) symbols on public property are not generally illegal in the US; Government favoritism on the basis of religion on permitting such display, OTOH, is a First Amendment violation.
More detailed discussion: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/r...
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2007/06/19/palo-alto-eru...
There is debate in the religious community about this eruv and others in Manhattan.