> It does also defeat the point. That may not be a compelling argument if you don't know what the point is, but there is one.
In fairness, the article itself as well as the Eruv article on Wikipedia linked here both make it seem that the whole point is to enact a kind of escape hatch to a rule that was found to be too strict to be workable in practice.
For example, Wikipedia:
> What constitutes a "public area" is debated. The strict opinion holds that any road more than 16 cubits wide is a public domain, while the lenient opinion holds that a public domain must have both 16 cubits of width and 600,000 people passing through the road on a single day. In practice, communities that build eruvin accept the lenient opinion.
In other words, it's only with the most lenient interpretation of the laws that this kind of escape hatch is even possible somewhere like Manhattan, and possibly not even there.
A typical American feeling is that rules are either important and should be upheld, or unimportant (or bad) and should be gotten rid of. The perspective behind eruvin seems (edit: based on the Wikipedia article, see replies) to hold that rules are important only in their most direct and legalistic version, and even then only to the extent that you can't weasel your way out of them. If that's the case, it's hard to say what's in principle wrong with the idea of a tiny eruv that the whole world is "inside", other than tradition.
>In other words, it's only with the most lenient interpretation of the laws that this kind of escape hatch is even possible somewhere like Manhattan, and possibly not even there.
yes exactly. There are rabbis (in particular I think a lot of sephardic rabbis because Maimonides was strict about eruv) who wouldn't carry in anything less than a walled city.
The comment I was responding to was a fair question. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
That said, your comment contains several significant misconceptions, and you are far too confident despite not having any idea what you are talking about.
First, neither elevation.fandom.com nor Wikipedia are good sources for Jewish thought. How things seem to someone who has no background knowledge after consulting a poor source is of little interest to anyone engaging in serious consideration.
Second, as with most questions in Judaism, there are multiple opinions. Most communities eventually agreed on one position to follow (at least in practice). In this particular case most communities settled on the more lenient position, but just as often it settles on more stringent interpretations. That has no relevance to the question of whether or not Eruvin are a loophole.
Third, Eruvin are not a loophole. They are not an escape hatch or an attempt to weasel out of the rules. They are an elegant extension of the rules that simultaneously uphold the letter and the spirit of the law in the face of changing circumstance. If you understand this it is obvious why we cannot have a single worldwide Eruv. Because it breaks both. It also just straight up doesn't make any sense.
> That said, your comment contains several significant misconceptions, and you are far too confident despite not having any idea what you are talking about.
Sorry, the intent of my comment was actually not to state any kind of conception at all - rather, I wanted to indicate exactly why it is that most people are approaching it from this angle. I understand that none of the sources here are necessarily reliable, but the fact that they're the resources available to most people in the thread are the reason there's so much misunderstanding. (I've made a small edit to my comment to try to make this a little more clear.)
So what I wanted to get at was the fact that anyone reading the Wikipedia article would likely pick up on the obvious implication it contains that eruvin are an attempt to weasel out of a set of rules with legalism.
> They are an elegant extension of the rules that simultaneously uphold the letter and the spirit of the law in the face of changing circumstance.
I would be curious to learn more about this, if the process can be made clear to a non-Jew. For example, how does an eruv help uphold the spirit of the law? If the spirit of the law is what matters, one would intuitively think that you wouldn't need a symbolic "wall" around the community, because the distinction that counts (excluding public spaces) already exists, just not with a physical wall around it. Intuitively, one gets the impression that the wire only needs to exist in order to satisfy a specific rule that has been inherited but no longer matters very much for "spirit-interpretation" today.
The reason I say that eruv uphold the spirit of the law is because it is permissible to carry within walled cities. If it wasn't the intention of the law to make carrying outdoors completely off limits, then it is hard to see why an eruv violates the spirit of the law.
As for why it is necessary to have the physical construction: Just as the law doesn't intend to forbid carrying everywhere, it doesn't intend to permit it everywhere. The actual existence of a physical boundary prevents the perceived permissibility of carrying from expanding constantly. Without it, there would need to be some other equally arbitrary seeming rule about what constitutes a single community.
I also think it is important to mention that both the spirit and the letter of the law are quite important. Even setting aside the question of the spirit of the law, they are still necessary because they are mandated in a legalistic sense.
In fairness, the article itself as well as the Eruv article on Wikipedia linked here both make it seem that the whole point is to enact a kind of escape hatch to a rule that was found to be too strict to be workable in practice.
For example, Wikipedia:
> What constitutes a "public area" is debated. The strict opinion holds that any road more than 16 cubits wide is a public domain, while the lenient opinion holds that a public domain must have both 16 cubits of width and 600,000 people passing through the road on a single day. In practice, communities that build eruvin accept the lenient opinion.
In other words, it's only with the most lenient interpretation of the laws that this kind of escape hatch is even possible somewhere like Manhattan, and possibly not even there.
A typical American feeling is that rules are either important and should be upheld, or unimportant (or bad) and should be gotten rid of. The perspective behind eruvin seems (edit: based on the Wikipedia article, see replies) to hold that rules are important only in their most direct and legalistic version, and even then only to the extent that you can't weasel your way out of them. If that's the case, it's hard to say what's in principle wrong with the idea of a tiny eruv that the whole world is "inside", other than tradition.