Eruv background -- links

Since the Talmudic daf yomi readings are deep into the Jewish practice of eruv*, this post provides a range of useful links. You are welcome to add links through the comments page.

To my readers: Due to my temporary break from new posts, a few readers kindly suggested that I leave at least a note about the status of this blog. It is my intention to improve and add to this Quicksilver blog, but I am currently pulled away to other compelling work. Apologies for not mentioning this break before. I will try to add some new posts between now and mid-January, when I hope to resume on a more regular basis. (If anyone would like to offer a guest post that fits within the scope of this blog, you would be most welcome. Send me an email.) Now, back to Eruvin:

Links about eruv (draft):

For a general guide to the topic of eruv and a long list of websites for eruvim in various communities, see Wikipedia's eruv article.

Fine explanation about eruvs and Boro Park (Brooklyn) by Rav Yehonatan Chipman

Another fine eruv site, from Univ. of Maryland.

Eruvin in Modern Metropolitan Areas, a 1995 book by Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer, which can be read on-line and downloaded for a minimal price. And here YGB discusses eruv in the context of a piece on rabbinic authority.

Here's the link to my theoretical and other comments on an eruv story by Rabbi Gil Student at Hirhurim. My post offered these links as background on the Flatbush eruv controversy: Technical Jewish legal analysis at Hirhurim here (w/in-depth comments) and by R. Yisroel Hirsch. Analysis supporting the eruv here (HT here w/comments). Non-technical discussions by Gedanken (and again). R. Micha Berger at Avodah. The bitterness. Steven Weiss on the Manhattan eruv.

Eruv Online is a blog that promotes eruv. The posts usually assume a high level of knowledge but the blog opens with a crisp social critique: "

Eruvin is different then other halachic issues in one significant aspect. Eruvin more than any other issue vests a certain amount of centralized power to the baal ha’machsher [the authority who certifies the eruv as valid -- Kaspit]. People publicly carrying in a rav’s eruv is a clear sign of the posek’s influence and support in the community, unlike relying on the rav’s hechsher on food, which is a more private matter. Consequently, there are people who find it incumbent upon themselves not to allow an eruv to be established, and insist that their rav’s opinion is the only one that can be followed. If one were to follow the history of eruvin in cities where there was no central governing rav or Bais Din, they would find that machlokas [controversy -- K] often erupted as a result of this desire for dominance in community affairs [Krakow 1888, St. Louis 1895, Odessa 1900, New York 1905 to the present, Manchester 1906, Frankfurt am Main 1914, and London 1932 to the present]. Otherwise, eruvin would generate the same level of reaction as say a mikveh [Jewish ritual bath -- Kaspit] where every individual just follows the p’sak of his own rav.

I do think eruv has a range of interesting halakhic and cultural-political features, which I hope will be discussed here.

Kol tuv,

Kaspit

* An eruv is a ritually designated enclosure, a symbolic wall or fence that marks off an area in which some sabbath prohibitions on carrying do not apply. An eruv is an example of a legal fiction in Jewish law.

Comments

[adderabbi]

not a big fan of the bechofer book. would be more aptly entitled "what to make yourself meshuga about when it comes to contemporary eruvin". R' Elimelekh Langa's book, which exists only in Hebrew, is the best single volume work on eruvin out there.

[David]

You missed the most authoritative link.
http://www.flatbusheruv.org/Downloads/TheCommunityEruvbooklet.pdf

[eruvlineman]

I believe that the post on Avodah is not R’ Micha Berger. Please link to the site http://eruvonline.blogspot.com/

[kaspit]

AddeRabbi -- thanks for your recommendation. Kol tuv.

David -- The booklet is already linked at this text in the post: "Analysis supporting the eruv." I'll stand by the attribution to R. Micha Berger for now. Thanks for your comments,

Kaspit

[eruvlineman]

Both R’ Bechhofer’s and R’ Lang’s books are fine. However, as R’ Bechhofer’s sefer is writen in English he is just following the English seforim trend to be machmer.

[shiah director]

Eruvonline. blogspot.com is a fine peice of work. However they omitted two main points.
1. There was an eruv in Manhattan in 1908 approved of by seven leading Torah sages, of blessed memory, in that generation. Any discussion on eruvin must start with citing their ruling. Published in Eruv Vhotzah, explaining in detail, reasons for establishing an eruv in Manhattan. Their ruling was never disproved or refuted. Their ruling applies to Brooklyn as well.
Eruv Vhotzah was out of print when issuer was issued against eruvin in Manhattan in the year 5724(or 5722). Had this book been available there never would have been an issuer against eruvin in Manhattan. After a detailed discussion on this subject in 1908 by leading Torah sages of the generation.
Eruv Vhotzah was reprinted in 1979: and is available by writing P.O.B. 786,
Woodbourne, N Y 12788 and enclosing $5.00. Published with this book is a discussion on eruv in Odessa, Russia, in 1900.
This information was not available until 1979. Therefore, there was an uncalled for fight, about eruvin in Brooklyn. Had this information been available, there never would have been various opinions about eruvin in Brooklyn. Because, this matter was ruled upon in 1908, by leading Torah sages.
2. Ruling of Chazon Ish, houses around all large cities, make this cirty a private domain.( Explaind in Eruvonline. blogspot.com). Was stated in aforementiond work concerning eruv in Odessa, Russia.Author(Rav Briskin) states: when he was in Holy City of Jerusalem, he showed his work to leading Torah sages there, of blessed memory, and to the great Gaon Reb Chiam Berlin, (Rabbi Of Moscow who went to live there in his later years), they all praised his work.
These two main points, completely desolve, any opposition to eruvin in Brooklyn and Manhattan.
WOE! Individuals go into an involved discussion about nothing: but, they forget the main point. They have sefer Eruv Vhotzah, I sold it to them, why didn't they read it before writing on this subject.This masterpeice of Torah scholarship deserves their comments.

[shiah director]

Present conroversy, about eruvin in Brooklyn, is also because those against eruvin don't study subject matter on this subject. They should carefully read Safer Eruv Vhotzah. If they have logical comments on this safer they can publish them. However, they never read this safer, or commented on it.
It seems, pro-eruv people also did not read it.Nor, did they read Rav Briskins sefer, concerning eruv in Odessa.Therefor, they write long, uncalled for, discussions on eruvin.
When they have information in front of them ruling an eruv can be made and leaves no room for further discussiuon on this matter.
However, in any case, THE ALMIGHTY rejoyces when Torah Law is discussed.

correction last line should read CASE

[shiah director]

Both those for and against the eruv in Brooklyn engage in long diatribes about view of Reb Moshe Feinstein, of blessed memory. However, he states openly in Igros Moshe(4:87), his opinion on this matter is against all poskim. In next letter(ibid) he states: his opinion concerning eruvin in Brooklyn, is against the Shulchan Aurach.This is not the first time in Jewish history where an opinion is stated against leading poskim. Bais Shami's opinion is stated in the Talmud even though we don't rule like them.Rabbi Eliezer Ha'Godel ruled against all sages of Israel and his opinion was not accepted. We see this often, in works of our sages, of blessed memory. Because, a godel b'Yisroel has an obligation to state his opinion, even if we don't rule like him.
Reb Moshe Feinstein, of blessed memory, never obligated anyone to follow his rulings. They are published for Torah scholars to study.
Therefore, when discussing eruvin in Brooklyn, for all practical purposes, it is no ones obligation to discuss an opinion against all poskim and the Shulchan Aurach.
Literature on eruvin, is availabe, and known. But not cited.Therin are absolute rulings fron holy Torah sages from past generations.

[kaspit]

Shiah Director -- thanks for your comments and info. Please avoid multiple, duplicate comments.

Eruv lineman: "as R’ Bechhofer’s sefer is writen in English he is just following the English seforim trend to be machmer."

I think this is an astute comment. It is my sense that halakhic nuances, exceptions and pilpul tend to be reserved for insiders, the literati. This tendency fits the halakhah principle that halakhic subtleties need not, or should not, be communicated to the less educated (rabbinically) masses. Halakhah v'ein morin ken. ("Thus is the halakhah but we do not teach it so.") For halakhic works written in English, the presumption may be that the audience is less educated so the author needs to be more "machmer", i.e. more strict, leaving out subtleties and potential leniencies.

Kaspit

Signatures on posters against eruvin have no value. Because, they don't state reasons for their stand:and, are against all HOLY SAGES OF ISRAEL. While pro-eruv people have published many books explaining their view. Noteworthy, are books republished by this writer, from HOLY PROMENENT TORAH SAGES FROM A HUNDRED YEARS AGO. Who ruled eruvin can be made in all large cities.(All, three volumes, are available by writing p.o.b.786, Woodbournr, N Y 12788 and enclosing $25.00.)
Reb Moshe Feinstein's ruling against all promenent sages from past generations(see previous posts) is not a matter for discussion.His views against all Torah sages of Israel cannot be entered into any discussion about eruvin in Brooklyn.
Why those discussing eruvin in Brooklyn feel an obligation to cite his views against all poskim is dumbfounding.
If they want to cite his views. Quote exactly what he says, nothing added, nothing subtracted.Namely, his ruling is against the Shulchan Aurach and all poskim. Therefore, no one has any obligation to follow his ruling. This is stated openly by him in his many letters about eruvin. Discussions about a ruling against all poskim and the Shulchan Aurach are uncalled for:and, have no place in a discussion concerning practical application of eruvin in Brooklyn. Which he never protested against. In view of aformentioned FACTS.

[shiah director]

Yesterday Eruvonline Blogspot.com/ wrote about Manhattan Eruv in 1908. Good work. It's about time you discussed it. However they failed to cite rulings from ten prominent sages, published in 1900, about eruv in Odessa, Russia. They ruled Odessa has a wall on side that's on the Black Sea.Their rulins, and discussions, were printed in Sefer Tikun Shabbos, in 1900, and reprinted in 1980. Also Rav Graubart, Rov of Toronto, Canada, made an eruv there, approved of by leadind sages in his generation. They all ruled. Toronto, which is on rivers, has walls.(Sefer Chavalim Bnemim)
Mabe next time. Keep up the good work.

[shiah director]

Sefer Eruv Vhotzah about Manhattan Eruv in 1908. Is available by writing P.O.B. 786, Woodbourne, N Y 12788, and enclosing $5.00.
Sefer Tikun Shabbos, about Odessa Eruv in 1900, is available at above address, and enclosing $5.00.

[shiah director]

Sefer Chavalim Bnemim, a two volume work by Rav Graubart, Rov of Toronto, Canada, was republished about 25 years ago, by Feldheim Publishers: and, should be available in seforim stores. Therein is a detailed discussion about every aspect of eruvin. Also, letters of approval from leading scholars in his generation for the eruv he made in Toronto.
Population of Toronto shifted. After Rav Graubart's passing Jews no longer lived where he made the eruv.
Rav Price, then Rov of Toronto, made an eruv. Before making the eruv, he published an essay explaining reasons for establishing this eruv: and, printed it in the Torah Journal Hapardas. Asking for comments from Rabbonim on what he wrote.
In 1979, I wrote him a letter asking him if anyone commented on what he wrote. He answered: the two cheif Rabbonim in Eretz Yisroel( Ashkanazi and Sefardi) wrote him, and agreed with his ruling.
This is how laws of eruvin were discussed by prominent rabbonim in past generations. Torah on this subject was printed and discussed between rabbonim.
No posters, or leaflets, were distributed. There were no advertisments in newspapers. Rabbonim wrote, and discussed the subject.
Things have changed in Brooklyn in the past 25 years. A new Torah of leaflets, posters,and advertisments, was established. Not Torah from the ALMIGHTY discussed by Torah scholars in our generation.

[viagra online]

my family is Jewish and I have this tradition many years but did not know the meaning of an eruv its symbolism and its practice

[viagra online]

Given the huge interest in this topic I`ll be cranking up some more pointers on how to tackle this issue. I will certainly post links to my recent work for you to see what I am up to I will also post links to relevant articles by other authors, like the one.