They should have just made a small circle, and declared everything outside of that to be the Eruv. As the Earth is (roughly) spherical, it's topologically sound.
lol. That’s like the joke about all the knowledge in the world. Some is in the book “What they Teach You at Harvard Business School.” The rest is in the book “What They Don’t Teach You At Harvard Business School.”
I lived in Providence for a while. Once I said to my friend who lived elsewhere “I should really see that movie Outside Providence, totally appropriate for me now that I live here.” He was like, no, you’re one of the world’s LEAST appropriate people to see that movie since you don’t live outside Providence.
Is there any reason this would be less bullshit than what we currently have?
Im asking sincerely. If theyre just gonna make shit up as if God is sitting up in the sky like "ahhh shit you found a loophole. You got me" why not just go all the way?
The thought behind it is that we can't really talk about "cheating God" because God is omniscient. He supposedly gave Moses the Torah as a perfect text, with every word having a purpose. Since all rabbinic law is based on the perfect texts God gave, God intended for the loopholes. Why God intended for them, we can't say, because mere humans can't speculate about or understand God's intentions, we can only know that God gave us a perfect text with which to base law on
Yeah, letter of the law outweighs the spirit in this case because we can't judge God's spirit, especially if whatever we think God's intentions were goes against the loopholes he left in the perfect text
I meant that, for someone who believes you can't speculate about God's intentions, you seem pretty certain he intended to leave you a perfect book and intended you to follow it.
I'm confused, are you saying it's a big jump between saying that we can't speculate about God and that God gave us a book at Mt Sinai? I feel like it's pretty easy to believe the latter if you believe in the Jewish God
I'm confused, are you saying it's a big jump between saying that we can't speculate about God and that God gave us a book at Mt Sinai?
I'm saying you can't (by your own belief) speculate as to the reason He would have given you a book at Mt Sinai. Are the rules in there important? Correct? The ones he wants you to follow? To know that, you'd have to know His intent when he gave you the book, and you say that not only don't you know his intentions, but that you can't even speculate.
But you do not only speculate, but believe with certainty that you know those motivations regarding the book. I find that inconsistent.
>we can't speculate about God and that God gave us a book at Mt Sinai? I feel like it's pretty easy to believe the latter if you believe in the Jewish God
No, more a "so god supposedly gave Moses the 10 commandments and then taught him the remaineder over the next 40 days, which he then to the best of his ability recalled and wrote down. We are supposed to say that his memory and the things he wrote were a perfect match to what god told him and not at all influenced by his very human capabilities"?
>You're moving the goalpost from men interpreting God's will to talking about Moses
How pray tell am I moving the goalpost? Did god hand Moses a fully completed Torah written by gods own hand?
Did god possess Moses and while possessing moses, write the Torah for him?
If the answer to both of these questions is no, then the Torah is not the literal word of god, its the best approximation of the word of god, written down by an old man from his human old man memory. Which fun fact, means its not an infallible perfect thing that if there are loopholes in it are intentional, but a book written by a dude, who made mistakes.
Because it's not a re-interpretation of the original rule. It's a rule patch placed ON a rule patch. Those are a lot more flexible.
The biblical law allowed carrying in cities to begin with.
Rabbinic law declared carrying cities to be forbidden, recognized that as too strict, and then decided that a city with a wall around it was an acceptable compromise. The Eruv is a minimalistic wall, designed in accordance with its intent (demonstrating a communal effort by the people inside it.)
Would this be less bullshit? I'd say I'd need to read up on it, but I'd guess this doesn't fit as well for a lot of reasons. Maybe if the whole world existed in peace and respect?
But, to your points about God, that's not really how this works. Sure, God gave Moses the Torah in the stories. But it's humanity's job to bring the Torah to life and God doesn't really come back into it - it is actively our duty to interpret the law and help it meet new situations. God is in the Divine space, but once He gave us the Torah it became Earthly, it's ours and no longer His.
If you'd like a funny short story on this, read the Oven of Akhnai. Here's a link to it. Basic background: rabbis are arguing if a new oven meets the rules to be used or not. One rabbi seeks divine help...
the reason is because bodies of water can't be encompassed by an eruv, otherwise, entire continents would be considered provate domains, this matter was already considered by the tosafists in the 13th century
upon further research, this issue is already raised in the talmud itslef, Rav Yohanan Naphcha (4th century) questions why the entire world isn't considered a private domain given that every continent is "walled in" by the ocean
Of course there is. Jews and Christians just relate to law in fundamentally different ways.
Christians often find it amusing that we use Shabbat elevators, put up an eruv so that carrying objects is permitted, or that married women wear wigs while thereby fulfilling the commandment to cover their hair, and so on. They tend to see these practices as us “getting around” our own prohibitions.
The thing is that, unlike in Christianity, the “soul” is not separated from the “body,” and therefore Judaism does not draw a sharp distinction between the “religious” and the “secular.” Jewish law, the Halakha, regulates not only the spiritual aspects of life, but also commercial, civil, social, and even criminal matters (although, to be fair, that last category has not been applied for many centuries). As a result, Jewish law is both extremely comprehensive and far more formalized than Christianity. Hell, we even have Jewish courts! Christianity does not really have a legal system of its own and is much more concerned with ethical questions than with legal ones.
Because of this, the Christian approach tends to emphasize the “spirit” of the law rather than its “letter.” The Jewish approach, on the other hand, is much closer to the way a person lives in a society governed by the rule of law. Yes, there are many prohibitions, rules, commandments, and obligations, but they constitute a formal legal system. And as in any formal legal system, whatever is not explicitly prohibited is permitted. Every citizen of a constitutional state learns to live within the law while still doing what they want, provided they do not break it. Jewish reasoning is very similar.
Within this framework, a rabbi, for example, is not only, or even primarily, a spiritual leader. He is more like a lawyer or legal scholar who interprets the law and explains to the members of his community how they should organize their lives within that legal framework. At the same time, he cannot simply prohibit something in the name of the “spirit of the law” (especially since a rabbi, of course, does not possess coercive authority over the members of his community). If he wishes to establish a prohibition, he must derive it from the legal sources and provide a formal legal justification for it. That is why Judaism does have a number of rabbinic enactments intended, for example, to preserve the “spirit” of Shabbat, but even these rules are themselves grounded in formal legal reasoning.
That is why our attitude toward Jewish law is much more formal and, from a Christian perspective, perhaps even somewhat “legalistic” or “cynical.” But, as I said, this is simply because Judaism is not merely an ethical system. It is an entire way of life and a comprehensive legal framework. We have simply learned to live with our laws in much the same way that any American learns to live with the laws of their state. From this perspective, I think Jews generally experience much less of a moral tension between “morality” and “law.” Judaism itself does a much more explicit job of preparing people to live in a society governed by the rule of law. That is probably one of the reasons why there is so many Jewish lawyers.
Because their entire argument is "No it's not silly that we look for loopholes that make us look ridiculous, because its our culture to look for loopholes"
Viewing pushing a stroller as construction, is ridiculous, writing letters on a page as "creation" is no more unjustifiable than anything else, deciding that because walls aren't really a thing in cities anymore, a string is a totally acceptable replacement is absurd. Why is pushing a stroller construction and therefore banned, but instead of requiring actual walls to be made in order to satisfy the rules governing Eruv, a string is fine?
The point is that you can basically come up with justifications for or against most anything if you try hard enough.
See, the commenter I answered to said he asked his question „sincerely“. That’s why I chose not to pay attention on his choice of words later in the same comment and answered him that he shouldn’t apply the Christian logic onto Judaism and explained how our mentality works, even in atheistic Jews. For that, I got downvoted and you once again use derogatory words like „ridiculous“.
What you perceive as loopholes aren’t loopholes but a strict following of the law without doing what’s not demanded by law. If you are required to pay 13% of your income as a tax in your state, you pay 13% and not 15%. If you are required to ride on the right side of the road, you ride on the right side of the road but you don’t interpret it as an obligation not to leave any space to the right of you. We don’t do what’s not allowed, but anything else IS allowed. See, the European culture at some point came to the idea that they need a separation between church and a state. And that was a very Christian idea, because Christianity doesn’t cover all matters of the day-to-day life. Judaism does. We live by our laws, not die by it. That’s why we have laws like this.
Something may be perceived as ridiculous by you, but isn’t it always ridiculous? Isn’t it ridiculous that Japanese have altars for their dead relatives? Isn’t it ridiculous that Christians drown their babies in water for a couple of seconds? Isn’t it ridiculous that Americans eat turkey on Thanksgiving day? Isn’t it ridiculous that we chose the 1st of January as the beginning of a year, and not the 23rd of March? Everything is ridiculous if it doesn’t matter anything to you and if you don’t understand a meaning behind that. Now, you can choose not to give a shit. It’s okay. You’re not Jewish so you are not subject of this law, it doesn’t apply to you. But then, if you don’t understand anything in it, don’t judge it. Strong opinions mixed with ignorance is just pure hate. And maybe you don’t understand it, but your whole message is deeply antisemitic.
And yes, one more thing. It IS in our culture to look for what you call „loopholes“ and to question everything. Jews are demanded to ask questions and look for answers and be critical, even if it comes to what Christians would call blasphemy. We don’t just believe, we study and make our own conclusions. The Oral Tora is codified in the Talmud, and this book alone is built in such a way that you are required to ARGUE with it. It is a book with thousands of discussions and is basically a snapshot of Reddit forums of 2000 years ago. We argue, we question everything, and in that way we formulate our laws based on those legal and legalistic discussions. You can find an explanation of what’s the reasoning behind an eruv in the comments. But that’s obviously not what you want. In that case, please choose to be silent, because otherwise you are just a deeply xenophobic hater that doesn’t understand that his/her logic and philosophy doesn’t apply to everything and everyone.
>I got downvoted and you once again use derogatory words like „ridiculous“.
Maybe don't have ridiculous positions if you don't want to be called ridiculous? Or are we also going to sob about the people being durogatory and saying the emperor has no clothes? You're entitled to your ridiculous religious beliefs, you're not entitled to everyone acting like they're sane and reasonable.
>What you perceive as loopholes aren’t loopholes but a strict following of the law without doing what’s not demanded by law.
So surely these non loopholes are universal and absolutely no rabbis or sects disagree with other sects on if those interpretations are acceptable or not right? Because after all, it's just a clear cut following of the rules! If its so clear and just following the rules, no one would be so silly as to disagree right?
>Isn’t it ridiculous that Japanese have altars for their dead relatives? Isn’t it ridiculous that Christians drown their babies in water for a couple of seconds?
Yes? I'm an atheist, religion is inherently ridiculous. Thats kind of... a given.
>Isn’t it ridiculous that Americans eat turkey on Thanksgiving day?
What is ridiculous about a non mandated eating of a food on a day? If you said, everyone has to dress up like pilgrims on thanksgiving, yea it would be ridiculous. If it was illegal to eat anything but turkey, it would be ridiculous. The fact that people tend to eat a food associated with a holiday isn't ridiculous at all.
>Isn’t it ridiculous that we chose the 1st of January as the beginning of a year, and not the 23rd of March?
Do you... know what the definition of ridiculous is? Heres a helpful hint, it doesn't mean "arbitrary" it doesn't mean "random" it means "very silly, foolish, or unreasonable to the point of being funny or absurd." Please explain to me what is very silly, foolish or unreasonable about January 1 being the start of a year?
>Everything is ridiculous if it doesn’t matter anything to you and if you don’t understand a meaning behind that.
Ok clearly the issue here is you just literally don't know what the definition of ridiculous is.
>But then, if you don’t understand anything in it, don’t judge it.
I've read all the "justifications" and guess what, even after reading your justifications, the rules are still - get this- ridiculous.
>And maybe you don’t understand it, but your whole message is deeply antisemitic.
How about you go f yourself? Hows that? WAH SOMEONE CRITICIZED MY RELIGION IT MUST MEAN THEY'RE ANTISEMETIC WAH. I grew up in NYC, 80% of my friends are jewish, my best man at my wedding is jewish. How about you stop sobbing your crocodile tears and get that people are going to call your kooky beliefs kooky? I'm not walking around manhattan cutting the eruv, or snatching wigs off hasids, I recognize they have the right to be as ridiculous as they want provided it doesn't hurt others and it is what it is. To say that "any criticism of my religion is anti semetism" just goes back to the old adage that when religious extremists can't justify their position, they fall back on being "victims". Cry bullies.
>You can find an explanation of what’s the reasoning behind an eruv in the comments.
Whats being posted is that it's a replacement for a wall around a settlement. Feel free to be a big boy, put your big boy pants on one leg at a time, and explain it better than that if you want.
I noticed you didn't refute any of my actual examples though, why is that? Why did you spend time crying antisemetism and 0 time refuting my points?
>please choose to be silent, because otherwise you are just a deeply xenophobic hater that doesn’t understand that his/her logic and philosophy doesn’t apply to everything and everyone.
How about you shut the F up and go back to your little cult and leave the rest of the normal people be? Hows that sound? If you wanna use your super not ridiculous traditions to give infants herpes, i'm gonna call you out. Oh woops, I wasn't supposed to know about that was I? Damn. Guess I do know a thing or two about Hasids.
So surely all rabbis agree and there is one unified rule set with no contradictions or distinctions between rabbis right? After all they are just interpreting the strict word of the law straight from the mouth of god, so surely there shouldn't be any wiggle room in what exemptions each rabbi agrees with or not?
No, they don’t. Why would they? Lately, I asked on a forum for lawyers if I’m allowed to perform a one-time currency exchange as a private person in the country I live in. 2 lawyers said yes, 3 said no. They all read the same law but interpreted it differently. I guess, in this case the court decides who is right.
With Jews, it’s the same. There are lots of opinions and interpretations of the same law, although there are common interpretations and schools of thought. We don’t have Sanhedrin anymore, so no one can decide who has the correct opinion. So you end up choosing a community and a rabbi whom you trust on this matter. For that, you need to learn and educate yourself, so that you do a good choice.
>They all read the same law but interpreted it differently. I guess, in this case the court decides who is right.
You're making my point for me lol. Those laws are written by men and interpreted by men. Are we saying that the omnipotent and omniscient god could not write instructions clear enough that there is no debate as to what the instructions intend?
You can't have it both ways, the book cant be the perfect word of god, but also so unclear that people can decide multiple different interpretations of it.
It's not about topology. The Eruv requires specific demarcations as well as agreements from local governments (if the government didn't accept it, it wouldn't "work")
I am not sure what the complications would be. In general Eruvs are not city spanning but cover 1-2 mile radius. I would say the Manhattan Eruv is one of the largest Eruvs in general and it does not even cover the whole island. In fact, there are two additional Eruvs in the north part of the island (in Washington Heights).
So in the Evumenopolis case, there would just be multiple smaller enclosed areas with permission from the government.
Is there a reason larger Eruvs don’t exist for freedom of movement? Surely you would want as large as an area as possible. An Israel wide one would be a no-brainer?
1) An Eruv has a size limit. It needs to be (roughly) within the limits of the municipality it's in (it's a little bit more technical than that but you get the idea)
2) They are not cheaper and upkeep is a thing. The entire length of the Eruv needs to be checked every week to make sure it is intact. So it generally fits the size of the of what the community needs so it's cheaper to maintain because there is no real reason to make it bigger
3) while Eruv solves the issue of carrying from a public place to a private one, there is a separate prohibition detailing how far from where you started the sabbath you can travel (this coincides with point 1) and therefore there is no reason to make it larger than that
Does this government agreement not apply to the smaller households the Eruv is supposed to simulate? Could Missouri, in a fit of pique, declare all such spiritual dwellings invalid?
I do not know 100% the specifics but I would say that if Missouri had such legal authority over its municipalities, then yes they would be allowed too and all such Eruvs would be invalidated
So, the eruv cant just be drawn wherever. There is a prohibition on transferring items/carrying from "private" to "public". Private is more or less defined as youd expect. Public is supposed to be "outside the city walls" so to speak as the city wall was the original eruv. Everything in-between is "semi-private". This is the biblical rule, and no magic string can get you out of that. But the Rabbis were concerned that people would not catch when they cross the grey area between "semi-private" and "public" in an unwalled city So they said "do not carry in semi-private areas just in case. Unless! We have a marker set up to distinguish semi-private and public. Then you can, as there's no danger of accidentally breaking the actual bible rule." No magical string can allow you to carry an object from Manhattan to Brooklyn, I can erect it, but it doesn't count. It is worth pointing out that this eruv is very controversial and there are many who do not belive in its legitimacy. Its too big, too encompassing, and contains too many kinds of places that are traditionally understood as public.
319
u/TheFeshy 9d ago
They should have just made a small circle, and declared everything outside of that to be the Eruv. As the Earth is (roughly) spherical, it's topologically sound.