[fotbr]

To which I ask: Why not place a small loop of (wire, cord, thread, whatever qualifies) on the ground in a park somewhere. Then define "outside" and "inside" the other way 'round from "normal", thus making very-nearly the entirety of the earth "inside", and the very small portion "outside".

It seems logical to me, and I've never heard a reason it can't be done other than "that's defeating the point."

Which I admit, it entirely is, but I don't see it as any more "wrong" than encircling entire cities, and it's a whole lot simpler to maintain.

[Clewza313]

This is basically how Wonko the Sane's "Outside of the Asylum" works in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/The_Outside_of_the_Asylu...

[TchoBeer]

>It seems logical to me

oh since you're _so knowledgeable_ about jewish law I'm sure your opinion is very informed.

No, you can't do that. You can only put an eruv around a specific type of domain called a karmelis, in which carrying is only a rabbinic prohibition.

[benchaney]

There are limits to how big they can be, and they can't contain large bodies of water.

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.

[bscphil]

> 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.

[fotbr]

First, I appreciate the answer. I didn't know about the "no large bodies of water" requirement. When then leads me to ask, what's a "large" body of water?

Second, and I'm not trying to be snarky, just trying to understand: What is the limit on size? I understand there's a point where physically building and maintaining it isn't practical, but is still theoretically possible.

As for defeating the point, I'll admit I only somewhat understand that argument.

As far as I understand -- and I'll readily admit I do not have a great understanding -- the whole concept of the eruv is specifically designed to "defeat the point" of another rule (or set of rules).

Why is "defeating the point" considered to be "ok" or not "ok" based on scale?

Likewise, if "defeating the point" is wrong, why is it not always wrong?

Again, my intention is to understand, not to be snarky or otherwise inappropriate about it, and I'll apologize in advance if my questions cross lines I was unaware of.