When the issue of eruvin is in the news, there will invariably be some snide remarks from ignoramuses that the concept of eruvin is a loophole. I think that it is important to set the record straight.
First let us define what is a loophole:
Merriam Webster: Loophole: A means of
escape; especially: an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the
intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded.
Most areas where there is a proscription against carrying on the Shabbos are rabbinical in nature and not Biblical. To ensure that one does not mistakenly carry in a Biblically mandated domain, the rabbis prohibited carrying in similar domains, but included a provision that allows for carrying if an eruv is established. Thus, it was the rabbis who prohibited carrying, and it was they who enacted the laws of eruvin to allow carrying.
Consequently, an eruv clearly does not meet the definition of loophole in light of the fact that it was created in conjunction with the proscription and is not an ambiguity being exploited to evade an obligation.
Please help disseminate this information.
Eruvin is not a "loophole," it is a natural extension of the prohibition itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment