The wire that transforms much of Manhattan into one big, symbolic home (2017)

58 rmason 60 6/8/2025, 8:22:33 PM atlasobscura.com ↗

Comments (60)

hn_user82179 · 4h ago
I'm not religious so I'll admit I don't "get it." It's a neat idea.

I'll admit, I especially don't get this part:

> The series of practically invisible wires becomes a necessity that “benefits the most vulnerable people of the community.” He sees it not only as a way for communities to come together, but also as a way for the more affluent to give back. The eruv is funded entirely by the Jewish community, with a considerable portion of that support coming from wealthy philanthropists.

Giving back to your community, sure. Benefiting the most vulnerable people of the community seems a bit much though. I feel like there are other ways that money could be spent.

All in all though, there are nonprofit religious organizations who spend an unreasonable amount of money on things that don't matter (private jets), so I'm not at all complaining about something that helps that communal feeling like this.

egypturnash · 3h ago
The article really neglects to explain what an eruv is and why you would want it. Wikipedia's much more helpful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruv

Basically if you are an observant Jew then you are forbidden from doing work on Saturdays. There are some extremely specific rules about what "work" is. One kind of forbidden work is taking things outside of your house; the eruv symbolically turns most of the city into "home" so you can do things like, say, take your baby for a weekend stroll on a nice day or walk outside with a cane. It's more nuanced than this, there's a whole bunch of rules about what you can't do and about how big an eruv can be and what you have to do to make it valid.

(I am not Jewish so do not ask me for any further details on this.)

vrosas · 2h ago
My Jewish friend once told me, specifically discussing this wire, that Jews consider finding loopholes in their own rules a national pastime. The same thing goes for the hotels where someone is paid to wave their hand in front of automatic doors so the guests don't force the door to "work" for them or the elevators that run 24/7, stopping at every floor so they don't have to even work by pressing a button.
kennethrc · 39m ago
I've been a "Sabbath Goy" a couple of times for some of my friends :)
rmason · 1h ago
I remember attending a tech conference years ago in Dearborn, Michigan. One of the speakers was a devout Jew from NY City. On Saturday he taped the lock open on his hotel room so he wouldn't need to use a key.

This drove hotel security nuts and one of the conference admins had to get involved because the hotels employees who were all Arabic did not accept his explanation. They were certain he was up to something shady.

He and his wife had brought extra food and invited the conference admin and myself to dinner in their room. I remember it as a very special night and I am still friends with them to this day.

serf · 3h ago
>Benefiting the most vulnerable people of the community seems a bit much though.

it makes sense contextually.

if there is some holy manifest that urges people to do a thing even when they're old/invalid/bed-ridden/sick, and there are people that will devoutly follow this rule, then it stands to reason that those people will feel a burden eased when part of the manifest is accomplished automatically.

ofalkaed · 2h ago
During Shabbat the members of the Jewish community who are most vulnerable are the ones who take it too far? Technically you are not supposed to even carry your keys, medications, babies, anything, so to strictly follow the rules means either being a shutin for the day or taking stupid risks which could easily cause undo long term hardships or even death. For the most part it is just updating the laws to modern society and the move away from the more communal living arrangements of the past.
giraffe_lady · 3h ago
> benefits the most vulnerable people of the community.

I suspect the author may have misunderstood what this is euphemistically referring to. I think the original source means women. A lot of routine elements of childcare fall within this restriction, and in conservative communities that would be the exclusive domain of women. Without the eruv women with young children would be confined to their home during this part of the week.

zaptrem · 4h ago
Google Maps zoomable map I found: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0...

I wonder why it seems to circumvent Hells Kitchen?

epc · 2h ago
I don't think that's a current map, the eruv web site shows much more of the island covered (including much of Hell's Kitchen): http://eruv.nyc/#map
jefftk · 2h ago
"Hell's Kitchen" doesn't sound like something I'd want inside my house.
zaptrem · 2h ago
Sorry, “”Midtown West””
walterbell · 3h ago
Also circumvents Times Square, Penn Station, SOHO and Lower East Side.
duskwuff · 2h ago
There are limits on how much traffic can pass in and out of the boundaries of an eruv. I suspect that's why it avoids high-traffic areas like Times Square, as well as the area around Turtle Bay.
epc · 2h ago
See http://eruv.nyc/#map for a more current map (circa 2023).
neuroelectron · 37m ago
Religious enclaves are part of American culture.
jmpman · 2h ago
Are other religions also allowed to run stands of wire around arbitrary parts of the city?
gizmo686 · 1h ago
I don't see why they wouldn't be. Basically all cities allow 3rd parties to run wires as long as they do all of the paperwork and rent the needed right of ways. Normally this is used for things like comm lines; but some inert wire isn't going to cause any issues.

The other religions would just need to care enough to ask, then install and maintain the wire.

idiotsecant · 2h ago
Is this an honest question? Are there other religions wanting to run wire around the city?
Havoc · 4h ago
Two arbitrary rules that cancel each other out

You could just not but hey I guess no harm no foul

comrade1234 · 3h ago
There's one in Santa Monica too so that you can go to the beach. Yeah, I'm sure you tricked god...
pclmulqdq · 3h ago
In the Jewish tradition, nobody is tricking God. There's a long history of legalism in the religion - God sets out his commandments in language and you take that language at face value. Exact interpretation of that text is then debated by religious scholars, but the meaning of the words is entirely contained in the text.

For Christians and those raised in the Christian tradition, this is entirely foreign. The rules are not set out nearly as strictly for you, you have to interpret them much more broadly.

Generally, if you read their respective books, the old testament has a set of rules mixed in with a quasi-historical context, while the new testament is almost entirely in the form of parables.

Islam, by the way, goes back toward the Jewish legalistic idea.

femto · 2h ago
> For Christians and those raised in the Christian tradition, this is entirely foreign.

I'd say it is quite familiar to Christianity. Canon Law mirrors the secular legal system, complete with its own lawyers, courts and so on. (Arguably, it's the other way around: secular Western law that mirrors Canon Law.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law

pclmulqdq · 2h ago
Canon Law is only for Catholics and also only pertains to the management of the Church itself rather than to the behavior of individuals. All religions have this idea of textual interpretation to some degree, but it has comparatively more importance in Judaism.
ajb · 2h ago
I'm not saying your main point is wrong, but there is a lot of legalistic quibbling over things like Lent. For example, various animals are classified locally as "fish" for Lenten purposes, including the Beaver (in Canada) the Capybara (in Venezuela) and the alligator (in New Orleans)

See https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/105380/is-t...

tptacek · 51m ago
At this point in the conversation I would like to once again point out that Catholics once considered beaver tails (but not beaver bodies) "fish" for purposes of meatless Fridays.
gizmo686 · 23m ago
And in Jews consider birds to be "meat" because people in the 15th century kept getting confused. The Mosaic law is that the prohibition against mixing milk and meat applies to land animals; not water or sky animals (which each have their own set of rules).
throwneawayx255 · 2h ago
I am not sure one could argue that playing semantics is the most honest conduct in understanding.

Only the most extremist of Muslims, the Salafi, take the Jewish legalistic idea, majority of other traditions in Islam lean towards Tafsir that squarely leans on “spirit of the law” than strictly the word.

detourdog · 2h ago
It's not about playing with semantics it's about interpreting texts. Jews have different sects as well with different interpretations.
nharada · 2h ago
You could make the argument that if God is giving you rules you should just obey them, not try and understand/interpret His exact intentions and do that instead (since presumably you cannot fully comprehend them).
jasaldivara · 33m ago
For correctly obeying the rules, you first need to understand and interpret them.
jedimastert · 3h ago
I see this sentiment a lot when it comes to Jewish customs, especially when it comes to eruvs, I don't really get it. Why do you consider it "tricking" God, instead of just following the rules?
lmm · 2h ago
Because under any normal circumstances we'd call this a trick? Like, imagine someone under house arrest trying to argue they were allowed to go all around Manhattan because of this wire - we'd quite rightly jail them for contempt.
throwanem · 4m ago
You see your relationship with your god as one of a judge sentencing you to house arrest? Good grief, no wonder you take this view...
shermantanktop · 1h ago
Sure, after determining that the offered definition of “house” using the wire didn’t apply. That’s not a trick, that’s the system at work.

The legal system and morality and all areas of any complexity require judgment and decision making.

It might satisfy a certain type of person to have explicit, highly detailed mechanistic rules for human conduct, with no exceptions. But even where that’s been tried, 50 years passes, and now someone has the job of interpreting how those rules apply to modern life.

lmm · 1h ago
> after determining that the offered definition of “house” using the wire didn’t apply. That’s not a trick, that’s the system at work.

> The legal system and morality and all areas of any complexity require judgment and decision making.

I don't think it requires much real judgement to say that a wire does not make a home and that whole area is not a single big home. This is not some finely balanced call that requires the greatest legal minds. Judges can and do strike or ignore definitions that pervert the meaning of a statute too far from the plain reading, and they're right to do so.

In areas of law - or of everyday life - that we take seriously, we would not tolerate such a twisted reading of a rule.

jaza · 6m ago
Imagine that a whole nation's statute laws, and associated common laws, were frozen in time for over a thousand years, because (the statutes were declared to be immutable canon, and) any judges with sufficient authority to strike out old common law and to establish new common law were long gone. That's Judaism (specifically the Talmud)! (Speaking from experience as a Jew.)

The "eruv" definition was established back when the biggest conceivable area that it might cover was that of a medieval village or ghetto, of maximum several hundred (small cramped) houses, i.e. let's say about the area of Vatican City, which is 0.49km2 (0.19 sq mi). Whereas the total area of Manhattan island is 59km2 (22.7 sq mi). So, yes, in my opinion, a Talmudic judge would consider the modern-day Manhattan eruv a gross perversion of the spirit of the law, and would update the definition accordingly. But no such judge exists in this era. So, yay, let's play "how ridiculously can we apply anachronistic archaic rules to the modern world" - apparently, ultra-orthodox Jews consider it such a fun game, that they let it rule their entire life!

gizmo686 · 42m ago
This has been litigated well over a thousand years ago. To put it in modern legal terms, the legitimacy of an Eruv is a super precedent. It is discussed in depth in the Talmud, which is the clearest source of Jewish law.

Even in modern law, courts can and do come up with some fairly peculiar readings at times. Particularly with old laws or the constitution itself which can, at times, be vague at best when applied in a modern context.

The rules that the Eruv is a loophole for do not even come from God. They come from the specific interpretation that has developed about those relatively vague laws.

There is an old "joke" in Judaism that God has no place in interpreting Jewish law. I put joke in quotes because the Oven of Akhnai is itself part of the Talmud and is generally read as establishing that exact principle.

This type of "trick" is foundational to both Judaism and every common law system.

throwaway2849 · 2h ago
If your parents said come home by 6:00 PM and instead of coming home you put a wire around the city to “make it your home” and stay out, you’re tricking your parents.
emmelaich · 3h ago
There's at least two in Sydney. One near Bondi and one around St Ives. The one around St Ives was a little controversial but the council eventually permitted it.
detourdog · 3h ago
It's not about tricking G-D it's about rationalizing one's own beliefs. Jews have to have their own personal understanding about the relationship. We already know from the story of Jonah that there is no tricking G-d. This more about community understanding.
idiotsecant · 2h ago
So we're willing to suspect our disbelief enough to assume that there's an omnipotent sky beard making rules, but not that he doesn't approve of his little rascals trying to trick him?

Let people like what they like. It's not hurting anyone. People are weird. Embrace it.

RayVR · 4h ago
“God hates this one weird trick…”
tomhow · 1h ago
Please omit internet tropes on HN, thanks!
harvoc5 · 3h ago
There are other currents in Judaism, such as mystical based, or philosophy based (Spinoza), but they are a minority nowadays.

The mainstream Judaism has focused mostly on codifying rules for all situations in life, which has evolved into a semi legalistic framework of rules and their loopholes. So many loopholes... Like temporarily selling your belongings 1 week per year to bypass Passover rules about Hametz, etc.

gizmo686 · 3h ago
God didn't make a mistake when writing the Torah. That "one weird trick" as you call it is as fundamental a part of his will as every else.

Also most Jewish laws don't come from God. Instead, they come from the confluence of two doctrines: first we develop fence laws to keep ourselves from accidentally violating the actual laws. But, once we have been doing something long enough, they become Minhag and given more or less the full force of law. Naturally, this leads to new fence laws being developed around them, and the cycle continues.

Frankly, almost no Jewish law comes from God, and he has no business telling us what to do.

idiotsecant · 2h ago
In fact, I would go so far as to say no religious rules come from God! It seems pretty obvious that an omnipotent being in command of all the subtle and awesome phenomena of all of time and space is not going to concerned with whether some barely evolved apes on a backwater planet orbiting an unremarkable star in a forgettable galaxy, among innumerable galaxies eat shellfish and cows milk in the same meal.
defrost · 2h ago
Regardless of any personal cosmology rules or guidelines with respect to preparing and eating food in an unelectrified fridgeless warm to hot climate are emergent from the nature of the physical universe.

Debating whether such rules spring from physics, 'God', or a mere abundance of caution is fun for some.

mhb · 4h ago
There are many similar tricks.
jedimastert · 3h ago
I don't think I've seen an internet comment section about eruvs–especially the one in Manhattan–that doesn't end up becoming anti-semitic, but I'm sure this one will be different
cap11235 · 2h ago
Anti-semetic or anti-Orthodox? Though I guess the former can come from lumping together different folks as a unified mass.
rpmisms · 51m ago
Thinking this is silly is a critique of the religion of Judaism, not the Jewish people.
zoklet-enjoyer · 2h ago
You seem to have a very loose definition of anti-semitism
throwaway2849 · 2h ago
“It is a trick” says the former Minister for Education:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C0IHYtUPElJ/