I read with great interest this weekend about the attempts by the Othodox Jewish community of North London to create/establish/set up an eruv, and about the opposition to the plan from some local community members - some gentile, and some secular Jews as well.
Some Internet articles for the interested: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2182994.stm http://www.jewish.co.uk/editorial19.php3
What the articles do not go into too much detail about is what an eruv is for - they do say that it “is an area within which Orthodox Jews can carry out tasks otherwise forbidden on the Sabbath” (The Guardian, Sat 10 August), but there are unanswered questions that I hope the ;j Teeming Millions can address.
[ol][li]What is the exact purpose of an eruv?[/li][li]With what authority is it created? (IOW, is there biblical support for the concept?)[/li][li]How would you answer the charge (assuming that the above definition is correct - if not, ignore this question…) that this is simply a loophole for getting around Shabbat restrictions? [/ol][/li]It is of course the last question that tipped this post toward GD rather than GQ - the article I read mentioned the benefits that this would have for elderly, infirm and disabled Jews, for whom the use of wheelchairs (so I understand) is prohibited on the Sabbath, and these are real benefits that I can understand, but I do not yet understand the need for an 11 mile “exclusion zone” affecting the whole community.
FWIW, I do think that the opposition to the eruv as detailed in the articles is petty and mean-spirited - the latest hurdle to be placed in it’s path is that of the colour of the poles that will demarkate the boundary where it is not already clear, which is really pathetic!!
On Shabbat Jews are not allowed to carry items (money, bags etc etc) from a private domain (your house) into a public domain. There is a middle ground known as a ‘Karmelit’ which is semi public.
The Eruv transforms the Kermelit into a private ground by erecting a barrier around it. The barrier can be almost anything (sometimes just a length of wire is used) and can also include natural features such as rivers or mountains.
The local Jewish community in here Sea Point (a Cape Town suburb) is also trying to erect an Eruv by connecting 2 wires from Signal Hill (on side of S. Point) to the sea (on the other side).
It must be noted that Eruv laws are quite complex especially when it comes to judging what is a Karmelit and what features can be used.
I think it is very much in the discussion phase at the moment and I haven’t heard much about any opposition. Ther Eruv is just going to be 2 wires and will probably be strung along phone/electricity lines so it won’t be a physical nusance or eyesore.
It’s none of the non-believers’ business, really. Provided the wires, etc don’t disturb anyone, let them do it.
But, that said, isn’t this just a way for fundamentalists to adapt to the modern world while claiming to be true to their faith?
Or, to put it another way, be hypocritical.
If you want to carry your keys around on the sabbath, be a liberal Jew. Or, if you want to be a 100% pure orthodox Jew, don’t carry keys around. Seems a simple enough choice.
I just need to jump in here again to stress that the laws governing Eruv’s are extremely complex and still cause a bit of debate amongst Rabbi’s today.
Here’s a good page with some general overviews about Eruv’s General Laws of Eruv .
The main purpose of an Eruv from that page is an enhancement of community life, especially social life over the Shabbat. You are still not allowed to carry money, car keys or anything else that is not really needed or used on Shabbat.
I had wondered about the necessity for telegraph poles etc. but having read a few of the links I understand that the enclosure of an eruv should approximate to solid walls, and that the pole-and-wire arrangement is representative of a doorway. Is that right?
Also, of the orthodox teeming millions, do any live within an eruv? Do friends make visits in order to benefit from it? Presumably if you live outwith a eruv you can’t cross a public area with your wheelchair / keys etc. simply in order to be able to carry them about within an existing eruv? Do all orthodox Jews make use of the eruv, or do some see it as “cheating”?
If it’s the case that eruvs are deliberately constructed to enclose an existing Jewish community, I can see how they might seem divisive to non-orthodox inhabitants. It’s obviously not the case that an eruv somehow officially designates an area as “Jewish only”, but I think the physical boundary-marking could feel restrictive (compared to, say, using existing streets as a boundary, but this obviously doesn’t fulfil the “wall” requirement).
Then again, the amount of sympathy I have for the anti-eruv compaign is tempered quite a bit by the fact that London’s Brick Lane has a fairly obtrusive decorative gateway, and road signs are in Bengali and English. Likewise “Chinatown” is marked out by gateways, and non-English street signs. Obviously, there is a difference between a religious practice and a tourist attraction, but in terms of the physical manifestation of culture, Brick Lane and Chinatown are always praised as representing the wealth of cultures in London. If it’s “cool” to live in “Banglatown” (described, glowingly, in one article I read as “ethnicity incarnate”, whatever that means…), then what’s the problem with a few telegraph poles?
London in general is positively hoaching with representations of different cultures: mosques, temples, multi-language libraries, non-English street signs. Telegraph poles and fishing line? pah!
As a London resident (gentile) I can tell you that the argument is complex and at times heated.
On the one hand there are those who cannot see it doing any harm as it is a symbolic barrier rather than a fence.
There are obviously those Jews who are observant (but not so observant that they aren’t looking for a loophole) who are enthusiatic about this. One newspaper article suggested there could be as few as 600 of these.
Then there are two other arguements:
There is the feeling that this would draw attention to and marginalise a group (as well as making the area a potential attack zone for Muslim terrorists) that are already quite marginal in society. In other words it will stop assimilation
There is another feeling that this is a “land-grab” and that these areas (which have a reasonably high jewish population at present) will become Jewish Only areas, as they will attract jews from other areas. There is obviously quite a nasty subtext here from some people.
Personally I’m in the “not bothered” camp.
However if anyone wanted to erect one around White HArt LAne so that Tottenham could work on a saturday. I would be very happy!
Hemlock, the religious law allows for the construction of an eruv. It’s not hypocrisy, it’s fulfillment of a requirement.
There is nothing “less pure” about a Jew’s Orthodoxy for using an eruv, and there is nothing “more pure” about someone who refuses to use an eruv which is entirely consistent with religious law.
cmkeller
What then, was the original purpose of an eruv? Can you point me to the biblical references to the concept? Is there any truth to the accusation that some people use it to get around some of the Sabbath restrictions?
The same as the current purpose - to take an area that would otherwise be defined as a “Karmelit” (not a public domain by Biblical standards, but proscribed as one by the Rabbis in order to prevent people from sinning) and mark it as a private domain (in which carrying is clearly allowed) instead.
Not really possible, as the “Karmelit” is not a biblical concept in the first place. The fact is that any place which is considered public domain by the Bible cannot have an eruv made around it. The eruv is a Rabbinic construct which deals with a Rabbinic prohibition.
Only if you define “getting around” as something bad to be “accused of”. The fact is that with an Eruv, carrying in that area is permitted. There is nothing wrong with doing a permitted act. Period. It is the equivalent of “getting around” the prohibition of working on Sabbath by working on Sunday instead.
There is no hypocrisy involved. If someone deducts their 401(k) contributions from their income taxes is he a hypocrite? If a person is acquitted on a speeding ticket because the cop doesn’t show, does that make them a hypocrite? No, because these are exemptions that are built into the law. The law allows you to deduct from your income for 401(k) contributions, charitable contributions, etc. The law allows you to be exempted from the speeding ticket because the cops don’t make their case (YMMV, depending on your locality). Similarly, the laws of an eruvallow one to carry in a carmelis on Shabbos.
Someone recently accused me of something similar because I enjoy Bacos (artificial bacon bits). The answer, of course, is that God only forbade non-kosher food. He made no such prohibition of kosher food that tastes like non-kosher food. Does that make me a hypocrite? No. One is not required to do things that the law doesn’t require them to.
Having said that…
There seems to be (sadly) a pattern of hostility every time (yes, I realize that I’m generalizing and that exceptions may exist) the Orthodox community of some town wants to put up an eruv. I have heard all sorts of ridiculous accusations, up to and including that (paraphrasing) an eruv makes the area like one big property and they will be able to then just walk into your homes as if it was theirs.
Even more sadly, is that there seems to be more opposition from secular Jews than non-Jews, most of whom really don’t care one way or the other.
cmkeller, thanks for the expansion - I think my confusion arises from the use of the word “public”, which obviously does not mean anywhere outside of the home (as I might define it).
And I have to say that ersatz bacon is a complete cop-out (we catholics used to eat barnacle geese on fridays as we had worked out that they were hatched from barnacles - hence fish. Beavers used to cop it on the same basis)
cmkeller, zev-steinhardt - lapsed Catholic atheist in me speaking here. However many years it goes back, isn’t this just a way for orthodox/fundamentalist adherents to do things they want to do but can’t under a literal interpretation of scripture? Tax exemptions (eg 401(k)) are there for a reason, even though they lead people to do things they wouldn’t otherwise do - unintended consequences.
But I expect more of the supreme being than I do of the IRS. Would God really say “you can’t do this on the sabbath, but if you put a load of string around the area, you can.” ? Why would He do that? Why would God permit the forbidden on condition someone strung wire around? He’s not a civil servant.
It reminds me of the Shiite Muslim Siqeh (“temporary marriage”) that conveniently allows people to have extra-marital sex without transgressing the religious laws against exactly that.
Well, first of all, it’s worth pointing out that, to Orthodox Jews, there’s a lot more to the law than a literal interpretation of scripture: there’s also an entire body of commentary known as the Oral Law (which, we believe, was also given to Moses by G-d), and this frequently tells us to apply the law differently than a literal reading of the verses would indicate.
As a matter of fact, there’s no explicit verse in the Pentateuch that forbids carrying in a “public domain” at all! It is indeed considered a Biblical prohibition, but only because it was included in the Oral Law. (There is a reference to it in Jeremiah 17:21-22, but the rule is that Biblical prohibitions can’t be derived from the post-Mosaic books of the Bible.)
In any case, none of the above is really relevant to the issue of an eruv, since there’s not even a Biblical injunction that’s being bypassed: as cmkeller pointed out, the entire concept of karmelit - an area which can be turned into a “private domain” via an eruv - is of Rabbinical origin; Biblical law would allow one to carry there even without an eruv.
There are two misunderstandings here on your part.
1:
No. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, that which scripture itself literally forbids cannot be permitted except by an exception explicit in scripture. What an eruv permits is carrying in an area that is not proscribed by scripture, but by Rabbinical decree.
You must understand that much of what you might take for granted in your observations regarding Jewish custom might be what is called “fences around the Torah.” The Rabbis routinely forbid something that is similar to things forbidden by the Torah in order that people not get confused and come to transgress the things actually forbidden by the Torah. One famous example of this is the prohibition of eating poultry with dairy products. Technically, by word of the Torah itself, only the meat of mammals (which are the animals that produce milk) is forbidden, but because poultry is so similar in texture to mammal meat, the Rabbis forbid eating it with milk. The same is true regarding carrying in public places on the Sabbath. By literal Biblical law, there are not many populated places that genuinely fulfill the Biblical requirements of “public domain.” However, most public places fall under the category of “Karmelit” (mentioned earlier in this thread)…they do not fall under the Biblical prohibition of carrying because they do not fulfill certain requirements, but because they are not owned by a specific individual, allowing one to carry there on Sabbath would make it too easy for people to get confused and come to carry in a Biblically prohibited public domain. It is this “Karmelit” that an Eruv allows carrying in - by having certain markers around a circumscribed area, it makes the place more akin to a private domain than a Biblical public domain, and therefore unlikely to cause such confusion. However, a Biblically prohibited public domain - literal interpretation of scripture - could never be made permitted to carry in through an Eruv.
2:
In the more general sense, plenty of literal Biblical law contains built-in technicalities such as these (although, as I explained above, eruv is not one of them). While the reasons for such things are truly known only to G-d, understanding the technicalities gives us further insight as to the actual spirit of the law and the principles through which it can be used and applied to other laws. In other words, you might think you understand the intent behind a law by understanding its general application, and feel that the exception is a contravention of the its tru intent. That is not true (in Judaic belief) of G-d’s laws. The existence of the exception means that any insights to be gained from understanding the law must take the exception into account as well, otherwise those insights are incorrect. The principle of the law, whatever it may be, is one that yields a true understanding of how it applies in some cases, and how it does not apply in some others.
What I’m going to write is technically the same as what Zev and Chaim have written, but my phrasing might (or might not) be easier for some to follow.
Biblically, there is no problem with carrying outdoors on the Sabbath unless one of the following 3 apply:
Carried from an indoor location to a major public road
Carried from a major public road to an indoor location
Carried more than 4 cubits within a major public road
All other outdoor carrying is Biblically allowed. The tricky part is what constitutes a major public road. There are lots of details to understand there, and lots of people mistakenly carried where they shouldn’t. Therefore, the Rabbis banned all sorts of outdoor carrying, unless knowedgable people verify that a certain area does not include a major public road, and they perform certain things in that regard. Erecting the wire around the area is one of those requirements; there are others as well.
Therefore, I do not view the Eruv as a loophole which allows me to cheat and get around the Sabbath laws. Rather, it helps me make sure that I don’t cheat, by clearly identifying certain areas where I am allowed to carrry.