A major fight is brewing in the tranquil environs of the Hamptons. Rabbi Marc Schneier and Orthodox Jews want Westhampton Beach officials to approve the placement of an eruv, a religious boundary that allows observant Jews to perform minor tasks on their Sabbath or on religious holidays. Citizens have objected, including some more secular Jewish citizens and there is talk of a lawsuit.
An eruv can be quite small and attached to a simple telephone pole. There is such a boundary around the White House and one in Manhattan that stretches from the East River to the Hudson.
An estimated 85 percent of the 2,000 full-time residents of Westhampton Beach oppose the move.
One group called Jewish People Opposed to the Eruv has formed. The group’s chairman Arnold Sheiffer insist that citizens “object to is creating a division in the village where none ever existed.”
Previously, a group of Orthodox Jews in Tenafly, N.J., won a six-year battle in 2006 to create such a boundary despite losing in the lower court. The appellate court ruled that the denial of the placement of the Eruv was selective and that other placements were not strictly barred.
A meeting on the issue in the Hamptons is even posted on YouTube.
I’d give em all Hoverounds and staple fences around the running boards.
It’s a tempest in a Shabbat tea pot!
Eruvs are rarely noticeable. I don’t really see how it would “divide” the community. I’m sure many of us have been w/in an area with an eruv and didn’t even know it.
It’s much a fuss about nothing. For observant Jews, having an eruv is like having a public bus that “kneels” for the elderly and children to have an easier time hopping on and off. It makes lives easier for some in the community, and it’s no skin off your back–in fact, you’re likely not to notice.
That’s interesting. A local synagogue pulled the same thing for the beaches here in Santa Monica.
If someone wants to go to the beach, why does it have to have religious approval? It must be some bizarre nationwide Zionist plot.
“Without one, they say, they are unable to perform simple tasks like pushing strollers or carrying packages.” Wow, that’s just like Saudi Arabia where women can’t drive. I think Mayor Funderburk’s pragmatic attempt at evidence gathering might be of use in both these situations.
I’ve been trying to decide how I feel about this. First off, I’m pretty sure this is just a case of a bunch of people stirring up trouble where none really exists. It makes me glad I live in a part of the country where the people in our small towns are all busy. If I were to find out there was an eruv in my neighborhood, I’d be perfectly o.k. with the whole thing. I’d probably try and find where the ‘border’ runs so that I could point it out to people.
That being said, how is this case different than somebody asking permission to put up any other religious symbol on public property? If my religion forbids me entering into any building without the Worm Ourorboros over then entrance does that mean that I should be able to get one posted on the doors to court houses and libraries?
I would think that a reasonable (And therefor one that’s unlikely to happen) solution to the problem would be for the Orthodox Jews to rent (or get donated) space on private properties for their boundary markers. Now it’s entirely possible that this wouldn’t work (I don’t know any details of what are they want to be marked off, or specifics of how the symbolic marking works), but that would’ve been the first thing I would have looked into doing.
All they need is an area to walk on the Sabbath that doesn’t cross property lines. Essentially they create a hallway, or corridor, which they are allowed to wander along on the sabbath.
This is one of those cases where a little community cooperation and comprimise is the best answer.
Gyges That being said, how is this case different than somebody asking permission to put up any other religious symbol on public property? If my religion forbids me entering into any building without the Worm Ourorboros over then entrance does that mean that I should be able to get one posted on the doors to court houses and libraries?
Because they’re not trying to put up religious symbols. They need a special area to walk on the Sabbath. Its quite different.
Your solution however is what they are trying to do, and is a good one.
It looks like this seems to be a non-orthodox Jews against Orthodox Jews issue. I have to admit that I am not sure that I understand what the eruv is and why it can’t be put somewhere else. Could it be put in their local synagogue and if not, why not? I agree with Jill’s comment that it does seem to be repressive, but as I said above, I do not have alot of confidence in my understanding of the eruv. Can someone explain this to a stupid Catholic?
An Eruv is just a path essentially, through properties in a community. The Eruv or pathway is commonly held by the local orthodox community and permits free travel on the Sabbath. The Laws of Moses which now are enforced in the Talmud prohibit various forms of travel on the Sabbath, including prohibiting carrying any objects, including groceries, children, in thoroughfares or anywhere that crosses property lines. Its a broad prohibition against unorthodox travel on the Hebrew holy day. Unfortunately these laws were written for Jews living on Judean soil during ancient times. Today being widely dispersed in our communities, its hard for them to set these up. Basically Jewish law permit strolling through a courtyard on the Sabbath, thus, the community effectively creates a courtyard that runs through peoples yards and properties to allow kosher travel on the Sabbath.
If you’re familiar with Columbia, MD, theres one there you’ll see on route 29, that winds through the community. The “Eruv Chatzerot” that runs through Columbia is typical of those you’ll see in urban areas, and is a “symbolic eruv”. Originally the eruv’s would consist of a physically walled hallway with framed doorways for entrance and exit, however as populations became more widely dispersed this was not always practical or even possible, so its common to see symbolic eruv paths that use things like winded wire to create a symbolic doorway to simply a wire tied between two phone poles and a string that runs the length of the eruv.
Usually there are issues with the local government in obtaining permissions to string the wires, and the fact that on the Sabbath these walkways ownership becomes the communities shared common property.
If these guys want a physical walled Eruv then it would be a big issue. If its just a symbolic one they should be able to work it out.
CMM,
Thanks for your explanation. It helped me alot. It sounds like a technicality that Jewish people have used to still allow travel on the Sabbath. It reminds me of having to give something up during Lent, but on Sunday all bets were off. So if I gave up candy, I couldn’t eat candy for six days, but it was “legal” on Sunday. I would think just potting up a sign or two should not be a problem, but the story seems to indicate that alot of the resistance is from Jews who are not Orthodox. Strange situation. Seems like a big fuss over a minor issue. Thanks again for your help.
CrMM,
It seems to me from your explanation (and some reading that I had done earlier) that the boundary markers (wire, door frames etc.) necessary to create the Eruv Chatzerot symbolize a wall for a courtyard. Since the source of the symbol (in this case a wire that represents the boundary of a communal courtyard) is a set of religious laws, that makes it a religious symbol. The fact that it doesn’t serve the same function as the more instantly recognizable symbols doesn’t negate the origin.
The article Prof. Turley linked us to didn’t mentioned if the boundary markers were to be put on public or private land. If it’s private lands I don’t see why anyone aside from overly nosy neighbors would care. If it’s on public property then you have to ask some questions. I’m not entirely sure that I’d be opposed to it, but support would be far from automatic.
Gyges
1, October 3, 2008 at 11:00 am
CrMM,
It seems to me from your explanation (and some reading that I had done earlier) that the boundary markers (wire, door frames etc.) necessary to create the Eruv Chatzerot symbolize a wall for a courtyard. Since the source of the symbol (in this case a wire that represents the boundary of a communal courtyard) is a set of religious laws, that makes it a religious symbol.
Gyges, in the comment that I was responding to you said.
Cro Magnum Man
1, October 2, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Gyges That being said, how is this case different than somebody asking permission to put up any other religious symbol on public property?
This is nothing like putting up a decorative Menorah, or a Christmas tree or wreath in a public place.
This is a “boundary” marker that infers ownership through properties and can cover significant distances dealing with property rights and local easements and such.
So again, this is NOT the same as just putting up a religious “symbol”.
Religious symbols like a Christmas tree or a Menorah, are meant to be seen and admired by all who pass by them. The Eruv Chatzerot in modern communities is meant to not be noticable to the average passerby and is not simply a “religious symbol” for people to observe. The Eruv blends in with the surroundings so as to appear
It is a specific boundary marker that permits kosher travel on the Sabbath.
CroMM,
I believe I said that the function is different from the more easily recognized icons. You’re explaining something I understand. My point was simply that it is essentially a symbol (you even refer to it as symbolic in your explanation) and since it is exclusively religious in origin, I would call it a religious symbol. While that phrase usually connotes the type of decorations you’re talking about, my usage is more literal. Unless you can explain how the wire isn’t symbolic or the origin of the symbol isn’t religious, I’ll continue with my usage.
Gyges
1, October 3, 2008 at 1:55 pm
My point was simply that it is essentially a symbol (you even refer to it as symbolic in your explanation) and since it is exclusively religious in origin, I would call it a religious symbol
No, that wasn’t “your point”.
Your point you clearly stated. Here. Here is your “point” that you made again.
Cro Magnum Man
1, October 2, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Gyges That being said, how is this case different than somebody asking permission to put up any other religious symbol on public property?
And once more this is NOTHING like any other religious symbol on public property, as it denotes a pathway through privately held properties and state and local govt maintainted throughways and roads.
Your “point” was this was no different than any other religious symbol.
So if you want to get into some stupid semantical argument about whether or not an Eruv Chatzerot is a religious “symbol”, then don’t waste my time or yours. Its a losing argument becuase its not a “religious symbol” but is a SERIES of property markers and boundaries, that while they have religious meaning, do not constitute a sole “religious symbol”.
And your “point” was that it was “no different than any other religious symbol”. Thats what you said. So don’t lose track of that.
It IS different than any other religious symbol, and in fact, its not a relgious symbol, but instead is a “corridor” or “place” marked off by a series of symbolic borders.
An Eruv Chatzerot is a PLACE.
Not a symbol.
CrMM,
We seem to have a habit of misunderstanding each other. You’re talking about the Eruv Chatzerot as a whole. I understand that the Eruv Chatzerot is just an area enclosed by a defined boundary. My comments about “religious symbols” were only speaking of the physical boundary markers. I’m sorry if I was unclear about that. I misread a few things on your end, and I suspect you misread a few things on mine.
As far as I’m concerned they could declare the whole of the U.S. to be an Eruv Chatzerot. All I care about is when someone puts up physical objects of a religious nature on public land. I think we can both agree that except when pre-existing walls\fences\etc., whatever they use to mark the boundaries are physical and put up for a religious purpose. Regardless of if the purpose is for decoration, ceremonial worship, private worship, or as in this case in order to comply with religious law, the purpose is religious. That was my point.
Which leads me to what I was trying to ask (not rhetorically) in my first post: If those objects are put on public land, should those objects be treated differently than something along the lines of a religious icon?
When you addressed that question, you seemed to be of the opinion that since the function of and the purpose behind the objects is different that they should be treated differently than a 6 foot tall Crucifix in a city park. Which is something worth considering. I also think your comment about the visibility was an interesting point. I don’t know that it matters legally, but it would be worth keeping in mind. Like I said earlier, I haven’t made up my mind.
I understand and understood what you were saying Gyge, I’m just saying it was not correct. You’re suggesting that this is similar to the presence of a crucifix, or a Menorah in a public place, which its not. There is no requirement for proprietary religious artifacts or symbols here. This is a pathway that is to symbolize walking within the temple walls in Jerusalem during Sabbath and thus permits Kosher travel during Sabbath.
For example, in the Talmud, the Eruv Chatzerot must include doors as understood by Hebrew construction, to represent the doorway to the temple, which is where these Rabbinical prohibitions on Sabbath travel and the carrying of the burdens originated per the prophet Jeremiah.
In Hebrew construction and in the Talmud and Torah, a valid doorway consists of two “doorposts” (what you’d called the frame and jacks) and a “Lintel” (what you’d call the header)connecting across the top the two doorposts. Well, in the symbolic Eruv Chatzerot, the door to the Eruv Chatzerot can consist of two telephone poles and the Lintel the supporting wire. These items are already in place, and thus cannot be construed as the placement of religious symbols. Once again, the border can be merely symbolic. It “can” constitute some sort of string or or wire placed intentionally there or it can also constitute existing structures and items now deemed borders of the Rabbinical corridor.
So you see, the construction of an Eruv Chatzerot is not the same as the erection of a religious symbol, and while I am not trying to be difficult here I am trying to be clear.
An Eruv Chatzerot is a PLACE, not a religious symbol and therefore while one might draw from laws dealing with the placement of religious symbols in evaluting such a request, the reality is its not hardly the same, and instead deals with property rights, rights of way, easements, barriers and maintence of municipal property, etc.
So once more, to be clear, an Eruv Chatzerot is a place, not a religious symbol.
Cro Magnum Man:
“An Eruv is just a path essentially, through properties in a community. The Eruv or pathway is commonly held by the local orthodox community and permits free travel on the Sabbath.”
An Easement By ‘Divine Prescription?’
Interesting.
CroMM,
We’re just talking in circles, so after this I’m done. I don’t know how I can be wrong when I ask a question, unless the basic premise for the question is wrong. So then what was the basic premise?
I’m sure you’d admit that if somebody puts up a piece of string on a utility pole to mark the boundary of the Eruv, two things can be said:
One, the string is a physical object that represents something (in this case a border).
Three, The String was put up a for religious purposes.
I’m also sure you can say two things about a Crucifix mounted on a wall by a devote Catholic.
One, The Crucifix is a physical object that represents something (in this case it’s an important event in the history of the religion).
Two, The Crucifix was put up for a religious purpose.
So there are similarities between the string and the Crucifix. That’s not to say they are the exact same thing, just that they have traits in common.
That’s my premise, just that the two objects physically exist, represent something, and are religious in nature (in this application).
Since they have those traits in common I think it’s fair to ask what differences there are between the two, and if those differences are large enough that the laws that apply to the Crucifix in public places shouldn’t also apply to the piece of string. You’ve given your opinion about the answer to that question, which is well thought out.
Er that should be: “Two, the string….”
Gyges
1, October 3, 2008 at 5:05 pm
CroMM,
We’re just talking in circles, so after this I’m done. I don’t know how I can be wrong when I ask a question, unless the basic premise for the question is wrong. So then what was the basic premise?
Your premise that I am calling wrong was outlined in your earlier comment;
how is this case different than somebody asking permission to put up any other religious symbol on public property?
Its different because its not about a religious symbol. Its about a virtual corridor through a community, not a religious symbol.
Your premise that its like putting up a religious symbol in a building or on a street, is not comparable. This is quite different.
Gyges
1, October 3, 2008 at 5:05 pm
I’m sure you’d admit that if somebody puts up a piece of string on a utility pole to mark the boundary of the Eruv, two things can be said
One, the string is a physical object that represents something (in this case a border).
Three, The String was put up a for religious purposes.
First, they don’t always put strings on the utilty poles. Strings and wires are used usually within orthodox communities to surround the commuity creating a virtual Eruv Chatzerot or “Chatzayrot”, throughout the community.
The concept is to take public properties and create a commonly held causeway throughout the community, either by fences, walls, virtual walls, etc. And this can be accomplished many ways.
A common example is the utility pole, or telephone pole, which represents a doorpost, a specific and integral component in Hebrew construction. The concept is to take common The utility pole is already there. The pole represents a doorpost IF connected by a cross wire that is lower than the other wires, so if there is an existing wire that crosses the street, such as at a stoplight, AND that wire is lower than the other wires, that could constitute a Lentil, thus effectively creating a doorway without putting anything up. They’re not attaching a Mezuzah to it because it does not have ceiling, and therefore no “religious symbols” have been “put up”. Its already there.
Now commonly they do place a specific wire connecting two poles where none exists, to create the Lentil, but this wire to the casual motorist or passerby would just appear to be a utility wire of some kind. So even in that case the concept of placing a “religious symbol” there is plainly a stretch. Its just a wire.
Many components of the Eruv will be made up of existing fences, structures, etc, if the fences are higher than the ground they enclose, effectively creating a causeway, and there are other variances and allowances that make it nothing like “putting up a religious symbol”.
When integrating an Eruv into a non Jewish community, they tend to use as much indigenous infrastructure as possible and have as little impact on the community as possible.
When religious groups erect religious symbols in public places they are intended to be seen by all who passby.
When Orthodox Jews place an Eruv Chatzayrot into a non Orthodox community they are intended to not be seen by most people who pass by.
Your mistake that I am trying to address is you are confusing an Eruv with a thing, and its not. Its a concept. A sort of “virtual place” if you will.
In fact, the reason some Jews consider Manhattan an Eruv is because its surrounding by water, creating a natural barrier, hence a wall. This is a loose interpretation to be sure, as indeed a continent at that point could be considered Eruvian, but nonetheless some Rabbis see it that way and thus the concept of Eruv being akin to putting up a Christmas tree or Cross in a public place, is just not an accurate comparison.
Eruv is much different.