Post a New Topic
Original post made
on Dec 31, 2007
As a Jew, I was sad to learn of the Palo Alto Eruv and the attendant controversy. The Eruv apparently intrudes enough on the lives or at least the consciousness of non-Jewish neighbors to engender vitriol. There are many other potential solutions to the "problem" of the Sabbath law forbidding the carrying of objects and small children in public places. None of them would generate tension between Jews and their neighbors (nor entail a cost of $150,000.00). Here are a few ideas:
Option #1: If one chooses to accept this interpretation of Torah by the Sanhedrin as law, then one should simply obey the law -- if carrying children is necessary, stay home on Sabbath. Coming up with a work-around like the Eruv is hypocritical, and defies the intent of the law.
Option #2: The law that prohibits carrying things (including small children) in public on Sabbath is not stated per se in the Torah. Rather, it derives from interpretation of the Torah by the Sanhedrin (a group of men, BTW, not the Almighty) based on three passages in the Torah: a) Exodus (16:29): Moses says "Let no man leave his place on the seventh day." This was interpreted as an invection against the carrying of manna. b)The Torah tells of a man who was put to death for gathering wood on the Sabbath. Although gathering wood is clearly labor, this was interpreted as an invection against carrying things on Sabbath. c) The prophet Jeremiah says not to carry on the Sabbath: "Take heed and carry no burdens on the Sabbath ... Also do not carry any burden out of your houses on the Sabbath." (Jer. 17:21-22). These passages were INTERPRETED to mean that things in general, including small children or the infirm, should not be carried (or pushed in a stroller or wheelchair) on Sabbath. In addition, permission to do so at home (later, conveniently generalized to a private space) was also established by men. In other words, men (not the almighty) made up the law and its exclusionary clause. It is not clear at all that the Torah prohibits carrying on Sabbath. One might simply choose to interpret the Torah differently and not consider this law to be valid.
Option #3: Erecting a barrier with tape or string merely creates a symbolic space. The same effect could be achieved in some other way. If one is willing to ascend the slippery slope of latter-day interpretation (e.g., carrying in public is prohibited, but carrying at home is okay, and by the way, if you enclosed a passage way between your neighborhood and the synagogue, that is a private space, so that's okay, too), then one might interpret "private space" in any number of ways, e.g., as the space around you for the length of your arm in any direction (which of course travels with you where ever you go); or private space is created if you always step off on your left foot; or whatever. Need the boundary be tangible? Need it impose upon other members of the community? I think not.
Imposing one's religious practices on others is not community-building. It is smug and divisive. The Palo Alto Eruv is an example of the kind of insanity that makes us a target for genocide.
I am amazed that this is still getting an airing.
However, I would like to know the answers to the following.
If the laws are so strict, can any jew become a doctor, an air traffic controller, or almost anything other than someone who works 9 - 5 weekdays only?
What happens if a woman starts to give birth on a sabbath? or an earthquake happens on a sabbath? or, or, or, etc.
I am not trolling, I do want to know? It seems to me that the jewish community while wanting to obey their religious laws, are also opting out on life on the sabbath, or am I missing something? I have been told that elevators in Israel are programed to stop on every floor on the sabbath so that no button pushing is involved. I also know that my new oven has a sabbath control whereby food can be put into the oven and the programming done before the sabbath starts and the food is cooked by machine automatically, but what happens when the food is cooked, can you take it out of the oven?
I respect anyone who is trying to live by the laws of their religion, but sometimes I find that I can't understand just how they do it.
Well said withheld, well said.
The Eruv is up and the impact on everyone else is ... umm ... nothing. A non-issue if ever there was one.
Withheld by request--how many people that reside in PA actually remember that there is an eruv in the city? and out of those how many feel that the eruv intrudes on their life?
[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
Well...putting up an internal border is kind of self-serving. It moves the focus from simple Palo Alto residents to those being Jews. And the funny thing is, I live in Palo Alto and am outside this fishline border. But I drive under the line every day and just have to wonder...I actually look to see if anyone has vandalized it yet / torn it down / opened themselves to hate crime remarks.
My take is the Jews are continually asking for (and apparently getting) the attention as a religious group. The eruv is just that - self serving. I feel the comments by 'withheld' would have been noticed more effectively before this eruv was put up - now it's just 'us' against 'them' again. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
And you goyim sure know how to make a mountain out of a fishing line ;-)
well...if it's just a fishing line then why did it cost $150,000? And why do we need this around our city...we're not a fishing village. Way to stoke the fire - this might end up being one expensive eruv. [Portoin removed by Palo Alto Onlines staff.] I'll bet no one notices when it's broken - fo all you know it could be right...or did you electrify the line?!? :))...lol...
I believe that there were poles set up as well (on private property?), which is most of the cost. If this is like other eruvs, there are people tasked with checking it before the Sabbath and making any needed repairs.
"well...if it's just a fishing line then why did it cost $150,000?"
Does it matter and is it really any of your business? It is private money, raised from members of the community.
[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
I suggest that the people that are so opposed to the eruv and are so bothered by it's presence file a lawsuit and take it to court.
You Christians... oops, I'm sorry, I mean, you gentiles... ooops, I mean, you Palo Altans... oooops, I mean you lowly trolls diminish anything of value you might have to say by taking that offensive tone.
As for the person asking how Jews can take certain jobs or have babies... first of all, there are many different ways for people who are Jewish to live their lives, interpret scriptures, make choices, and live their faith. There is no single, monolithic Jewish way of doing anything. Even within a single family or synagogue there may be variations.
Jewish law, for all it's minutiae, is very clear about basic values, as I understand it. That is to say, that human life and health come ahead of ritual. Otherwise, Jews would be unable to defend their homes or save lives on the Sabbath. Kind of common sense, right? You can't tell a baby when to be born, so if it comes during the Sabbath, so be it - there will indeed be "labor" on that particular day of rest. As for the various jobs you mention, strictly observant Jews would not accept jobs that required them to work on Sabbath. Many less traditional or less strictly observant Jews find their own ways to navigate modern life and traditional teachings - much as practitioners of other faiths do, I think.
In response to Pro-Eruv's comments:
I don't believe that viable solutions to Anti-Semitism include a) hoping that no one notices us ("how many people that reside in PA actually remember that there is an eruv in the city?"), or b) inviting litigation ("I suggest that the people that are so opposed to the eruv and are so bothered by it's presence file a lawsuit and take it to court."). More viable solutions include tolerance and education (for those who desire it). I do believe that several of the responses to my commentary suggest that there is (at best) naievity or a wish to understand on the part of some non-Jews, and (at worst) suspicion and fear on the part of others (characterized by comments such as "you Jews..."). My point in general is that one's personal religious practices is personal business, and needn't involve the rest of the community.
We live in a secular country, built on tolerance for the beliefs of others. Tolerance, not celebration or support. Expecting people of other faiths to applaud one's personal religious practices, especially when they do impact the entire community, is simply unrealistic. I don't think that this interpretation makes me a "self-loathing Jew."
I am sorry to have stirred up this tempest in a teapot.
Nem Withheld by Request:
"Expecting people of other faiths to applaud one's personal religious practices, especially when they do impact the entire community,"
Boy are you way off base with this comment.
How do they impact the entire community? The answer is that they do not impact the community at all, just like the presence of a church steeple does not impact the whole community.
There are over 100 cities in the US alone that have an eruv and I bet you that most citizens in those cities either do not know or do not care that there is an eruv--in other words it does not impact the community.
In fact courts have found that denying an eruv is wrong:
I hardly think that setting up an eruv will set off rampant antisemitism. Antisemitism exists and it is deeply ingrained so putting an eruv in place is not the cause. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
I will repeat, if you are so disturbed by the eruv, I suggest that you do file a lawsuit to try to have it removed, otherwise just live with it, like the vast majority of citizens of PA do.
The architectural appointment of a church steeple is very different from stringing an eruv. A beautiful building as a designated house of worship to whatever faith, can be enjoyed by the community for the very reason that it is beautiful. While I have no opinion one way or the other on the eruv as it makes very little difference to me, I would not put it in the category of affecting me at all. There are many ways the jewish religion does affect me (school holidays) and I have to put up with them. Unless the string comes down and causes some form of harm to me or mine, I see no problems.
Religious tolerance is supposed to be one of the roles of being good citizens. Bringing up this old problem again and again is not helping.
Pro eruv: were you under the impression that your chip on the shoulder offense somehow promoted your beliefs? Rather, it informs the reader that you lean towards the radical fringe.
I'm a tolerant person but I do not want to live in an eruv. I feel that having my home encircled by a religious boundry is an invasion of my personal rights. As I see it, an eruv is a requirement of an extreme form of religious doctrine that may be appropriate in the Jewish state of Isreal, but has no place in a secular society. I and many people I know, including Jews, are not comfortable with Israel's expansionist and militaristic behaviour. The idea of Jews erecting borders, even string ones, in our town makes me feel anxious and angry.
Well, tough luck, E for I, cause you are in one. So, btw, is the White House and the Supreme Court and most of downtown DC, a big chunk of Boston, East Denver, parts of St Louis, Indianapolis, Chicago, Atlanta, Memphis, and a whole bunch of Jersey! Hopefully the Supremes aren't too angry and anxious over it (I'm sure GWB and Laura are doing fine; Cheney - who knows!).
The idea that an eruv makes you feel anything at all is a head-scratcher to me. It impacts you in no way, while providing a useful convenience to some of your neighbors. I've heard of people who get pissed off about a mosque's minaret - they don't like it and find it out of place and offensive. I always chalked that up to unfamiliarity plus some bigotry. Maybe that's your issue, E for I - maybe you are not as tolerant as you think.
palo parent--is there a problem with me leaning toward the "radical fringe"? Do not I have the right to belong to any "fringe" I want to?
Eruvs for Israel--do you avoid visiting the 100+ cities that have eruvs? As I suggested before, a lawsuit may be your only chance to get your peace of mind back.
of course there might be underlying issues. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
I'm here for a productive discussion on a challenging issue. I'm not interested in meeting "pro-eruv" in a courtroom, nor taking a pair of scissors to the eruv. The notion of spending 150K on a line of fishing wire strikes me as incredibly wasteful, though I risk being accused of anti-semitism by saying so. I propose that the Jews consider offering an olive branch as a thank you to the city for granting them this privilage. How about an act of sheer altruism toward a secular cause? $150K would go a long way toward services for needy families and individuals in our community. A free clinic, child care center, or shelter would bring much-needed services, and gratitude and good will, to the residents of the eruv. Just thinking out of the box...
Dude, you are a strange thinker. Should all the religious groups forgo their own facility needs (churches, even the steeples, Mormon temples, mosques, shrines, etc) and as a goodwill gesture give it to a charity you like? They wouldn't want to piss you off! And you are easily offended!
Why do the eruv-builders owe anybody an olive branch? Because you take offense at something that has no impact on you? Why don't you offer them an olive branch by making a donation?
And referring to the group that built the eruv as "the Jews" - how weird is that on this thread? Should we refer to all the eruv-haters as "the Christians?" A small sub-set of Jewish people in PA arranged and will benefit from the building of the eruv; the vast majority had nothing to do with it and many don't even know what it is.
eruvs for Israel--2 points. The money is private money-- therefore the people can do what they want with it. My suggestion for you to go to court stemmed from your comments about being so disturbed by it's existence . By the way the city attorney advised the city to approve the eruv based on recent court decisions.
an olive branch? That is insulting. It makes it sound that a certain group of Jews in PA have done something wrong
Pro eruv: please don't put your words in my mouth. I did not criticize your belonging to any group, fringe or not. I was merely pointing out the fact that you were not helping to promote your views.
palo parent---I am expressing my opinions--I am not trying to promote any views. What you think of my technique is of no interest to me at all.
[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
Johnny Depp says, "cut it down"...and as PINK FLOYD once said..."Tear Down the Wall."
Jews or no Jews...secular or non-secular...it sucks. Good luck on the Sabbath...the only 'thing' you all have left to repair is the string itself...hanging by a thread...joy.
So, I wonder if I am alone in thinking, how hypocritical, to think that putting up a piece of string absolves one of following a religious law. It clearly flouts the intention of the law.
And, yes, I also object to my community kowtowing to the religious symbol of one faith. No Christmas trees on city property, no Christmas parties in offices, but a Jewish symbol surrounding the whole community. Talk about another example of hypocrisy.
Palo parent--now you are putting words in my mouth--you are free to express whatever opinions about my postings that you want--I just told you that I have no interest in them. Others may find your postings informative, I do not. Feel free to insult, demean and criticize all you want. just because one is not interested in another's postings does not make them childish--I guess only those that are told that their comments are being ignored pout, like you.
Janette_If you are so much against "community kowtowing to the religious symbol", then I suggest you begin working to stop the federal government from observing christmas day as a national holiday and then you start working on abolishing all company christmas parties, whether the people object to them or not.
BTW, I suggest you read up on eruvs and exactly how they fit in with jewish law.
Janette - huh? That is one judgmental scree you have there. How about those Christians with that absolution of sin thing - I'd say that's awfully convenient for them! And the Hindu's with that karma thing? Good for you, seeing right through people's self-serving religious hypocrisy.
Not sure why you think you are in a position to judge other people's (harmless) religious traditions. Were you appointed to that position? Shall we arrange the meeting between you and the Talmudic scholars and rabbis so you can straighten them out?
And, as the City Attorney put it: "It's not like erecting a cross or a Star of David or any symbol of any religion because all it is is a fishing line," he said. "It's not symbolic in any way..." Oh, btw, that is backed up by Federal Court cases (check out Teaneck, where they nailed plastic strips to telephone poles to form an eruv).
Actually, maybe he can join the rabbi meeting so you can explain both the Torah and the Constitution at the same time. Thank you for being so vigilant!
[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
This time we're not lying. HONEST! No, really!
By Douglas Moran | 12 comments | 955 views
Couples: When Wrong Admit It; When Right; Shut Up
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 847 views
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 602 views
Home & Real Estate
Send News Tips
Express / Weekend Express
Circulation & Delivery
Mountain View Voice
© 2018 Palo Alto Online
All rights reserved.