There are several eruv in Sydney (one at St Ives, one at Bondi, maybe some others I’m unaware of), and yes, they do get woven into the fantasies of the local antisemitic bigots.
They also get some defensible [1] objection on environmental (“this is a bushland area, we spent a decade campaigning to get the overhead power and phone lines relocated underground, and now you want to put the poles back up again?”) and secular grounds (“you can believe whatever you want, but you don’t have a right to use public resources for sectarian purposes”).
Of course, the bigots are also happy to use the defensible objections as cover for the indefensible ones.
[1] Note that “defensible” is different from “correct”.
That’s a fair and nuanced view. The reason I mock this loophole (I don’t really object to it because it’s silly and harmless) is because it isn’t acknowledged as such but rather incorporated and retconned into the superstitious lore (the “city walls” bunk). I’d just like some bloody honesty about it being a deliberate attempt to undo the superstition in the face of the realities of modern life while preserving the link to cultural roots. I know it’s too much to expect people selling this woo in the first place to be honest about it, so all I’m left with is mockery.
Well technically he’s correct, in that if nobody was religious, there would be no religious extremists.
Of course, that doesn’t answer the question of whether that would be a stable situation, and whether, if religion did make a comeback, the absence of an existing body of moderate believers would make the revived form more likely to be an extreme one.
Technically he’s correct, in a very narrow and highly hypothetical sense. In a rhetorical sense, it’s the wrong thing to say and makes him come off as an extremist and undermines his own credibility. I expect that kind of hyperbole from Bill Maher or the late Chris Hitchens, but not from someone who claims to be more than an entertainer and pundit.
My sense based on observed evidence is that people who are “moderate and nice” generally frown upon their fellows who “get violent or horrible” and often vocally denounce them, whether religious belief is or is not involved. Thus they do not generally make the world “safe for extremists”, who are by and large arseholes who’ll latch onto any convenient justification for their crappy sociopathic behaviour.
Many Orthodox rabbis hold that kids can’t be carried without an eruv, either, so they’re stuck at home until they can dependably walk on their own.
Those who believe in it don’t really see it as circumvention. “Loopholes” like eruvs, sabbath elevators, lights that run on timers, etc., are not designed to allow people to avoid observance, but to allow them to adapt their ancient religion to a modern world while still living a holy life. A big part of Orthodox Jewish observance as I understand it (I’m pretty serious about being Jewish, but definitely not Orthodox) is the idea that observing all those rules forces you to continually think about your status as a Jew and your commitment to living your life in accordance with Jewish law. There’s nothing inherently evil about carrying a key in your pocket, but checking the eruv’s status before you carry the key forces you to think about what you’re doing and how it fits into the bigger picture. Jewish law is filled with requirements that transform otherwise mundane acts like eating, pushing a stroller, even going to the bathroom, into acts of spiritual fulfillment.
Sort of like how some Amish groups will allow car ownership and riding within a car as long as you’ve hired an “English” to drive it for you… because you’re not driving the car which is taking you specifically from one place to the next on your command.
For my folks, it’s “You shouldn’t kill things, but if someone serves you a meal with meat in it, you should humbly accept and eat the meat…” Whaa? That makes no f-ing sense.
And for everyone who’s finding the criticism offensive, oh well. You’re perfectly free to practice your religion, that doesn’t mean that others who don’t agree can’t criticize or find fault in the “logic”/render their opinion. Everyone’s beliefs get really weird on a fundamental level (even atheists), so hopefully everyone is as open to taking it as they are dishing it out. (if they’re not, then that’s when you can get on their cases for being hypocrites.)
107 comments so far and no one linked to the wikipedia article yet
Like that clip from The Daily Show?
Hit the nail on the head there.
Funny thing is more often the people who mock or object to eruvim (plural of eruv) are on the secular left (John Stewart for example). Most of the lawsuits around eruvim come from non-Orthodox Jews in fact. Strange world we live in.
Most of your comment was about the idea of “building fences around Torah”, extending boundaries of the law to avoid accidental transgressions. Not so much about waivers and due to the limits of an eruv, it isnt really even a waiver as much as an extension of what may be permissible within the law. As pointed out much later in this thread, not all authorities will agree with those extensions of permissibly either.
I’m sorry but every point you brought up in there you were basically mistaken. There is no scenario where I can ask a non-Jew to open/close the refrigerator door or operate an elevator and definitely not drive my car. It does not work as you described. Also FYI, rebbe (when used in English as opposed to modern Hebrew) only refers to the head of a chassidic sect which is a different role than an orthodox rabbi performs. Small difference but a meaningful one in context.
A user on another BBS debunks this quite nicely. Now that you know better, you dont need to repeat that canard ever again.
I once had the pleasure of being invited to a shabbat lunch with the rabbi of the Grand Synagogue in Sydney. The Synagogue is located in the CBD which is outside any eruv but he lived in Bondi. As we walked from the CBD to Bondi he pointed out to me where the eruv started.
FWIW I dont mind disagreement, whats bothersome is mainly how most who criticize dont bother to actually learn about the subject beforehand.
Perhaps by putting their views out there on a public forum, and getting responses, that’s how they learn…
I for one want to know what sort of beast those huge round hats are made from. Rather than do a lot of in depth research myself, I’ll let some more knowledgeable person here advise me. ('coz I’m feeling lazy like that).
Buuuuuuuttttt it took me a minute on wikipedia! (argh, now I have to go rest!)
also:
The shtreimel is typically custom-made for the intended wearer, of genuine fur, from the tips of the tails typically of Canadian or Russian sable, beech marten, baum marten (European pine marten), or American gray fox
So, made from little nasty weasels or from cute foxes (I’m totally biased for canids).
In the context of the modern version of the formerly complex gadget’s usage, he might be. Although to be fair it’s more in line with Heath Robinson, whose cartoons depicted complex devices that performed useless or silly tasks.
This video shows some examples of the crazier homebrew devices:
Thank you. I’ve been hearing that for years from Reform, Conservative and modern Orthodox Jews and took them at their word. Didn’t realise it was actually spread by more enlightened Jews in the 18th and 19th centuries who wanted to integrate better into modern society by abandoning outmoded garments from ancient times. I guess it’s not only anti-Semites who spread canards about the Jews but sometimes Jews themselves.
Most welcome. As you said at the end, its unfortunate how some Jews who are so desperate to assimilate (pretend to be “more enlightened”) will cast shade on their brethren and sistren. Of course as we’ve seen in recent times and since the assimilation project started, their efforts have not protected them very well.
Assimilation never truly protects the Jewish people, although from what I read about the Maskilim the business about the outmoded garb was not really about protection and more about promoting engagement with society at large.
The general Enlightenment period was focused in part on a rejection of medieval and ancient modes of thought and action and moving forward toward secularism, cosmopolitanism and anti-clericalism. It looks like the Haskalah enlightenment movement picked up on that in this case, seeing the clothing as embarrassing to their progressive aspirations and “ghettoising” in a number of ways.
