The Eruv: Is It True for Everyone?

I never heard this type of talk before:

Some of the objections and justifications for eruvs

It claims a public area as a private area: supporters say it’s purely symbolic and does not make the area any less public.

It takes over a public space for a religious purpose: this argument is particularly strong in the USA – eruv supporters reject this argument saying it fails because the public space is only changed for Orthodox Jews; it remains unchanged for non-believers.

It breaches human rights by giving a religious Jewish role to the walls and fences of non-Jews: supporters say that the symbolic role that the boundary has for a Jew does not exist for non-Jews, therefore their rights are not affected. The non-Jew retains the right to demolish the wall, or do anything else they want to it.

It breaches the human rights of non-Jews because they are forced to pass through symbolic Jewish structures when they go in and out of the eruv: supporters say that the symbolic role that the boundary has for a Jew does not exist for non-Jews, therefore their rights are not affected.

Excerpted from BBC.co.uk on Judaism.

Some of the other objections and counters are interesting, too. I am not ashamed to admit I do not always know who’s “right” or how to respond; it’s too deep.

Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.