News RSS Feed


Stuck inside on the Sabbath

5:21pm Thursday 5th July 2007

comment Comments (35)   Have your say »


Last night, borough councillors were due to vote on planning permission for an eruv, a symbolic religious zone, in Borehamwood. TESSA ROBERTS speaks to Orthodox Jews to find out why it is so important for them.

Efrat Arnold, 27, of Theobald Street, has been confined to her home every Sabbath since moving to Borehamwood six months ago.

She has two children, aged two years and four months, but cannot take them out in a buggy on a Friday evening or Saturday, or carry them to a friend's house over the road.

Under Jewish law, the Sabbath is a day of rest, and the lack of an eruv prohibits her from doing these things in a public space that day.

For her, and the estimated 400 to 500 other observant Orthodox Jews in Elstree and Borehamwood, the only solution is to create a symbolically private space. The proposed Borehamwood eruv would be marked by 34 sets of poles joined by wires, to bridge gaps in existing infrastructure and natural boundaries. It needs planning permission from Hertsmere Borough Council.

With the eruv, Mrs Arnold would be able to take her children out during the Sabbath, visit the synagogue, family and friends.

She said: "If I want to take my children out, they need to be carried and I can't do that, so I can't go to my in-laws a 25-minute walk away. I can't have people round who have small children, and I can't take my children to the synagogue.

"I almost feel less part of the community because I can't join in. It makes me feel a little bit lonely. As my husband has more of an obligation to go to synagogue, I look after the children, which I love to do, but I feel stuck in."

Even a short journey can be problematic without an eruv, because a parent is prohibited from picking up a young child if they fall over or refuse to walk.

Danny Jacobs, 30, of Theobald Street, said: "My youngest son is 14 months old, we tried to walk him over the road on Saturday, and he sat down halfway.

"Even to go across the road, the eruv would make a world of difference, that you could just take your children out, socialise and be with your friends and family on that special day."

Young families are not the only residents who would benefit from the boundary.

The eruv would allow disabled or elderly members of the community to use zimmerframes, wheelchairs and walking sticks during the Sabbath.

But not everyone is in favour of the eruv and the council has received objections on the grounds it might be visually unattractive.

David Newman, 58, of Anthony Road, refuted this. He said: "There are already two boundaries in north west London, and there is no impact on society.

"In Borehamwood, you won't even see it, 98 per cent will be made with natural boundaries already existing.

"It's important to stress it is only a private domain as Jewish people regard it. For the rest of the population it's a public area, we're not taking over the area."

Practising Jews deny a eruv is a loophole for breaking the Sabbath. Aryeh Myers, 30, Ashdown Drive, said: "It's definitely not a get-out clause. Jewish law goes back 2,000 years and dictates about building an eruv. It's almost a requirement to do so, to enable Jewish people to live and keep the Sabbath."

Print article » Email to a friend »

Your Say YourTimes Series

Resident, Borehamwood says...
9:37pm Thu 5 Jul 07

I understand the importance of an eruv for Practising Jews, but as a resident of Croxdale Road I see every Saturday morning, cars parked in every available space, pushchairs being pushed to the synagogue. I think an eruv will encourage even more non-practising Jews to drive their cars into the area. It's a nightmare trying to drive in or out of Croxdale Road on a Saturday morning, it's an ordeal trying to park near the shops at anytime with three Kosher shops now open, and I often have to sit and wait in my car when someone is entering the synagogue while they key in the security number on the electronic keypad and then have to wait for the gates to open. I think the residents of Croxdale Road have been very tolerate, but please no more cars!
Resident
Croxdale Road

Report this post »

Jamie, Bristol says...
11:41pm Thu 5 Jul 07

I think the investigative reporter did a thorough job and congrats for such a revealing article.

Report this post »

jack, borehamwood says...
8:21am Fri 6 Jul 07

Dear Resident of Croxdale Road,

Whilst I appreciate the fact you don't like cars, the Eruv will not encourage more cars. The Eruv only makes a difference to religious jews who will not drive on the sabbath. The ones who do drive could not care less about an eruv, except for the fact it will help out their more religious contemporaries.

Some christians go to church every sunday, some never go. It is the same with jewish people.

The Eruv will not affect anyone, and if the council had said "just put it up" the people now complaining of living in a "jewish state" would never have even knew it existed.

People are complaining simply because it is for jews.

Jack

Report this post »

me, says...
11:17am Fri 6 Jul 07

without sounds anti-sametic (or whateva its called) why be an otherdox jew when you then go against everything your ment to be?

Report this post »

tracy, says...
12:32am Sun 8 Jul 07

me wrote:
without sounds anti-sametic (or whateva its called) why be an otherdox jew when you then go against everything your ment to be?
reguards being stuck inside you say you moved here six months ago did you not research the area to find out if there were eruv's in place?? if you did and had moved from an area with eruv then you mad yourself confined to your own home, if the law makes it so for eruv then why not just make it law that on your sabbath to update the outdated rules that you may habe the use of wheelchair pushchairs and walking aids this would allow every jewish person to attend the synagogue/ friends not only in just in this area but for pepole who live outside these boundrys this would be a far better solution.

Report this post »

website visitor, says...
9:47am Mon 9 Jul 07

Maybe these people became more religious after they moved to the area.

Or only had kids after they moved in--it's a not a big deal for most people( not at that stage of life) to live without an eruv.

You won't be able to see it or even know that it is there. The only reasons to object are if you don't want more Orthodox Jews in the area.


Report this post »

Jerzy Ulicki-Rek, Sydney says...
1:10am Thu 12 Jul 07

Once again the jews impossed their rules -minority rule- on majority of other people and the cowards in local council went along.Shame.
If their religion sntence them to sit at home -follow it.It is what you choose.But those people try to cheat on their own G-d as well.Self-commentary
.

Report this post »

Clarendon Road liberal, Borehamwood says...
2:17pm Fri 13 Jul 07

What puzzles me is just how silly the eruv must sound to anyone who isn't an Orthodox Jew. One of the interviewees says that without it they would be confined to their homes. This appears to be superstitious twaddle of the highest order. But that is just my opinion.

Personally the eruv poles have no more significance or intrusion than the christmas decorations on Shenley Road. There are religious practices to be outraged about (like the new school on Hillside Avenue, a wonderful model of segregation). This just isn't one of them.

Report this post »

Cheryl, says...
10:52pm Fri 13 Jul 07

It is not anti-semitic to complain about this, like some commenters are attempting to imply. ALL religious dogma like this is ridiculous - and obviously the Jews themselves believe that or they wouldn't be looking for loopholes!

Report this post »

Mick, Powys says...
12:17am Sat 14 Jul 07

What a complete load of tosh. Religions are a complete joke and fatuous nonsense like this only serves to point up that fact.

Parents can't pick their children up?!? Of course they can, they just choose not to. Why should they be assisted out of a situation created by their own stupidity - and then by some wholly contingent measure? Poppycock!!!

Report this post »

Simon, Bournemouth says...
12:27pm Sat 14 Jul 07

This is so incredibly bizarre. I really worry for the poor children in these families. Surely the beliefs of their parents puts that at increased risk? Both actual risk from inability to control in traffic, for example. And risk of emotional neglect from not being able to hold the child when they are distressed. The ability to provide care for a child seems at odds with such extreme religious practices.

And this sounds like a ridiculous suggestions... but no more ridiculous than the beliefs described... can't they use a portable Eruv? one that can carry around with them? Like a large, circular zimmer frame?



Report this post »

robzrob, everywhere says...
8:05pm Sat 14 Jul 07

This must be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. And religious people expect the rest of us to respect their beliefs?!?!?

Report this post »

Jo, London says...
9:30pm Sat 14 Jul 07

"Efrat Arnold, 27, of Theobald Street, has been confined to her home..."

No, she has confined herself.

This reminds me of the children's game of not stepping on the cracks in pavements or the bears will get you - but if you hold a wooden stick they can't. Plenty of sticks being erected in Borehamwood so the bears won't get you if you step on the cracks. Most amusing.

Report this post »

Martin D Hutton, says...
10:53pm Sat 14 Jul 07

Good grief! If you want to keep Sabbath, keep it. But please don't think that wrapping a string around some poles does anything more than provide a poor excuse to break your silly Sabbath restrictions.

This is really so very pathetic and epitomises ALL religious thinking.

Report this post »

Alan, at home says...
11:17pm Sat 14 Jul 07

"There are only two things that are infinite: the Universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the Universe." - Einstein.
This story proves that he was right. It would make a good April Fool story if it wasn't true. The people involved are all making themselves a laughing stock; I just wish that they, and everyone else, would realise it.

Report this post »

John Perkins, Nakusp BC,Canada says...
12:39am Sun 15 Jul 07

When I first read the article,I thought it was some belated April Fool joke, but no such luck ! The council must be deranged to go along with it.

Report this post »

ben, says...
4:23am Sun 15 Jul 07

Most of the anti-religious comments are coming from that religions guru blog called “RichardDawkin.net.” In any case, an eruv is not a loophole at all. An eruv only allows carrying in a rabbinically proscribed area. The rabbis instituted restrictions so that one should not come to carry in a Biblically proscribed area. An eruv never disturbed anyone, and most of the objections are either from people who are anti-religious or are just ignorant of the facts.

Report this post »

Simon, London says...
10:43am Sun 15 Jul 07

Richard Dawkins is a religious guru! That'll be news to him. Still, that bit made more sense than the rest of your post.
I remember reading about the first eruv that was proposed in the UK (Golders Green?) and thinking it must be a joke. It's as deluded as Muslims thinking a Sharia mortgage doesn't involve any interest!

Report this post »

ben, says...
4:33pm Sun 15 Jul 07

Yes. Richard Dwarkin promotes his own brand of religion. I don’t care if you understand, and frankly I don’t believe you’re interested. The anti-religious movement is showing the world just who are the most intolerant people out there. There is no reason not to allow the establishment of an eruv. It is not a religious symbol per se. It’s only a pole and a string that represents a wall for Orthodox Jews. It is barely discernible, and in most neighborhoods follows the utility wires.

Report this post »

Alan, says...
5:34pm Sun 15 Jul 07

Ben, your fellow believers fly planes into buildings, blow each other up with car bombs and demand that their laws replace the existing laws regardless of what anyone else thinks, while we merely write letters. Who is more intolerant, the religious or the non-religious? Considering the immense harm that religion has caused, and the endless stream of ludicrous stories about religion like this one you should consider yourselves lucky that we tolerate your blatantly irrational beliefs so much.

Report this post »

Mark, Bournemouth says...
6:20pm Sun 15 Jul 07

Ben... I really do not agree that people who are expressing concern about the impact of extreme religious views are intolerant. I think the cultural enclaves of extreme belief are far more likely to be places where all manner of things are not tolerated. The freedom for people to form relationships outside of the group, the tolerance toward non-traditional forms of dress, the degree of control exerted to indoctrinate children... well the list would be long so I will leave it there.

I also do not think it is accurate to categorise anti-religion as a movement . Not in the usual sense of referring to a political group. This is not a small number of people with a specific view waving banners for the cameras. This is a cultural shift, a simultaneous shift in opinion and its very widely felt.


Report this post »

ben, says...
9:57pm Sun 15 Jul 07

Excuse me, but the followers of radical Islam are not my fellow believers. In any case, non-believers have their fair share of mad men as well, so get of your high horse. There is no question that the pitch and fervor of the anti-religious movement is going in the direction of extreme intolerance. I am sure that those advocating an anti-religious stand are indoctrinating their children the same way. Yes, I believe the anti-religious movement is a concerted effort to eradicate religion as espoused by the guru Dwarkin.

Report this post »

Mark, Bournemouth says...
10:51pm Sun 15 Jul 07

Ben... I do not think its possible or necessary to indoctrinate children against religious faith. Children do not come into the world with any knowledge of religion or thirst for religion. I think people inside a faith find it very hard to think outside their faith. So I will use an analogy.
Think about someone who puts tarot card reading at the centre of their lives saying to someone: you are always indoctrinating your children against tarot cards. In fact, that person is simply not saying anything about tarot cards. Its just not a topic. Like many analogies, its not perfect. But I hope you understand my point.

Anyway, just to throw in a curve ball, common parental indoctrination in the UK include santa clause and the tooth fairy. These are often presented with a lot of care to maintain the pretense. Actual physical evidence is used to complete the illusion. Yet children eventually work out that its harmless fantasy. So I think children are fairly immune to indoctrination. Which leaves one question in my mind. What is the degree and nature of persuasion used in families where extreme religious practice dominates for the practice to pass from generation to generation? I think this is a question that should be getting asked more often.


Report this post »

Alan, says...
10:51pm Sun 15 Jul 07

Ben, I am against all irrational beliefs, not just those of religion. The Orthodox Jews, Muslim fundamentalists, Hitler and Stalin are all pretty similar to me - irrational people motivated by insane ideologies. People like me want to get rid of all irrational beliefs by education, and by encouraging people to think for themselves. We are therefore against the indoctrination of children the way you were by your parents - if they had been Muslim then you would have been a Muslim fundamentalist instead of a Jewish fundamentalist, so you are not so different from them.

Report this post »

ben, says...
3:01am Mon 16 Jul 07

I have learnt long ago that it is irrational to debate people who think that their opinion is the only one that matters. Anyone who equates Muslim fanatical fundamentalism to Orthodox Judaism does not deserve my time. Think about it, you are no better than any fundamentalist as you do not accept other opinions as relevant at all. I, on the other hand, understand that others have different beliefs than I do. I do not proselytize as you or as other fundamentalist do. In any case, we digress. My original argument was that since an eruv does not bother anyone, there is no reason to resist its establishment.

Report this post »

Bored, Piccadilly says...
11:19am Mon 16 Jul 07

I might set up a religion... Every day, I'll be obliged to whack myself in the nuts with half a housebrick unless the local council buys me buscuits. If they refuse, I'll appeal on human rights grounds, explaining how eventually I'll become infertile unless they commit to providing what I need.

Report this post »

Colin T Badger, says...
1:56pm Mon 16 Jul 07

If "98 per cent will be made with natural boundaries already existing."

And as has been said "It’s only a pole and a string"

Why have the pole and the string? Oh because like fundamentalists if it's not your way it's unacceptable.

Orthodox Jews and Muslim fundamentalists really are cut from the same cloth.

Report this post »

Trev, Outside any eruv says...
2:23pm Mon 16 Jul 07

Just came across this website and thought I would add my thoughts.

How a religion that is supposed to be sensible can come up with the ridiculous notion that tying a piece of string to a few poles 18 feet high can represent a wall beats me. The same religion that states that if you are outside an eruv and your young child darts into the road you cannot pick it up before it gets run over by an oncoming vehicle just defies sensibility. Nearly as bad as a Catholic confessing a murder and then thinking everything is OK..if having a faith gives you strength then thats fine but do get rid of the claptrap and mumbo-jumbo that goes with it.

Report this post »

ben, says...
5:06pm Mon 16 Jul 07

You have no idea what you are talking about. If a child runs into the street, and there is an oncoming vehicle, of course an Orthodox Jew can yank his child out of harms way, even without an eruv. This is typical of all the ant-religious rhetoric to make baseless accusations.

Report this post »

leni, says...
6:15pm Tue 17 Jul 07

Is is absurd that religious people who voluntarily accept the rules of their faith, then go to extraordinary lengths to avoid the very behaviour specifically required by that faith. If orthodox jews don't like their very own sabbath restrictions why don't they stop observing them or just change them? They shouldn't be allowed to alter the environment for everyone else because of some irrelevant nonsense written a long time ago. People were no more clever then about what to do on particular days than they are now. The antiquity of this absurdity doesn't make it more credible. It just shows that people were as gullible then as they are now.

Report this post »

Eamonn Riley, Scotland says...
6:51pm Tue 17 Jul 07

ben wrote:
I have learnt long ago that it is irrational to debate people who think that their opinion is the only one that matters. Anyone who equates Muslim fanatical fundamentalism to Orthodox Judaism does not deserve my time. Think about it, you are no better than any fundamentalist as you do not accept other opinions as relevant at all. I, on the other hand, understand that others have different beliefs than I do. I do not proselytize as you or as other fundamentalist do. In any case, we digress. My original argument was that since an eruv does not bother anyone, there is no reason to resist its establishment.
Ben
You cannot possibly know whether or not an eruv 'bothers anyone.' Public space, is secular space. To have public space transformed into religious space, with religious symbols is simply offensive to many non believers. Why should the non religious have to accomodate the religious? Why is it all take, and no give? Many will be offended by what to them is a public symbol of a religion that they see as oppresive to e.g. women, and gays. Every time I saw an eruv pole, or wire, I would be reminded of how fundamentalist Judaism regards menstruating women, and lesbians, and gay men. Leave our public space alone, religion must remain private. Please respect our beliefs, as we respect your right to worship. We do not need your permission to campaign against the eruv.

Report this post »

Darlocol, West Midlands says...
10:48pm Wed 18 Jul 07

Now here's a question.
If the eruv now makes Borehamwood "a private place" as opposed to a public one. Is it now lawful to smoke wherever the fancy takes you in Borehamwood?
Or would it only be lawful to smoke on the so-called sabbeth?

Report this post »

Simon, London says...
11:38pm Wed 18 Jul 07

"Anyone who equates Muslim fanatical fundamentalism to Orthodox Judaism does not deserve my time."

I think the comparison was a conceptual one. In these terms both groups have significant things in common:

their forbid themselves certain foods and drinks

they must use ritualistic slaughter animals

there are strict rules about appearance, men cannot shave

they have to dress modestly especially the women

women are considered inferior to men

marriages are arranged to maintain in-group coherence

sexual practices are considered sinful and wrong

the genitals of their male children must be mutilated

their god can read their minds


In summary, for both groups, every aspect of life that makes them human is controlled for fear of eternal torture: what they eat, what they think, who they love, who they marry, how they carry our their private lives, their dignity stripped, their every thought and deed under scrutiny.

Now, one of the groups wants to put up thirty six 6 meter high poles to alleviate one of their appalling superstitions. No. Its time to say no to these extremist groups. We do not have to respect their ridiculous views. It is not intolerant to say no. It is not intolerant to say that we do not want to clutter up our public spaces with religious paraphernalia. I do not care that the wire is nearly invisible - yes it will kill birds but then so do domestic cats. I do not care that the poles look a little like telegraph poles. This does not mean we should have more. The religious practices of these groups must to be behind their front doors and inside the buildings where they have to grovel on their knees and beg their supposedly benign god for forgiveness.

Report this post »

Leni, Croydon says...
8:37pm Wed 25 Jul 07

Can someone please explain why people should choose a religion with strict rules on behaviour, and then impose their attempts at avoidance of obedience to these rules on the rest of the community by erecting a lot of silly poles with string on them. If they don't like the rules why don't they just ignore them? That's what they're doing anyway with the wood and string but they won't admit it. They obviously don't see how vacuous and stupid they look to the rest of the world. I think they should be compelled to observe every last daft rule in their book on pain of life imprisonment if they fail. that would teach them!

Report this post »

Roly, South Wales says...
3:53pm Fri 3 Aug 07

Right, so on the Sabbath, you can't turn a light on directly, but if the switch has a short random delay, that's cool with God.

WHAT? No wonder there a plenty of Jewish lawyers, bearing in mind the ingenuity needed in evading the fanciful Talmudic laws made up by other ancient lawyers in a long gone context.

What really worries me is that multiculturalism tolerates indoctrinating this OCD in kids when, outside a religious context, it would have you on a Section, and your children in care.

That applies to creationist christians, wahabist muslims, tree worshippers and every other brand of mass psychosis out there.

When you're dead, it'll be too late to wish you'd got a life.

Report this post »

Comments are closed on this article.

Out for a stroll: David Newman, Aryeh Myers, Danny Jacobs and Efrat Arnold (K15208-07) Buy this photo icon Buy this photo » Out for a stroll: David Newman, Aryeh Myers, Danny Jacobs and Efrat Arnold (K15208-07)

In this section

Essential links

Sponsored Links



Local Advertisers


Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »