The New Ghetto: First Palestine, now Golders Green.....
halcombe
In North London, it's a bit subtler.....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,772130,00.html
Testing the boundaries of faith
Zoning to permit tasks otherwise forbidden on the sabbath is being
fought all the way
Steven Morris
Saturday August 10, 2002
The Guardian
The plans have been finalised and the contractors briefed. Splashes of
yellow paint have begun to appear on pavements in north-west London
where the boundary posts will soon be erected. After a bitter battle a
proposal to set up an eruv - an area within which Orthodox Jews can
carry out tasks otherwise forbidden on the sabbath - is to be
realised. Over the next few weeks workers should begin to erect dozens
of 30ft high poles connected by fishing line to enclose the
six-and-a-half square mile area.
The United Synagogue, the leading Orthodox wing of British Judaism,
claims the scheme will benefit thousands of observant Jews who are not
allowed to carry out tasks, including pushing prams or wheelchairs or
carrying keys and prayer-books, on the sabbath if they are not within
an eruv. But opponents fear the eruv could be divisive and make the
area, which includes Golders Green, Hampstead Garden Suburb, Hendon
and Finchley, a target for racist violence.
Others believe the scheme is a claim for territory which will lead to
the area being "invaded" by Jewish people. They are angry that the
poles and wire will form "gateways" into their neighbourhoods. Some
are puzzled as to why the followers of a faith which imposes such
restrictions go to such lengths to find loopholes. Many Jewish people
believe the eruv makes them seem ridiculous.
The controversy is stoked by three motivated groups. Elizabeth
Lawrence, of the Barnet eruv objectors' group, said: "It is a physical
claim of territory which the majority of people find inappropriate. We
should try to live together, not split the community. This has been a
harmonious area but the eruv will cause trouble."
Elizabeth Segall, convenor of the forum against intrusive eruvs and a
committee member of the eruv boundary opponents group, said: "We feel
that our human rights will be affected. It's a monstrous thing, an
affront to civil rights." Mrs Segall and husband Jeffrey are incensed
that the frontage of their house is part of the boundary. When they
objected to the chief rabbi, they were outraged to receive a reply
saying they were at liberty not to use the eruv and indeed to demolish
their house if they wished, "thus causing the frontage to cease to
exist".
The United Synagogue eruv committee claims it will benefit 10,000
people who observe the sabbath but campaigners claim only 600 observe
the restrictions. The committee points out that major cities around
the world, including Sydney, Washington and Venice, have successful
eruvs but the protesters reply that they do not use purpose-built
poles and wire.
The committee sought permission for the eruv in 1992 but was turned
down by Barnet council on planning grounds. During a public inquiry
the following year residents including Lord McGregor, the first
chairman of the press complaints commission, and the late Lord Soper,
a president of the Methodist conference, expressed reservations but in
1994 the scheme was approved by the government.
Under plans finally approved by Barnet council in 1998 most of the
11-mile perimeter is to be made up of boundaries such as the M1, the
A1 and the Northern line of the underground. But to maintain a
continuous boundary - so the eruv can be considered a "private domain"
posts connected with 1,000 metres of fishing line will be erected.
Since then campaigners have expressed concern that damage could be
caused to trees on Hampstead heath by the poles. They worry that birds
could be caught in the wires. They suggest that safety could be
compromised where the wires cross busy roads.
The present hurdle - the colour of the poles - is typical. The eruv
committee has suggested painting them sage green. But though in truth
the campaigners do not care about the colour they have discovered that
the council's public works committee decided that the colour ought to
go out to consultation and have used this to try to delay the scheme
again.
When this hurdle is surmounted by the eruv committee, the campaigners
will try a new tack, perhaps trying to get the proposals referred to
the court of human rights in Strasbourg - where incidentally there is
an eruv - arguing that it could impinge on their right under article
nine of the human rights act to "freedom of thought, conscience and
religion".
Against
The neat house which is Lorna Noble's home and the base for her
successful advertising business is part of the southern boundary of
the eruv in Child's Hill.
Two streets on either side of the terrace where Ms Noble lives will be
framed by poles and wire. On one side the street which will be bridged
leads directly into an estate, which Ms Noble says will make the
structure look like a gateway. On the other side it appears the pole
could obstruct the window of a private, two-bedroom flat.
Ms Noble said: "I don't think we ought to be made to live for seven
days a week with this boundary so that a minority can push a pram."
She is angry that she has no choice that her property is being used to
mark the line."Nobody has asked us if we mind. I don't see why I
should put up with this."
Ms Noble says that most people in the area have no idea what the
yellow marks on the pavements near her home signify. "But when they
realise that poles with wire strung across them are going to be put up
beside their front doors and in front of their houses they will be
angry."
For
Because Millie Sampson's chronic asthma makes it difficult for her to
go more than short distances without her wheelchair, it is forbidden
for her to go to the synagogue on the sabbath with her eight children.
The eruv, she says, would improve her life. She said: "For more than
10 years I haven't been to synagogue with my children on the sabbath.
They go off in the morning and come back at lunch but we can't go out
as a family together."
This week Mrs Sampson has been preparing for her son's bar mitzvah.
Because of the restrictions it must be held at their home in Hendon.
"The eruv would definitely improve the quality of my life
dramatically. I don't see why it can't happen. It's a technical
boundary which doesn't impinge on anybody.
"What's the difference between it and a parish boundary? There are
parish boundaries all over the place and nobody thinks they affect
anybody. I'm not sure why the opponents of the eruv are frightened. I
think it's because people don't like change.
"I don't think anybody should be afraid that suddenly a whole load of
religious people are going to move into the area. That won't happen."
Facts and figures
· There are more than 200 eruvs in cities around the world. There is
one in every town in Israel and most major cities in the US.
· The eruv in Sydney, set up in June, has been created from cliff
faces, a golf course and fences along Bondi beach. The Washington DC
eruv includes the White House and supreme court. The Toronto eruv
worked with the railroad company to use its fences as a boundary.
· Eruvs date from biblical times. Under religious law, Jews are not
allowed to carry any item in a (public domain) on the sabbath.
· The north-west London eruv will not be the first in the UK. The
residents of a street in Temple Fortune, north London, made one in the
1990s.
· Many Jewish homes are set up as eruvs to allow families to perform
tasks which would otherwise be forbidden on the Sabbath.
· The eruv committee says the cost of construction and maintenance
will be met by voluntary contributions and sponsorship.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002
Steve Glynn
"halcombe" <halc...@subdimension.com> wrote in message
news:d7fa3848.02081...@posting.google.com...
> In Palestine, they're building a dirty great fence.
>
> In North London, it's a bit subtler.....
>
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,772130,00.html
>
>
> Testing the boundaries of faith
> Zoning to permit tasks otherwise forbidden on the sabbath is being
> fought all the way
>
I can't understand the theology that says there are such and such things you
can't do on the Sabbath or whatever but you can actually do in a designated
area, nor to I want anyone to explain it to me, since if that's what people
want to do, it's up to them and I'm not particularly interested in what
people do or don't do of a weekend so long as it doesn't involve me unless I
want to get involved.
However, what I don't quite understand is why it's necessary to designate
this special area by sticking up poles and fishing line and so forth. If,
as the article seems to suggest, you need some sort of physical deliniation
of the designated area for the thing to work, what's wrong with saying 'OK,
we'll consider the M25 to be the boundary' or even the coastline? That
should solve all the problems.
Can anyone explain the reasoning to me?
Genuine question.
Steve
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.365 / Virus Database: 202 - Release Date: 25/05/02
Alan G
Do you really expect a religious fundy to have a sensible answer for
anything?
Alan G
Michael W. Lancaster
>
> I can't understand the theology that says
> there are such and such things you can't
> do on the Sabbath or whatever but you can
> actually do in a designated area, nor to
> I want anyone to explain it to me, since
> if that's what people want to do, it's up
> to them and I'm not particularly
> interested in what people do or don't do
> of a weekend so long as it doesn't
> involve me unless I want to get involved.
>
> However, what I don't quite understand
> is why it's necessary to designate this
> special area by sticking up poles and
> fishing line and so forth. If, as the
> article seems to suggest, you need some
> sort of physical deliniation of the
> designated area for the thing to work,
> what's wrong with saying 'OK, we'll
> consider the M25 to be the boundary' or
> even the coastline? That should solve
> all the problems.
>
> Can anyone explain the reasoning to me?
Well, I'll leave this to be answered by a Judaistic scholar
as far as the religious significance of eruvim is concerned
but practically speaking, why is this of concern to you?
Like you say, each to his own. Do the poles and fishing
lines in any way impinge on your liberties? Hardly. So let
them be.
Michael
--
http://www.anti-boycott-petition.org/
BUSINESSES -- Help the Israeli people
http://www.export.org.il/
Children of 'Palestine' -- a MUST SEE!
http://www.serve.com/lordgovernor/children/
BOEDICIA
>From: "Michael W. Lancaster" <lanc...@deadspam.com>
>Date: Sun, Aug 11, 2002 15:51 EDT
>Message-id: <Zez59.80952$Yb1....@sea-read.news.verio.net>
>Well, I'll leave this to be answered by a Judaistic scholar
>as far as the religious significance of eruvim is concerned
>but practically speaking, why is this of concern to you?
>Like you say, each to his own.
Judaism is evil and wicked?
Steve Glynn
"Michael W. Lancaster" <lanc...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:Zez59.80952$Yb1....@sea-read.news.verio.net...
though if, for example, the guy over the road or next door wanted to put up
a 30 foot flagpole in his front garden I'd probably object to his planning
application on the grounds I didn't particularly want to have to look at it
and it might reduce the value of my house.
Certainly in the piece R4's Today programme had about this on Saturday some
of the non orthodox Jews living in the area seemed pretty upset about the
proposal for various reasons, though.
I just wondered why, since it appears from examples given in the news report
halcombe reproduced, physical structures can be considered part of the
boundary of one of these areas, it wouldn't be possible to consider the
whole of the area within the M25 an eruv, thus making everyone happy.
That was all.
Steve
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.365 / Virus Database: 202 - Release Date: 24/05/02
lefty
against it.
I don't know what psychotic voodoo mumbo jumbo it serves for the believers
but it is strange that they should expose their madness to such a tangible
thing.
It is the obligation of each individual who wishes to use the Eruv to
ascertain, every Friday, that the Eruv is indeed functional. It is not
adequate for one to assume that the Eruv is functional if there have been no
storms or major adverse weather conditions during the previous week. Many
factors can invalidate an Eruv, and only specific authoritative confirmation
on Friday validates the Eruv for use each week.
There will be a lot of people having fun on Thursday nights with a pair of
scissors.
Or even on Fridays. What if someone cuts the line at 12:00 noon.
The following activities are never permitted on Shabbos: athletic
activities, bicycle riding, tennis, swimming, skating, sledding, ball
playing, watering the lawn, gardening, playing with water, putting trash out
for pickup, picking flowers, fruits, etc., playing in a sprinkler, playing
in a sandbox, bringing gifts to hosts on Shabbat or Yom Tov, mailing
letters, etc.
Even within the Eruv there are a number of common articles which, because
they are classified as Muktzah, may not be carried or handled on Shabbat at
home. Following is a partial catalogue of Muktzah items. All other questions
regarding Muktzah should be addressed to each person's Rabbi.
1.. Any item whose main use is prohibited on the Shabbat, e.g. hammer,
writing implement, wallet, purse, pocketbook, etc.
2.. Any item which is neither food nor a utensil that has a practical use
on the Shabbat, e.g. money, animal, stone, credit card, etc.
3.. Any item so valuable that one expends extra care for its safety, e.g.
passport, check, expensive painting, merchandise set aside for sale, etc.
4.. Any item attached to its source of growth at the onset of Shabbat but
which fell from its source of growth during Shabbat, etc.
5.. Any item which cannot be used on Shabbat or whose intended use is for
after Shabbat, e.g. car key or office key.
6.. An umbrella may not be carried even if opened before Shabbat or Yom
Tov.
7.. Gardening equipment, tools, athletic equipment and sleds.
There must be other things that make it invalid like killing a pig or a
lobster or something?
These poles and things are not public property so therefore as private
buildings must come in for taxes.
What would be the ratable value of an eruv? Would they only have to pay the
rates of the whole area on Fridays? Or would it be for the whole week?
Joe
<steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> Michael
>>
>They don't impinge on my liberties, certainly, since I don't live in London,
>though if, for example, the guy over the road or next door wanted to put up
>a 30 foot flagpole in his front garden I'd probably object to his planning
>application on the grounds I didn't particularly want to have to look at it
>and it might reduce the value of my house.
>
>Certainly in the piece R4's Today programme had about this on Saturday some
>of the non orthodox Jews living in the area seemed pretty upset about the
>proposal for various reasons, though.
>
>I just wondered why, since it appears from examples given in the news report
>halcombe reproduced, physical structures can be considered part of the
>boundary of one of these areas, it wouldn't be possible to consider the
>whole of the area within the M25 an eruv, thus making everyone happy.
>
>That was all.
>
>Steve
Instead of an Eruv, how about allowing some other form of get-out
clause?
For instance, if an orthodox Jew were to carry, say, a small jar of
pickled gherkins in an inside pocket, perhaps this could allow that
person to be exempt for Sabbath law?
It's worth a thought.
Of course, it doesn't have to be gherkins....alternatively, you could
carry garlic. This would have the added benefit of protecting against
vampires and unwanted admirers.
Joe
Joseph Hutcheon
>On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 21:49:14 +0100, "Steve Glynn"
><steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>They don't impinge on my liberties, certainly, since I don't live in London,
>>though if, for example, the guy over the road or next door wanted to put up
>>a 30 foot flagpole in his front garden I'd probably object to his planning
>>application on the grounds I didn't particularly want to have to look at it
>>and it might reduce the value of my house.
>>
>>Certainly in the piece R4's Today programme had about this on Saturday some
>>of the non orthodox Jews living in the area seemed pretty upset about the
>>proposal for various reasons, though.
>>
>>I just wondered why, since it appears from examples given in the news report
>>halcombe reproduced, physical structures can be considered part of the
>>boundary of one of these areas, it wouldn't be possible to consider the
>>whole of the area within the M25 an eruv, thus making everyone happy.
>>
>>That was all.
>>
>>Steve
>
>Instead of an Eruv, how about allowing some other form of get-out
>clause?
>
>For instance, if an orthodox Jew were to carry, say, a small jar of
>pickled gherkins in an inside pocket, perhaps this could allow that
>person to be exempt for Sabbath law?
Actually, can't they just stay inside all day with the curtains drawn?
>It's worth a thought.
>
>Of course, it doesn't have to be gherkins....alternatively, you could
>carry garlic. This would have the added benefit of protecting against
>vampires and unwanted admirers.
A stick of frozen garlic bread could be used as a makeshift truncheon.
Adam Littman
>On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 21:49:14 +0100, "Steve Glynn"
><steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Instead of an Eruv, how about allowing some other form of get-out
>clause?
>
>For instance, if an orthodox Jew were to carry, say, a small jar of
>pickled gherkins in an inside pocket, perhaps this could allow that
>person to be exempt for Sabbath law?
Two things, first, you aren't allowed to carry things on Shabbat, according to
the Orthodox rules.
Second, you mocking of the Jewish religion is noted, not funny, and not
appreciated. Go back to your cross burning.
*plonk*
--
___________
Adam Littman / ^ \
AL...@cornell.edu /\ / \ /\
/__\__/___\__/__\
/ \( ) ( )/ \
\ /\ o /\ /
\ / \( )/ \ /
"Four minutes twenty-two seconds, \/____\_/____\/
Baldric, you owe me a groat" \ \ /
--Blackadder \ / \ /
---------
Steve Glynn
"Joseph Hutcheon" <j.hut...@jisc.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3d57a0e1....@news.cis.dfn.de...
Or for driving a garlic steak through the heart?
Anyone else seen Polanski's 'Dance of the Vampires' (I think it's had a
couple of other titles as well)?
There's the marvellous scene where the old Jewish innkeeper, despite his
copious intake of garlic, gets vampirised, and then clambers up the wall of
his own inn to menace the innocent (though buxom) maiden who has made the
mistake of sleeping with the shutters open. She brandishes a crucifix at
him, only to be told
'Oi veh, but have you got the wrong symbol there!'.
But when the poor chap returns to the castle just before daybreak, the other
Wallachian vampires won't let him sleep in the crypt, since he's not really
one of them, and the poor chap has to stay in the stables.
I'm going to get up collection for him.
Joe
Littman) wrote:
>In article <7v6flukb8n8fopv3u...@4ax.com>, Joe <J...@the.office> wrote:
>>On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 21:49:14 +0100, "Steve Glynn"
>><steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>Instead of an Eruv, how about allowing some other form of get-out
>>clause?
>>
>>For instance, if an orthodox Jew were to carry, say, a small jar of
>>pickled gherkins in an inside pocket, perhaps this could allow that
>>person to be exempt for Sabbath law?
>
>Two things, first, you aren't allowed to carry things on Shabbat, according to
>the Orthodox rules.
>
>Second, you mocking of the Jewish religion is noted, not funny, and not
>appreciated. Go back to your cross burning.
Why burn a perfectly good cross when I can use it for my
runner beans?
Anyway, I wasn't mocking the Jewish religion per se, just one
particular superstitious practice.
Joe
Joseph Hutcheon
Tsk tsk. Only Jackie Mason is allowed to do that.
Greg Hennessy
wrote:
>>For instance, if an orthodox Jew were to carry, say, a small jar of
>>pickled gherkins in an inside pocket, perhaps this could allow that
>>person to be exempt for Sabbath law?
>
>Two things, first, you aren't allowed to carry things on Shabbat, according to
>the Orthodox rules.
We appreciate that. So why should the rest of the community facilitate the
breaking of a minority religious obligation. Other cities are able to have
an eruv without stringing fishing line on poles or obstructing private
property. Whats so special about the london borough of Barnet ?
I lived in Barnet when this kite was flown tried b4. The local authority
have NOT asked the local community and what's more, the very large "non
orthodox" locally are anything but pleased at what was described to me
personally as a "land grab" by the orthodox.
Property prices inside the eruv will appreciate a tad quicker than outside,
she didn't want to mention any names, but she asserted that a lot of
property had been preemptively purchased in expectation of it being
approved.
>Second, you mocking of the Jewish religion is noted, not funny, and not
>appreciated. Go back to your cross burning.
Given the good natured quality of articles from the poster in question,
that comment Sir is offensive and wholly unwarranted . May I suggest
turning off your sense of humour bypass, Jackie Mason has remarkable
restorative powers in this area.
greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#NOSPAM\.##;
'Let there be guitar', and there was guitar.....
'Let there be ROCK'
Susan Cohen
Joseph Hutcheon wrote:
BLECH! Can't stand that irritating clod....
Susan
Steve Glynn
And Lennie Bruce?
Steve Glynn
"Greg Hennessy" <nn...@NOSPAM.cmkrnl.cix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hqrfluoi6531m00f8...@4ax.com...
What I still want to know -- and I am honestly not having a go at anyone
else's religion, because I take mine quite seriously and I extend the same
respect to anyone else's -- is what need there is for all this fuss.
If, for whatever reason, I needed to know what the boundaries of 500 yards
from my local Catholic Church were, or what were the boundaries of my postal
district or the boundaries of my council ward, I would inform myself of them
if I thought it was important enough.
I wouldn't need thirty-foot poles and fishing lines to remind me.
Barton Whoops
<lanc...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>> "Steve Glynn" wrote:
>'OK, we'll
>> consider the M25 to be the boundary' or
>> even the coastline? That should solve
>> all the problems.
>>
>> Can anyone explain the reasoning to me?
>
>Well, I'll leave this to be answered by a Judaistic scholar
>as far as the religious significance of eruvim is concerned
>but practically speaking, why is this of concern to you?
>Like you say, each to his own. Do the poles and fishing
>lines in any way impinge on your liberties? Hardly. So let
>them be.
>
>Michael
Help me out here Michael [anyone?]...
A supersticious belief 'states' that certain things can't be done on
certain days. Certain adherents find this inconvenient so another
supersticion is adopted to get round this 'rule' - involving poles and
fishing line. Some residents object to their area being marked out as
such, and now the adherents are demanding logical [secular?]
justification for these objections? Sorry but there seem to be
double-standards at work here. Any objection to this eruv should be
accepted as just that and respected.
irgun43
"Barton Whoops" <bw3244REM...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d57a248...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 19:51:21 GMT, "Michael W. Lancaster"
> <lanc...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>
> Help me out here Michael [anyone?]...
> A supersticious belief 'states' that certain things can't be done on
> certain days.
Sir,
Every culture has its strange customs including that of carrying an
elderly woman throught the streets on a gaudy chariot, taking her to some
temple, pouring oil over her, and calling her "chief" after the ceremony.
Israel's people have theirs.
I have no objection whatsoever if you puff yourself up and say that you
( collectively) are masters of your land , sole arbiters of customs, and
those who don't like it to bugger off. I do have a big problem if you don't
apply the same standards to Jews living in their land.
irgun43
Susan Cohen
Barton Whoops wrote:
Yes. that of the secular people opposing on secular grounds but not
accepting secular counters to their objections.
> Any objection to this eruv should be
> accepted as just that and respected.
Why? Because you don't like the "superstition"?
The eruvim hurt no one. The only possible opposition wouldhave to be
bigotrym as, if the Jews didn't honestly publicize what they were doing,
they could put up the eruvim at night without anyone ever knowing or
seeing.
Susan
Michael W. Lancaster
>
> Help me out here Michael [anyone?]...
> A supersticious belief 'states' that certain things can't
be done on
> certain days. Certain adherents find this inconvenient so
another
> supersticion is adopted to get round this 'rule' -
involving poles and
> fishing line. Some residents object to their area being
marked out as
> such, and now the adherents are demanding logical
[secular?]
> justification for these objections? Sorry but there seem
to be
> double-standards at work here. Any objection to this eruv
should be
> accepted as just that and respected.
Barton, I don't pander to superstition or religion (little
or no difference between the two more often than not) but if
it makes people happy, let them be. It harms absolutely no
one; it's just a symbol, and in no way a provocative symbol
at that.
Greg Hennessy
wrote:
>If, for whatever reason, I needed to know what the boundaries of 500 yards
>from my local Catholic Church were, or what were the boundaries of my postal
>district or the boundaries of my council ward, I would inform myself of them
>if I thought it was important enough.
Exactly. A lot of kite flying going on over this issue.
>
>I wouldn't need thirty-foot poles and fishing lines to remind me.
>
I would have thought anyone with a smidgen of common sense would use the
M25 as a physical boundary, its not like anyone is going to wake up of a
Sat Morning an find its disappeared.
Steve Glynn
"Susan Cohen" <fla...@hers.com> wrote in message
news:3D5825B1...@hers.com...
But the bit I really don't understand, Susan, is why, were my religious
beliefs (which I take seriously, so I take other peoples' beliefs equally
seriously) to require me to demarcate an area, I would need to put up signs
to indicate the fact it was thus demarcated, particularly if people objected
to it, even though I couldn't see the point of their objections.
Look at it this way,
If my religion specified that there was a specical zone around Westminster
Cathederal. where I could or could not practice some articles of my faith
you would, I hope, respect that.
You would probably, however, be rather surprised, if I felt the need to
stick up thirty foot poles and fishing wire to demarcate that zone,
particularly if some of the residents objected. You might, even, wonder why
Glynn can't remember where this special zone is for himself, since he's
apparently so bothered about it.
lefty
"Steve Glynn" <steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:aj9f21$19eqij$1...@ID-139981.news.dfncis.de...
What I find bizarre about this is that a religion specifically says that
"certain things can't be done". That is, it it's like thou shalt not carry
things on a certain day. Or thou shalt not kill. Or thou shalt not covert
thy neighbours property". Then to get around those basic fundamental
intrinsic beliefs set in stone I guess by God some mere mortal rabbi or
something can erect some poles and string and get around it. It is BIZARRE.
I mean come on, is that how the Israelis are avoiding the 10 commandments in
Palestine without a guilty conscience simply by erecting some poles and
string and shooting innocent children and stealing land?
If it is so bloody easy to override the will of God then why not "pull" a
clove of garlic around on a piece of string like a dog!!! You wouldn't be
carrying anything! As long as the garlic hadn't been picked or fallen from a
tree on the same day it would be ok! Why do you need to have an area like
Golders Green??
This is total bullshit! This is setting a precedent for something in the
future!!
It will end in tears!!! Mark my words!!!
This report http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/06/Israel/spies7.html talks about
a box cutter. I'm not sure what one is but would it be useful for cutting
down one of these poles?
lefty
"Michael W. Lancaster" <lanc...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:heW59.81184$Yb1....@sea-read.news.verio.net...
> > "Barton Whoops" <bw3244REM...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> > Help me out here Michael [anyone?]...
> > A supersticious belief 'states' that certain things can't
> be done on
> > certain days. Certain adherents find this inconvenient so
> another
> > supersticion is adopted to get round this 'rule' -
> involving poles and
> > fishing line. Some residents object to their area being
> marked out as
> > such, and now the adherents are demanding logical
> [secular?]
> > justification for these objections? Sorry but there seem
> to be
> > double-standards at work here. Any objection to this eruv
> should be
> > accepted as just that and respected.
>
> Barton, I don't pander to superstition or religion (little
> or no difference between the two more often than not) but if
> it makes people happy, let them be. It harms absolutely no
> one; it's just a symbol, and in no way a provocative symbol
> at that.
IT IS NOT JUST A SYMBOL!!
The Torah permits carrying within an enclosed "private" area on Shabbat and
Yom Kippur. Such an area enclosed and considered "private" may vary in size
from a small home to an entire community.
How did you determine the borders?
The critical element is to make sure that the borders are "defensible."
That is, the borders should be composed of materials and constructions that
are durable and stand little chance of damage over time.
That "private" and "critical" part are what make it more than "JUST A
SYMBOL"
I guarantee if you look at the map that the area is "defensible"!! It will
be drawn so that the line doesn't cross any open spaces!! It is a military
boundary!
This whole load of religious rubbish can be done on a house by house basis.
There should not be borders like this in whole areas of north London!!
BOEDICIA
>Date: Mon, Aug 12, 2002 17:03 EDT
>Message-id: <aj97qk$nbj$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>
>Every culture has its strange customs including that of carrying an
>elderly woman throught the streets on a gaudy chariot, taking her to some
>temple, pouring oil over her, and calling her "chief" after the ceremony.
If you are referring Her Majesty The Queen, she was only 27 at her Coronation.
The "gaudy chariot" was The State Coach
and the pouring of holy oil was taken from the coronations of The kings of
Israel, starting with King Saul and continuing to
the present time in keeping with the belief that The Monarchs of Britain are
descended from King David via the last King of Judah, King Zedekiah.
Of course, you being an ignorant yid
would have no knowledge of such traditions, since you lot are for the most
part atheistic Bolshevik "Offspring of Vipers'. I suggest you read "Kings" in
the O.T. particualrly the part when the
"people shouted God Save the King"
after Saul was crowned.
In what city of Israel do you live - Brighton Beach?
Joseph Hutcheon
<steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Lenny Bruce was a great comedian (you know that crucifixion thing ...
it was just a party that got out of hand). Jackie Mason ..
Joseph Hutcheon
wrote:
Me neither. He sounds like he's god a poimenant cold in de hoid.
Michael W. Lancaster
Does it and would it bother you or any member of the public
AT ALL? No. So let them have it.
Susan Cohen
Steve Glynn wrote:
Hmm, while I am a bit surprised that signs would need to be put up, I can see
why it's possible: eruvuim are invisible, & a reminder would be helpful. In
fact, it might serve to ensure the entire idea of the eruv isn't negated.
> particularly if people objected
> to it, even though I couldn't see the point of their objections.
How many other signs are objected to & why?
(IOW, I can guess the point oftheir objections, seeing as how it's all
harmless).
> Look at it this way,
>
> If my religion specified that there was a specical zone around Westminster
> Cathederal. where I could or could not practice some articles of my faith
> you would, I hope, respect that.
>
> You would probably, however, be rather surprised, if I felt the need to
> stick up thirty foot poles and fishing wire to demarcate that zone,
> particularly if some of the residents objected.
Is the UK utterly devoid of telephone poles?? It's been a few years since I was
there, so things might have changed.
> You might, even, wonder why
> Glynn can't remember where this special zone is for himself, since he's
> apparently so bothered about it.
Because the zone is invisble to the naked eye.
Susan
Steve Glynn
"Michael W. Lancaster" <lanc...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:MYe69.84677$Yb1....@sea-read.news.verio.net...
The problem is, Michael, that this proposal does seem to bother a lot of
people living in the area rather a lot.
The secular Jews resident there are apparently the people most bothered.
Explain to me, please, why I should start sticking up thirty foot poles and
festooning the area with loads of fishing lines to satisfy my religious
beliefs if someone else objects.
Steve
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.365 / Virus Database: 202 - Release Date: 24/05/02
Michael W. Lancaster
>
> The problem is, Michael, that this proposal does
> seem to bother a lot of people living in the area
> rather a lot.
>
> The secular Jews resident there are apparently
> the people most bothered.
>
> Explain to me, please, why I should start sticking
> up thirty foot poles and festooning the area with
> loads of fishing lines to satisfy my religious
> beliefs if someone else objects.
Do people have the right to freedom of religion? Yes, so
long as it doesn't encroach on anyone else's fundamental
liberties. Does this proposal thus encroach? No. Simple.
Greg Hennessy
<lanc...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>Do people have the right to freedom of religion? Yes, so
>long as it doesn't encroach on anyone else's fundamental
>liberties. Does this proposal thus encroach? No. Simple.
Yes it does Mr L. The poles are being erected in such a way as to obstruct
private property. There are at least half a dozen locations where the newly
erected poles are preventing windows from being opened and/or are
obstructing rights of way/footpaths.
Putting up 30 ft poles with NO local consultation is an encroachment of
planning law, this has nothing to do with religion. Its allegedly got lots
to do with property speculation (jew AND gentile) having the inside track
with the LA.
On a side note. (speaking as someone who gave up the crutch of religion a
long time ago)
If an organised religion can alter its dogma such that the outside can
become the inside in terms of what can/cannot be done on the sabbath.
Its not beyond the wit of those who accept this as being right and proper,
to come up with a somewhat more robust geographical means via
roads/rivers/railways of delineating whats in the eruv and what is not. The
end result is identical, and unlike poles and fishing line, the NCR & A41
are not likely to blow away in a storm.
Susan Cohen
"Michael W. Lancaster" wrote:
> > "Steve Glynn" <steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote
> >
> > The problem is, Michael, that this proposal does
> > seem to bother a lot of people living in the area
> > rather a lot.
> >
> > The secular Jews resident there are apparently
> > the people most bothered.
> >
> > Explain to me, please, why I should start sticking
> > up thirty foot poles and festooning the area with
> > loads of fishing lines to satisfy my religious
> > beliefs if someone else objects.
>
> Do people have the right to freedom of religion? Yes, so
> long as it doesn't encroach on anyone else's fundamental
> liberties. Does this proposal thus encroach? No. Simple.
I still don't get the poles bit. Don't they have telephone
poles in the UK anymore?? This stuff never even is *seen*
unless you use a cherry picker!!
Susan
Susan Cohen
Greg Hennessy wrote:
> If an organised religion can alter its dogma such that the outside can
> become the inside in terms of what can/cannot be done on the sabbath.
But it's not "altering the dogma". It's utilizing laws that you are unaware of.
(I assume you meant to say something after the period, but forgot??)
> Its not beyond the wit of those who accept this as being right and proper,
> to come up with a somewhat more robust geographical means via
> roads/rivers/railways of delineating whats in the eruv and what is not.
Oh. this is what you meant. The problem is that you don't know what you're
talking about. Roads, rivers & railways are *not* walls, which is what the
poles are supposed to be (yes, they *do* fit the Jewish legal definition of
walls).
> The
> end result is identical,
No, the "result" is impossible.
> and unlike poles and fishing line, the NCR & A41
> are not likely to blow away in a storm.
Again, why on earth can't they use telephone poles???
Susan
Robert Matson
Yes it would be interesting to know by what mechanism an eruv works,
and why they believe in it. Presumably there's some authority for this
partial abrogation of the Mosaic law. And, if so, perhaps Christians
would be able to make use of the eruv too. Maybe if you'd given
something up for Lent, you could hide in the eruv and indulge. Can't
wait.
Robert Matson
> In article <7v6flukb8n8fopv3u...@4ax.com>, Joe <J...@the.office> wrote:
> >On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 21:49:14 +0100, "Steve Glynn"
> ><steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >Instead of an Eruv, how about allowing some other form of get-out
> >clause?
> >
> >For instance, if an orthodox Jew were to carry, say, a small jar of
> >pickled gherkins in an inside pocket, perhaps this could allow that
> >person to be exempt for Sabbath law?
>
> Two things, first, you aren't allowed to carry things on Shabbat, according to
> the Orthodox rules.
>
> Second, you mocking of the Jewish religion is noted, not funny, and not
> appreciated. Go back to your cross burning.
>
The very idea of an eruv makes a mockery of the Ten Commandments if you ask me.
Greg Hennessy
Good morning Susan.
>But it's not "altering the dogma". It's utilizing laws that you are unaware of.
I have no doubt of that, my knowledge of halacha could be inscribed on the
head of a pin with a hammer and very blunt chisel :-).
However, you are referring to a set of 'laws' and obligations whose writ
runs to a very small section of the local population. The larger community
has no obligation to facilitate *all* the needs/requirement of any
minority, religious or otherwise.
This is not a gentile versus jewish issue and it cannot be represented as
such. Both secular and the ultra orthodox have some serious issues with the
whole notion of an eruv for their own reasons.
>> Its not beyond the wit of those who accept this as being right and proper,
>> to come up with a somewhat more robust geographical means via
>> roads/rivers/railways of delineating whats in the eruv and what is not.
>
>Oh. this is what you meant. The problem is that you don't know what you're
>talking about. Roads, rivers & railways are *not* walls, which is what the
>poles are supposed to be (yes, they *do* fit the Jewish legal definition of
>walls).
Which brings us back to my prior point. An eruv by its very nature is an
*artificial* construct to allow the observant to get around their sabbath
obligations. Saying its the *law* doesn't change that.
If its possible to construct boundaries out of fishing line, then I am sure
there are other ways and means to achieve the same.
>> The
>> end result is identical,
> No, the "result" is impossible.
May I suggest having a chat with those who setup the Eruv in Amsterdam, I
believe uses canals as the boundary and appears to function just fine.
Nothing is impossible if the will to make it happen is there.
>
>Again, why on earth can't they use telephone poles???
>
Because there are none Susan, Most phone cabling went below ground in
London a long long time ago.
Steve Glynn
>
>
> Greg Hennessy wrote:
>
> > If an organised religion can alter its dogma such that the outside can
> > become the inside in terms of what can/cannot be done on the sabbath.
>
> But it's not "altering the dogma". It's utilizing laws that you are
unaware of.
>
> (I assume you meant to say something after the period, but forgot??)
>
> > Its not beyond the wit of those who accept this as being right and
proper,
> > to come up with a somewhat more robust geographical means via
> > roads/rivers/railways of delineating whats in the eruv and what is not.
>
> Oh. this is what you meant. The problem is that you don't know what you're
> talking about. Roads, rivers & railways are *not* walls, which is what the
> poles are supposed to be (yes, they *do* fit the Jewish legal definition
of
> walls).
>
In that case, the law, as Mr Bumble remarked, is an ass. I know what a
wall looks like, and they are very rarely built of poles and fishing lines.
Steve
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.365 / Virus Database: 202 - Release Date: 25/05/02
Susan Cohen
Robert Matson wrote:
Now if only you knew what you were talking about.
Susan
Susan Cohen
Greg Hennessy wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 21:24:00 -0400, Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com> wrote:
>
> Good morning Susan.
>
> >But it's not "altering the dogma". It's utilizing laws that you are unaware of.
>
> I have no doubt of that, my knowledge of halacha could be inscribed on the
> head of a pin with a hammer and very blunt chisel :-).
>
> However, you are referring to a set of 'laws' and obligations whose writ
> runs to a very small section of the local population. The larger community
> has no obligation to facilitate *all* the needs/requirement of any
> minority, religious or otherwise.
Depends on where you live, what precedents have been set, etc.
> This is not a gentile versus jewish issue and it cannot be represented as
> such.
Well, again, it depends. It *might* be - but it seems in this case it is not.
> Both secular and the ultra orthodox have some serious issues with the
> whole notion of an eruv for their own reasons.
I know.
> >> Its not beyond the wit of those who accept this as being right and proper,
> >> to come up with a somewhat more robust geographical means via
> >> roads/rivers/railways of delineating whats in the eruv and what is not.
> >
> >Oh. this is what you meant. The problem is that you don't know what you're
> >talking about. Roads, rivers & railways are *not* walls, which is what the
> >poles are supposed to be (yes, they *do* fit the Jewish legal definition of
> >walls).
>
> Which brings us back to my prior point. An eruv by its very nature is an
> *artificial* construct to allow the observant to get around their sabbath
> obligations. Saying its the *law* doesn't change that.
> If its possible to construct boundaries out of fishing line, then I am sure
> there are other ways and means to achieve the same.
But they cannot be things that do *not* constitute walls, halachicly speaking.
>
>
> >> The
> >> end result is identical,
>
> > No, the "result" is impossible.
>
> May I suggest having a chat with those who setup the Eruv in Amsterdam, I
> believe uses canals as the boundary and appears to function just fine.
> Nothing is impossible if the will to make it happen is there.
>
> >
> >Again, why on earth can't they use telephone poles???
> >
>
> Because there are none Susan, Most phone cabling went below ground in
> London a long long time ago.
Aha! I was wondering about this, and had asked a couple times.
Hmmm. No wonder they felt they had to put up poles.
But they should *not* be put where they will bother people.
Susan
Greg Hennessy
>
>Depends on where you live, what precedents have been set, etc.
Of course.
>
>But they cannot be things that do *not* constitute walls, halachicly speaking.
But I'd assume the fences and embankments running along side them would.
>Hmmm. No wonder they felt they had to put up poles.
>But they should *not* be put where they will bother people.
Despite contraindications from other posters to uk.p.m. The English on the
whole are tolerant bothering on indifference when it comes to matters of
religion. However the planning system is a wholly different kettle of fish
:-).
Michael W. Lancaster
>> "Michael W. Lancaster" wrote:
>>> "Steve Glynn" <steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote
>>>
>>> The problem is, Michael, that this proposal does
>>> seem to bother a lot of people living in the area
>>> rather a lot.
>>>
>>> The secular Jews resident there are apparently
>>> the people most bothered.
>>>
>>> Explain to me, please, why I should start sticking
>>> up thirty foot poles and festooning the area with
>>> loads of fishing lines to satisfy my religious
>>> beliefs if someone else objects.
>>
>> Do people have the right to freedom of religion? Yes, so
>> long as it doesn't encroach on anyone else's fundamental
>> liberties. Does this proposal thus encroach? No.
Simple.
>
> I still don't get the poles bit. Don't they have telephone
> poles in the UK anymore??
Telephone poles, pylons, lampposts, traffic lights--you name
it.
> This stuff never even is *seen*
> unless you use a cherry picker!!
Or unless you have something against Jews.
Susan Cohen
Greg Hennessy wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2002 12:14:48 -0400, Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Depends on where you live, what precedents have been set, etc.
>
> Of course.
>
> >
> >But they cannot be things that do *not* constitute walls, halachicly speaking.
>
> But I'd assume the fences and embankments running along side them would.
Fences would if they were high enough, sure. In fact, high-enough fences would
remove the need for an eruv.
> >Hmmm. No wonder they felt they had to put up poles.
> >But they should *not* be put where they will bother people.
>
> Despite contraindications from other posters to uk.p.m. The English on the
> whole are tolerant bothering on indifference when it comes to matters of
> religion. However the planning system is a wholly different kettle of fish
> :-).
Most of the English (or British - yes, I knowit;s different) people that I've met,
on and off Usenet, are lovely. Of course, when a British person decides to be a
jerk, they do it up *right* (so to speak! Or maybe I just notice it more??)
Susan
Robert Matson
If only. Admittedly I am restricted to working from translations, but
like Jerome I will, of course, defer to The Jews on such matters. I
find no reference to eruvs in Exodus 20 for example.
I have asked for an explanation elswhere in this thread. And no-one
has yet offered one. On the evidence I have seen it`s an irreligious
fudge and fully deserves to be ridiculed until someone offers an
explanation. As I allude to elsewhere, I am particulary interested in
trying to figure out whether Christians can also make use of it.
Robert Matson
> "Michael W. Lancaster" wrote:
>
> > > "Steve Glynn" <steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote
> > >
> > > The problem is, Michael, that this proposal does
> > > seem to bother a lot of people living in the area
> > > rather a lot.
> > >
> > > The secular Jews resident there are apparently
> > > the people most bothered.
> > >
> > > Explain to me, please, why I should start sticking
> > > up thirty foot poles and festooning the area with
> > > loads of fishing lines to satisfy my religious
> > > beliefs if someone else objects.
> >
> > Do people have the right to freedom of religion? Yes, so
> > long as it doesn't encroach on anyone else's fundamental
> > liberties. Does this proposal thus encroach? No. Simple.
>
> I still don't get the poles bit. Don't they have telephone
> poles in the UK anymore?? This stuff never even is *seen*
> unless you use a cherry picker!!
>
So they need the fishing wire (or whatever it is) so they can figure
out where the eruv is. Surely since the fishing wire is invisible,
they`re not going to be able to use it to figure out where it is?
lefty
>
>
> Greg Hennessy wrote:
>
> > If an organised religion can alter its dogma such that the outside can
> > become the inside in terms of what can/cannot be done on the sabbath.
>
> But it's not "altering the dogma". It's utilizing laws that you are
unaware of.
>
> (I assume you meant to say something after the period, but forgot??)
>
> > Its not beyond the wit of those who accept this as being right and
proper,
> > to come up with a somewhat more robust geographical means via
> > roads/rivers/railways of delineating whats in the eruv and what is not.
>
> Oh. this is what you meant. The problem is that you don't know what you're
> talking about. Roads, rivers & railways are *not* walls, which is what the
> poles are supposed to be (yes, they *do* fit the Jewish legal definition
of
> walls).
>
> > The
> > end result is identical,
>
> No, the "result" is impossible.
>
> > and unlike poles and fishing line, the NCR & A41
> > are not likely to blow away in a storm.
>
> Again, why on earth can't they use telephone poles???
The whole point of an eruv is that it reflects the old walled city of
Jerusalem and so it must be surrounded by a defensible wall. The rules are
being bent about what can and can't be done on the Sabbath by doing them
behind an eruv. The rules are being bent even further by not having the eruv
within a defensible wall but within some poles and string. The rules are
being bent even further by saying that the boundary can be a road! There is
nothing about a road that is remotely similar to a wall except maybe it's
composition. Having decided that the boundary to an eruv can be a road there
are not many places in the uk that can't be delineated by a road. There are
no places in Golders Green that can't be finely delineated by a road [1][2].
It is a completely built up area for God's sake! The whole areas is covered
in small sideroads.
If the boundary of an eruv can be a road then why do the poles need to be
erected along pavements? All pavements are beside roads. If the boundary
needs both a road AND the poles and string then will poles be erected along
the M1 and A1?
Most reports e.g. [3] talk of an area of 6.5 sq miles and a boundary length
of 11.5 miles but if you look are the maps [1][2] and use the M1/A1 as part
of the boundary then the eruv wouldn't even cover Golders Green.
Could it be that in a few years time when the eruv has been in existence
they start pushing for a defensible wall around it. The argument being that
nobody has minded it being there for such a long time and in reality a legal
boundary should really be a defensible wall. Then what next? Enclosing the
heights of Hampstead Heath for security measures?
[1]
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=525110&y=187525&z=3&sv=525500,187500
&st=4&ar=Y&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf
[2]
http://getamap.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/jsp/map_print.jsp?mapX=524220&mapY=18804
6&zoomLevel=7&isNI=&mapAction=zoomabs&isGeo=y
[3] http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/archived/2002/0111/news/asp/backers.asp
lefty
>
> "Michael W. Lancaster" <lanc...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
> news:Zez59.80952$Yb1....@sea-read.news.verio.net...
> > > "Steve Glynn" wrote:
> > >
> > > I can't understand the theology that says
> > > there are such and such things you can't
> > > do on the Sabbath or whatever but you can
> > > actually do in a designated area, nor to
> > > I want anyone to explain it to me, since
> > > if that's what people want to do, it's up
> > > to them and I'm not particularly
> > > interested in what people do or don't do
> > > of a weekend so long as it doesn't
> > > involve me unless I want to get involved.
> > >
> > > However, what I don't quite understand
> > > is why it's necessary to designate this
> > > special area by sticking up poles and
> > > fishing line and so forth. If, as the
> > > article seems to suggest, you need some
> > > sort of physical deliniation of the
> > > designated area for the thing to work,
> > > what's wrong with saying 'OK, we'll
> > > consider the M25 to be the boundary' or
> > > even the coastline? That should solve
> > > all the problems.
> > >
> > > Can anyone explain the reasoning to me?
> >
> > Well, I'll leave this to be answered by a Judaistic scholar
> > as far as the religious significance of eruvim is concerned
> > but practically speaking, why is this of concern to you?
> > Like you say, each to his own. Do the poles and fishing
> > lines in any way impinge on your liberties? Hardly. So let
> > them be.
> >
> > Michael
> >
London,
> though if, for example, the guy over the road or next door wanted to put
up
> a 30 foot flagpole in his front garden I'd probably object to his planning
> application on the grounds I didn't particularly want to have to look at
it
> and it might reduce the value of my house.
>
> Certainly in the piece R4's Today programme had about this on Saturday
some
> of the non orthodox Jews living in the area seemed pretty upset about the
> proposal for various reasons, though.
>
> I just wondered why, since it appears from examples given in the news
report
> halcombe reproduced, physical structures can be considered part of the
> boundary of one of these areas, it wouldn't be possible to consider the
> whole of the area within the M25 an eruv, thus making everyone happy.
>
> That was all.
>
> Steve
I came across this http://books.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,3975217,00.html
and the second from last para seems to suggest that the M25 is already an
eruv.
Susan Cohen
Robert Matson wrote:
No! They need it to form the top of the wall.
> Surely since the fishing wire is invisible,
> they`re not going to be able to use it to figure out where it is?
No, that's not it at all.
Susan Cohen
Robert Matson wrote:
> I find no reference to eruvs in Exodus 20 for example.
Have you read the Talmud?
> I have asked for an explanation elswhere in this thread.
I apologize for missing it. But, then again, it took me three posts to get an answer about the telephone
poles!
> And no-one
> has yet offered one.
I was pretty sur I had said why they were needed somewhere - or perhaps I figured the entire thread had
started out with why they were needesd. In fact, i'm prtty sure it wsa mentioned somehwre. But things do get
lost, o I'll state it here.
Jews are forbidden to carry on Shabbos (& similarly high holy days) except on private, enclosed propoerty.
Usually, this means "indoors", and it keeps Jews from carrying house keys, or comfortable shoes, or pushing
strollers (I've never been able to figure out why that last is included in the list. Maybe it's carrying the
baby bag slung over the shoulder that's the problem) to synagogue, or taking food to each other's houses for
purposes of visiting and celebrating the holiday. Stuff like that.
Now, if the Jews can get together & say "We have a community here," & if they put up a wall (the poles with
the fishing wire strung between them) aruond it, it counts as enclosed space & they can carry.
> On the evidence I have seen it`s an irreligious fudge
Even withot the explanation, you could not make such a judgement, unless you are prepared to say we're lying.
I don't think you are.
> and fully deserves to be ridiculed until someone offers an
> explanation.
That's rather sad, since it's based on your own ignorance - admittedly, ignorance you have tried in a way to
overcome.
> As I allude to elsewhere, I am particulary interested in
> trying to figure out whether Christians can also make use of it.
Do they have a rule that would keep them from doing something unless they are in a legally enclosed space?
IOW, they could "use" it the same way I'm allowed to "use" the bicycle lanes on the public roads - they're
not Jews & couldn't care less about our laws, and I don't own a bicycle so never need the lanes.
Now that I think about it, the bicycle lanes are more intrusive than the eruv.
Anyone can walk around in the space where the eruv is, but only bicycles are allowed in the bicycle lanes....
Susan
lefty
> erected along pavements? All pavements are beside roads. If the boundary
> needs both a road AND the poles and string then will poles be erected
along
> the M1 and A1?
> Most reports e.g. [3] talk of an area of 6.5 sq miles and a boundary
length
> of 11.5 miles but if you look are the maps [1][2] and use the M1/A1 as
part
> of the boundary then the eruv wouldn't even cover Golders Green.
Sorry to reply to my own post but I came across this
http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/search/display.html?nwid=458790
Taking in Hendon, Golders Green, Hampstead Garden Subrub and parts of Childs
Hill, Cricklewood, East Finchley, Finchley and Mill Hill, the 11square mile
boundary, which allows orthodox Jews to carry out tasks involving carrying,
otherwise banned on the sabbath, can begin to be erected as soon as details
such as the colour of poles and maintenance are agreed.
I guess 11 square miles just might cover it. That is a very big chunk of
north London and a lot bigger than has been reported elsewhere. That takes
in a lot of houses of worship from a lot of religions. I wonder how people
would feel if a synagogue was built around a mosque or a church. Could they
still be considered holy? I doubt it.
Adam Littman
Well, suppose someone object to you owning a Christmas tree, putting up
christmas lights, caroling, wearing ashes on your forehead on Ash
Wednesday, etc, etc. etc.
In a tolerant society we accomodate harmless religious practices, despite what
bigots like yourself would like us to do.
The Jews can answer the question of how it benefits them. Can you answer the
question of how it harms you? Can you come up with an answer that would still
be relevant if you weren't an anti-Jewish bigot?
--
___________
Adam Littman / ^ \
AL...@cornell.edu /\ / \ /\
/__\__/___\__/__\
/ \( ) ( )/ \
\ /\ o /\ /
\ / \( )/ \ /
"Four minutes twenty-two seconds, \/____\_/____\/
Baldric, you owe me a groat" \ \ /
--Blackadder \ / \ /
---------
Adam Littman
Let me consult my memory. Nope, I don't remember anyone asking you.
If the Jewish religion decides to elect a Jewish Pope, and you win the
election, then your opinion will be worth more than a gob of spit. Until then,
we will go with Jewish Law, rather than bigot's opinion, thank you very much.
Adam Littman
>On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 21:24:00 -0400, Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com> wrote:
>
>Good morning Susan.
>
>>But it's not "altering the dogma". It's utilizing laws that you are unaware
> of.
>
>I have no doubt of that, my knowledge of halacha could be inscribed on the
>head of a pin with a hammer and very blunt chisel :-).
>
>However, you are referring to a set of 'laws' and obligations whose writ
>runs to a very small section of the local population. The larger community
>has no obligation to facilitate *all* the needs/requirement of any
>minority, religious or otherwise.
You aren't being asked to "facilitate" them. Just don't interfere in something
that doesn't affect or concern you.
>Which brings us back to my prior point. An eruv by its very nature is an
>*artificial* construct to allow the observant to get around their sabbath
>obligations. Saying its the *law* doesn't change that.
>If its possible to construct boundaries out of fishing line, then I am sure
>there are other ways and means to achieve the same.
And as I told the other bloke, when you get elected the Jewish Pope, then your
opinion will matter. Until then, as the expression goes, "quit whining when
you ain't been stuck".
Nick Cooper
> I have asked for an explanation elswhere in this thread. And no-one
> has yet offered one. On the evidence I have seen it`s an irreligious
> fudge and fully deserves to be ridiculed until someone offers an
> explanation. As I allude to elsewhere, I am particulary interested in
> trying to figure out whether Christians can also make use of it.
So Catholics can eat meat on a Friday, perhaps?
Nick Cooper
>
> However, what I don't quite understand is why it's necessary to designate
> this special area by sticking up poles and fishing line and so forth. If,
> as the article seems to suggest, you need some sort of physical deliniation
> we'll consider the M25 to be the boundary' or even the coastline? That
> should solve all the problems.
It also seems strange that Barnet's website
(http://www.barnet.gov.uk/) seems to contain no mention of the
eruv....
Greg Hennessy
wrote:
>You aren't being asked to "facilitate" them.
Anything that requires planning permission *and* the installation of poles
on public and private property over an 11 mile perimeter does. The local
authority (Barnet) are not the only people who have to be satisfied. The
'Transport for London' quango have to be kept happy also, one couldn't have
buses getting tangled up in fishing line now could we. That makes it a
*public* matter.
Its *highly* possible that *all* local taxpayers *may* end up having to
contribute to protecting the installations from NFronter louts with single
digit IQs. That makes it *public* matter.
Given you are a yank posting from Cornell, you may not be aware of the
planning laws & building regs here in London. They are a PITA, however they
are allegedly there for the benefit of the *whole* community & we all have
to live with them.
> Just don't interfere in something
>that doesn't affect or concern you.
Pardon ? Seeing you are a latecomer to this discussion I'll cut you some
slack. What part of the intelligent conversation Ms Cohen & I had did you
*NOT* comprehend ? From
Message-ID: <4hmllu48ciaseaqk1...@4ax.com>
# The poles are being erected in such a way as to obstruct
>private property. There are at least half a dozen locations where the newly
>erected poles are preventing windows from being opened and/or are
>obstructing rights of way/footpaths.
Nothing to do with religion, Nothing to do with alleged anti semitism.
Everything thing to do with bad planning and piss poor implementation.
As I mentioned in
Message-ID: <5qjmlucvltp602qjt...@4ax.com>
#Both secular and the ultra orthodox have some serious issues with the
>whole notion of an eruv for their own reasons.
I suggest reading the letters page in the local papers. Some of the most
vocal opponents against an 'orthodox ghetto' identify themselves as being
Jewish. Does their opinion not count in this matter ?
>And as I told the other bloke, when you get elected the Jewish Pope, then your
>opinion will matter. Until then, as the expression goes, "quit whining when
>you ain't been stuck".
Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one. But your rude ill considered
commentary stinks more than most.
Regards
Steve Glynn
I'm coming at this from a rather different angle, and I have to say I'm
still confused. Either something is, literally, an enclosed structure or
it's only symbolically enclosed. Thus, no one would argue that my house,
Brixton Prison, Windsor Castle, or the City of Chester, or Regent's Park Zoo
are not enclosed by walls and fences (though I suppose you could argue that
the roads into Chester are not blocked by gates and that you could, if you
wanted to, get into Regent's Park Zoo from the canal system).
Equally clearly, poles and fishing lines are a symbolic enclosure, since
they aren't going to stop people getting in and out.
Now, since it's clearly possible to distinguish between areas without using
poles, fishing lines, or any other physical objects for very real
purposes -- we don't, after all, have physical objects designating the
boundaries between London Boroughs, but just you try arguing that you ought
to be paying Council Tax to the next borough to yours because that would be
cheaper, or voting in a parliamentary constituency other than the one in
which you are resident -- what on earth is the point of sticking up poles
and such if some residents object?
IOW, why can't 'the area enclosed by the following roads' be equally as
valid a symbolic boundary as 'the area enclosed by these poles'?
Steve
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.365 / Virus Database: 202 - Release Date: 24/05/02
Steve Glynn
"lefty" <lefty...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1029475450.5206.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
<snip>
This is becoming increasingly confusing. If the criterion is that the area
is defensible, then self-evidently Moscow, St Petersburg and Volgograd
(previously Leningrad and Stalingrad) are defensible, despite being
surrounded by neither walls nor poles.
Susan Cohen
Greg Hennessy wrote:
> Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one. But your rude ill considered
> commentary stinks more than most.
Unfortumately, Adam & I are used to people whose sole objection would be religious,
and who would be *trumping up* secular reasons in order to keep Jews from doing
*anything*, solely because they were Jews.
Yes, Adam missed more of the thread than I did, and that's saying something!
Susan
lefty
blind people of Barnet. I guess because so many poles would disrupt blind
people. Which depending on the spacing is a very valid objection. Are the
blind people of Barnet anti-semitic?
Another objection was that it is against human rights. I'm not sure I follow
this but the argument is that because the gateways into the eruv are very
significant crossing the gateway might infringe on some peoples human
rights.
Apparently a few eruvs have been closed (Sydney?) because of constant damage
due to things such as lightening.
I haven't been able to find an exact map of the eruv but if some of the
roads mentioned are used and there are constant breakages of the string then
there will be a huge disruption to traffic. Anyone who knows the area know
what the traffic is like around there on a Friday.
Binyamin Dissen
[ snipped ]
I wonder why people are responding to the neo-nazi, but as there are some
factual errors below I will correct them.
:>Jews are forbidden to carry on Shabbos (& similarly high holy days) except on private, enclosed propoerty.
The prohibition is on either transporting an object more than four cubits in a
public domain or between a private domain and a public domain. The terms
"private domain" and "public domain" have technical definitions.
Also, the prohibition only applies to Shabbat and Yom Kippur - no other
holidays.
:>Usually, this means "indoors", and it keeps Jews from carrying house keys, or comfortable shoes, or pushing
:>strollers (I've never been able to figure out why that last is included in the list. Maybe it's carrying the
:>baby bag slung over the shoulder that's the problem) to synagogue, or taking food to each other's houses for
:>purposes of visiting and celebrating the holiday. Stuff like that.
Because the prohibition is not on carrying, it is on transporting. It does not
matter if you carry or drag.
:>Now, if the Jews can get together & say "We have a community here," & if they put up a wall (the poles with
:>the fishing wire strung between them) aruond it, it counts as enclosed space & they can carry.
The issue was that there were (still are?) many uneducated Jews that did not
understand the technical definitions of domains and thus assumed because
domain A seemed like domain B and they saw Rabbis (or other educated Jews)
transporting between their houses and A assumed that they could also transport
between their houses and B - committing a serious violation.
The Rabbis, concerned by this issue, issued a decree that one may not
transport between an obvious private domain and a private domain that looks
like a public domain. They also decreed that if an Eruv was put up which
clearly showed that the domain was private then transport would be allowed.
:>> On the evidence I have seen it`s an irreligious fudge
:>Even withot the explanation, you could not make such a judgement, unless you are prepared to say we're lying.
:>I don't think you are.
Many reformed and conservative make similar statements, though in their case
it is merely due to a lack of education - that their parents felt that it was
not worth giving their children a Jewish education. In his case, however, it
is most likely neo-nazi leanings.
[ snipped ]
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Greg Hennessy
>Unfortumately, Adam & I are used to people whose sole objection would be religious,
>and who would be *trumping up* secular reasons in order to keep Jews from doing
>*anything*, solely because they were Jews.
I can see where you're coming from Susan. There are one or two of the type
you refer to in this neck of the woods.
Personally, being one of those tolerant bordering on indifferent Londoners
I warned you about :-). The notion of an Eruv is not going to keep me awake
at night fulminating.
Susan Cohen
Binyamin Dissen wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Aug 2002 02:28:07 -0400 Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com> wrote:
>
> [ snipped ]
>
> I wonder why people are responding to the neo-nazi, but as there are some
> factual errors below I will correct them.
I was not trying to be all that specific. And I don't think the person to whom I was responding is a neo-nazi.
> :>Jews are forbidden to carry on Shabbos (& similarly high holy days) except on private, enclosed propoerty.
>
> The prohibition is on either transporting an object more than four cubits in a
> public domain or between a private domain and a public domain. The terms
> "private domain" and "public domain" have technical definitions.
>
> Also, the prohibition only applies to Shabbat and Yom Kippur - no other
> holidays.
>
> :>Usually, this means "indoors", and it keeps Jews from carrying house keys, or comfortable shoes, or pushing
> :>strollers (I've never been able to figure out why that last is included in the list. Maybe it's carrying the
> :>baby bag slung over the shoulder that's the problem) to synagogue, or taking food to each other's houses for
> :>purposes of visiting and celebrating the holiday. Stuff like that.
>
> Because the prohibition is not on carrying, it is on transporting. It does not
> matter if you carry or drag.
The verb I was taught with, and have heard all the time is "carrying." Shoot me.
Susan
Susan Cohen
Greg Hennessy wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:03:03 -0400, Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com> wrote:
>
> >Unfortumately, Adam & I are used to people whose sole objection would be religious,
> >and who would be *trumping up* secular reasons in order to keep Jews from doing
> >*anything*, solely because they were Jews.
>
> I can see where you're coming from Susan. There are one or two of the type
> you refer to in this neck of the woods.
>
> Personally, being one of those tolerant bordering on indifferent Londoners
> I warned you about :-). The notion of an Eruv is not going to keep me awake
> at night fulminating.
I only hope they can have the sense to figure out how to do it without sticking the
poles in anyone's window!!
Susan
Greg Hennessy
>I only hope they can have the sense to figure out how to do it without sticking the
>poles in anyone's window!!
>
LOL :-).
Binyamin Dissen
[ snipped ]
:>Binyamin Dissen wrote:
:>> Because the prohibition is not on carrying, it is on transporting. It does not
:>> matter if you carry or drag.
:>The verb I was taught with, and have heard all the time is "carrying."
Shabbos (Talmud) starts with "Yetzyos ...". I don't recall he term carrying
being used in any unique way describing the violation. Dragging may be less
likely to cause the four cubit violation as to some opinions it never is
technically "transported" that far without being at rest.
The violation will also occur if one throws the object. In fact, among the
interesting cases are what if one tosses it more than four cubits but it
passes thru a fire and is destroyed before it ever lands?
:> Shoot me.
The death penalty is never given for lack of knowledge. Even in cases of
violations the criminal must be warned that the act is forbidden and is
subject to X penalty.
Zev Steinhardt
To all those who think that an eruv allows Jews to break Mosaic law by
carrying on the Sabbath are WRONG. Here is the detailed explaination.
There are four different types of areas with regard to the laws of
carrying on the Sabbath. Three of them are relevant to the discussion
of an eruv. They are:
1) A private domain*
2) A public domain*
3) A carmelis. A carmelis is an area which is neither a private or
public domain.
Don't be confused by the terms private and public. These terms do not
refer to private or public ownership of the land.
The basic rules for determining a type of area are:
Private domain - a walled area.
Public domain - a large thoroughfare, open at both ends where large
numbers of people travel
Carmelis - parks, small roads, really anything that doesn't fit the
first two categories.
With me so far? Good.
According to Torah law, one cannot carry to or from or within a Public
domain. One can carry within a private domain or a carmelis.
The Rabbis, fearing that one may get accustomed to walking outside may
end up carrying in a true public domain. As such, they forbade
carrying in a carmelis as well. At the same time, they decreed that
if a carmelis is demarcated, so one knows it's boundaries and extents,
then one can carry in it. This boundary is the eruv that we are all
talking about.
With me so far? Good.
So, the eruv is a *Rabbinic* solution to a *Rabbinic* prohibition. An
eruv will NOT allow a Jew to carry in a true public domain on the
Sabbath. The eruv does NOT abrogate Mosaic law and does not make "a
mockery of the Ten Commandments." This is because the whole
prohibition of carrying in a carmelis is Rabbinic in nature, not a
Torah prohibition.
Zev Steinhardt
Binyamin Dissen
[ snipped ]
:>According to Torah law, one cannot carry to or from or within a Public
:>domain. One can carry within a private domain or a carmelis.
Again, to make clear. Carrying is merely one way of transporting. One would
equally violate the laws if one threw the object.
[ snipped ]
Adam Littman
>On Fri, 16 Aug 2002 11:04:45 GMT, al...@nospam.cornell.edu (Adam Littman)
>wrote:
>
>>You aren't being asked to "facilitate" them.
>
>Anything that requires planning permission *and* the installation of poles
>on public and private property over an 11 mile perimeter does. The local
>authority (Barnet) are not the only people who have to be satisfied. The
>'Transport for London' quango have to be kept happy also, one couldn't have
>buses getting tangled up in fishing line now could we. That makes it a
>*public* matter.
ROFL. A public matter in which the sum total of what you are being asked to do
is "don't interfere with something that isn't doing you any harm".
Considering that the fishing line is going to be higher than the tops of the
tallest buses, the chances of the buses getting tangled are slim.
>Its *highly* possible that *all* local taxpayers *may* end up having to
>contribute to protecting the installations from NFronter louts with single
>digit IQs. That makes it *public* matter.
Oh, I see. Do you also object to local taxpayers having to contribute to
protecting synagogues from your friends? Funny how the bigots' answer to
"other bigots might get violent about it" is "screw the minorities".
>Message-ID: <4hmllu48ciaseaqk1...@4ax.com>
>
># The poles are being erected in such a way as to obstruct
>>private property. There are at least half a dozen locations where the newly
>>erected poles are preventing windows from being opened and/or are
>>obstructing rights of way/footpaths.
>
>Nothing to do with religion, Nothing to do with alleged anti semitism.
>Everything thing to do with bad planning and piss poor implementation.
Oh, well, that is simple. I don't believe you. I think you, or whoever made
that claim is lying.
On the miniscule chance that you aren't, then the poles should be moved to a
position where they are not preventing windows from opening or obstructing
footpaths.
Greg Hennessy
wrote:
>
>ROFL. A public matter in which the sum total of what you are being asked to do
>is "don't interfere with something that isn't doing you any harm".
The issue has *nothing* to do with manifestations of *harm*, zilch, nada,
zero. It has everything to do with a LA railroading through a planning
application for political/personal considerations *without* doing their
homework properly & without proper consultation.
>Considering that the fishing line is going to be higher than the tops of the
>tallest buses, the chances of the buses getting tangled are slim.
What pray tell is the line going to be hung out of, those poles are not
going to erect themselves ?
Who is going to maintain it ? Who pays for the public liability insurance
(a legal requirement for all public installations here in the UK) ? What
happens when the inevitable breakages happen ? What's the process for
running/repairing line across 120 odd feet of *busy* dual carriage way.
Health and Safety law will NOT allow it to happen when traffic is running.
Who pays for the road closures ?
These are questions & answers that have *nothing* to do with the exercise
of any religion and everything to do with a local authority doing its job
properly.
>Oh, I see. Do you also object to local taxpayers having to contribute to
>protecting synagogues from your friends?
A rather pathetic and ignoble comment. I suggest doing your homework a bit
further. Scattergun accusations of antisemitism do not work with this
Londoner or most other posters here.
>Funny how the bigots' answer to
>"other bigots might get violent about it" is "screw the minorities".
Take the mote out of your own eye 1st. The only prejudice being exhibited
here is from YOU. I refer you to
Message-ID: <8p3qluk6qs64kagle...@4ax.com>
stops your trolling line of argument dead does it not. I am surprised you
haven't resorted to some of the unwarranted abuse as exhibited in
Message-ID: <aj89ph$fc2$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>
If you took 5 minutes with google to read postings from the gent in
question, it would be self evident that your self righteous posturing was
gauche and downright offensive.
Better still how about
Message-ID: <8nsnluov2e5tjl8se...@4ax.com> where I said
#But I'd assume the fences and embankments running along side them would.
It would be patently obvious to anyone with a minimum of comprehension
skills what my thoughts on the eruv itself are.
>>Nothing to do with religion, Nothing to do with alleged anti semitism.
>>Everything thing to do with bad planning and piss poor implementation.
>
>Oh, well, that is simple. I don't believe you. I think you, or whoever made
>that claim is lying.
You're a yank sat 5 thousand miles away, you know nothing. You'll be
accusing the reform and ultra orthodox who are vehemently opposed to the
eruv of working for the BNP or something next.
>On the miniscule chance that you aren't, then the poles should be moved to a
>position where they are not preventing windows from opening or obstructing
>footpaths.
What arrogance and presumption born of complete ignorance.
Robert Matson
Many people do object to Christmas decorations in public places. And I
never said you shouldn't have an eruv. I'm asking how it works. And
telling you how it looks to an outsider on the evidence presented so
far.
To address the insults I am not an anti Jewish bigot. Far from it in
fact. I am asking how an eruv works, and by what authority you know
this. Before you resort to such insults, I suggest you bear in mind
that many Jews object to the eruv, whereas I do not.
You claim the Jews can answer the question of how it benefits them.
For the minute I am prepared to believe this, but if the eruvites in
this thread continue to insult me rather than explain it, I'm likely
to change my mind. And so are other people. Is it a secret? Or are we
all allowed to know?
Robert Matson
> On Fri, 16 Aug 2002 02:28:07 -0400 Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com> wrote:
>
> [ snipped ]
>
> I wonder why people are responding to the neo-nazi, but as there are some
> factual errors below I will correct them.
I note that later on in your post, you admit that your assumption that
I am a neo-nazi is based on me making similar statements to many Jews.
Do you have actual evidence to back up this claim?
Thought not. BTW I'm not a neo-nazi.
I am trying to find out what this is all about, so I'm asking
questions. If you usually hurl such insults people who ask questions,
you are the bigot. If you see ignoring people as an appropriate
response to ingorance, you are a hypocrite and a fool.
Doubtless I have simply mistunderstood you and neither of these apply.
Thanks for the information, and I'd be most grateful if you could
clear up a couple of points.
> :>Jews are forbidden to carry on Shabbos (& similarly high holy days) except on private, enclosed propoerty.
>
> The prohibition is on either transporting an object more than four cubits in a
> public domain or between a private domain and a public domain. The terms
> "private domain" and "public domain" have technical definitions.
>
> Also, the prohibition only applies to Shabbat and Yom Kippur - no other
> holidays.
>
> :>Usually, this means "indoors", and it keeps Jews from carrying house keys, or comfortable shoes, or pushing
> :>strollers (I've never been able to figure out why that last is included in the list. Maybe it's carrying the
> :>baby bag slung over the shoulder that's the problem) to synagogue, or taking food to each other's houses for
> :>purposes of visiting and celebrating the holiday. Stuff like that.
>
> Because the prohibition is not on carrying, it is on transporting. It does not
> matter if you carry or drag.
>
> :>Now, if the Jews can get together & say "We have a community here," & if they put up a wall (the poles with
> :>the fishing wire strung between them) aruond it, it counts as enclosed space & they can carry.
>
> The issue was that there were (still are?) many uneducated Jews that did not
> understand the technical definitions of domains and thus assumed because
> domain A seemed like domain B and they saw Rabbis (or other educated Jews)
> transporting between their houses and A assumed that they could also transport
> between their houses and B - committing a serious violation.
>
> The Rabbis, concerned by this issue, issued a decree that one may not
> transport between an obvious private domain and a private domain that looks
> like a public domain. They also decreed that if an Eruv was put up which
> clearly showed that the domain was private then transport would be allowed.
>
1. As I understand Shabbat observation is an implementation of one of
the ten commandments (can't remember which but isn't it "Keep the
sabbath unto me, for it is holy"?). Am I wrong?
2. Given this, my understanding of what you have said, is that
transporting stuff more than a certain amount in "public domains" is
not holy. Whereas doing it in a "private domain" is fine. Am I wrong?
3. The suggestion that the eruv was a fudge was based on the
observation that it allowed people to transport stuff outside their
house, and was thus only a partial implementation of the commandment.
It would appear that a "private domain" need not be a house, or be
inside. So If we're going to understand the eruv, we're gonna need the
technical definitions to which you refer.
Robert Matson
> >>
> >> Second, you mocking of the Jewish religion is noted, not funny, and not
> >> appreciated. Go back to your cross burning.
> >>
> >
> >The very idea of an eruv makes a mockery of the Ten Commandments if you ask me.
>
> Let me consult my memory. Nope, I don't remember anyone asking you.
>
> If the Jewish religion decides to elect a Jewish Pope, and you win the
> election, then your opinion will be worth more than a gob of spit. Until then,
> we will go with Jewish Law, rather than bigot's opinion, thank you very much.
>
anything about Jewish Law? Or do you just like insulting the gentiles?
Robert Matson
post.
So the eruv *only* exempts you from the transporting bit of Shabbat
observation?
As for whether I have ever read the Talmud, my understanding is that
the King James Bible I had as a kid contains a translation of the
Talmud. If so then, yes I have read a translation of it.
Robert Matson
And the fishing wire or whatever counts as closing the ends of the
road thereby stopping it being open at both ends. Thanks.
What authority do rabbis have for prohibiting stuff?
Robert Matson
Exactly. Though I was thinking more of smoking during Lent (if you'd
given it up). However it would appear from other posts that we can't
use it. I have sought clarification on the authority for Rabbinical
authority.
Steve Glynn
"Adam Littman" <al...@nospam.cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:ajjo2n$4tl$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
But why does anyone need these poles sticking round the place, particularly
when many non-religious Jews in the area object to them?
If my local Catholic Church found it necessary to designate an area as in
some way special, I would, were I to take it that seriously, inform myself
that the boundaries of this special area were the left hand side of this
street, the right hand side of another street, and so on.
What I wouldn't do is to attempt to put up poles and fishing lines to remind
myself that this is a 'special area'.
In fact, I would be one of the first people to object to planning permission
for such a proposal, partly on the grounds that it might cause some offense
(not necessarily shared, or even understood, by me, but offense none the
less) to other residents of the area.
I was, btw, chatting the other night to my old mate Max, an athiestic Polish
Communist Jew, and proud to be one, originally from just off Cable Street,
about his thoughts on the matter. Were anyone to attempt to erect such an
edifice around where he now lives, in Scotland, he would, apparently. get
out his chain-saw.
Steve Glynn
<snip>
>
> Well, suppose someone object to you owning a Christmas tree, putting up
> christmas lights, caroling, wearing ashes on your forehead on Ash
> Wednesday, etc, etc. etc.
>
All of which are personal choices. There would be no objection, either, to
people putting up signs at the appropriate time of year wishing people Happy
Christmas, Happy Hanuka, Happy Eid, Happy Divali, Sal Mubarak, or whatever
else.
The objection is to sticking up poles and fishing lines to demarcate a
'special area'.
lefty
"Robert Matson" <robert_m...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bd247337.02081...@posting.google.com...
The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe
Littman) wrote:
>In article <bd247337.02081...@posting.google.com>, robert_m...@yahoo.co.uk (Robert Matson) wrote:
>>al...@nospam.cornell.edu (Adam Littman) wrote in message
>> news:<aj89ph$fc2$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>...
>>> In article <7v6flukb8n8fopv3u...@4ax.com>, Joe <J...@the.office>
>> wrote:
>>> >On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 21:49:14 +0100, "Steve Glynn"
>>> ><steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Instead of an Eruv, how about allowing some other form of get-out
>>> >clause?
>>> >
>>> >For instance, if an orthodox Jew were to carry, say, a small jar of
>>> >pickled gherkins in an inside pocket, perhaps this could allow that
>>> >person to be exempt for Sabbath law?
>>>
>>> Two things, first, you aren't allowed to carry things on Shabbat, according
>> to
>>> the Orthodox rules.
>>>
>>> Second, you mocking of the Jewish religion is noted, not funny, and not
>>> appreciated. Go back to your cross burning.
>>>
>>
>>The very idea of an eruv makes a mockery of the Ten Commandments if you ask me.
>
>Let me consult my memory. Nope, I don't remember anyone asking you.
>
>If the Jewish religion decides to elect a Jewish Pope, and you win the
>election, then your opinion will be worth more than a gob of spit. Until then,
>we will go with Jewish Law, rather than bigot's opinion, thank you very much.
Jew law means Jack Shit. When you people infest the countries of
others, you will obey their laws.
lefty
"Robert Matson" <robert_m...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bd247337.02081...@posting.google.com...
Talmud
In addition to the written scriptures we have an "Oral Torah," a tradition
explaining what the above scriptures mean and how to interpret them and
apply the Laws. Orthodox Jews believe G-d taught the Oral Torah to Moses,
and he taught it to others, down to the present day. This tradition was
maintained in oral form only until about the 2d century C.E., when the oral
law was compiled and written down in a document called the Mishnah.
Over the next few centuries, additional commentaries elaborating on the
Mishnah were written down in Jerusalem and Babylon. These additional
commentaries are known as the Gemara. The Gemara and the Mishnah together
are known as the Talmud. This was completed in the 5th century C.E.
There are actually two Talmuds: the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian
Talmud. The Babylonian one is more comprehensive, and is the one most people
mean when they refer to The Talmud. There have been additional commentaries
on the Talmud by such noted Jewish scholars as Rashi and Rambam. Adin
Steinsalz is currently preparing a new edition of the Talmud, with his own
commentary supplementing the Mishnah, Gemara, and Rashi commentaries.
The Mishnah is divided into six sections called sedarim (in English,
orders). Each seder contains one or more divisions called masekhtot (in
English, tractates). There are 63 masekhtot in the Mishnah. Approximately
half of these masekhtot have been addressed in the Talmud. Although these
divisions seem to indicate subject matter, it is important to note that the
Mishnah and the Talmud tend to be engage in quite a bit of free-association,
thus widely diverse subjects may be discussed in a seder or masekhtah. Below
is the division of the Mishnah into sedarim and masekhtot:
Zera'im (Seeds), dealing with agricultural laws
Berakhot
Peah
Demai
Kilayim
Shebiit
Terumot
Maaserot
Maaser Sheni
Challah
Orlah
Bikkurim
Mo'ed (Festival), dealing with shabbat and festivals
Shabbat
Erubin
Pesachim
Sheqalim
Yoma
Sukkah
Besah
Rosh Hashanah
Taanit
Megillah
Moed Qatan
Hagigah
Nashim (Women), dealing with marriage, divorce and contracts
Yebamot
Ketubot
Nedarim
Nazir
Sotah
Gittin
Qiddushin
Nezikin (Damages), dealing with tort laws and other financial laws
Baba Qamma
Baba Mesia
Baba Batra
Sanhedrin
Makkot
Shabuot
Eduyyot
Avodah Zarah
Avot (also known as Pirkei Avot, Ethics of the Fathers)
Horayot
Kodashim (Holy Things), dealing with sacrifices and the Temple
Zevachim
Menachot
Chullin
Bekhorot
Arakhin
Temurah
Keritot
Meilah
Tamid
Middot
Qinnim
Toharot (Purities), dealing with laws of ritual purity and impurity
Kelim
Ohalot
Negaim
Parah
Tohorot
Miqvaot
Niddah
Makhshirin
Zabim
Tebul-Yom
Yadayim
Uqsin
In recent times, many observant Jews have taken up the practice of studying
a page of Talmud every day. This practice, referred to as daf yomi, was
started at the First International Congress of the Agudath Yisrael World
Movement in August, 1923. Rav Meir Shapiro, the rav of Lublin, Poland,
proposed uniting people worldwide through the daily study of a page of
Talmud. Daf Yomi is currently in its 11th cycle. A calendar of the cycle can
be found at Daf Yomi Calendar.
Norfolk
I tend to agree. Assuming that I can still travel freely and go about
my lawful business and assuming that all relevant national and local
laws have been observed I couldn't give a toss.
Norfolk
Adam Littman
>On Fri, 16 Aug 2002 20:42:08 GMT, al...@nospam.cornell.edu (Adam Littman)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>ROFL. A public matter in which the sum total of what you are being asked to do
>
>>is "don't interfere with something that isn't doing you any harm".
>
>The issue has *nothing* to do with manifestations of *harm*, zilch, nada,
>zero. It has everything to do with a LA railroading through a planning
>application for political/personal considerations *without* doing their
>homework properly & without proper consultation.
>
>>Considering that the fishing line is going to be higher than the tops of the
>>tallest buses, the chances of the buses getting tangled are slim.
>
>What pray tell is the line going to be hung out of, those poles are not
>going to erect themselves ?
>Who is going to maintain it ? Who pays for the public liability insurance
>(a legal requirement for all public installations here in the UK) ? What
>happens when the inevitable breakages happen ? What's the process for
>running/repairing line across 120 odd feet of *busy* dual carriage way.
>Health and Safety law will NOT allow it to happen when traffic is running.
>Who pays for the road closures ?
All of which are things you really don't care about.
>These are questions & answers that have *nothing* to do with the exercise
>of any religion and everything to do with a local authority doing its job
>properly.
True. And all of which are excuses, not reasons that you oppose it. Otherwise
you would have been _asking_ these things from the beginning, rather than
being opposed in principle to the eruv and only coming up with these "reasons"
later. Your manner of argument smacks of rationalization. You start with the
conclusion that something that you wouldn't be concerned with one way or
another if it weren't the Jews wanting it is bad, and only then come up with
rationalizations to justify opposing it so you don't look like a bigot.
>Message-ID: <8nsnluov2e5tjl8se...@4ax.com> where I said
>
>#But I'd assume the fences and embankments running along side them would.
>
>It would be patently obvious to anyone with a minimum of comprehension
>skills what my thoughts on the eruv itself are.
Would what? Would do just as well for an Eruv? Well, wouldn't water do just
fine for communion? And why do you need crackers, wouldn't air do just as
well? I mean, it is already available, and if Jesus can change crackers and
wine to the body and blood of Christ then why not water and air? I mean, who
pays for the roads on which the wine and crackers travels?
>You're a yank sat 5 thousand miles away, you know nothing. You'll be
>accusing the reform and ultra orthodox who are vehemently opposed to the
>eruv of working for the BNP or something next.
A Chabad Rabbi I know once met a woman on a commuter train. She was Reform and
told him on no uncertain terms how embarrassed she was that people like him
were going around dressed in such old fashioned ways, harming the image of
Jews. He told her (the man has a sense of humor) that he was Amish. Suddenly
her tune changed to "Oh, its so wonderful how you people keep your traditions
alive".
And, well, look at David Goldman, he claims to be ulttra orthodox, and he
would rather see every Jew in Israel dead than living in Israel before the
Messiah comes.
More to the point. I don't see any of them on here complaining. I see _you_.
And I don't see a link to any independent source of information about this.
>>On the miniscule chance that you aren't, then the poles should be moved to a
>>position where they are not preventing windows from opening or obstructing
>>footpaths.
>
>What arrogance and presumption born of complete ignorance.
Good question. What arrogance? Saying that if you aren't lying and whoever is
putting up the Eruv was stupid enough to block someone's window or obstruct a
footpath it should be moved? Why?
Again, you give excuses not reasons. Remove the reasons and the conclusion
changes. Remove an excuse and the conclusion doesn't change. Your conclusion
doesn't change when your excuses are removed. QED.
Adam Littman
The person who I was calling a bigot _does_ object to it, and _kept_ insisting
that a line drawn on a map would do. Despite having been told several times
that it would not.
>You claim the Jews can answer the question of how it benefits them.
>For the minute I am prepared to believe this, but if the eruvites in
>this thread continue to insult me rather than explain it, I'm likely
>to change my mind. And so are other people. Is it a secret? Or are we
>all allowed to know?
No, it isn't a secret, and yes, you are allowed to know. As has already been
said (I will repeat it for your benefit) Jewish Law, not always strictly
adhered to by all Jews, says that you aren't allowed to transport things on
the Sabbath. You get such methods of getting around this as using a house key
as part of a system to secure a rope belt.
In many aspects of Jewish Law, it is the letter of the law that is followed.
And the rule about transporting things does not apply to transporting things
in an enclosed area, like a house. If you put up walls around an area, that
counts as an enclosed area. And in a manner similar to the way letters become
stylized and simpler over time, having an area marked off by fishing line has
come to symbolize an enclosed area.
The Reform object because they are pretty assimilated and don't want attention
drawn to Jews as being different. They see a fishing line Eruv as too much,
they also don't tend to keep Kosher, or follow most of the laws that set Jews
apart from other people, thought they do tend to follow the ones that
religions have in common (don't murder, steal, etc).
I presume that if some Ultra-orthodox are complaining it is because they see
the fishing line Eruv as not enough to justify being able to carry things.
Personally, I don't need one to carry things, but if some other Jew feels more
comfortable with it, and it is done in a way that doesn't cause harm to
others, I say, "why not?".
Robert Matson
> On Fri, 16 Aug 2002 20:42:08 GMT, al...@nospam.cornell.edu (Adam Littman)
> wrote:
> Scattergun accusations of antisemitism do not work with this
> Londoner or most other posters here.
>
communication.
> >Oh, well, that is simple. I don't believe you. I think you, or whoever made
> >that claim is lying.
>
> You're a yank sat 5 thousand miles away, you know nothing. You'll be
> accusing the reform and ultra orthodox who are vehemently opposed to the
> eruv of working for the BNP or something next.
>
Based on the blackadder quote, I'd assumed he was an English
Polyversity student, but his e-mail address seems to suggest
otherwise. I assume he's a trustafarian who couldn't get in to a
decent uni over here...
Greg Hennessy
wrote:
>
>All of which are things you really don't care about.
Tut tut, childish petulance does not become you.
>True. And all of which are excuses, not reasons that you oppose it. Otherwise
>you would have been _asking_ these things from the beginning, rather than
>being opposed in principle to the eruv and only coming up with these "reasons"
>later.
Get it into your rather dense skull. Those questions and more have been
asked, asked and asked again since it was 1st proposed in 1993. The answers
OTOH have been rather vague & long in coming.
>Your manner of argument smacks of rationalization. You start with the
>conclusion that something that you wouldn't be concerned with one way or
>another if it weren't the Jews wanting it is bad
You're starting to sound like Al Sharpton, seeing racist conspiracies
everywhere, like the little boy who kept crying wolf, it'll get to the
stage when you really do come across some hate filled scrote, no one will
take any notice.
It doesn't work Adam. Your argument is just a variation of a theme, a
rehash of the same nonsense that came from parts of Boston and NY claiming
100's of 1000s massacred in Northern Ireland despite all evidence to the
contrary.
Like most Londoners I tend to see the person b4 their race, religion or
anything else that ties them to a particular group, its one of the truly
wonderful things about living in this city.
I know tribal matters are important to some Americans, but the fact that
someone is Jewish, Hindu, Sikh or Moslem, Protestant, Catholic or Dissenter
(to paraphrase Robert Emmett) is of no relevance to how I interact with
them, OTOH ill mannered arseholes are the same everywhere and you fit the
bill just nicely.
>, and only then come up with
>rationalizations to justify opposing it so you don't look like a bigot.
There are non so blind as those who will not see.
The only bigot here is *you* Adam. The only 'after the fact'
rationalisations demonstrated here are coming from *you* Adam.
Your ignorance of the facts w.r.t the barnet eruv was painfully exposed, so
rather than keeping your gob shut and/or apologising for unwarranted abuse,
instead continued personal attacks in a rather pathetic attempt at face
saving.
>Would what? Would do just as well for an Eruv? Well, wouldn't water do just
>fine for communion? And why do you need crackers, wouldn't air do just as
>well? I mean, it is already available, and if Jesus can change crackers and
>wine to the body and blood of Christ then why not water and air? I mean, who
>pays for the roads on which the wine and crackers travels?
LOL, grasping at straws. Preconceived notions that are rather wide of the
mark. Interesting how the true bigots always fall into that trap.
If you actually read the discussion as it progressed rather than typing
without thought you would have seen my reply to Michael Lancaster in.
Message-ID: <4hmllu48ciaseaqk1...@4ax.com>
>On a side note. (speaking as someone who gave up the crutch of religion a
>long time ago)
which in turn kicked off an interesting discussion with Susan Cohen.
Now Mr Littman, I personally may be rather credulous w.r.t the doctrine of
transubstantiation, however that doesn't auto magically turn me into Ian
Paisley fulminating about the Whore of Rome, any more than being credulous
about the mechanics of an Eruv ( and getting an excellent education in
Message-ID: <41e04c01.02081...@posting.google.com> ) makes me a
hooded cross burner. The right to be credulous about something comes as
part and parcel of living in a modern secular state.
You may be too bitter and twisted to accept it, but that's the way it is.
Of course, you could have figured this out using groups.google.com b4
attempting to tar everyone who doesn't fit into your narrow insular
definition of judaism with a KKK brush. Apocryphal tales of amish rabbis on
subways dont qualify.
>More to the point. I don't see any of them on here complaining. I see _you_.
>And I don't see a link to any independent source of information about this.
I am not doing your homework for you, I tend to avoid trying to educate
closed minds, the effort expended is never ever appreciated. You've made
your mind up that London is populated exclusively by supporters of the 4th
reich, its highly doubtful that posting any link would change that.
You've been given more than enough material in this thread to use in
google. Of course you may not like the results returned.
Greg Hennessy
Matson) wrote:
>To be fair his scatter gun appears to be his only means of
>communication.
Crude, ill aimed and falling rather short. If Mr Littman had the courtesy
to do some research on postings from yourself, Steve or myself, it would be
self evident that his shrill accusations of anti semitism are a tad wide of
the mark and just plain offensive.
>Based on the blackadder quote, I'd assumed he was an English
>Polyversity student, but his e-mail address seems to suggest
>otherwise. I assume he's a trustafarian who couldn't get in to a
>decent uni over here...
He claims elsewhere he's a septic. So I assume he is.
Binyamin Dissen
[ snipped ]
:>In many aspects of Jewish Law, it is the letter of the law that is followed.
Pretty much in all things. Remember, as mere humans we cannot presume to guess
why G-d gave such a rule unless he says so. And as G-d is perfect, if He
leaves what appears to be a loophole in a law it is because He WANTED to leave
the "loophole".
:>And the rule about transporting things does not apply to transporting things
:>in an enclosed area, like a house. If you put up walls around an area, that
:>counts as an enclosed area. And in a manner similar to the way letters become
:>stylized and simpler over time, having an area marked off by fishing line has
:>come to symbolize an enclosed area.
The issue at a Biblical level (in general) has nothing to do with the area
being enclosed or not - it has to do with the area being a private domain or a
public domain.
:>The Reform object because they are pretty assimilated and don't want attention
:>drawn to Jews as being different. They see a fishing line Eruv as too much,
:>they also don't tend to keep Kosher, or follow most of the laws that set Jews
:>apart from other people, thought they do tend to follow the ones that
:>religions have in common (don't murder, steal, etc).
Perhaps.
:>I presume that if some Ultra-orthodox are complaining it is because they see
:>the fishing line Eruv as not enough to justify being able to carry things.
There are more fundamental issues, such as "is the area a true public
domain?". If so the Eruv does nothing as the Eruv.
Adam Littman
>On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 14:11:45 GMT, al...@nospam.cornell.edu (Adam Littman)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>All of which are things you really don't care about.
>
>Tut tut, childish petulance does not become you.
It is not petulance. It is a calm and considered description of what I have
deduced about you from the manner and timing of your complaints.
>>True. And all of which are excuses, not reasons that you oppose it. Otherwise
>>you would have been _asking_ these things from the beginning, rather than
>>being opposed in principle to the eruv and only coming up with these "reasons"
>
>>later.
>
>Get it into your rather dense skull. Those questions and more have been
>asked, asked and asked again since it was 1st proposed in 1993. The answers
>OTOH have been rather vague & long in coming.
You posted on here whining about it from the beginning. You weren't looking
for answers, you were just looking to attack Jews.
>>Would what? Would do just as well for an Eruv? Well, wouldn't water do just
>>fine for communion? And why do you need crackers, wouldn't air do just as
>>well? I mean, it is already available, and if Jesus can change crackers and
>>wine to the body and blood of Christ then why not water and air? I mean, who
>>pays for the roads on which the wine and crackers travels?
>
>LOL, grasping at straws. Preconceived notions that are rather wide of the
ROFL. Considering that I was using a reductio ad absurdem argument, the fact
that you find the conclusions ridiculous is a point for my side.
I am simply taking the argument of the jackass who keeps insisting that a line
on a map will do to fulfil a religious purpose he knows nothing about, and
applying the same line of argument to religious purposes he is more familiar
with.
If your argument is absurd about Christian religious rituals then it is also
absurd about Jewish ones.
>Now Mr Littman, I personally may be rather credulous w.r.t the doctrine of
>transubstantiation, however that doesn't auto magically turn me into Ian
>Paisley fulminating about the Whore of Rome, any more than being credulous
>about the mechanics of an Eruv ( and getting an excellent education in
>Message-ID: <41e04c01.02081...@posting.google.com> ) makes me a
>hooded cross burner. The right to be credulous about something comes as
>part and parcel of living in a modern secular state.
You have the right to disbelieve in religion or not as you choose. But if you
are going to object to something as harmless as an Eruv then to avoid
hypocrisy you should also be objecting to the harmless religious practices of
other religions.
>>More to the point. I don't see any of them on here complaining. I see _you_.
>>And I don't see a link to any independent source of information about this.
>
>I am not doing your homework for you, I tend to avoid trying to educate
Your inability to back up your claims is noted.
*plonk*
Zev Steinhardt
It doesn't close it off to traffic. The wire is high enough not to
obstruct anyone.
As for what authority do the rabbis have to prohibit things to Jews?
They have the authority based on the Torah.
Zev Steinhardt
Adam Littman
> news:<v3qqlu08e3r1ede5p...@4ax.com>...
>> On Fri, 16 Aug 2002 20:42:08 GMT, al...@nospam.cornell.edu (Adam Littman)
>> wrote:
>> Scattergun accusations of antisemitism do not work with this
>> Londoner or most other posters here.
>>
>To be fair his scatter gun appears to be his only means of
>communication.
It isn't a scatter gun. It is a rifle used in a "target rich environment". The
reason I ID lots of people on here as anti-Semites/bigots/neo-Nazis/white
power nuts is that a lot of people on here _are_ anti-Semites/bigots/
neo-Nazis/white power nuts.
>
>> >Oh, well, that is simple. I don't believe you. I think you, or whoever made
>> >that claim is lying.
>>
>> You're a yank sat 5 thousand miles away, you know nothing. You'll be
>> accusing the reform and ultra orthodox who are vehemently opposed to the
>> eruv of working for the BNP or something next.
>>
>Based on the blackadder quote, I'd assumed he was an English
>Polyversity student, but his e-mail address seems to suggest
>otherwise. I assume he's a trustafarian who couldn't get in to a
>decent uni over here...
ROFL. Not even close. As the song goes "I'm proud to be an American".
And very few people can get into a decent university in England. You only have
about three decent universities in the entire country.
We OTOH have several dozen great universities.
Adam Littman
I know more than enough about Jewish Law to know that Jews are more likely to
follow it than whatever some random gentile who also happens to be an
anti-Jewish bigot says.
You think I am being rude? You are quite correct. I see no point in being
polite to lying scum who refuse to _stop_ lying about my religion when called
on their lies.
I am polite to the polite and rude to the rude. And that includes people who
say insulting things in polite phrases.
Adam Littman
ROFLMAO. Did the King James Bible you had as a kid weigh about 12 stone? The
Talmud is available as a thirty (30) volume set here:
http://www.alljudaica.com/detail.asp?bid=38
The KJV contains a deliberately mistranslated version of the _Torah_ (Genesis,
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy).
Robert Matson
> Talmud
> In addition to the written scriptures we have an "Oral Torah," a tradition
> explaining what the above scriptures mean and how to interpret them and
> apply the Laws. Orthodox Jews believe G-d taught the Oral Torah to Moses,
> and he taught it to others, down to the present day. This tradition was
> maintained in oral form only until about the 2d century C.E., when the oral
> law was compiled and written down in a document called the Mishnah.
My impression is that religious practices were not consistent
throughout the Old Testament period, for example getting stricter
after the captivity. Given that it was an oral tradition for over a
millenium. How accurate is the Mishnah believed to be? I presume the
rules on eruvs are set down in the Mishnah (which would explain why
the rest of us have never heard of them).
> Over the next few centuries, additional commentaries elaborating on the
> Mishnah were written down in Jerusalem and Babylon. These additional
> commentaries are known as the Gemara. The Gemara and the Mishnah together
> are known as the Talmud. This was completed in the 5th century C.E.
> There are actually two Talmuds: the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian
> Talmud.
> The Babylonian one is more comprehensive, and is the one most people
> mean when they refer to The Talmud.
How consistent are they?
> There have been additional commentaries
> on the Talmud by such noted Jewish scholars as Rashi and Rambam. Adin
> Steinsalz is currently preparing a new edition of the Talmud, with his own
> commentary supplementing the Mishnah, Gemara, and Rashi commentaries.
What authority do these have? And, assuming they have some authority,
what authority do the authors have to produce them? Are there any such
commentaries which have been rejected?
Greg Hennessy
wrote:
[Being a hypocrite, you're not going to see this of course]
>
>It is not petulance. It is a calm and considered description of what I have
>deduced about you from the manner and timing of your complaints.
From Message-ID: <ajn4gv$2rp$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>
>You think I am being rude? You are quite correct. I see no point in being
>polite to lying scum who refuse to _stop_ lying about my religion when called
>on their lies.
That's not 'calm and considered' by any stretch of the imagination. A
cursory search of the archive will provide more than enough evidence to
show that you're talking bollocks. What's more, I am quite sure you *have*
searched, and at length.
>
>You posted on here whining about it from the beginning. You weren't looking
>for answers, you were just looking to attack Jews.
LOL! Endlessly calling someone an anti-semite doesn't make it so Adam. I
can see you now, seething with rage because I *haven't* taken your bait &
retorted blindly with anti semitic epithets, thus confirming your twisted
worldview of all gentiles.
Given your demonstrated pedantry, I am sure it must have just burned you up
to search a decades worth of my news postings and not find a single
instance of anti-semitism on my part.
Unlike your miserable rather blinkered existence,
I have known & loved women whose *religion* happened to be Jewish, eat,
drink and socialise with other Londoners whose *religion* happen to be
Jewish, hell, as a teen I even had a memorable summer job working as a
caretaker for a school and synagogue in Finchley.
Did their *religion* being Jewish make a whit of difference ? nope, it
doesn't even register on the radar, you being utterly clueless w.r.t how
*average* Londoners see and interact with each other, you have *no*
appreciation for how utterly indifferent folks here are w.r.t matters of
*religion*.
Lets just say with the female of the species, sparkling eyes and a nice
smile does a *lot* more for me than *any* religion ever would.
>
>ROFL. Considering that I was using a reductio ad absurdem argument, the fact
>that you find the conclusions ridiculous is a point for my side.
Nope Adam, it was a rather childish attempt at ridiculing xtian doctrine to
see would I take that bait & failing miserably on your part. Trying to be
a smartarse after it backfired makes you look churlish.
>I am simply taking the argument of the jackass who keeps insisting that a line
>on a map will do to fulfil a religious purpose he knows nothing about,
LOL! I never claimed I did, I even said so in
Message-ID: <5qjmlucvltp602qjt...@4ax.com>
In your blind attempt to tar me as an anti-semite you may have missed that.
>You have the right to disbelieve in religion or not as you choose. But if you
>are going to object to something as harmless as an Eruv then to avoid
>hypocrisy you should also be objecting to the harmless religious practices of
>other religions.
You have for the umpteenth time willfully ignored the *public* nature of
eruv and the need to comply with the same set of *community* standards that
apply to all other construction.
>Your inability to back up your claims is noted.
>
>*plonk*
LMAO! Your lack of anything approaching rationality is also noted.
Screaming 'you are an anti-semite' doesn't work when I refuse to play your
hate game.
Regards
Susan Cohen
Robert Matson wrote:
> What authority do rabbis have for prohibiting stuff?
Um, do you mean "where is it written that they have this authority"?
Otherwise, the answer is "The same as any other religious authority w/in its own religion."
SusanC
Susan Cohen
Robert Matson wrote:
> Thanks for your post. And thanks to Binyamin for the middle bit of his
> post.
>
> So the eruv *only* exempts you from the transporting bit of Shabbat
> observation?
Right.
> As for whether I have ever read the Talmud, my understanding is that
> the King James Bible I had as a kid contains a translation of the
> Talmud.
Uh, that's impossible. First off, the Talmud is *encyclopaedic* in
size....
> If so then, yes I have read a translation of it.
Uh, you couldn't possibly :-)
Susan
Susan Cohen
Robert Matson wrote:
I am *totally* confused here.
What possible jurisdiction do rabbis have over Catholics?
How could something erected to facilitate Jews transporting things have any *religious* bearing on non-Jews??
Susan
Susan Cohen
Robert Matson wrote:
> al...@nospam.cornell.edu (Adam Littman) wrote in message BTW do you actually know
> anything about Jewish Law?
Yep, he does.
> Or do you just like insulting the gentiles?
Only if he thinks he's been insulted first.
Susan