| Author |
Message |
    
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 3407
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 3:32 pm: | 
|
Good idea or not?
A plan to help Maplewood's Orthodox Jews
Easing Sabbath observance at issue
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
BY SARA K. CLARKE
Star-Ledger Staff
Maplewood is considering a proposal to make it easier for members of the Orthodox Jewish community to observe the Sabbath, while increasing the town's appeal to young Jewish families.
Tonight, the township committee will listen to public comment and then may vote on a resolution to let the Orthodox community establish an eruv, a symbolic boundary that lets observers carry items on holy days. Without an eruv, carrying is an act of labor that is forbidden outside the home.
Jewish leaders have been considering an eruv for about three years, after hearing repeatedly from young families that the lack of one was a deal-breaker in their decisions of whether or not to move to Maplewood.
The physical eruv -- consisting of designated utility lines and plastic strips -- would leave the landscape of town largely unchanged.
But it would significantly help parents, who otherwise aren't allowed to carry children outdoors or push strollers, said Steven Bauml, chairman of Maplewood's Eruv Committee.
"It's something that will be invisible to everyone except the people who are looking for it," he said.
The eruv also helps people in wheelchairs or those who need to carry medication, both otherwise homebound on the Sabbath.
Approximately 60 families attend the two Orthodox synagogues in Maplewood. Orthodox leaders believe an eruv -- combined with Maplewood's proximity to New Jersey Transit lines -- would attract young Jewish families looking to escape the skyrocketing cost of home ownership in New York.
"To establish a family as Orthodox Jews, it's far more convenient to live in a community that has an eruv," said Jeffrey Kingsley, a member of the Eruv Committee, who said Orthodox parents steer toward nearby communities with eruvim, such as West Orange or Livingston.
The concept of an eruv dates back almost 2,000 years and is included in a collection of Rabbinical laws called the Mishnah, said Azzan Yadin, an associate professor of Jewish Studies at Rutgers University.
While civic law doesn't require town permission for the eruv, Jewish religious law requires community consent.
Just about every major U.S. city has an area delineated by an eruv -- including Boston, New York, Chicago and Washington, D.C.
In New Jersey, communities with an eruv include Cherry Hill, Deal, Teaneck and East Brunswick.
Maplewood's project is expected to cost $20,000, and would be paid for with private funds. The cost includes a rabbinical expert to help lay out the eruv, Bauml said.
Mayor Fred Profeta said the creation of an eruv in Maplewood would put the Orthodox community on equal footing with other ethnic groups in town.
"Maplewood is a town that prides itself on diversity and inclusivity," Profeta said. "As a practical matter, we have actually been excluding a certain number of Orthodox Jews because of the carrying rule."
While Maplewood's proposal was presented at the last township committee meeting without controversy, eruvs have sparked disputes in other communities, from Palo Alto, Calif., to London.
In Tenafly, township officials waged a lengthy legal battle against residents of an Orthodox synagogue who attached plastic strips to utility poles to create an eruv. Township officials sued the residents, claiming the strips violated a municipal law against posting items on utility poles.
But a federal appellate court ruled against the town, saying the ordinance against posting was being selectively enforced. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case, forcing the borough to seek a settlement.
Tenafly officials are expected to vote on a settlement in January.
In Maplewood, the eruv may actually bring economic benefits to Springfield Avenue, an area of town earmarked for redevelopment.
Both Orthodox synagogues are located near the commercial strip, and a growing Orthodox community could draw businesses, such as kosher butchers and bakers.
"There are various kinds of businesses that serve a traditional Jewish community and that attract a regional clientele," said Bauml, the committee chairman.
But while the eruv may come with economic implications, Profeta said that's not the impetus behind the resolution to allow it.
"The motivation for this as far as I'm concerned is fairness and inclusivity," Profeta said. "If there is an ancillary economic benefit, we'll be happy about that as well."
Sara K. Clarke may be reached at 973-392-1896 or at sclarke@starled ger.com.
|
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 3408
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 3:39 pm: |
|
I just called the Mayor's Office to see it this passed. It did - 4 to 1. Not sure who voted for or against though. I'm glad it passed and Maplewood's Government didn't do what Tenafly and other communities have done in the past!
Mark and Eric, what are the odds South Orange could do something similar? We have three Temples (that I know of) somewhat near each other, two on Scotland, the third Irvington Ave. |
susan1014
Supporter
Username: Susan1014
Post Number: 1203
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 3:48 pm: |
|
None of S.O.s temples are orthodox, so there may not be much demand for an eruv. |
aquaman
Supporter
Username: Aquaman
Post Number: 628
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 4:55 pm: |
|
There are no temples of any sort in Maplewood, so where's the demand there for an eruv? |
gj1
Citizen
Username: Gj1
Post Number: 276
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 5:09 pm: |
|
There are two orthodox temples in Maplewood. Maplewood Jewish Center is on Prospect at Parker and is certainly within walking distance of part of South Orange. The other, I think, is on Boyden. |
aquaman
Supporter
Username: Aquaman
Post Number: 629
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 5:32 pm: |
|
Thanks for the correction. Are they "temples" or "centers"?
And does that explain the demand for an eruv? |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 6810
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 7:40 pm: |
|
Aquaman: They are both orthodox shuls. The one on Boyden is near the Irvington border. |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14324
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 8:03 pm: |
|
Mr. Grodman voted against it. |
Jonathan Teixeira
Citizen
Username: Jhntxr
Post Number: 309
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 9:40 pm: |
|
Why should there be a problem ? We have just about everthing under the sun in Maplewood . Mr Profeta is absolutely right ! It's a plus for us . Then , we can truly say that our town is indeed diverse and inclusive . |
crabby
Citizen
Username: Crabbyappleton
Post Number: 397
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 9:29 am: |
|
But we're told no one can sing or play a carol in school. So why are the orthodox getting special treatment for religious laws they impose on themselves. |
susan1014
Supporter
Username: Susan1014
Post Number: 1208
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 9:39 am: |
|
For the same reason that churches and synagogues get special parking rules and the like when they need it. Facilitation of individuals and their worship at their churches, synagogues, mosques.
This has nothing to do with what is or is not done in a public school curriculum. |
Jonathan Teixeira
Citizen
Username: Jhntxr
Post Number: 318
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 9:42 am: |
|
This is in a different setting , on the streets . It's like the wheelchair accessible sidewalks . Not a classroom . |
sac
Supporter
Username: Sac
Post Number: 2949
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 3:14 pm: |
|
susan1014,
Regarding parking accommodations, I posted this on the other thread on this topic, but am repeating it here since you brought it up ...
"Actually, in the one case I am aware of regarding parking near a church, the TC voted to put in restrictions that made it more difficult for the church in question. I refer to the limitations on parking on Sunday only on certain streets near the hispanic church on Parker Avenue (the former Christ Lutheran church building.) Those restrictions effectively eliminate a good portion of the reasonable parking for those attending worship at that church. Those of us in other churches in the area, were (and remain) concerned about those restrictions being put in place which made it more difficult for the church and certainly seemed to cross the church-state line a bit. Many churches in town do not have their own parking lots (and cannot possibly obtain the necessary real estate to put them in these days), so restrictions on street parking are a significant obstacle in cases like this."
On the other thread where this was posted, there was a response to the effect that it was entirely a public safety issue. Perhaps so, but I would think that the safety issue could be addressed in a more moderate way (i.e. one or two car-lengths of no-parking zone near the intersection) to also better accommodate the needs of the church and that apparently did not happen in that case. So I still think that it is wrong to say that there are accommodations for churches in town regarding parking. If I'm wrong and some examples can be cited, then I'm listening.
I will agree that, at times, the police are very helpful in directing traffic at heavy periods near churches, so perhaps that could be considered an accommodation, but it doesn't really pertain to parking. |
susan1014
Supporter
Username: Susan1014
Post Number: 1211
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 5:05 pm: |
|
Sac, yes, I remember that one as another case where town policy seemed to reflect concerns about ethnic incursions into the town!
I'm not actually certain that there are other parking accomodations made in Maplewood. Certainly many towns and cities do (e.g. New York often changes parking rules for religious holidays).
I also don't know who is paying the bill when police show up to direct traffic at churches and synagogues. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 6815
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 5:21 pm: |
|
I spoke with a friend in Teaneck who told me that town has had a eruv there for many years with absolutely no problem. Most Teaneck residents don't even know it is there.
However, she mentioned that the experience in Tenafly when they tried to establish an eruv was very different. She doesn't know if Tenafly ever put one in. Does anyone know why Tenafly ran into so many problems? |
sac
Supporter
Username: Sac
Post Number: 2951
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 7:11 pm: |
|
I don't know anything about what happened in Tenafly but I have a speculation ...
I suspect that the difficulties may arise from discussions (such as the ones we are having on this board) and associated concerns raised about ESTABLISHING the eruv. However, I believe that the reality of it, once established, is that it is basically invisible to everyone other than those who need it according to their beliefs. (That, to me, is what distinguishes it from most of the other issues raised such as carols or nativities or other religious items/symbols.) |
Jonathan Ben-Asher
Citizen
Username: Jonathanba
Post Number: 105
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 12:56 am: |
|
I believe that establishing the eruv is a big mistake.
The Township's involvement in establishing the eruv has both a religious purpose and a religious effect -- the two tests the Supreme Court has used to determine if the church/state boundary is being improperly crossed. Its sole purpose is to permit members of one faith to observe religious rituals in a comfortable fashion. None of this is or should be the Township's business, even if might result in economic benefit.
I am a strongly identified Jew. Always have been, always will be. If the Township proposed to string crosses(even invisible ones) from utility poles in deference to the wishes of Christians, I would be tremendously uncomfortable. I am equally uncomfortable with the Township involving itself in fostering religious observance by Jews.
None of this is the proper business of government. The Town's business is governance, and the eruv embroils the town in sectarian rituals. Even deciding the question of whether an eruv is proper makes our government rule on the seriousness and deserving or non-deserving nature of a particular religious observance.
When I read in last week's News Record that the Township Committee was considering setting up a creche, I felt the same way. History teaches us that it's no good to have religious groups competing for approval from the state and space in the public sphere. It's too messy, there's no way of judging who should have what, and it always gets nasty. Religion is essentially a private matter, and our holidays are our holidays alone -- not necessarily those of our neighbors.
Today's News Record said that Ian Grodman had voted against the eruv -- Ian, I don't know you, but I salute your sachel (that's wisdom in Yiddish.) |
Jonathan Ben-Asher
Citizen
Username: Jonathanba
Post Number: 106
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 1:49 am: |
|
PS - After posting this, I saw the other thread under Soapbox. It was disturbing to read how a few posters betrayed their anti-Semitic beliefs with warnings that the eruv would essentially bring hordes of Orthodox here, who would not be the kind of people we would like to move to Maplewood.
The person who started the thread talked of Fred Profeta "sucking up" to Orthodox Jews. The "sucking up" language is a wonderful reference to the time honored theory that we are an all-powerful force to reckon with. Anti Semites have long ranted that Jews control the banks, newspapers, government, Catholic Church, Communist party, Hollywood, etc. How we acquired all these assets with our legendary cheapness is an interesting question. And somehow we control all this stuff with our long tentacles, even though many of the world's nations have been deighted to beat up on us for a few millenia.
A free copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to the author of the most ridiculous anti-Semitic hooey.
Notwithstanding the above, I'm still against the eruv.
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10050
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 3:33 am: |
|
Johnathan, it is interesting that you didn't mention the proposal for a Menorah on Township property, or was this an oversight?
One of the interesting differences, in general, between Christians and Jews is that something like a eruv doesn't upset most Christians. A similar symbol of Christianity tends to make a lot of Jews uncomfortable.
For the record I have no problem with a Menorah, a Creche and an athiest diatribe at Ricalton Square. The more the merrier. Maybe we can get the Viking Beserkers who do the bank ads on TV to light a Yule log as well, an old pagan custom.
Do I get the copy of the Protocols for this post? |
Jenny
Citizen
Username: Jenjen
Post Number: 48
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 10:36 am: |
|
"One of the interesting differences, in general, between Christians and Jews is that something like a eruv doesn't upset most Christians. A similar symbol of Christianity tends to make a lot of Jews uncomfortable."
Sorry Bob K, despite your "in general," I have to say that I'm not sure where you get off generalizing what upsets most Christians or most Jews. Is there a scientific study I'm unaware of?
As a newcomer to town, I'm frankly shocked and disappointed at the type of discussion this has brought out on the Soapbox thread. I guess despite how tolerant Maplewood seems to be compared to other towns in NJ, there's still plenty of racism, bigotry, etc. here to go around.
I'm still not sure how I feel about the eruv, but I would never attempt to generalize how most members of any religion or race feel about any particular topic. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10052
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 12:47 pm: |
|
Jenny, I don't know if you were around for the holiday season last year or not. Students were told not to wear Christmas apparal to middle school. A fourth grader was prohibited from drawing a picture of Santa Claus and the "Christian" exhibit at South Mountain school was limited to snowflakes while the "Jewish" exhbit was a detailed explanation of the meaning of the Menorah. This was a non-issue.
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 11564
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 1:11 pm: |
|
bobk wrote: Johnathan, it is interesting that you didn't mention the proposal for a Menorah on Township property, or was this an oversight?
Are you for real? Are you asking if Jonathan favors the erection of a menorah? I don't see how you can get that from anything he wrote.
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10054
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 1:56 pm: |
|
Tom, Jonathan is against a Creche on Township property and states that is the case in his posting. He doesn't mention the Menorah that I believe is being installed at Ricalton Park, this year I believe since Hannukah starts on the 25th.
Just looking for an even playing field. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 11567
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 2:03 pm: |
|
Yet he opposes the eruv. An omission is the easiest thing to believe. I think you're stretching, bobk. Look at what he says about publicly funded religion: I am equally uncomfortable with the Township involving itself in fostering religious observance by Jews.
You wanted what, an exhaustive list of symbols?
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10056
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 2:09 pm: |
|
Hell no, but I think for clarities sake relevant ones should be mentioned. I suspect there are a fair number of intolerant people here who will get up in arms about the Creche, but will find the Menorah just fine and probably another subset who will react in just the opposite way.
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 11569
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 2:13 pm: |
|
Yes, I'm sure there are, and Jonathan has shown himself not to be among them.
Unless you want to read into the words that you are putting in his mouth.
He failed to mention something, and you're drawing a conclusion from that.
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10058
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 2:26 pm: |
|
The last thing I want to do is to trash Johnathan, who is a gentleman and a heck of a lawyer. However, sometimes what is not said is more important than what is said. I think we should let him decide if he wants to address my question or not. |
Jonathan Ben-Asher
Citizen
Username: Jonathanba
Post Number: 107
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 9:10 pm: |
|
Yikes, the issue is how we deal with the issue of church /state boundaries, not what are my predilections. I didn't mention the Menorah because I wasn't aware of those plans. I'm against that as well, for the same reasons.
On the question of Jews being more sensitive to Christian displays than Christians are to Jewish displays - if it's true, I suppose it comes from being a tiny minority in a overwhelmingly Christian country. When I was a kid, we sang lots of Christmas carols in my New Jersey public school, and while I liked the music, it was strange and uncomfortable to sing "Christ the angel is born." And, by the way, this was at a time when we were required to start off the school day by reciting the Lord's Prayer or a Psalm.
Tom and BobK, thanks for the kind words. Now I am wondering who Bob K is. Bob, if you are the parent of a middle schooler who was on the same soccer team as my daughter, greetings.
|
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 14
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, December 25, 2005 - 4:37 pm: |
|
Pardon my Christian ignorance but what is an eruv anyways? 
Jenny-please relax and leave the race labels at bay please. I wish those who promote the concept of diversity the most would understand that the notion includes discussing topics that one might feel uncomfortable talking about. It is always the "Diversity First" crowd that are the most touchy and the first to try to shut up others they don't agree with.....
Being critical of others doesn not automatically mean you hate them. I am Catholic and critical of Catholicism, does that means I mean I am anti-Catholic?
Bob K.-Although I agree alot with what you say I am with Tom on this one. The old argument of "what is not said is more important than what is said" is so ridiculous and childish, and logically asinine .
Whoa, horsie!!! Scrotis Lo never publicly condemmed Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments about wiping Israel off the map and the Holocaust being a hoax so he must agree with him!!!! Ahhh no....
I apologize to all you sensitive folks about the example I used but I am merely trying to make a point.....
Anyways, now that I got that out (I have been at my in-laws for the last 8 days for the holidays-how would you feel?), would someone be so kind as to define what an eruv is please?
Thanks and Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, Merry Kwaanzza (SP) and um, I am now done!!!! 
|
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 15
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, December 25, 2005 - 4:41 pm: |
|
scratch my request on thye definition of an eruv. I always forget that dictionary .com is always close by....
For those of you who care, let me get back to you on this...my mind needs to digest the concept. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 6833
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, December 25, 2005 - 7:37 pm: |
|
Check to companion threads in Soapbox for a good definition of an eruv. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 11577
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 25, 2005 - 10:30 pm: |
|
And see also the wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruv
I highly recommend wikipedia.
|
lizzyr
Citizen
Username: Lizzyr
Post Number: 219
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 11:32 am: |
|
what are the exact boundaries of the proposed eruv? |
hch
Citizen
Username: Hch
Post Number: 190
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 3:14 pm: |
|
Why do you need to put markers on utility poles? Why not designate certain boundaries on a map? |
Daniel M. Jacobs, PP, AICP
Supporter
Username: Conrail
Post Number: 84
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 4:49 pm: |
|
The legal theory is that you are not allowed to carry objects during the sabbath, except within your own home. In ancient times, walled cities (because they were enclosed) allowed residents to carry objects on the sabbath -- in effect a legalistic exemption. In modern times, orthodox jews will place a physical boundary around their village/town to mimic the ancient walled towns. This is why permission from the municpality is necessary, because it acts as a physical "enclosure" of the village limits. I grew up in Teaneck and never noticed the eruv, even though I knew it was there. |
Albatross
Citizen
Username: Albatross
Post Number: 780
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 1:50 pm: |
|
I don't see the problem with it; in effect, it is no different than posting flyers on a Township bulletin board. The only reason the Township Committee got involved was as a matter of Jewish law, which requires the Jewish community to ask the community at large for permission to erect it. The vote was nothing more than a formality.
Also: http://www.jcrc.org/issues/eruv.htm contains (at the bottom of the page) a review of ACLU of NJ v. City of Long Branch, in which the New Jersey District Court ruled that the construction of the eruv and the City's granting permission did not violate the Establishment Clause. |
jet
Citizen
Username: Jet
Post Number: 993
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 8:42 am: |
|
I'm against this . After consulting many Jewish friends including those from Livingston to Orange Co. NY . They all think we are making a big mistake. You guys realize that 8 kids for a Ortodox Jewish family is like no big deal. They also suggested adding more surplus to the budget for the coming litigation , it seems to be their favorite pastime. |
Daniel M. Jacobs, PP, AICP
Supporter
Username: Conrail
Post Number: 85
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 11:00 am: |
|
?!?!?! |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page