OzTorah

Q. A local council has voted against the creation of an eruv in the northern Sydney suburb of St Ives. Media reports quoted a few Jews who expressed opposition to the eruv, claiming that it will lead to the creation of a ghetto and bring antisemitism.* Do their arguments have any justification?

A. An eruv is not a fence, wall or partition; it does not affect any of the amenities of the neighbourhood.

It is a symbolic delineation of an area as private property in terms of Jewish law, enabling orthodox Jews to carry or wheel babies on Shabbat or carry necessary items in the street as they would in their own homes.

It can be described by the Jewish saying, “This person has a benefit and this one does not suffer”.

Some Jews have claimed that it will create a ghetto or lead to antisemitism. It will do no such thing. The public will continue to live as they always have, and there will be no fenced-in areas which anyone will see or be affected by.

It is not a sort of physical ghetto with high walls, gates and locks, and unless you knew the eruv is there you would probably not notice it as it utilises (often pre-existent) poles, wires and natural boundaries.

The only thing that will mark out a Jewish home will, as in the past, be the mezuzah, but this is not new and I am sure the Jewish critics have mezuzot themselves.

I am at a loss to understand why anyone thinks it will create bad feeling between Jews and non-Jews; antisemitism is not created by Jews but by non-Jews, and the actual fact is that when non-Jews see Jews conscientiously observing their religious traditions their respect for us actually increases.

It would be very strange if any Jew felt embarrassed to see fellow Jews able, thanks to the eruv, to carry a tallit or siddur to shule on Shabbat, or to wheel a baby in a pram.

If this causes embarrassment then so, presumably, does the existence of synagogues and Jewish schools on the public streets, Jewish graves in cemeteries, Judaica on bookshop shelves, kosher foods in supermarkets, Jewish music on concert platforms and Jewish characters, themes and ideas in every area of human culture.

Most of us prefer to be proud of our Judaism and happy that we are able to practise it. Even those who decide not to follow one or other Jewish practice should be pleased that their fellow Jews do not lack the facilities they need for the observance of the commandments.

* This article first appeared in August 2011.

It is unfair when a text is distorted and misunderstood. But this has often been the fate of the passage, “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” (Ex. 21:24).

Torn out of context, quoted without regard to its obvious purpose, the verse has been accused of teaching primitive vengeance and barbarously taking the law into one’s own hands.

Not only has this canard been used to denigrate the Jewish Bible; it has become part of the stock in trade of those who accuse the Jews of being a stern, tribalistic, legalistic people with a stern, tribalistic, legalistic God.

Evidence that this is a distortion of the facts has been constantly advanced over many centuries; hopefully fair-mindedness and reasonable scholarship will ensure that justice will finally prevail.

One of the best defences of the real meaning of the verse was written by the Cambridge scholar, Herbert Loewe.

He asks, what is one of the primary functions of a state or organised society?

To afford security to its citizens, all of them, great and small, rich and poor.

It does not leave it to the individual to do their own thing when a wrong has been committed; it makes the administration of justice the task of society and its settled courts, on the principle that equality of penalty is maintained without fear or favour.

Penalties, if necessary, are imposed “as the judges determine” (Ex. 21:22). Guidelines are provided for the judges; they too cannot do their own thing but must serve the cause of justice for all their citizens.

If someone injures another person’s eye, “an eye for an eye” does not sanction gouging out the eye of the guilty party. The words are dramatic, but they establish a principle: the punishment must fit the crime. The punishment must not be out of proportion, nor must a rich person suffer less and a poor person suffer more.

“An eye for an eye” is not an invitation to a private blood feud, nor does it imply that a physical injury may be punished with a reciprocal physical injury.

The context makes it clear that we are talking about the payment of compensation, and whilst no amount of monetary compensation can bring back an eye, a limb or life, at least it enables society to express its strong collective disapproval of what has been done.

Q. At marriages I have seen the chuppah situated either indoors or outside. Is there any preference as to where it should be? Also, why do the bride and groom have a few minutes together in private after the ceremony?

A. The word chuppah, from a root that means “to cover”, was known from Biblical times, not as a public wedding canopy but as a private room or tent.

Thus Psalm 19:6 likens the happiness of the groom coming forth from his chuppah to the sun rising in the morning. Joel 2:16 speaks in similar terms about a bride emerging from her chuppah. This must indicate a marriage room, her entrance into which makes intimacy possible and creates the status of marriage.

As marriage customs developed, the word chuppah meant not a private marriage room as such but a canopy under which the couple were placed, though not necessarily for the ceremony itself.

In some places, bride and groom sat under a pavilion or canopy in the synagogue courtyard prior to the ceremony.

In some places, during the ceremony which took place in the synagogue the groom lifted part of his garment (e.g. his tallit) over the bride’s head, presumably as a token of protection.

The Talmud discusses the issue of when they become man and wife and asks whether it is at the moment of chuppah. The question is whether this means the private marriage room or the public covering before or during the ceremony.

The answer that evolved combined the options (the Rema on Even HaEzer 55:1) so that there is both a public ceremony under a textile covering on four poles, and a few minutes when the couple eat in private; “that,” says the Rema, “is the chuppah“.

Since the time they spent together (yichud) reflected the fact that the chuppah was originally the private marriage room or tent which provided the opportunity for intimacy, it may have been thought inappropriate to have the chuppah – in either sense – in the synagogue itself, and hence in many communities the preference developed to have the canopy in the synagogue courtyard.

The Rema, however, adds the additional explanation that a canopy in the open air is a sign of blessing (Even HaEzer 61:1), not that there is a prohibition on weddings in the synagogue (the Rema to Yoreh De’ah 391).

Q. How is it that a wedding ring must be plain, without diamonds or other precious stones?

A. Some people, even when they are getting married, are not entirely honest with each other. One of the problems of lack of honesty must have been, at a stage in our history, that a groom would deceive his bride as to the value of the wedding ring, and this would affect the validity of the marriage ceremony. Hence to place the value of the ring beyond all doubt, it was ordained that only a plain ring could be used.

Another approach to the answer is to say that just as an ostentatious ring does not guarantee a happy marriage, so in anything in marriage it is not the outward show that matters but the inner spirit of love, harmony and understanding.

In the Bible there are two ways of being a religious leader.

One can be a kohen, a priest concerned with rituals and practices, or a prophet who preaches the word of HaShem.

This week’s portion defines Israel as a people of priests – mamlechet kohanim v’goy kadosh – “a kingdom of kohanim, a holy people” (Ex. 19:6).

We all minister to God in His sanctuary, not merely in the official house of worship but in the home (the mikdash m’at, the “miniature temple”), the factory, office, school and street. We have prayers to say, kashrut to maintain, Sabbaths and festivals to honour.

Every day of the year, every stage in life has its rituals to observe. That might be called the particularistic dimension of Jewish identity: we are Jews far zich – “amongst ourselves”.

From the example of Moses (Deut. 34:10) we also learn that we are a people of prophets with a universalistic mission amongst mankind. As prophets we belong to the world.

Alenu, the great concluding prayer of every Jewish service, written by Rav in the 3rd century CE, sums up our two dimensions: particularism in the first paragraph, universalism in the second.

The prophetic role begins with Judaism but is capable of being shared by other peoples.