As a non-observant Jew, the eruv means little to me.
I believe that one can interpret biblical commands and manipulate them to an absurd degree. That orthodox Jews should remain prisoners in their homes on the Sabbath is a complete nonsense.
I see no objection to a mother taking out her child in a pushchair or a disabled person being wheeled to synagogue.
The installation of poles and wires creating a boundary enabling them to do so is quite absurd and I am sure the good Lord thinks so too.
However, so what. It does no harm and satisfies some members of the community, although not all. Some ultra-orthodox Jews find it still unacceptable.
The subject regularly seems to offend Walter Grey (Be mindful of an anti-Semitic backlash', Letters, January 19). Why?
He suggests an anti-Semitic backlash because of the large Jewish population in the borough of Barnet. Is he really concerned about anti-Semitism? I think not.
One does not have to be particularly brilliant to read between the lines. He may claim not to be an anti-Semite, but whom is he fooling? Why is he concerned about the prospect of an increase in anti-Semitism?
It obviously upsets him deeply that there is a large Jewish population in Barnet and the eruv is a politically correct way for him to express his prejudiced views.
Who do you think you are fooling Mr Grey?
I care not about the installation of an eruv, one way or another. But please do not insult the intelligence of the Jewish community.
Jeffrey Kwintner
Fairfield Crescent, Edgware
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article