By Amy Holan , Special to JTNews
Sometimes something as seemingly innocuous as a mezuzah hanging on the doorpost of a condominium can raise the biggest legal questions. Such was the case with the recent Continuing Legal Education meeting, hosted by the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle’s Cardozo Society, that discussed two cases in which a mezuzah and an eruv, a line placed around a neighborhood that allows observant Jews to carry items on the Sabbath.
On Shabbat, prohibitions such as no carrying items outside one’s house can make it difficult to be an Orthodox parent, said Emanuel Jacobowitz, who presented the Tenafly (N.J.) Eruv Association, Inc. v. The Borough of Tenafly case, which after filed in 1999 took more than two years to settle.
Parents can’t carry children outside the front door, pack milk bottles for the child, or perform any other acts of pushing or lifting. Eruvim have other practical applications beyond children as well.
But what’s a prohibition without a workaround? The common loophole for Orthodox communities to leave the house without leaving their kids at home on Shabbat the eruv, which essentially creates one big household. It’s put in place by using existing wires strung on utility poles, and attaching vertical black rubber strips, about 6 inches long, called lechis.
These lechis form a symbolic “doorway,” Jacobowitz explained. Even by pushing a stroller to services, it is simply an extension of one’s home. Lechis are hard to spot, but they still appeared to get in the way in Tenafly, N.J., he said.
This town of 14,000 people had about 40 Orthodox families. When the eruv association approached the city of Tenafly with its request, Mayor Ann Moscovitz had no problem, but referred the matter to the city council. A public meeting followed, and concerns were raised:
• The Orthodox families would take over.
• People would be stoned for driving through.
• They would be giving up too much of the borough’s power.
Still, the process moved forward. The eruv association went to Bell Atlantic, the local phone company, and was granted the ability to hang the lechis.
A second council meeting was held. When the borough attorney noticed there was a “no-signage” ordinance, the votes were cast and, 5-0, the eruv was no longer allowed.
The only problem with this, Jacobowitz said, was that other signs still hung — political posters, holiday wreaths, and even large directional signs to churches displaying large crosses. This was obviously no longer an issue of a signage ordinance, Jacobowitz said. It was an issue of discrimination.
The Tenafly Eruv Association filed suit. The suit was dismissed on the grounds of reasoning that it didn’t violate the Fair Housing Act — Orthodox families could still live in their homes. There was no free-speech interest, either. It was cited to be a discriminatory interference with the free exercise of religion, however, so the eruv was granted by the 3rd Circuit Court. However, if the no-signs ordinance had been regularly applied, it would have been an easy decision the other way, Jacobowitz said.
Meanwhile, another religious freedom issue was brewing in the Seattle suburb of Shoreline.
Marvin Bloch and his family moved into their condo in the early 1970s, at which point they hung a mezuzah without incident. In 2001, hallway rules were implemented to clear away clutter. Another rule stated that sign plates, swastikas, Playboy bunnies and the like could not be to hung on doors. The Blochs were allowed to keep their mezuzah — that is, until 2004, when a new board president was elected.
Edward Frischholz took the board by storm, according to Kevin Britt, the attorney who presented on the matter. His first order of business: Renovations and painting. After the painting was finished, the Blochs mounted their mezuzah, and a battle of wills began. They would put it up; the condo association would take it down.
The Blochs proposed a new rule: How about an exception from the board for religious items? The hanging of a mezuzah is a mitzvah many Jews take very seriously. The board denied request.
Intolerance began to seep into other board issues, Britt said. Meetings had always been held during the week so the Blochs could attend, but after Frischholz took over, they would be held only on Friday nights. When the Blochs asked to change the date, dissension grew. Frischholz would also make comments about the unimportance of religion, Britt said.
But the final act of intolerance occurred when Bloch died. The family was sitting shiva, and asked the board for an exception to hang the mezuzah during this time. It was granted, but when the family returned home with the rabbi from the funeral, they were humiliated to find the mezuzah gone.
They filed their case and won, but the victory wasn’t clear-cut. Without the other intolerant acts, it would have been a much harder case to win, Britt said.
“If you don’t have the board member making flippant comments,… if you don’t have the funeral type incidents,” he said, “it’s a much, much harder argument to make.”
So what can a condo owner, do?
In a situation like this, “there is a basis to resist a condominium board that is telling you to take down a mezuzah,” Britt said. “That doesn’t mean necessarily that you will win…[but] given the right set of facts, you can get past some of the judgment.”
Jacobowitz added that house hunters should know condo association rules before making an offer.
“Preferably, get it in writing,” he said. “It’s much more difficult for the board to come down and change their mind or change the rule if you get it in writing first.”