Parental eruv stance could cost children school place in strictly-Orthodox split

A new split has emerged in the strictly-Orthodox community in north-west London over the newly-approved Golders Green eruv.

Details of the split – a difference of opinion between the Union of Orthodox Synagogues (UOHC) and the Federation –  emerged after a parent questioned the admissions policy of Pardes House.

The parent said they were considering sending their son to the school’s reception class in September next year. But the parent wanted to clarify what would happen if they answered “no” to a question on the form about compliance with the UOHC rulings “in respect of the north-west London Eiruv/in”.

The UOHC has recently issued a stern public notice stating that “we have already revealed our opinion several times that one should not establish an eruv in a large city such as London (except in streets that have three complete partitions), due to concerns about both Biblical and rabbinic law”.

The school was asked to confirm if “answering no indicated that the family did not meet the criteria for “the designation of Orthodox Jewish (Charedi) as described in the Introduction to the Pardes House Primary school admissions policy”… and what the impact of answering no would be “on an applicant’s ranking in the oversubscription criteria”.

Admissions secretary for Pardes House, Sarah Russell, told the parent that compliance or otherwise with UOHC rulings had no bearing on the family’s designation as Charedi for the purpose of admission to the school.

But, she said, if the parent answered “no” to compliance with UOHC rulings on the eruv, there would indeed be an effect. “The child on whose behalf the application is made will be prioritised below children who fall within categories 1,2 and 3 of the oversubscription criteria”.

In other words, it is understood that unless a family is prepared to tell Pardes House that they do not agree with the new eruv, and that they do agree with the UOHC denunciation of it, then if the school’s admissions are oversubscribed next year their child has less chance of being admitted.

Behind the scenes lies a tangled web of opinion and counter-opinion, part of a larger battle for supremacy in the strictly Orthodox communities between the UOHC and the Federation. Not every rabbi on the UOHC, for example, signed the condemnation of the eruv; Rabbi Shlomo Freshwater, whose Sassover synagogue is affiliated to both the UOHC and the Federation, has published responsa (rabbinical opinions) in favour of the new eruv.

He did not sign the UOHC public notice and congregants from his synagogue have now sent him a letter calling on him to resign from the UOHC rabbinate and dissociate himself from their ruling.

Meanwhile, other rabbis have signed the UOHC notice, despite being specifically consulted some time ago by the Federation’s Rabbi Shraga Zimmerman to ask if there were halachic objections to the new eruv — and being told there were not.

All this means that those families who had wished to take advantage of the new eruv might now be glancing uneasily over their shoulders, worried that using it would affect their children’s education prospects.