Why are the lakewood rabbanim so against an eruv in thier Town??

Joseph,

So according to your logic – Yerushulayim, Bnei Brak, Bet Shemesh, Monsey, anywhere else – All should demolish there Eruvin, due to the above Shu”A women issue?!

Hmm it sure indicates your sense of logic…

Gaon: There was a chassidish-western song titled something like “Looking for logic in all the wrong places” (or was it “love”)….either way don’t invest too much time search for a “logic” in certain trolling comments. Eruvin are here to stay and probably are an important factor keeping lots of younger families in the expanding number of shomer Shabbos couples we see in cities around the country pushing baby carriages and overall contributing to the explosion of yiddeshkeit. At some point, responding to trolling only seems to energize the troller to post even more outrageous stuff.

Joseph Says: “The Shulchan Aruch and Rambam pasken l’halacha that women shouldn’t be out of the home much”

The usual nareshnkeit from our resident msycoginst troll .

“Kinder, Küche, Kirche” or the 3 Ks, is the 19th century German slogan translated as “children, kitchen, church”. It shares the derogatory connotation extracted out of context by Joseph describing what is obviously meant to be an antiquated female role model in contemporary Western society from the Mullahs of Iran and Riyadh. The phrase is vaguely equivalent to the medieval English “barefoot and pregnant” or the Victorian ode:

“Take hold of kettle, broom and pan,
Then you’ll surely get a man!
Shop and office leave alone,
Your true life work lies at home.”

Sadly, and most ominously, is the worldview of the Nazi philosopher, Y’S, who wrote:
“The mission of women is to bring children into the world. This is not at all as………unmodern as it sounds. The female bird pretties herself for her mate and hatches eggs for him. In exchange, the male takes care of gathering food, and stands guard and wards off the enemy.”
Joseph Goebbels, 1929

Gaon: There’s a shittah that the 600K only applies to cities and intra-city roads require fewer than 600K. I don’t know if this has anything to do with Rt. 9. I have absolutely no idea what the “Route 9” situation is that people are talking about, so I’m just guessing. For the other eruv communities you mentioned, could it be that, based on trends in American Jewry, it was decided that Lakewood wouldn’t handle an eruv as well as those communities you mentioned?

Joseph: The Machaber and Rambam saying so doesn’t mean we pasken that way, and it certainly doesn’t mean that it should be used as a basis against eruvs. We don’t know that that’s actually the issue with a Lakewood eruv; that post earlier seemed like anecdotal evidence. You’ll have to do better than that to convince me, but it’s not a bad argument inherently.

Gadol: I’m not trolling, but I will apologize in advance if what I’m about to say offends you. Based on CR history, you clearly proudly align yourself with the very modern side of the Orthodox hemisphere (which I’m not condemning here). Lakewood clearly represents a farther right-wing community. Could it be that they want to avoid the eruv for the very reason that they want to keep out the more modern side that tends to be more dependent on eruvs to preserve what they perceive to be the integrity of Lakewood?

Neville:

The Mechaber (and Rambam) I referenced we certainly do pasken in accordance with. In fact, the Halacha is brought by Chazal in the Gemorah. Furthermore, in the entire corpus of Halacha there is not a single shitta disagreeing with said Halacha.

Nev,

“Gaon: There’s a shittah that the 600K only applies to cities and intra-city roads require fewer than 600K.”

I am aware of that shitah – it is the shitas haRamban in Eruvin 59 (i think that’s the daf). that a “sratya” does not require 600k, he says that “bederch efsher” to answer shitas Rashi. However the Shu”a and the TUR seem like they don’t go with that shitah. (I recall the Avnei Nezer ruling that most Rishonim clearly say not like the above Ramban)

GH: You wrote “there are enough younger bnos yisorel who do accept them and it is crucial for their ability to get out of the house on Shabbos with the kids and live a normal life.”

Are you saying that women who live in places without an eiruv don’t live a normal life?

@Joseph
“The rabbonim of a city absolutely have the right to enact and enforce a takana above and beyond plain halachic permissiveness.”

No they do not. It is either a gezeirah or a takanah and unless this is hora’as sha’ah, only a Sanhedrin has a right to implement a gezeirah forever or as Rav Moshe states that rabbanim may only enact a takanah for their particular locale and only for a short period of time (Igraos Moshe, 4:49).

@Neville ChaimBerlin
“From my understanding the Mishnah Berurah says a Baal Nefesh holds by this definition. The Kitzur definitely advocates for the stricter definition in line with the Rif, Rambam, and Rashba.”

There is no doubt that we accept the criterion of shishim ribo lechtchila. The fact is we know today, contrary to the Mishnah Beurah, that the overwhelming majority of Rishonim uphold shishim ribo. In other words the MB’s list has been superseded.

“I never really understood the 600K shittah (even though I rely on it). It’s always stated in books like, “in our times there are no reshus harabim” (books written before big cities like NYC). That just doesn’t really add up since it implies that in the past they DID have to worry about it, when back then it would have required more than half of klal Yisroel to casually walk down the road.”

The point being, that early walled cities required that all people enter and exit through a particular street. Consequentially, these streets where the reshus harrabim of the city. Rashi states (Eruvin, 6b) that the main roads of Yerushalayim and Mechuza were classified a s a reshus harabbim (read Rashi carefully).

@Joseph
“The Shulchan Aruch and Rambam pasken l’halacha that women shouldn’t be out of the home much. So the general concern (aside from an eruv) is certainly a valid one. (Unless the S”A doesn’t mean much to you.)”

What does this have to do with Shabbos and eruvin?

@Neville ChaimBerlin
“Gaon: There’s a shittah that the 600K only applies to cities and intra-city roads require fewer than 600K. I don’t know if this has anything to do with Rt. 9. I have absolutely no idea what the “Route 9” situation is that people are talking about, so I’m just guessing. ”

This is argued by the Ramban (Eruvin 59a, and maybe the Tosfos Rid), however we do not paskin like this shita.

However, this can’t be the argument about Rav Aharon and RT 9. Rav Ahron followed the Mishkinos Yaakov who does not accept shishim ribo as a criterion of a reshus harabbim at all.

An eruv helps to increase our oneg Shabbos, e.g., families with young children, the elderly, and the infirm are no longer confined to their homes (Perishah, O.C. 395:1).

Would be a nice idea for those interested in pursuing greater understanding of the Halchos being discussed to study the sources inside. To understand Rav Ahron’s shita, please see his teshuva in Shu”t Mishnas Rav Ahron. Good place to start.

It’s interesting how many people commented how “they don’t know why Rt 9 would be different than any other road wider than 16 Amos”, and then proceeded to disparage the idea. It would be far more intelligent to actually find out the answer….

Nev,

“I don’t think anyone here has denied that if an individual wants to hold by the machmir shittah, it’s a good thing.”

Agreed, however, that will be true if that individual is Machmir on each and every Halcha were it is states “Baal Nefesh” should be Yotza all.
And last time I checked, i don’t recall women to follow that rule at all, so why when it comes to Eruvin are some so obsessed with “baal Nefesh” leHachmir?

Even the Brisker’s allow the women to carry in Jerusalem…

You,

“The point being, that early walled cities required that all people enter and exit through a particular street. Consequentially, these streets where the reshus harrabim of the city. Rashi states (Eruvin, 6b) that the main roads of Yerushalayim and Mechuza were classified a s a reshus harabbim (read Rashi carefully).”

True, as explained by the Aruch HaSulchan (345) who holds that only towns that have that particular structure of one main street are to be classified as a Reshus Harabim.

In fact, if you look into Rashi Eruvin (59b) he says as the following:

אלא לאורכה – דרך עיירות להיות פתחי פילושיהן לאורכם ורה”ר עוברת מפתח לפתח וחלוקה לאורכה הלכך אין בני עבר הלז רשאין לערב לבדן ובני עבר הלז לבדן משום דהני והני דרסי בהך רה”ר ויוצאין ונכנסין דרך פתחים לכאן ולכאן ורה”ר זו מחברתם שכולם מעורבין בה ואסרי אהדדי

As you can see the typical structure explained by Rashi, in the times of the Talmud, was with one main street.

Maskil,
“It’s interesting how many people commented how “they don’t know why Rt 9 would be different than any other road wider than 16 Amos”, and then proceeded to disparage the idea. It would be far more intelligent to actually find out the answer….”
“To understand Rav Ahron’s shita, please see his teshuva in Shu”t Mishnas Rav Ahron. Good place to start.”

Well, I am past that stage (as mentioned in my previous comment) – can you please enlighten us?

Joseph,
“And last time I checked, i don’t recall women to follow that rule at all… Even the Brisker’s allow the women to carry in Jerusalem…”

GAON: Why are you differentiating men and women regarding this Halacha? And which “rule” don’t women follow?”

Rule = “Baal Hanefesh” leHachmir.
“Why are you differentiating” – I’m just stating a fact. All Briker Ravs kids permitted/ed their wives to carry in Jerusalem – that is a fact.

Now why?

“Baal Hanefesh” leHachmir’ is not for anyone to claim so, if you learn through the inyan and determine from that there are shitos leHachmir, then you can say you want to be machmir, otherwise you should just follow basic halacha and the minhag.

Yes, I know nowadays each and every Am Haaretz proclaim themselves as a Ba’al Nefesh’.
However – ask most of these Anti-Eruv hotheads which Siman in Shulcchan Aruch you can find these particular Halachas? and they won’t even know to answer…

Nev,
“You’re implying that we should just follow the letter of a law, and if somebody wants to take on one chumrah as a nice thing, they have to take on every chumrah that exists? That’s absurd.”

Yes – Read my above comment on how and when you can pick a certain Halacha as a “Ba’al Nefesh” , otherwise, why is R”T teffilin the only point where you say so – why wouldn’t you apply any other Chumra to ” Mechza “k’Yehora” ?

FYI – “Ba’al Nefesh” is a certain level you have achieved as a Yirai Shomayim – it is across the entire spectrum of Halacha. You don’t exactly pick and chose, unless perhaps you have a specific reason to, as above.

Rashi in Pesachim 40a says:
“בעל נפש – “חסיד:
הכי קאמר אפילו חיט – ….. בעל נפש לא ילתות אבל” דלאו בעל נפש “דלא מחמיר על נפשיה כולי האי”: דשרירן.:
This is across all halachos – not one or two.

GAON: “I am aware that Rav Ahron accepted the Mishkenos Yaakov regarding Mechitzos in opposing the Bais Efraiyim (as per his responsum in Mishnas R”A) , but where does he pasken like the Mishkenos Yaakov regarding Shishim Ribo?
That is going against all previous poskim, like Magen Avrohom, T”Z, and even the MB leHalacha.”

Rav Aharon states (MRA, 6:10) that that the MB maintains that the majority of Rishonim do not accept shishim ribo, and therefore, Rav Aharon argues the heter is mefulash umechavanim (but then he came up with a chiddush in how we apply this criterion). This is in opposition to the MA and Taz (he obviously understood that the MB was really machmir). However, since Rav Aharon is following the Mishkenos Yaakov, it is understandable.

“Especially if there is a Tzuras Hapesach involved, many poskim uphold that its in any case (even with 600K) not a Reshus haRabim M’Doraisa and is only D’Rabonon that a Tzuras Hapesach won’t suffice…(see Shulchan Aruch Harav 364, Avnei Nezer CM 107)”

Rav Aharon followed the MY who maintains that we require delasos even in a karmelis. However, you are correct, the majority of poskim upheld that a tzuras hapesach would be sufficient on a Doraysa level, and that we only require delasos if all criteria of a reshus hrabbim are met.

V’ahi bimei Shfot Hashoftim…
It’s not the place to discuss the merits of opinions of the Rabonim of Lakewood.
These anonymous conversations usually lead to bezui talmidei Chachomim.

“Therefore, even the MB should/would admit that a baal nefesh can rely on the criterion.”

The MB is not the only one – the Shulchan Aruch HaRav also agrees that a Baal Nefesh should be Machmir:
I will quote his words (345:11):

“ויש אומרים שכל שאין ששים רבוא עוברים בו בכל יום כדגלי מדבר אינו רשות הרבים אלא כרמלית
ועל פי דבריהם נתפשט המנהג במדינות אלו להקל ולומר “שאין לנו עכשיו רשות הרבים גמורה” ואין למחות בידם שיש להם על מי שיסמכו (וכל ירא שמים יחמיר לעצמופו)

However, We can argue that he is not speaking in a case where there is a Tzuras haPesach..

Also, the ones that are to be Machmir should be consistent with Baal Nefesh as above..

” Rav Aharon argues the heter is mefulash umechavanim (but then he came up with a chiddush in how we apply this criterion)”

Speaking about the Mishkenos Yaakov, I recall his understating on Mefulash (as per Rashi, he quotes a Yerushalmi i think that argues) is not like RM nor R”A .

Nev,
“the Mishnah Berurah was wrong about how most rishonim held and that were he alive today he would correct the “mistake”? Do you have a source that says this?”

See the below link that states so in Anef Bais . Sefer Bais Av – He lived in the times of the MIshna Berurah:

http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=2151&st=&pgnum=89

He seems to be one of the forgotten great gaonim in his times, he has an probation of the Minkser Gadol (who rarely gave any Haskamos – see below link) and the Sdei Chemed quotes him many times with highh regards.:

http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=10002&st=&pgnum=3

Hersh,
“Gaon; seems agav churfeI toah. Just because a halacha is complex then we can’t do it? Id that what lakewood is all about”

I fail to follow your logic – which Halacha is complex? What part? Eruvin?

GAON: “The MB is not the only one – the Shulchan Aruch HaRav also agrees that a Baal Nefesh should be Machmir: I will quote his words (345:11):
“ויש אומרים שכל שאין ששים רבוא עוברים בו בכל יום כדגלי מדבר אינו רשות הרבים אלא כרמלית
ועל פי דבריהם נתפשט המנהג במדינות אלו להקל ולומר “שאין לנו עכשיו רשות הרבים גמורה” ואין למחות בידם שיש להם על מי שיסמכו (וכל ירא שמים יחמיר לעצמופו)”

However I will quote Rav Avraham Chaim Naah בקונטרס השלחן (ע’ ל”ו הערה ס”ט) :
בדפוס קאפוסט תיבות “וכל יר”ש יחמיר לעצמו” נדפסו בחצאי עיגול במאמר מוסגר, וכן בדפוס טשערנאוויץ נדפס ממש כמו בקאפוסט ולפי”ז אפשר שהמאמר המוסגר הזה אינו מרבינו ז”ל אלא הוספה, ולכן אין עליו ציון במראה מקום בין כל המ”מ אלא ציון מיוחד בכוכב שהוסיפו אח”כ המאמר והציון, והנה מקור דברים אלו הם בט”ז ס”ק ו’ וז”ל וע”כ המחמיר יחמיר לעצמו ואין בידו למחות למה שנוהגין עכשיו כאותן הרבים שמקלילין עכ”ל, ולא כתב שכל יר”ש יחמיר לעצמו אלא המחמיר יחמיר, ובקונטרס אחרון ב’ בסי’ רנ”ב כתב רבינו בזה”ל “ואף מי שירצה להחמיר ברה”ר שלנו כהאומרים שיש לו דין רה”ר” ולא כתב ואף שיש ליר”ש להחמיר כו’, מכל זה נראה דמה שכתוב כאן וכל יר”ש יחמיר לעצמו, הוא מאמר מוסגר, כמו שנדפס בקאפוסט, והוא הוספת מהרי”ל כו’ עכ”ל.

“However, We can argue that he is not speaking in a case where there is a Tzuras haPesach..”
I agree, but following the above, it’s irrelevant.

“Also, the ones that are to be Machmir should be consistent with Baal Nefesh as above.”

I couldn’t agree with you more. When it comes to eruvin people are inconsistent, mainly because of am haaratzus.