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

GAON: “However, he does agree that according to the MB’s understanding of the Rambam (as per Magid Mishnah etc) we would at least be “m’tzarif” the shitas ‘Rabanon’ of ‘Lo Asi Rabim um’Vatlin Mechtzos” to the shitos of Shishim Ribo. The only issue he has is with the GR”A, and on the same note, the Demasek Eliezer on the Biur haGr”a (364) is definitely NOT like R”A on the issue of mefulash.”

If you continue on in that same seif katan (10) you would see that Rav Aharon disagrees with the MB, and argues that even the Rambam would require delasos.

I agree the Demasek Eliezer is in opposition to Rav Aharon’s understanding of the Gra. Furthermore, the Gra always sources from a Gemara, so I really don’t understand Rav Ahraon’s proof regarding the mare makom that the Gra cites.

GAON: “BTW – I remembered there is a sefer of the Raavad on Hilchos Nidah named “בעלי הנפש”. He writes in his Hakdamah regarding a Baal Nefesh, as the following:
Do you really think every “machmir in Eruvin” fits that description?”

See also Tanya regarding who is classified as a Baal Nefesh. When it comes to eruvin it seems that every Tom Dick, and Harry is a Baal Nefesh.

Neville ChaimBerlin: ” Is what you’re saying actually mainstream? That 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?”

Unfortunately, today one can’t make an argument, that the MB has been supersede, even with proofs. However, since you asked see the Bais Av (as cited by Gaon), and the following:
Even Yisroel:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=673&st=&pgnum=44
Toldos Shmuel:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=39121&st=&pgnum=337

You,

Thanks for the link! BTW I had a look at the Toldos Shmuel, in Ois Yud in regards to Shisim Ribo b’Chol Yom, he brings the Avnei Nezer b’shem haGoan m’Kutno’ that the Shishim Ribo does not have to be “Bokin” it is enough that is open to Shishim Ribo etc. (see link – http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1744&st=&pgnum=11)

Actually, the above in his responsa Yeshuos Malko says the exact opposite. Please refer to the below link:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=39121&st=&pgnum=340

It is the da’as Hashoel only, who happened to have written to all Poskim about his concern and no one agreed with him. He is mentioned in Shu”T Marsham, Divrei Chaim of Sanz and Bais Yitzchom of Levov. They all disagreed with him.

Bat,

“I tend to think that having an eruv is always safer – if you can afford to arrange for all that property ownership…’

Regardless, you should always consult your Rabbi when implementing an Eruv. Each and every case is different and can easily be confused.

Regarding the Zkan Aharon of Karlin I mentioned, I found the responsum see the below link:

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=835&st=&pgnum=50

Read how he describes the situation of the Delasos. He actually applied every Kulah possible, the structure, the technical issue of the Gov not allowing the dlsos to be closed etc…

This in sync with his shitah and many others, that when it comes to Eruvin you should try to apply any Shitah to enable its structure – you do not look for Chumrahs (Halacha Kdivrei Hamekil). See his reponsum in Shu”T Chelkos Yaakov of Rav Breish, regarding the Eruv in Antrewp

“you know why he is not so known?”

Please tell us, Gaon.

I have been to Lakewood quite a few times and know the area fairly well. There is an Eruv in Lakewood although I dont know the exact boundaries (Ive never cross route 9 ) Is there more than one communal eruv. and there are signs in certain places telling you that there is no eruv.

Also Route 9 in Lakewood is not exactly the same Rt 9 as further up like in Howell or Freehold where I wouldnt cross route 9 under any circumstance, however I would (and Have) crossed route 9 in lakewood. In Freehold and Howell Rt 9 is more like an expressway and in lakewood is more of a regular st

Joseph,

Why would you need to know? Did you study his sefer?

All I can say regarding his Gaonnas, I doubt anyone in the past 50 years comes close to his knowledge and gaaones…(with the exception of Rav Moshe)

In Europe the towns shtetlach whatever you want to call it had an Eiruv.

“The towns shtetlach’s main road was a dirt road traveled by a few horse and buggy’s each day.’

Joseph,

Please enlighten us what difference does it make, once it’s 16 Amos and a public road, how many pass a day?

You either need 600k according to Rashi, or ten is enough according to the other shitas …

GAON: “Thanks for the link! BTW I had a look at the Toldos Shmuel, in Ois Yud in regards to Shisim Ribo b’Chol Yom, he brings the Avnei Nezer b’shem haGoan m’Kutno’ that the Shishim Ribo does not have to be “Bokin” it is enough that is open to Shishim Ribo etc.
Actually, the above in his responsa Yeshuos Malko says the exact opposite.
It is the da’as Hashoel only, who happened to have written to all Poskim about his concern and no one agreed with him. He is mentioned in Shu”T Marsham, Divrei Chaim of Sanz and Bais Yitzchom of Levov. They all disagreed with him.”

I believe that the Avnei Nezer did not see the Yeshuos Malko inside. It was only a shmuah in the name of Rav Yeshua M’Kutno.

No one agreed with this shoel’s arguments, which is proof that we don’t accept the Mishkenos Yaakov’s understanding of the Ritva in Rashi (and other Rishonim).

GAON: “I think the reason is that he only mentioned the above topic as kind of “BTW” ‘agav’. He didn’t really conclude or elaborate anything on that topic.”

I agree. The MY would not have even mentioned asu rabbim if not of the fact that the BE argued the point. Hence, the second teshuvah of the MY rebutting.

Neville ChaimBerlin: “I’m not going any further with the baal gaavah argument. Clearly nobody in the real world holds that holding by Rabbeinu Tam’s tzeis or 16 amos reshus harabim is gaavah with the exception of a few CR posters.”

Baal gaavah argument? What? In any case, the argument regarding Rabbeinu Tam is if it was the accepted minhag. However, there is no doubt that shishim ribo was the accepted minhag, witness the eruvin in all shtetlach. Or as the Bais Ephraim argues, that all the Reshonim of Ashknaz accepted shishim ribo as a criterion.

Joseph: “The towns shtetlach’s main road was a dirt road traveled by a few horse and buggy’s each day.”

Sorry these arguments are made by those who don’t know the inyan. Once a road is 16 amos wide you either rely on the criterion of shishim ribo and you can establish an eruv, or you don’t rely on the criterion, and an eruv can’t be made (if there is no other heter).

Gaon -“In fact, I heard from many old time Lakewooder’s that there was a time when the first Pizza shop opened up, many Chushuva yidden refused to go in.”

You must mean the 2nd one. I was in the first one & it was empty. No one dared go in – e/o was scared!

YDS: Once you start counting newly discovered Psaks, give it now time and you might discover even more psakim that change the majority back the other way. As stated, we don’t change what it considered the majority based on newly discovered psakim. There may be hundreds of Rishonim/Achronim who issued Psakim on the topic that is still lost.

Joseph –
“Once you start counting newly discovered Psaks, give it now time and you might discover even more psakim that change the majority back the other way. As stated, we don’t change what it considered the majority based on newly discovered psakim. ”

As I have stated to you more than once, it would help if you learn the basics before you comment. That means simply opening a Shulchan Aruch and learning mechaber, Tur, Magen Abraham and T”Z. See that they clearly say, that the accepted psak is that the MAJORITY of the poskim uphold that אין לנו רשות הרבים בזה”ז”

That was until the Mishkenos Yaakov compiled a list of other “new” rishonim that say differently. So your above statement indeed holds true regarding the above psak.

As you can see the Bais Efrayim response was that a) the minhag is based on the חכמי צרפת ואשכנז b) that in reality there is indeed a majority as the M”A and T”Z.
The same applies to the MB, that the minhag is supported my the majority, and not the other way around.

Meaning, we are to go by what the M”A, T”Z and Mahrit tzahlon have ruled as the majority.

All he is basically doing is proving them correct.

Regarding מחזי כיוהרא when you just pick and choose one Chumra as a Baal Nefesh –
I happened to come across the following Terumas haDeshen in Ch 1, regarding davening Maariv right after Plag (though we don’t pasken like that, but the concept is the same – that one that is Machmir has to be consistent and if not “אם “ לא הורגל בשאר פרישות:)

דהא דכתב ר”ת דמפלג המנחה ואילך חשוב לילה כר”י ויוצאין מאז ידי ק”ש ותפלה של ערבית. וכתב המרדכי ובהג”ה במיימון וראבי”ה כתב דדברי ר”ת עיקר הם-
והבא להחמיר ע”ע ולהמתין עד כדברי שאר הגאונים מחזי כיוהרא ונקרא הדיוט אם לא הורגל בשאר פרישות

דהא דכתב ר”ת דמפלג המנחה ואילך חשוב לילה כר”י ויוצאין מאז ידי ק”ש ותפלה של ערבית. וכתב המרדכי ובהג”ה במיימון וראבי”ה כתב דדברי ר”ת עיקר הם והבא להחמיר ע”ע ולהמתין עד כדברי שאר הגאונים מחזי כיוהרא ונקרא הדיוט אם לא הורגל בשאר פרישות מ”מ זמן זה אינו אלא שעה ורביע קודם צ”ה אבל מנין לנו להקדים כ”כ.

I know this may sound silly. I also realize the suggestion is probably a big waste of time, but has anyone thought to ask “the Lakewood Rabbonim”?

I will make only a few points.

1. It seems doubtful that the Talmud entertains shishim ribo in its definition of RHR for the following salient reasons.
a. The Gemara nowhere mentions this explicitly. We’d expect such a central plank of the definition to be mentioned somewhere. This silence is telling.
b. The Gemara states that there were RHR’s in Bavel, and the widespread scholarly consensus is that there were no Iraqi metropolises with 600,000 people in those days. While I am aware that there is a Vatican girsa of the Gemara wherein Ulla insists the opposite, that is not the accepted Gemara and furthermore I know of no legal canon or credible argument that would render Ulla authoritative even presuming the authoritativeness of that girsa.
c. Chazal assurs blowing shofar on Rosh HaShanah and arba minim on Sukkos based on the fear that someone would walk into the public domain. Why would Chazal have undermined core commandments of the Torah if they held of shishim ribo? It is axiomatic that Chazal only enact prohibitions for commonly occurring phenomena, kal vachomer when the prohibition interferes with a countermanding d’oraysa obligation.
d. The definition of RHR, when deployed in the Bava Masechtos, does not include shishim ribo. On what logical basis ought we conclude that there are two uses of RHR in the Gemara identical in all aspects except shishim ribo?

2. The idea that all baal nefesh/chumradic practices are inherently equal is unconvincing. First of all, regardless of the authorities one might adduce that say that, without interpreting what they mean contextually moreover, we only need to look around to notice that the Jewish people practice numerous chumras than were practiced in the past. Insofar as this is the case, it is absolutely legitimate to take upon oneself a chumra that is ancient, spells high stakes, and is backed by an impressive array of Rishonim (including the Rambam and the Rif) and is more textually faithful to the Talmudic text as a whole than the alternative. It is doubtful that any rabbi has ever existed that practiced every chumra. It would seem that the most reasonable way to interpret the stance of the authorities who warn against inconsistency in chumras is the risk that adherence to a single chumra raises the question of the rationale for taking it on such that one would not take on additional chumras. That does not imply one takes on all chumras.

Even if we went with the premise that all or nothing is operative on chumras, the applicable standard should not be all or nothingness regarding practices bearing the label baal nefesh in a halachic sefer, but rather the logical consistency of the chumra adopter in the stringencies he takes on. So, for instance, one who is makpid in kemach yoshon and avoiding chodosh because it is d’oraisa and backed by a sizable number of Rishonim could be consistent in also being makpid on RHR.

3. There is credible support for the idea that Rov Rishonim disregard shishim ribo in the definition of 600,000 even today.

a. The contention here that it was a complete chiddush of the Mishkenos Yaakov that rov Rishonim held against shishim ribo is demonstrably false. He was merely echoing a commonly recurring refrain. SA/Mechabeir do NOT clearly indicate that shishim ribo is the majority shittah insofar as it’s ascribed to a yeish omrim in 345:7. While there are counterarguments regarding 303:18 by Rabbi Willig et al. to the effect that there is no Reshus Harabim zman hazeh, logic dictates that SA is citing rather than endorsing the opinion, which if believed would be tantamount to suggesting that the Shabbos prohibition on which the Gemara spills the most ink is/was totally defunct. Common sense militates against such possibilities. Moreover, the 303:18 discusses a rabbinic prohibition of a woman wearing jewelry, not d’oraysa hotzaah. The Kitzur and Shulchan Aruch HaRav likewise also present rov Rishonim as anti 600,000. So does the Maharshal.

b. Rov Rishonim might not simply be a matter of the raw number of Rishonim who uphold a position, but also the weight of their relative authoritativeness. This point is the operating premise of SA typically. I have yet to see a list of anti-shishim ribo Rishonim that includes Rav Yaakov ben Rav Moshe of Alinsiya, whom the Rosh threatened to place in Cherem for not building a tzuras hapesach eruv in the 13th century.

c. There is a credible concern that rabbis who were lenient on shishim ribo were enunciating a hora’as sha’ah. Back in the shtetlach of Europe, there was one communal cholent oven. Getting things like water, hot food on Shabbos etc. depended on the construction of tzuras hapesach eruvin. In our day, those consequences no longer obtain. One could credibly, on the same grounds of being makpid today on kemoch yoshon despite its rarity in the past, commit to being machmir on RHR today. The fact that shishim ribo is so textually questionable within the Gemara heightens the plausibility that these were not intended to be permanent precedents. Even looking at the Rosh’s responses to Rabbi Yaakov, I would not say that Talmudic arguments are their primary virtue, but rather the bold assertion of the Rosh’s power to control.

d. Even if Rov Rishonim is a game of raw numbers, I would submit that the raw numbers are in at least some doubt because there is at the end of the day a very sizeable swathe of Rishonim explicitly endorse against shishim ribo and the most straightforward sense of SA is to this effect as well. To settle this matter, I’d want to engage in a research project of when the shtetlach and Sefardic towns emerged with sizable Jewish populations, and if and when eruv’s emerged and whether the rabbis who built them used them.

e. MB’s baal nefesh recommendation rests on two contentions. 1. Rov Rishonim are against shishim ribo. 2. There is no basis (i.e. in the text of the Gemara, a point echoed by the Mechabeir in his overview).

Full disclosure – I do not use eruvs. But I do not make myself a menace to those who do use them either and do not presume that they lack learning or mental sophistication. I am satisfied I am doing the right thing for my family and myself and I am aware of the power of the other side of the argument, albeit this post has not largely emphasized such. It is precisely in struggling with the possible ontological correctness of the position opposite to the one I hold to that I base my claim of entitlement to the position I take on. If such makes me ipso facto an am ha’aretz, so be it. It would appear that such is a noble thing to be. I would advise those who do use the eruv to maintain at least the mental flexibility to seriously entertain that there is another side, and that side is not ludicrous.