J.

What is the practice regarding the eruv in these communities? I understand that the Mara De’Asra, Rav Schneebalg shlita, allowed his grandchildren to use the eruv on a recent visit to Manchester; has this had any impact on the antis? Is it true that the Belzers carry?

Ken Zayn – see the sources brought here regarding ball playing:

http://theyeshivaworld.com/weekly_torah.php?id=729

Rabbiofberlin – in SSK it states that bringing home one’s tallis from shul is a routine activity that is not considered hachono at all. Some are machmir on this though (see Nishmas Shabbos).

DASH2 – I am close with the Sadigerrer rebbe shlita, and have discussed the eruv matter with him at length. His shul is affiliated with the UOHC and he will not openly allow that which they forbid. He has given private sanction (in cases I am aware of) for individuals not affiliated with the UOHC to use the eruv.

I apologise but I do not have the time to respond fully to the discussion regarding shishim ribo. But I would advise taking a look at the following summary of issue, which appeared in Ohr Yisroel:

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=13626&st=&pgnum=230

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1418&st=&pgnum=166

There is no evidence that Rav Padwa senior was concerned about a reshus harabbim. I have heard from one of his family members that this was not his concern at all, and one of his sons said as much to the Chernobyler rebbe of Boro Park when he was sitting shiva for his father.

It has been demonstrated elsewhere that the Minchas Yitzchok would have no issue with an eruv in NW London. Anyway, as Dayan Westheim testified in his shiur, the Minchas Yitzchok was only concerned with whether shishim ribo traversed a particular street, and not whether they inhabited the city.

Just to get the less complex stuff out the way, I will respond to the point about shiurim first, and then move on to the reshus harabbim issue in a future post. On pages 262-264 of ‘The Laws of an Eruv’, the authors note that the minhag in Europe was to use a shiur ammah that was near the Chazon Ish shiur for eruvin. They also bring show that Reb Yaakov Kamenetsky and R. Moshe Feinstein used shiurim that were larger than R. Chaim Noeh’s but smaller than the Chazon Ish’s, and that these shiurim are used in many communities outside of Israel bein lekula bein lechumra.

Rav Elyashiv himself recognised the legitimacy of this tradition when he issued a clarificatory letter regarding the NW London eruv. Rabbi Eider planned the NW London eruv using the same measurements he always used, but unfortunately certain inshei deloi maalei (who were later shown to be such) saw this as a convenient issue to latch onto for their own nefarious purposes, and had no qualms with distorting the historical record when doing so.

There are many misconceptions that people have regarding the larger measurements for a shiur ammah in general – for a start they were generally not taken on as a chumra, and they don’t even necessarily require using a larger shiur for kezeisim (as a thorough examination of the Chazon Ish’s position demonstrates). I’m happy to supply marei mekomos to anyone interested.

I found it quite distressing to listen to Dayan Westheim (who I have a lot of respect for) complaining about the upkeep of the eruv, and the lack of necessary funds – if he’s not pleased with the mashgiach then he should work to improve the checks and, as for the funding, has he done anything to raise money for its upkeep?

I know of a similar situation in another town. A rov was concerned about the standard of the mashgichim checking the eruv, but he could not asser it because of such chashoshos, so he checked it himself every week until he was satisfied that they were doing their job properly.

Although he provided an excellent response to the mechutzaf who spoke a few days earlier, some of Dayan Westheim’s halachic points were also odd – the idea that a Baal nefesh should not use a mechitzos eruv that encompasses a road which services a population of shishim ribo has practically no support in the poskim (the Maharsham – the posek hador in his time, writes explicitly that this idea is mistaken), and was contradicted by the very sources that he brought.

I would like to see which sources the rabbonim who claim that Bury New Road is a reshus harabbim for the reason mentioned above base themselves on. I have tried to find out many times but nobody has been able to tell me anything of substance.

Rabbiofberlin – unfortunately everything you have written is correct. The chillul Hashem that some of the people who were most active in the opposition to the eruv have been responsible for recently is beyond description.

I have more respect for Rabbi Roberts than I do for all the other eruv opponents put together and I will endeavour not to discuss specifics, but if you think politics is absent from the discussion here you are deluding yourself. I am not interested in pushing this point – let’s stick to halacha.

I am sure that if he had anything to add to the arguments against a London eruv this would have been included in the anti-eruv kuntres published by his junior colleagues. The weaknesses of this publication have been demonstrated elsewhere.

I should add that the Tzitz Eliezer is referring to Rabbi Roberts when he says that the mesaknei ha’eruv should take no notice of those who want to prevent the eruv being built for various reasons, and that they have a ‘chiyuv’ to establish the eruv as soon as they are able to.