The Future of Lakewood

[aygart]

Small wonder why for Litvishe poskim it’s a non starter.

FTFY
This is a big difference in shita between litvishe and chassidishe poskim.

[aygart]

My guess is that urban cities likely have less karfefs than a city like Lakewood. To box out all the karfefs here would be a massive undertaking.

Yeah but there are plenty of large eruvin in areas that are not. This was a major point of contention in Monsey too.

[imayid2]

Yeah but there are plenty of large eruvin in areas that are not.

The better ones take it seriously and work on it, they do not just dvar shmuel it.

See for example the Toronto eiruv:
https://www.torontoeruv.org/unique-issues/

4. KARFEF

There is a rule that an area in excess of 5000 square amos which is not intended for human habitation or purpose (karfif yoser mibeis sosayim shelo hukaf ledira) within an eruv would invalidate the eruv. This is a manifestation of the rule that one cannot carry, even in an area with a proper eruv, if it is open to an area where one may not carry. An example of this would be a field which is cropped. It should be mentioned that one should not carry within a fenced off cemetery, construction site or other area not intended for human habitation. Parks and bodies of water are used directly for human purpose and thus do not pose problems.

Another interesting result of this issue is the area between Highway 7 and the 407. The eruv committee is currently trying to complete the enclosure of this area with actual walls. As this area has pockets of undeveloped land which is still being farmed, the issue of karfef is a serious obstacle.

[aygart]

Easier said than done. Many times it’s difficult and frustrating to find out where it is and who maintains it.
There ought to be a website with all the information. But the jihadists would go nuts.

I once spent my seuda hamafsekes on erev yom kippur trying to find out if 2 eruvs had the eruvei chatzeiros connecting them and eventually after going around in a circle it seemed like the eruv had no eruvei chatzeiros at all and we made a new kinyan to connect (and be the main one for the other eruv). Later I found out about a different person who I think may have had it by him.

[Pony]

FTFY
This is a big difference in shita between litvishe and chassidishe poskim.

The way I heard it: in the litvishe velt an eiruv is a kula. In the chasididhe velt it’s a mitzvah.

[jye]

The דבר שמואל is a massive kula, which is rejected by many achronim. The MB and Chazon Ish say not to rely on it. Cities in Europe that did rely on it had more pressing needs for an Eiruv as R Moshe explains.
What’s more is that Rav Moshe maintained that the דבר שמואל isn’t applicable to modern day cities, Rav Elyashiv as well.
Small wonder why for mainstream poskim it’s a non starter.

[aygart]

He literally quotes that it remains assure but a less chamur one. It's that what you were trying to show?

[jye]

He literally quotes that it remains assure but a less chamur one. It's that what you were trying to show?

He literally says that if the choice is to make an eruv with karfifos or desist from making an eruv (allowing for michsholim) because it is impossible to address the karfifos one should build the eruv. Isn’t that the issue under discussion?

[aygart]

He literally says that if the choice is to make an eruv with karfifos or desist from making an eruv (allowing for michsholim) because it is impossible to address the karfifos one should build the eruv. Isn’t that the issue under discussion?

Yes to build it but not to carry in it.

[jye]

Yes to build it but not to carry in it.

Agreed. There’s no way the Lakewood Poskim are going to actually tell people to carry, even if they address the karfifos. By the non chassidishe olam a citywide eruv in Lakewood with all its inherent problems will always be the lesser of two evils.

[imayid2]

He literally says that if the choice is to make an eruv with karfifos or desist from making an eruv (allowing for michsholim) because it is impossible to address the karfifos one should build the eruv. Isn’t that the issue under discussion?

https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14679&st=&pgnum=147&hilite=

He explains why it isn’t a factor in his opinion.

[JMHO]

Are the 'anti eruv' factions anti because of purely Halachic reasons, because of 'Minhag Hamakom'/Reb Ahron, or is it more an emotional/Hashkafic argument?

[aygart]

Are the 'anti eruv' factions anti because of purely Halachic reasons, because of 'Minhag Hamakom'/Reb Ahron, or is it more an emotional/Hashkafic argument?

All types. Not everyone who is against crossing 9 is against all large eruvin

[jye]

There is a fascinating תשובת הראש the earlier part of which does not appear in the standard editions. The was a Rav who erroneously had a chumra based on which he refused to allow a communal eruv. The Rosh roundly censured him, telling him he is not allowed to be machmir since it will lead to people carrying without an eruv.
(it is also clear from his teshuva and his citation of 68a that the mitzva lisaken eruv applies to a city and not just a mavoi as some have posited.)

When the rav refused to back down the Rosh wrote to him that he has two weeks to back down and allow the eruv or the Rosh will put him in cherem and had the Sanhedrin been extant they would have killed him (as a zakein mamreh).

Apparently this did not work, so the Rosh sent a subsequent letter in which he told the leaders of the area that they should use all means at their disposal including fining him heavily under the authority of the king, and even actually killing him as a zakein mamreh if necessary!

[aygart]

There is a fascinating תשובת הראש the earlier part of which does not appear in the standard editions. The was a Rav who erroneously had a chumra based on which he refused to allow a communal eruv. The Rosh roundly censured him, telling him he is not allowed to be machmir since it will lead to people carrying without an eruv.
(it is also clear from his teshuva and his citation of 68a that the mitzva lisaken eruv applies to a city and not just a mavoi as some have posited.)

When the rav refused to back down the Rosh wrote to him that he has two weeks to back down and allow the eruv or the Rosh will put him in cherem and had the Sanhedrin been extant they would have killed him (as a zakein mamreh).

Apparently this did not work, so the Rosh sent a subsequent letter in which he told the leaders of the area that they should use all means at their disposal including fining him heavily under the authority of the king, and even actually killing him as a zakein mamreh if necessary!

This is why it is good we have a mesorah from R Aharon.

[imayid2]

There is a fascinating תשובת הראש the earlier part of which does not appear in the standard editions. The was a Rav who erroneously had a chumra based on which he refused to allow a communal eruv. The Rosh roundly censured him, telling him he is not allowed to be machmir since it will lead to people carrying without an eruv.
(it is also clear from his teshuva and his citation of 68a that the mitzva lisaken eruv applies to a city and not just a mavoi as some have posited.)

When the rav refused to back down the Rosh wrote to him that he has two weeks to back down and allow the eruv or the Rosh will put him in cherem and had the Sanhedrin been extant they would have killed him (as a zakein mamreh).

Apparently this did not work, so the Rosh sent a subsequent letter in which he told the leaders of the area that they should use all means at their disposal including fining him heavily under the authority of the king, and even actually killing him as a zakein mamreh if necessary!

That’s great for when the chumra is erroneous. It works the other way around too…

[yelped]

This is a very famous teshuvas harosh.

[jye]

This is a very famous teshuvas harosh.

The second part is heavily quoted. The first, where he emphasizes that being machmir absent a good basis and not making a city eruv is not praiseworthy, but a קלקול, which was later printed from ksav yad, not so much.

[yelped]

The second part is heavily quoted. The first, where he emphasizes that being machmir absent a good basis and not making a city eruv is not praiseworthy, but a קלקול, which was later printed from ksav yad, not so much.

I would think that is the main limud from this and is something I keep on quoting throughout this thread. This is why throughout the generations, making an Eiruv has been one of the primary considerations of a Rav.

[imayid2]

I would think that is the main limud from this and is something I keep on quoting throughout this thread. This is why throughout the generations, making an Eiruv has been one of the primary considerations of a Rav.

Most have nothing against a kosher eiruv.