Part 5: THE TRUTH REGARDING RT. 9 AND AN ERUV IN LAKEWOOD

Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l and an eruv in Lakewood

Rav Aharon zt”l argued that we do not accept the criterion of shishim ribo, therefore, he reasoned that the heter to establish eruvin in pre-war Europe was the criterion of mefulash u’mechavanim.  However, Rav Aharon subsequently argued that only in very specific cases can we rely on the criterion of mefulash u’mechavanim.[14]  

Following this, we can conclude that, if we were to follow Rav Aharon’s shitos in eruvin, no city eruv — past or present, large or small (as long as it contained a street that was sixteen amos wide) — would be allowed. Thus, it is simply irrational to compel the world to follow Rav Aharon in eruvin since the minhag clearly does not follow his shitos.

Hence, it is not Rt. 9 that is the issue according to Rav Aharon’s chiddushim in eruvin. Almost all streets in Lakewood would be classified as a reshus harabbim according to Rav Aharon’s shitos, and he would be opposed to encompassing almost all of them with an eruv. The fact that Lakewood is populated with many eruvin demonstrates that even in Lakewood the minhag was/is not to follow Rav Aharon’s chiddushim on the inyan.

---

[14] It is beyond the scope of this essay to explicate the possibility that Rav Aharon would admit that some of Lakewood’s roads would need to be mefulash u’mechavanim to be classified as a reshus harabbim.