@No.14
That was indeed the case, Rav Schnebalg had his reasons for keeping quiet, but after seeing a big majority of his Kehiila does not want it, he also came out with a letter saying not to use it. So did R’ Osher Westheim also write a letter besides his speech NOT to use it.

@No.16

(Sorry about my English yesterday, I wrote the above comment in a rush, and submitted it hastily without checking it)

Its not my opinion, and I don’t live in Manchester, and I wouldn’t give my opinion, as I’m not a Rov or a Poisek, and niether did I ever say I oppose the Eiruv. I just stated facts as to my knowledge and connections, and I saw the letters Black on White, and heard a lot of details from many people there.

There has actually been Shalos raised too, for example it was pointed out that the string they used shakes too much in the wind, and is therefore problematic halachicaly. They agreed, and said they will change it, but it will take 6 months.

I’m not an expert as far as Hilchos Eruvin is concerned. What we do know is that most of the Rabbanim actually know that they don’t know enough and have taken the easy option of saying that its ok but people should be machmir. As we know, that is almost never a Pesak but a cop out.

As mentioned above, this eruv is far better than the Yerushalayim Eruv. Additionally, anyone relying on the Beis Din for gittin (eishes Ish and Mamzeirim) which the vast majority of people do, they can definitely rely on this.

If individuals decide not to use it, or Rabbanim ask that people should be machmir, that is ok. But to say that its not Kosher, is simply misinformation.

When the mumchim were in Manchester, all rabbonim were invited to share their concerns with them; of course none of them did so, because they knew that they would have nothing to argue.

All the claims that those who are opposed to ‘bnei torah’ using the eruv are predictable and have long been disproved. It is apparent that none of the anti-eruv rabbonim in Manchester are even aware of the gedolim who would be machmir to carry in all kosher eruvin. Our forefathers (including gedolei yisroel) carried in eruvin that were nowhere near as mehudar as the Manchester eruv, yet today’s ‘bnei torah’ think they are above them.

It is abundantly clear that Manchester does not fit any version of R. Moshe Feinstein zt”l’s criteria for a reshus harabbim, and the overwhelming majority of other poskim would have no problem with the Manchester eruv either. Halevai that everything else we did benefitted from the same level of halachic certainty.

Dayan Westheim’s shiur, with all due respect, made no sense whatsoever. He quoted the Elya Rabba (brought by the Biur Halacha) who rules that where there is an additional tzad le’hetter, even a baal nefesh can use an eruv, but claimed that because the Manchester eruv includes roads that serve the broader populace of the city, that a baal nefesh should not use it. This is simply a mistake, and one that has already been dealt with by the Maharsham (3:188). Given that the Manchester eruv is an omed merubah eruv, his error is all the more fundamental – there is simply no halachic reason not to use this eruv.

The anti-eruv letter from Satmar is even worse – it says that, even besides for any halachic problems, an eruv is a michshol – this is apikorsus pure and simple. An eruv is a mitzvah miderabannan; afrah lepumeih of anyone who calls a mitzvah a michshol.

I have heard that rabbanim in Manchester are citing the Mishkenos Yaakov’s objections to city eruvin – this shows just how misguided they are. The minhag was never like the Mishkenos Yaakov – his own city had an eruv that he would not allow, and besides for which his entire argument regarding shishim ribo has been superseded.

He claimed that we should take newly published rishonim into account and that this would create a majority of rishonim who did not hold of shishim ribo (the Beis Ephraim, on the other hand, was not interested in these newly discovered rishonim). As many poskim have demonstrated (Toldos Shmuel, 3:81:7, 3:86:8; Bais Av, 2:5:2; Divrei Yatziv 2:173:1, and Even Yisroel, 8:3), even if we do follow the Mishkenos Yaakov’s line of reasoning, an up-to-date tally of Rishonim gives us a clear majority in favour of shishim ribo.

I welcome any well-reasoned arguments from the eruv-opponents, but I will not hold my breath. If they had anything of substance to say, they would have done so already.

GG yekke – most shomrei shabbos in NW London use the eruv there, and the number is growing from week to week. In fifteen years time the opposition to the eruv will barely be remembered. See also the Tzitz Eliezer’s teshuva in support of the NW London eruv (19:17).