by Rabbi Eliyahu Uminer
As I embark on my analysis of the Rebbe’s letter about the Manhattan Eruv (recently published on COLlive.com by Rabbi Nochum Zajac), I would like to emphasize that it is a well-established fact that the Rebbe provided enthusiastic support and financial contributions to multiple public eruvin in cities both small and large. Therefore, attempts to apply the concerns expressed in this letter to ALL eruvin are both wrong and misleading.
In order to truly grasp the Rebbe’s viewpoint regarding eruvin, it is imperative to delve into the specific type of eruvin that elicited his concerns. This requires a dedicated and thorough examination.
Additionally, there are two other important statements of principle made by the Rebbe that must be mentioned before we proceed.
The Rebbe stated (Igros Kodesh, chelek 24 amud 19): “That a letter written to one individual may not be relevant to another, even if the content of the questions are identical, as most of my letter’s contents are contingent upon the manner in which the question was asked, the inquirer’s temperament, and other factors etc. “
The Rebbe stated (Otzar Hamelech, amud 210): If my letter is against Shulchan Aruch it is nullified.
The Rebbe further stated (Otzar Hamelech, amud 212) “I announced at farbrengen it is foolish to say in my name something that is against Shulchon Aruch, and only a fool would believe it.“
The reason why the Rebbe was empathic regarding these principles is, in fact, demonstrated by the various interpretations given to this letter of the Rebbe. With these interpretations both of the Rebbe’s principles have been disregarded in such a brazen way, requiring us to reiterate the Rebbe’s statements.
The letter written by the Rebbe is not a new one contrary to the claim made, and its contents have been previously published (Junior code of law page 206) and addressed by the rabbanim who signed the kol kore.
The concerns addressed in the letter are not unique to the Rebbe, but rather based on a gezeira of Chazal brought in the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch.
This gezeira by Chazal only applies to eruvin that rely on the ocean as a mechitzah, and do not extend to eruvin that are comprised of manmade mechitzos, such as actual walls and tzuras hapesachim. This can be seen in the Rebbe’s letter when read in depth, where he states that his concerns are regarding “I have in mind the precaution which such an eiruv calls for under the best of circumstances, and certainly here and now.” The Rebbe emphasized the relevance of this gezeira of Chazal in our generation, and that we should not be lenient on this issue, even according to the poskim who were lenient in the past. The rebbe’s concerns are echoed of those expressed by Chazal, which are particularly relevant in today’s reality. The rebbe did not make any new gezeiros.
The Rebbe may not have been more explicit in specifying that his remarks do not pertain to eruvin established to the highest standard, The Rebbe likely didn’t imagine that anyone would interpret his comments in a private letter as creating a new gezeira to negate the rulings of previous poskim, which would prohibit the establishment of an eruv.
As can be gleaned from how the Rebbe began the correspondence with the intention of emphasizing that “First of all, as a matter of principle, my opinion is that where according to the din an eiruv can be instituted, it should be instituted.” This was to ensure the specificity of the subsequent considerations regarding the implementation of such an eruv.
Especially, considering that the Rebbe when asked by Harav Moskowitz what is the proper approach to eruvin today? The Rebbe answered emphatically by quoting the Gedolei Haposkim, Rosh, Tashbatz, Chassam Sofer, Shita Mekubetzes, Beis Av, asserting beyond any doubt that eruv is a mitzvah that must be fulfilled and is also aimed at enhancing the enjoyment of the Shabbos. Additionally, the Rebbe encouraged many public eruvin.
This accounts for why Harav Moskowitz zt”l and Harav Eisenstat zt”l pursued the establishment of an eruv in Manhattan despite opposition from the highly regarded posek, Harav Moshe Feinstein zt”l, who lived in the city. This may evoke the query of audacity, as to why establish an eruv in a location where Harav Moshe was residing, but not in their own communities of Flatbush and Crown Heights. The differentiation in the practicalities of the two cities, with Manhattan being fully enclosed as an island and Brooklyn necessitating the formation of many tzuras hapesachim, provides an explanation for their behavior.
Eruvin that the Rebbe Supported
The Rebbe demonstrated support for several public eruvin, as documented in his letters.
These include:
(1) Kfar Chabad (Igros Kodesh, chelek 13 amud 396)
(2) Miami (Igros Kodesh, chelek 22 amud 265.)
(3) Moshav Bar Gurya, ( see Tshura from Harav Levi Holtzman shlita’s wedding, see also Igros Kodesh, chelek 20 amud 149, and amud 306) where he also made financial contributions.
Additionally, there is testimony of the Rebbe’s support for four additional public eruvin:
(4) Beverly Hills, California, where he donated $18 to Harav Tzinner shlita on the condition that a vad would be established to oversee and maintain the eruv, as related by Harav Tzinner shlita.
(5) Queens, as related by Harav Simcha Piekarski shlita, and with the same condition that a vad would be established to oversee and maintain the eruv.
(6) Rockaway, NJ, as related by Harav Asher Herson shlita. https://www.youtube.com/
(7) Bnei Brak, established by Harav Yaakov Landau zt”l, as reported in “Kol Kore,” by Harav Yehuram Ulman shlita, Harav Moshe Dovid Gutnick shlita, Harav Pinchos Feldman shlita, who were informed by Harav Moshe Landau zt”l that the Rebbe encouraged Harav Yaakov Landau to establish eruvin.
2 Igros Kodesh chelek 9 amud 42-43 and amud 166
4 Chelek Beis simman lamed zayin
5 Orach Chayim simman 99include
6 Beitza daf tes zaying ammud beis
Rather what we see is that the Rebbe’s stance on eruv is
Click here to download full article
Thank you for clarifying the rebbes letter.
Of course the rebbe would support Eruvin made according to Halacha!
The Rebbe may very well have supported kosher eiruvim in all instances, no matter where the eiruv may be, even if it were in Crown Heights. But Rabbi Uminer’s letter doesn’t prove it. First, the letter doesn’t acknowledge the well-known challenges to its viewpoint, like the Rebbe’s public opposition to an eiruv in Melbourne (where, in a letter on the topic, he used the phrase “my opinion [against city eiruvim] is well known”). The Rebbe’s opinion is obviously more complicated than Rabbi Uminer claims in this letter. Second, Rabbi Uminer quotes the Rebbe saying, “…as a matter of principle, my… Read more »
Firstly I was mainly addressing this letter of the Rebbe, as far as the Melbourne maina, the eruv that was put up shortly after the question was asked in 1981, did rely on the ocean as a mechitzah from two sides. Accordingly, this is lchoira the same exact reasoning, as far as the Rebbe using the term in that maina “mefursemes daitie” my position is well known, not sure how that translates into this well known position being about every eruv? On the contrary this proves that the Rebbe is referring back to his well known position, which are the… Read more »
No mention of using the sea as mechitzos in the letter. If that was the reason, why did the Rebbe give a different reason in the letter?
The rebbe mentions it in Igros kodesh about this same Manhattan Eruv.
The English letter was actually never sent out, and was a draft on Mindels desk.
https://chabaderuv.com/sources/sources_20/
The problem with mechitzos of the ocean is that Chazal forbade carrying with such an eruv due to the inevitable nullification caused by strong waves. This creates a risk of people unknowingly continuing to carry, and is precisely what the Rebbe is discussing in this letter. Additionally the Rebbe states at the beginning of this letter, “ As you will surely recall, the matter was raised a few years ago, when I expressed my position, which has not changed” and in his previous letters he made it clear that his issue with the Manhattan Eruv was that It relied on… Read more »
Why do you say that the Rebbe is making a ‘new gzira’?? The Rebbe begins the letter with the unequivocal statement: “First of all, as a matter of principle, my opinion is that where according to the din an eiruv can be instituted, it should be so instituted….” After bringing up sensitivities/problems that pertain to the attitudes of people in OUR times, the Rebbe continues: “… it is an absolute necessity, in my opinion, that the eiruv, if one is feasible at all according to din, should be carried out in the utmost secrecy. This means that the purpose of… Read more »
This article is in response to what you are saying (it’s a response to the article you are quoting). First read the article and then comment if you have something to add.
A non-response response
The author stresses that the Rebbes letter is addressed specifically and only to Manhattan, or where the ocean is used as a barrier/mechitzah of the eiruv. Yet if you read the Rebbe’s letter plainly, it seems that the Rebbe is giving broad, general reasons why he recommends against making eiruvin in our days – in a public manner – for the sake to allow frum people to carry (those who otherwise would not carry). Moreover, the rebe states: “Thirdly, and this too is an essential point in my position: the opinion expressed in the first conditional paragraph, namely, that where… Read more »
How would you explain the 7 Eiruvin quoted above that the Rebbe supported to fit with your understanding that this letter was not specifically for Manhattan?
You have 7+ times the Rebbe supported a public big-city Eiruv, and then you have this letter of the Manhattan Eiruv where the Rebbe expressed his hesitations, how do you explain the contradiction, other than saying that what the Rebbe wrote about the Manhattan Eiruv isn’t the same for the other 7+ Eiruvin he supported??
Tell me how you reconcile the Manahattan letter with the other letters. Please.
You know exactly how. It’s been detailed many times. The Rebbe is talking about large cities in this letter.
Please answer how do you explain the SEVEN eruvin listed with sources that the rebbe supported???
in all the letters and teshuvas of the rebbe on this issue he does not mention or even hint about a criteria or distinction of big cities or the like. And the rebbes concern about eiruv becoming posul has no logical conection to big city.
sure it does – people wont find out in a big city that it fell
In many big cities eruvin they have sophisticated systems to alert people if the Eruv is down/ posul.
It seems the Rebbe supported the erecting of eruvin in various locations in various circumstances and with supervision of knowledgeable Rabbonim.
I am not clear why the Rebbe ruled out an Eruv for Crown Heights.
not on shabbos people wont find out
i don’t believe that that is the pshat, but if it was, then making a neighborhood eruv, in a massive city would be exactly the same as making eruv in small city or village.
Wow what an amazing article, never chapped this. this answers all the contradictions. keep up the good work.
It is interesting that in most proclamations etc. from the supporters of an eiruv they quote boldly from the Alter Rebbes’ Shulchan Aruch that in our times there is no Reshus Harabim Min Hatora. In is interesting that this seems to be in stark contrast with what seems to be the Rebbe’s opinion, that in our times (unlike the time of the Alter Rebbe) there in fact are actual places that are a reshus harabim min hatorah. #1) please do yourself a favor and listen to 2 minutes audio from the Rebbe. Click on this link http://www.chabad.org/554143 Skip to 28:15 minutes into… Read more »
That Is quite misguided to bring one sicha of the rebbe where he says that it is certainly possible to have a rh”r, as everyone agrees that it is possible, in reality you need to find a place that meets all the criteria of a rhr. Accordingly coming to a conclusion that the Rebbe therefore holds that every city that has six hundred thousand people residing in it is a rh”r is simply incorrect, as he supported eruvin in such big cities, Additionally as we see from this letter regarding the Manhattan Eruv, that the Rebbe said the eruv is… Read more »
I am in no way bashing the author. Does he have semicha ? Is he some one that can be looked up on as a halachik authority ?
He’s honestly one of the most knowledgeable people in Hilchos Eiruvin alive today.
Whoever downloaded, as obviously never had a conversation with him, I did
And you are, as you hinted, bashing the author
The author does have semicha, you can reach out to the author if you would like to see it.
He is not someone to be looked up on as a halachik authority despite his vast knowledge as he is not a rav in any way
Having Semicha doesn’t make you a Rav “in any way”? Like zero??
what he means is, – which kehilla is he the head of?
1- Having a regular smicha has zero implications of anything other than the halachos tested on which does not include eruvin.
2- My main point which I did not want to state clearly is that for someone to be looked up to as a rav he needs a certain amount of yiras shomayim which the author of this article does not come close to vda”l
So why was your original question “does he have Semicha” ???
lol
The author position is held by many Chabad Rabbonim, including sixteen prominent Chabad Rabbonim who publicized a kol kore clarifying all of this. So no one is forcing you to rely on the author.
Additionally the vast majority of Chabad Rabbonim in Eretz yisroel carry in eruvin regularly.
https://collive.com/chabad-rabbis-issue-landmark-statement-about-eruvin/
Wow, the Rebbe speaks so powerfully. His words which are always from Truth and do not vary one millimeter from it, cut right through and leave no room for nonsense or confusion. It is a beautiful marvel to look upon. May we all, please Hashem, emulate him perfectly in this, and in all regards.
A number of Eruvin were established with the support of the Rebbe זי״ע, none of them were erected in secrecy..
This is exactly my biggest question for the ones who say the Rebbe is against Eiruvin, like hello??? The article above lists SEVEN other Eiruvin that the Rebbe supported. Explain that!
You’re obviously not very knowledgeable in this topic—and that’s fine, btw. And who are YOU to have questions on “those”?
Please explain Kfar Chabad and the other SEVEN (7!) Eruvin supported by the rebbe
and notably ch wasnt one of them
All your questions notwithstanding, you are twisting the Rebbe’s words in ways which are impossible to reconcile with what it actually says in the letter.
Anyone with basic reading comprehension understands this.
To quote ”עד מתי אתה מעוות עלינו את הכתובים”
How would you explain the letters of the rebbe supporting big city Eruvin? (All sources are in the article)
How would you reconcile this Manhattan letter with the other published letters of the rebbe supporting big city eruvin??
Let’s see if it’ll be easier for you to twist the Rebbe’s stance on 7 eruvin or just the Manhattan one.
You can read the igros. The rebbe says about the Manhattan eruv that issue is the ocean.
https://chabaderuv.com/sources/sources_20/
What about the rebbes statement that an eruv is not there so one should carry his tallis to shul.
If you read the article you would know, that the Rebbe was referring to an eruv like the Manhattan Eruv which wasn’t Kosher Lchatchilla, as there is a gzeira from chazal on an eruv that relies on the ocean as a mechitzah lest the mechitzah become invalidated, and people will continue to carry. This gezeira doesn’t apply to an eruv made of tzuras hapesochim.
What sheer Chutzpah! To deliberately misconstrue the Rebbe’s unequivocal position because the simple and straightforward meaning of the Rebbe’s letters are in conflict with your personal misunderstanding of Shulchan Aruch. That’s like saying for example the Rebbe is against wearing a sheitel because advertising to your understanding of Shulchan Aruch it’s forbidden. So you would dismiss every answer, yechidis or letter as either just hearsay or jump through pseudo- intellectual hoops to say the Rebbe is saying the opposite of what he is clearly saying. It’s time to be honest Rabbi Uminer, just say that you want to make an… Read more »
You think “the rebbe’s unequivocal position” is against public Eruvin??? Seriously??
Please see the SEVEN examples with sources cited above of the Rebbe’s SUPPORT for big Eiruvin that were NOT secret and then tell me what “the Rebbe’s unequivocal position” on Eiruvin is…
I believe the Rebbe’s opinion on Eruv in large cities is UNEQUIVOCAL. 1. THE REBBE WRITES מפורסמת דעתי which means my opinion is well known. If that’s are exceptions and names then it wouldn’t be מפורסמת דעתי but rather an opinion to be evaluated in each and every circumstance. 2. All these places that the Reeve supports were and are tiny hamlet’s similar to a bungalow colony. מושב בר גוריא until this very day still has less that 1000 inhabitants. I’m the 1950s I would assume it didn’t have more than a few dozen. כפר חב״ד was also a tiny… Read more »
Last I checked it’s the Mogen Avraham in Shu”a that allows wearing sheitels for women, and on the contrary the poskim who say women cannot wear sheitels are the ones that are going against the shu”a. it’s an unequivocal fact that making an eruv is a mitzvah as the Rebbe writes himself in this letter, and in the letters that I quoted. Its unbecoming for you to accuse Hagoan Harav Tzinner shlita of lying cv, based on your own misunderstanding of the Rebbe’s answer to him’ regarding an haskoma for all eruvin, where the Rebbe said that it depends on… Read more »
Mefursemes Daati obviously refers to the rebbe’s stance on eruvin that are not lchatchila. Indeed tge rebbe’s daas is mefursam about that.
If “Mefursemes daati” is referring to all Eruvin that are Kosher Lchatchila, where exactly is it mefursam? If it’s so mefursam, we would know about it outside this letter. On the contrary, there is mefursam support of the rebbe for eruvin…
The only explanation is that “mefursemes daati” about the rebbe’s daas on eruvin like the one in the letter that are not lchatchila
Eli you can go on and on with your crusade about eruvin, but every chosid knows that the Rebbe didn’t want a public eruv in crown heights and only “chabad lite” will use it
Every Chossid knows the Rebbe’s stance on TV and movies. The Rebbe unambiguously instructed that even KOSHER things should not be watched (for two reasons. 1: It’s easy to switch from Kosher to non-Kosher. 2: Your friend won’t be as careful and they will use the TV for non-Kosher), and yet here we are using the internet for Kosher things while the Rebbe’s two concerns are just as valid and stronger than they could have ever been. I’m not saying two wrongs make one right, but it’s still ironic how you use the internet to browse a Kosher news website… Read more »
On a totally different note, thanks for bringing attention to where the rebbe writes; (Igros Kodesh, chelek 24 amud 19): “That a letter written to one individual may not be relevant to another, even if the content of the questions are identical, as most of my letter’s contents are contingent upon the manner in which the question was asked, the inquirer’s temperament, and other factors etc. “ If the rebbe states this regarding letters that are identical in nature to the issue at hand, that the answers are not necessarily widely applicable how much more so when one randomly opens… Read more »
ONE MILLION OP-EDS WILL NOT CHANGE THE FACTS. THE REBBE WAS AGAINST AN EIRUV IN CROWN HEIGHTS. PERIOD. END OF STORY. THE RABBONIM HAVE REPEATEDLY STATED THAT THERE IS NO EIRUV IN CROWN HEIGHTS. NO MORE NEEDS FOR ARGUMENTS, DEBATES OR COMMENTARY.
TBH, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO COLLIVE, THIS OPED DOES NOT BELONG HERE.
THE ALL CAPS DID IT FOR ME. NO ONE ELSE WAS THIS PERSUASIVE!!!!!! THANK YOU!
I didn’t even read the article. Either use the Eruv or don’t. Stop this machlokes.
If the writer would read the letter with all of it’s details, he would see that he did not understand it.
It clearly states that the reasons for not creating an eruv apply even if the eruv will be kosher.
(See the rabbonim’s letter about those who misrepresent the Rebbe’s words.)
How would you explain the SEVEN eruvin mentioned supported by the Rebbe?
There is an Eruv that encompasses Crown Heights, many Rabbonim support it. Many people use it.
Unequivocally saying that it “does not exist” will not change the facts of it’s existence or it’s use.
Sadly, many people do things not in accordance with the Rebbe’s directives and instructions…
bottom line? so, this article is a proof that ch is halachiclly able to have an eiruv? doesnt the rebbe say in this letter it needs to be decided by the rabonim al asar? which lubavitch rabbonim al asar support it? can you name me one?
The discussion here is about the Brooklyn Eruv, not the Crown Heights one. The Brooklyn Eruv is now a lchatchila eruv even L’shitas horambam (“Alter Rebbe Eruv”). CH Rabonim cannot passel the eruv of the whole Brooklyn. There are Rabonnim IN BROOKLYN (=Al Asar) who have inspected and support the eruv.
non of them are lubavitch
This matter of carrying on Shabbos is a Halacha in Torah, not a Minhag Chabad
and we follow chabad rabbonim to find out the halacha in torah!
It’s a matter of policy. The Rebbe NEVER said CH couldn’t have an eruv. He said that whether to make an eruv is up to the local rabbonim to decide whether it’s a good idea. Well, the local rabbonim of BROOKLYN decided that it is a good idea and they made it. Maybe the Rebbe would have wanted them to keep it secret, but they are not obligated to follow the Rebbe’s advice. The fact is that they did make it, and it’s there and it’s kosher.
There are 6 Brooklyn Rabonnim (Al Asar) listed in this letter
https://www.brooklyneruv.com/rabbinic-letters/
non of them are lubavitch
Do you the 2-3 Chabad-Lubavitcher Hechsheirim? Or any reliable Frumeh Yerei Shomaim Hechsher?
if the chabad rabbonim all asar say no then i think all lubavitchers wouldnt rely on the hechsher
They are the rabbonim al asar. They are rabbonim in Brooklyn. Since when do Lubavitch rabbonim have a monopoly on this? The Rebbe said local rabbonim who know the situation, and they are that.
But in any case, the Rebbe’s advice is directed to rabbonim, not to us. Once there is a good eruv, even if the Rebbe would not have wanted it, there’s no reason not to use it. Not using it won’t change the fact that it’s there.
i think its quite obvious that each kehilla is to decide for itself.
I thought was common knowledge that they couldnt even make an eiruv in tiny village of Lubacitch bec of the market there where people can travel in and out of the city. O but in B rookkyn we can?? Very painful how the Rebbes words being twisted. Of course he was against it in general…and in crown heights in particular!!
lets have some intellectual honesty.
This is a prime example making a conclusion based on a lack of knowledge of the intricacies of hilchos eruvin. Allow me to break this down for you, the Tzemach Tzedek brings Lubavitch as an example of a place that had a rh”r doraysa, if you don’t rely on Shitas Rashi which requires having six hundred thousand people passing thru the rh”r every day. Now once you don’t rely on Shitas Rashi, then there is no difference if you have twenty people passing thru, or six hundred thousand people passing thru. Now we have other remaining conditions that makes a… Read more »
The whole question of whether Brooklyn is a reshus horabim leshitas Rashi is irrelevant, because the Brooklyn Eruv is not a Rashi eruv, it’s a Rambam eruv. That means it starts with the assumption that Brooklyn IS a reshus horabim, and goes from there. Some people seem to have this weird idea that you can’t make an eruv in a reshus horabim!!! That is just outright wrong. Of course you can make one. And since the Rambam rejects the whole concept of 600,000, he holds that EVERY street is rh”r. So an eruv that is built according to him is… Read more »
The eruv around Brooklyn is good according to Shita’s Rambam as well as shita’s Rashi, by definition an eruv good according to the Rambam will be good according to Rashi as well. as the Rambam is stricter, and no Brooklyn did not have a din of rh”r doraysa prior to the establishment of the eruv, even according to the Rambam. As there is no street Mefulash Mshar Lshar, running straight from one end of the city to the other end of the city. Additionally Brooklyn is encompassed by mechitzos omed merube al haporutz, each one of those reasons is sufficient… Read more »
Regardless of the kashrus of an eruv, it is not allowed in any senario to PUBLICLY act against the local beis din of your community. It does not matter what the issue is or whether their psak is in fact correct. In your own house you can choose which rav to rely on but in the street it is comletly assur to act against the local beis din. This is an issue which has not been answered and will never be able to be addressed properly short of disregarding the beis din.
well said
So all the eleven prominent Rabbonim who support the Brooklyn Eruv, are unaware of this “undisputed halachic fact” yet you wouldn’t be able to cite a source of course, as it is so obvious. והמבין יבין
All Rabbonim who gave a hecgsher on the eruv are not addressing this issue at all. They gave a hechsher on the eruv without asking every single beis din in brooklyn whether they support it. As I said the eruv could be kosher but this is a completely different issue. You are welcome to ask any of those rabbonim who gave a hechsher if you can use the eruv in a community where the local beis din says not to and see how they respond.
ubifrat that none of them are lubavitch
The Rabbonim are well aware of the opposition of the local beis din, and it’s unbecoming for you to accuse them of ignorance. Especially when they addressed it in their own letter explicitly. “We are well aware that there are many respected Lubavitcher Rabonim who maintain that one should not carry in Eruvin constructed in big cities. While it is self-understood that this is not our opinion; on the contrary, we maintain that it is actually easier to make Eruvin in big cities which are in accordance with the opinion of the Rambam, being that in large cities the Mechitzos… Read more »
They are addressing the fact that different rabbonim hold different opinions. That has nothing to do with the concept of PUBLICLY disregarding the local beis din. It makes no difference if the eruv is kosher or not. The letter you are referring to was written before the CH beis din put out a letter specifically about this eruv. I would love to see any of those rabbonim have the chutzpa to (from across the world) put out an opinion that residents of CH can disregard their local beis din by carrying in the eruv in public.
i live in east flatbush does anyone know the crownheights borders so i could know untill which block i could carry? are the official legal borders the benchmark for badatz jurisdiction?
Accordingly if one is walking from Williamsburg to Boro Park, must he ensure not to walk thru Crown Heights, if that is the case we need to let them all know, and make a specific map that outlines where they may walk, or not.
Which begs the question how do all of the Rabbonim that carry in Williamsburg, despite the Satmar Rabbonim there stating that the eruv doesn’t exist? and Satmar Beis Din also claim to be the mora dosra of williamsburg, as they are the majority and were voted in.
just take yourself some ware else and leave our community alone
If you don’t want to carry that’s your choice. But I will carry and you have no right to object.
The Rebbe called making an Eruv in Melbourne a “Takala Ayumah”- a terrible stumbling block.
In the letter the Rebbe wrote that “my position against the building of city eruvin is well known… it is certain that the eruv will break and cause chilul shabbos, at some point.’
This is still a concern. If a car crashes into one of the poles on Shabbos, many would carry without an eruv.
This is besides the problems of tzuras hapesach of over 10 amos and streets of wider than 16 amos, so no large city eruv can ever be mehudar.
I was mainly addressing this letter of the Rebbe, as far as the Melbourne maina, the eruv that was put up shortly after the question was asked in 1981, did rely on the ocean as a mechitzah from two sides. Accordingly, this is lchoira the same exact reasoning, as far as the Rebbe using the term in that maina “mefursemes daitie” my position is well known, not sure how that translates into this well known position being about every eruv? On the contrary this proves that the Rebbe is referring back to his well known position, which are the Rebbe’s… Read more »