By Rabbi Nochum Shmaryohu Zajac
In a never published letter to Manhattan rabbonim, the Rebbe explains under what conditions he supports constructing an eruv in a city and when it is a stumbling block.
The letter was written during Chol HaMoed Pesach 5724/1964. This English letter is special in that it is long and detailed, much more so than the other letters about eruv and the handwritten responses written later.
It is being released by Rabbi Shalom Ber Schapiro of Nissan Mindel Publications (NMP) from the archives of his father-in-law, Rabbi Dr. Nissan Mindel, secretary of the Rebbe.
A similar letter from the Rebbe is printed in The Letter & the Spirit Volume 3 (pages 413-414). However, this letter, which is addressed to a different person, contains new material that was previously unknown.
Interestingly, as it is apparent from the letter, this was written as a response to a group of New York Rabbonim who requested to meet with the Rebbe regarding the eruv. In lieu of a meeting, the Rebbe sent this letter to one of the rabbis. As mentioned above, a similar text was sent to another New York rabbi, and it may have been sent to others as well.
Of note is the fact that the Rebbe’s response was prepared during Chol HaMoed (notwithstanding the fact that the Rebbe’s correspondence was generally suspended at this time), highlighting how urgent it was to the Rebbe that they be familiar with his stance on this matter.
In the letter, the Rebbe clarifies his position that even where it is permitted to establish an eruv to save non-religious people from sin, one should not knowingly use the eruv. As the Rebbe writes: “The purpose of the eiruv would be not to enable a Jew to carry his tallis to shul on Shabbos, but only to relieve those who already transgress the Shabbos by carrying things, from doing so b’issur.”
Finally, wherever an eruv is built, it must be strictly kosher, and not rely on leniencies. In the Rebbe’s words: “A Rov, or Rabbinical authority, should always act only in strict adherence to the Shulchan Aruch in every detail.”
Special thanks is given to Rabbi Shapiro for releasing this letter at this stage, even as it has been prepared for future publication in an upcoming volume of The Letter & the Spirit.
Here is the letter in full – for the first time:
Shalom U’Brachah:
My brother-in-law, RSG [Rabbi Shmaryahu Gurary], informed me yesterday of your desire to discuss with me, in the presence of your colleagues, the question of an eiruv for Manhattan. Although, because of the sanctity of Chol Hamoed, my correspondence is generally suspended during these intermediate days, I hasten to convey to you my views on this matter.
As you will surely recall, the matter was raised a few years ago, when I expressed my position, which has not changed. However, since I do not know if you are fully informed of it, I will reiterate the main points of my viewpoint relative to this matter.
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. This is based on the opinion of many posekim, including that of Admur Hazaken in his Shulchan Aruch.
Secondly, special consideration has to be given to the state of affairs and attitudes in respect of the observance of the mitzvot in the present day and age, which has a particular bearing on the problem under discussion. I have in mind the precaution which such an eiruv calls for under the best of circumstances, and certainly here and now, against the possibility of the eiruv becoming pasul.
In the old days, when there was a close contact between the Jewish community (“the man in the street”) and the Beit Din or Rav, the invalidation of the eiruv, and the consequent resumption of the pre-eiruv state of the prohibition against carrying on Shabbat, could be communicated fairly easily to the “man in the street” and no harm was done. Nowadays, unfortunately the position is different.
While the institution of the eiruv would quickly become common knowledge, not only through various media of communication, but also by word of mouth, the rescinding of it in case of its invalidation, would only reach those who are in contact with the Rabbinical authorities, or who attend the synagogue regularly; whereas many would remain in ignorance of the changed situation. Moreover, many of those who might get into the habit of carrying on Shabbat on the strength of an eiruv, might not so readily discontinue to do so even if they became aware of the breakdown in the eiruv; and this contingency is particularly to be considered in relation to the Jewish youth in this country.
In view of the above, 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 the eiruv would be not to enable a Jew to carry his talit to shul on Shabbat, but only to relieve those who already transgress the Shabbat by carrying things, from doing so b’Issur (under prohibition).
Thirdly, and this too is an essential point in my position: the opinion expressed in the first conditional paragraph, namely, that where an eiruv is permissible according to the din it should be instituted, is based, of course, on the general principle indicated above. However, it expresses no opinion regarding any particular place, such as Manhattan in this case, as to whether or not it indeed qualifies for an eiruv according to the din. This is a matter to be decided by the Rabbinical authorities who have thoroughly investigated the pertinent details in full accord with the Hilchot Eiruvin.
Fourthly, assuming that it be agreed that the eiruv should be instituted without publicity, as above, the question may be asked whether it would be warranted to follow the more lenient view of some “posekim” regarding the qualifications of the place, in order to remove the transgression of those who carry in any case (inasmuch as the eiruv would not be intended to induce Shabbat observer to carry on Shabbat).
However, this would not be right, in my opinion, for two important reasons: a) a Rov, or Rabbinical authority, should always act only in strict adherence to the Shulchan Aruch in every detail; and b) it is inevitable that the existence of an eiruv would not become known to limited circles, with the result that some individuals would be tempted to accept it on its face value, especially in this country where there is a strong tendency to find hetterim and make religious observance more “convenient.” Hence, it is my considered opinion that not only should the eiruv be done in the utmost secrecy, but that it should be done only if the place strictly qualifies for it in accordance with the din.
May I take this opportunity to extend to you and yours my prayerful wishes for a continued kosher and happy Pesach.
With blessing,
(By reason of Chol HaMoed, this letter is left unsigned)
5724 – 1964
And they had .doc extension format then? wow
Most likely this is an old letter that was scanned into a server. That’s what it looks like to me and that’s what would make most sense. I highly doubt that those letters would have been left to chance as originals with no copies. Clearly the letters were scanned into computer files.
“the purpose of the eiruv” etc. does not equal “one should not use”.
Usually you use something for its purpose
well the whole discussion in the letter is if the rabbanim should pursue an eiruv and for what purpose. the rebbe does not hint in any way if one may use it once an eiruv is made. In fact halacha has alot to say about if you may or should use a kosher eiruv
If and eiruv wasn’t allowed to be used, the concept of a kosher eiruv wouldn’t exist. They’re clearly meant to be used.
Certainly whoever originally “invented” the eiruv intended it to be used.
Right but if you read the rletter, you would realize the rebbe is saying that in our generation, it must be secret, not that it always needed to be that way
if the eiruv is secret obviously you cant use it, but once you know there is a kosher eiruv, its meant to be used.
But then how do you explain the rebbes words, that people will be tempted to use it? I thought it’s meant to be used?
That paragraph starts “Fourthly, assuming that it be agreed that the eiruv should be instituted without publicity, as above, the question may be asked whether it would be warranted to follow the more lenient view of some “posekim” regarding the qualifications of the place, in order to remove the transgression of those who carry”
in other words the rebbe is reffering to an eiruv that is not kosher lechatchila and the rebbe is concerned that people will use it lechatchilah
That’s not my point. I’m bringing out that if once you know you should use it, the rebbe should have written they will mistakenly use it, not be tempted to use it
“it is inevitable that the existence of an eiruv would not become known to limited circles, with the result that some individuals would be tempted to accept it on its face value”
Correct. Exactly what I wrote. That’s a proof for me, not you
If it’s secret, it’s secret for a reason
It seems that the Rebbe is saying this particular eiruv (the Manhattan one) should be in secret. Not that all of them need to be…
No. The reason for being secret clearly has no connection whatsoever with the low level kashrus of it. It’s because it may fall. How do you manage to read it differently?
Both actually.
i dont know about interpretation, but the rebbe did scream many times at farbrengins that the residents on the schuna have to listen to the badat”z, and last i checked they say it’s not allowed, so…
that is a seperate issue that does not justify misinterperting the rebbes letter on eiruvin
The rebbe does actually mention listening to the rabbonim in this very letter
Correct.
“Purpose” in this context refers to the motivation to erect such as Eiruv. Since in such a place (Manhattan, Melbourne and the like) it is a stumbling block, the Rebbe opines
strongly that it should be erected privately.
If however it was erected publicly, there’s no indication from this letter not to use it.
(The fact a Yiras Shomayim won’t use is for the reason the Alter Rebbe writes in Shulchan Aruch, not this letter.)
this is the “known” mindel letter, that was already addressed by the rabbonim. its dishonest to attempt to portray this as a new letter, as the only new part is that they asked the question via the rashag, every other word is exactly the same, and was written on chol hamoed. and the rebbe clearly writes that he has in mind the precautions of “such an” eruv even under the best of circumstances all the more so now, which is clear that this eruv wasn’t a eruv kosher lchatchilla, rather only bdieved as the rebbe himself wrote a few years… Read more »
Spot on. And IIRC, Rav Moshe Feinstein reached out to the Rebbe for his astute, educated opinion.
The Eruv in Manhattan at that time used the river banks as the Eruv which is a lenient opinion in shulchan aruch and the Alter Rebbe holds should not be used lchatchila.
Later the Eruv was done lchatchila making tzuras hapesach etc.. when they were able to get permission from the authorities to get permits and now is kosher according to all opinions in shulchan aruch.
With out knowing the facts this letter can be misleading.
But what’s the connection to people not using it if it is found to have fallen?
When the water levels rises in the winter the Eruv becomes posul, since it won’t have the proper height to the river banks walls. Like the alter Rebbe explains in shulchan aruch.
But that’s not what the rebbe said! He wrote the issue is people might not discontinue using it if it falls, that applies to every eiruv
If you study the alter rebbe shulchon oruch properly, you will see that that is the reason why you can’t rely on ocean walls, as the waves may come and push aside the mechtiza, which is a mound, tel hamislaket. This is described more at length in the tshuva of the chok yaakov, regarding an eruv in Amsterdam.
so the rebbe is explaining how and why this gzeira applies more in our generation then in the past.
Ye but that’s not what the rebbe days. The rebbe says the issue is it may be found to be broken, so not sure why you keep on bringing up the Alter rebbe.
You can claim what you want, but The rebbe doesn’t say that, rather the issue is it may brake
Did you not read the comment you are responding to?
The rebbe writes the issue is that it may fall, and that means the rebbe is explaining the Alter rebbe about non mehudar eiruvin? Logic?
Ever thought of it this way?
The rebbe writes in this letter that his opinion is that wherever an eiruv is possible to be put up it should be (albeit secretly). For some reason no eiruv was encouraged by the rebbe for crown heights before gimmel tammuz?
Interesting. Can anyone verify if this letter was ACTUALY SENT by Rebbe? There are many letters (especially unsigned in the archievs) which (for some reason) were not sent.
if yes – we cannot rely on this letter
Let’s hear.
Not only can we not rely on an unsent letter, but on dozens, maybe hundreds of occasions, the Rebbe told people that he is not a ruv and will not paskin on things.
The Rebbe never said he wasn’t a Rov.
This paragraph is very hard for those who push an Eiruv:
b) it is inevitable that the existence of an eiruv would not become known to limited circles, with the result that some individuals would be tempted to accept it on its face value, especially in this country where there is a strong tendency to find hetterim and make religious observance more “convenient.” Hence, it is my considered opinion that not only should the eiruv be done in the utmost secrecy, but that it should be done only if the place strictly qualifies for it in accordance with the din.
these days there can be a text before Shabbos…
“Moreover, many of those who might get into the habit of carrying on Shabbat on the strength of an eiruv, might not so readily discontinue to do so even if they became aware of the breakdown in the eiruv”
The issue is if it is found to have fallen on shabbos also, and I don’t think we use our phones on shabbos
no the rebbe never ever said that he was worried that the eruv would fall on shabbos, we rely on chazaka. as did all the gedolei including the arizal who carried in the eruv in tzfas and outside of tzfas, without checking again whether it was still intact, see http://www.chabaderuv.com for more on this. and only someone who isn’t familiar with any halocha would come to sucha conclusion, we use chazaka in many things in torah that include issurei doraysa. including a woman not doing bedikos after zayin nekim. including on treifos etc. additionally if the rebbe was worried about… Read more »
No, chazaka doesn’t help if it was found to be broken and people continue using it
it would only be an issue for the person who found it broken.. and that’s not what the rebbe is referring too. additionally if you were correct, it would apply to all the public eruvin that the rebbe supported:
(1 Miami (2 kfar chabad (3 moshav bar guria (4 bnei brak (5 beverly hills ca (6 queens (7 rockaway nj
Only an issue for the person who found it broken? Mokor?
Irrelevant.
Chazoko here relates to ones ability to carry, not the reason the Eiruv should be made privately.
there is no chazaka if it is found to broken and people continue carrying!
thats the rebbes whole point!
Chazoko here refers to a person continuing to carry without hearing that there was an issue. For him he relies on the chazoko aka until he finds out otherwise.
The Rebbe MhM constantly told people he is not a ruv and will not paskin. If the Rebbe MhM himself refused to paskin on things we have no right to “force” it on him when we cannot see and hear him.
Right, but if your consider yourself lubavitch, you listen to the rebbes opinion
All the down ticks, all he did was quote the rebbes letter!
I was recently looking at the R” Bloomenkrantz (spelled wrong) book to see if an item was listed as kosher, he had there an interesting write up regarding events in non kosher kitchens (hotels, convention centers etc.) he writes there that many things are done in a bideved manner in such environments that would never be allowed in a frum establishment (treif kitchen right near the kashered kitchen is one of the many issues listed) his point being that people eat at such events since they trust the people making the event (could be a dinner for a mosod…) without… Read more »
It would be nice if rabbi zajac would bring all of the rebbes letters together and try to explain his shita, instead of cherry picking between letters. there is no denying that the rebbe supported many public eruvin: (1 Miami (2 kfar chabad (3 moshav bar guria (4 bnei brak (5 beverly hills ca (6 queens (7 rockaway nj and the rebbe himself quoted the sources of the: (1 Rosh (2 Tashbatz (3 Chassam Sofer (4 Beis av (5 Shita mekubetzes which make it very clear that not making an eruv is an act of heresy, and as is clear… Read more »
Supported the fact that it was Public? Mokor pls.
I need to bring proof that the rebbe supported it to be public? By definition eruvs are typically public, and the rebbe supported all those eruvin, without requiring that they be kept secret. Are you suggesting that the rebbe didnt know thas the kfar chabad eruv was public? That the bnei brak eruv was public? That the Beverly hills California eruv was public? Additionally as is found in the chassam sofer the rebbe quoted himself, an eruv is for oneg shabbos.. so clearly that isn’t applying to a secret eruv. Additionally bhashgocha protis this week’s parsha in likutei sichos chelek… Read more »
So basically your saying that you don’t have proof.
The rebbe writes in this very letter that in his opinion wherever an eiruv can be erected it should be albeit privately so your proof that the rebbe supported the fact that it was public because otherwise would sound ridiculous, is ridiculous
The rebbe writes in this very letter that in his opinion wherever an eiruv can be erected it should be albeit privately so your proof that the rebbe supported the fact that it was public because otherwise would sound ridiculous, is ridiculous
As the rebbe constantly wrote himself that you can not learn from his private answers to others, and it was for a very simple reason as he addressed each letter to each particular circumstance. For someone to think that the rebbe would be mchadesh that carrying in a kosher eruv is a takala cv, something that goes against all the gedolei haposkim, and in a btw manner via private letter i have some bridges to sell you. list of gedolei yisroel who made a point of carrying in an eruv: (1 Arizal (2 Chassam Sofer (3 Harav Mendel Vitepsk (4… Read more »
Not only are personal letters not applicable to the klal, but the Rebbe repeatedly refused to paskin and told people that he is not a ruv.
Come on, if you had a brain, you would realize the rebbe isn’t arguing eith them, rather saying circumstances changed.
The rebbe quoted these sources in reply to people attempting to say that America is different ,this was precisely the argument. And why rabbi moskowitz ztl asked the rebbe what is the proper approach.. additionally if you actually studied the sources you would see that the whole point is that this is a mitzvah, and cv to be worried that it will lead to bad things. And I will end with a quote from the beis av that the rebbe himself quoted. מהבית אב שציטט הרבי נגד אלו שרצו לומר בדיוק כך. “…וכ”ש הוא דאין לנו להחמיר ח”ו שלא לתקן… Read more »
How is this a response to what I said? I said that the rebbe isn’t arguing, rather saying circumstances changed. Your response?
A letter to all Rabbonim of Manhattan is a public letter. It’s the very definition of a public letter and reflects the Rebbe’s halachic position. As stated before, such a letter was well known before now. The Rebbe worked with the rabbonim on the Agudas HaRabbonim who wrote in 1979 that no eiruv could be built in New York (unless there’s a total separation gate like there is in Sea Gate). The Rebbe spoke in a sicha in the Mems, stating that just because in the time of the Alter Rebbe there was no reshus harabim d’Oraisa, that it would… Read more »
to start with the rebbe doesn’t mention any rhr issue in this letter, additionally this letter was not published at the time, unlike the letters in igros kodesh. we don’t even know if this was sent out. according to the rebbe and alter rebbe and tt we dont have rhr in our cities, it is possible to have one sure, and thats what the rebbe is discussing in that sicha. for an in depth explanation see here https://www.chabaderuv.com/%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A8%20%D7%93%D7%A2%D7%AA%20%D7%9B%D7%A7%20%D7%90%D7%93%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A8%20%D7%96%D7%99%D7%A2%20%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9F%20%D7%A8%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA%20%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D%20%D7%91%D7%96%D7%9E%D7%9F%20%D7%94%D7%96%D7%94%20%D7%95%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA%20%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%9F%20%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9F/ the arizal carried outside the city of tzfas which was much wider then 16 amos, and had a din of sratya which… Read more »
Sorry man, this letter was nothing to do with if ch is a rh”r
Well said
reply to there is a boss. The manhattan eruv was in accordance with the alter rebbes shulchon oruch see simman 363 sif 35, the alter rebbe brings the opinion of the mchaber, that you can use the ocean as a mechitza, and he brings the opinion of the ramma who argues that you cant, the alter rebbe concludes that the ramma is the ikkar. however an eruv relying on the ocean walls is still an eruv according to the alter rebbe shulchon oruch, just bdieved, hence the rebbe told them not to make a brocha on this eruv and not… Read more »
Right but the rebbe writes don’t ask me if it’s kosher, im not a rav, but then writes even if it’s kosher, it should be secret for reasons nothing got to do with the validity of it, rather that it may have been found to have fallen
the rebbe said that he already stated his position and it hasnt changed, that was in igros kodesh chelek tes zayin amud shin zayin, and there he makes it clear that its not kosher lchatchilla even though it was koshed according to shulchon oruch bdieved. i surmise that the reason why the rebbe didnt repeat that again, was that this was after people were already carrying in eruv for a few years, and the rebbe wouldnt cv insinuate that they are mchalelei shabbos. take my explanation or dont, but either way the rebbe wrote explicitly that the eruv was not… Read more »
Ok, and your point?
That therfore what the rebbe writes in this letter instead actually isn’t what he means?
More accurately , the Rebbe is a Rov who generally refrains from Paskening.
This letter is actually extremely significant to understanding the Rebbes shitah on Eruvin in metropolitan areas. The ONLY purported sources for that pro Eruv cabal quote ad nauseum is from the ACADEMIC discussions the Rebbe had with Rabbi Eisenstadt and Rabbi Moscowitz in their correspondence on the permissibility of making an Eruv in Manhattan. Anybody that has studied this issue objectively is aware that there are dozens of mentions in multiple media that the Rebbe was from those that were opposed to its formation, and arguendo even made the point to them in those letters, that if you are such… Read more »
a letter printed in igros kodesh disscussing details of manhattan eiruv and only quoting lots of halachik sources is academic cha”v ?!! . and of course i dont question the english letter.
This is a perfect example of the lack of intellectual honesty of those objecting to eruvin. The rebbe explicitly states here that he’s referring to such an eruv, and yes he already expressed his objection to this eruv a few years back, igros kodesh chelec tes Zayin amud shin Zayin. And there he states explicitly that since you’re using the ocean as a mechitza I can’t support eruv, as this is against the position of the alter rebbe shulchon oruch.. So to come and say that this letter signifies every eruv, is a gross distortion of the rebbes letter. Aside… Read more »
Right, but the rebbe said the reason he wanted it secret! Not because it’s not mehudar, (the rebbe writes only do it If it’s not relying on lenient opinions) rather because it might have been found to have fallen!
If you study the alter rebbe shulchon oruch properly, you will see that that is the reason why you can’t rely on ocean walls, as the waves may come and push aside the mechtiza, which is a mound, tel hamislaket. This is described more at length in the tshuva of the chok yaakov, regarding an eruv in Amsterdam.
Again, the rebbe is not getting into the halachic aspect here, not sure why you keep on bringing it up
All I did was repeat what the rebbe said, why the down tick?
Proof please? That the rebbe supported the fact that it was public?
I need to bring proof that the rebbe supported it to be public? By definition eruvs are typically public, and the rebbe supported all those eruvin, without requiring that they be kept secret. Are you suggesting that the rebbe didnt know thas the kfar chabad eruv was public? That the bnei brak eruv was public? That the Beverly hills California eruv was public? Additionally as is found in the chassam sofer the rebbe quoted himself, an eruv is for oneg shabbos.. so clearly that isn’t applying to a secret eruv. Additionally bhashgocha protis this week’s parsha in likutei sichos chelek… Read more »
The rebbe writes in this very letter that in his opinion wherever an eiruv can be erected it should be albeit privately so your proof that the rebbe supported the fact that it was public because otherwise would sound ridiculous, is ridiculous
In this letter the rebbe starts off his opinion of eiruv that “first of all” according to halacha u must make an eiruv, and the rebbe does not qualify that with any conditions except that the eiruv should be kosher lechatchila . Because that is the halacha (and obviously there is no halacha that if you cant make a secret eiruv u dont have to make an eiruv). Only after this the rebbe continues ” Secondly, special consideration has to be given to the state of affairs” etc.. So obviously in a place where a secret eiruv is not an option, the rebbes opinion… Read more »
theres no such thing as not possible to make a secret eiruv. maybe its not possible to keep it secret, (as the rebbe writes himself in this letter) but it must not be made officially. the difference is great – if its official, much more people will be inclined to use it, compared to were it just a rumor.
And besides, the rebbe writes in this letter that his opinion is that wherever an eiruv is possible to be put up it should be (albeit secretly). For some reason no eiruv (even secret) was encouraged by the rebbe for crown heights before gimmel tammuz?
Seems like the reebe didn’t believe an eiruv can be made in crown heights halachicly
if the rebbe encouraged a secret eiruv in crownheights u would never know. duhh
but most probably not, as the rebbe writes in this letter, that even a secret eiruv will most definitely become known about to some extent. so it is safe to assume that the rebbe did not encourage even a secret eiruv
for example: the eiruv needs pulling strings which need permits ,funds and more. and did u just invent the criteria of “officially” in an attempt to survive a losing argument? well the rebbe only talks of “secrecy” or “utmost secrecy” or “the eiruv becoming known”
If you cant respond to,”the rebbe writes in this letter that his opinion is that wherever an eiruv is possible to be put up it should be (albeit secretly). For some reason no eiruv (even secret) was encouraged by the rebbe for crown heights before gimmel tammuz? Seems like the reebe didn’t believe an eiruv can be made in crown heights halachicly” then what you are claiming here (which we will leave for the reader to decide if it sounds correct, again, as the rebbe wrote in the letter, it will end up becoming known, at least to limited circles.… Read more »
If you cant respond to,”the rebbe writes in this letter that his opinion is that wherever an eiruv is possible to be put up it should be (albeit secretly). For some reason no eiruv (even secret) was encouraged by the rebbe for crown heights before gimmel tammuz? Seems like the reebe didn’t believe an eiruv can be made in crown heights halachicly” then what you are claiming here (which we will leave for the reader to decide if it sounds correct, again, as the rebbe wrote in the letter, it will end up becoming known, at least to limited circles.… Read more »
To say that the rebbes letters to rabbi eisenstat and rabbi moskowitz, where he quotes the rosh tashbatz chassam sofer beis av, is only academic. And therefore you can interpret the rebbes position that he argues on all gedolei haposkim cv. Is beyond ridiculous this letter was a response to rabbi moskowitz request from the rebbe what is the proper and correct approach to eruvin in our generation, while in the middle of a fight to make Manhattan eruv. The idea that this was academic is beyond ridiculous, this was the rebbes halachic answer period. Being that at the end… Read more »
הלכה כדברי המיקל בעירוב is not a polish tradition, it is an explicit gemara in eiruvin , brought down lehalacha agreed to by all poskim.
and it is no contradiction to the concept of “ikar hadin” and Lechatchila or Bedieved. but for example if there are two equal opinions the halacha is very clear that its kosher me-ikor hadin lechatchila.
Yo yo yo, if you want to argue, argue with whats written here. The letter of the rebbe.
The Rebbe writes COUNTLESS times that any city eiruvin (at least outside Eretz Yisroel) must be:
1) Fully kosher, mehudar lechatchila.
2) Completely secret so that no one should carry l’poel. And the Rebbe makes it clear that this is his GENERAL stance on city eiruvin.
I have no idea how ANYONE can argue with this.
How can they argue with this? Because they want to carry. So they’ll make fun of people who dedicate their lives to the Rebbe’s true and stated positions, run roughshod over anyone who quotes the Rebbe’s opinion halacha lmaaseh and engage in games against rabbonim with a) know the Rebbe’s position lmaaseh (namely, the one that they too advance) and b) know what the people who want to rewrite halachic history are trying to do. They also run roughshod over the the Alter Rebbe’s first sief in Hilchos Eiruvin. The Frierdiker Rebbe wrote that people advocating heterim that don’t exist… Read more »
wont respond to your gibberish, but just to state facts the vast majority of chabad rabbonim carry in eruvin. and the vast majority dont accept rabbi zajacs positon..
Vast majority carry in eiruvin? Can you list them for me?
You asked: “I have no idea how ANYONE can argue with this.”
Read all the comments above and you will see the answer is clear: Because they WANT to have an Eiruv. As they say, don’t challenge my theory with facts.
you just inserted a story that the rebbe said unless out of eretz yisroel he never said any such thing, and he supported multiple public eruvin including four in america.
(1 Miami (2 kfar chabad (3 moshav bar guria (4 bnei brak (5 beverly hills ca (6 queens (7 rockaway nj
This already got addressed above, and you haven’t yet responded to my response. Why do you assert it again here, even though I have already proved it wrong?
in this letter and other similiar letters and correspondance the rebbe never mentioned “city” or “metropolitan” or the like and definitely never mentioned any distinction about Eretz Yisrael so what is the source for some of the anti eiruv people to keep on making these distinctions in the name of the rebbe. also the term mehudor is not accurate . the rebbe writes a rov should act strictly according to shulchan aruch. for example an esrog may not be mehudar and still be strictly kosher according to shulchan aruch.
As everyone can see the photocopy of the original letter of the rebbe, the newly typed letter by rabbi Zajac re-divided the letter to many more paragraphs. Even from a language composition perspective its highly inappropriate. Especially the rebbe who was so meticulous about composition and grammar as can be seen from so many of the rebbes handwritten edits. Also the rebbe learned so much from the way the rambam or alter rebbe or rashi divided and organized their text. Especially in this letter i think the way the paragraphs are divided are crucial or atleast very helpful in understanding its… Read more »
Let everyone read the rebbes letter for themselves of draw their own conclusions