The Advertised Eruv Is Treated as Nonexistent

The Crown Heights rulings use a particularly clear expression for the eruv that was publicized without the agreement of the local Rabbonim: k'man d'leisa, “treated as nonexistent.” In practical halacha, the Rabbonim do not recognize that eruv as changing the status of carrying in the neighborhood. A person may not point to its wires, poles, boundary components, inspections, or publicity and on that basis treat the streets of Crown Heights as permitted for carrying.

This expression states the halachic treatment of the advertised construction under the local psak. The public is instructed to act as though it provides no permission to carry.

The phrase in the 2 Iyar ruling

The notice of 2 Iyar 5776 was signed by Rabbi Aharon Yaakov Schwei and Rabbi Yosef Yeshaya Braun. It begins by saying that the notice will not enter into the many technical issues involved in establishing eruvin in large cities. It then gives the local rule and the practical result:

First and foremost, it is plain and clear, in the Rav's words: “It is for the Rabbonim who know the conditions of the place to decide what is decisive in a particular place, whether to make [an eruv] or not.”

The contention and attempt to arrange an “eruv” without the agreement of the local Rabbonim border on the destruction of religion, may the Merciful One save us.

In practice: on Shabbos it is absolutely forbidden to carry in the streets of the neighborhood, and an “eruv” of the kind described above is treated as nonexistent.

The final words translate the Aramaic phrase k'man d'leisa. In context, they answer the practical question left after an eruv has been publicized: may it be relied upon? The ruling's answer is no.

Read the 2 Iyar 5776 ruling in full.

A second 2016 ruling addresses the claimed eruv itself

The ruling signed in Sivan 5776 by Rabbi Avrohom Osdoba and Rabbi Shlomo Yehuda Halevi Segal uses different language but reaches the same practical point. It states:

In this neighborhood, Crown Heights, there is no halachically valid “eruv” anywhere within the boundaries of the neighborhood. It is therefore forbidden for every man and woman, and for the members of their households, to carry out or bring in and to carry from one domain to another.

The ruling then addresses reports that a new eruv had been established by authoritative experts. After inquiry, the signers state that the claim had no substance and that the Rabbonim and eruv experts whose names had been associated with those reports told them that they had not participated.

The significance of this passage is narrower than a general judgment about every expert or every eruv. It concerns the claimed basis on which the new Crown Heights eruv was being presented at that time. The signers did not accept that presentation as establishing a halachically valid eruv for the neighborhood.

Read the Sivan 5776 ruling in full.

Later changes did not turn the eruv into something the Beis Din accepted

In Erev Sukkos 5782, Rabbi Avrohom Osdoba and Rabbi Yosef Yeshaya Braun again used the same practical formulation as the 2 Iyar ruling:

On Shabbos it is absolutely forbidden to carry in the streets of the neighborhood, and this “eruv” is treated as nonexistent.

The Beis Din repeated the phrase years after the first 2016 notices. It remained the stated treatment of the eruv.

The ruling of 20 Teves 5783 then addressed a claimed later development, the publicized use of purported exterior “walls” outside the neighborhood. The Rabbonim wrote that there was “no change whatsoever in the categorical rejection stated above” and again concluded that carrying remained absolutely forbidden and that “this eruv is treated as nonexistent.”

Read the Erev Sukkos 5782 ruling and the 20 Teves 5783 ruling in full.

What “treated as nonexistent” means for a resident or visitor

The expression answers reliance, not engineering vocabulary. Someone may know that a boundary has been mapped, that physical features are being counted as partitions, or that parts of the route are inspected. Those facts do not by themselves answer whether the local Beis Din recognizes the resulting eruv as a basis for carrying.

For Crown Heights, the published local rulings answer that question directly. The advertised eruv is not accepted as a halachic basis for carrying. The more detailed questions about the route, purported exterior walls, omed merube, construction, maintenance, and supervision require their own examination. None of them should be used to reverse the practical meaning of the rulings quoted above.