The Rebbe's Correspondence Concerning the Manhattan Eruv

The question of an eruv in Manhattan came before the Rebbe more than once, over a period of years and in very different forms. The correspondence deals with several separate questions: whether Manhattan's physical perimeter could constitute halachic mechitzos, how its bridges, tunnels, waterways and other openings had to be evaluated, who was qualified to decide the matter, and whether completion of an eruv should be publicized even where its construction was considered permissible.

Taken together, the letters show how carefully these questions were kept distinct. A general preference for establishing an eruv where halacha permits one did not decide whether Manhattan met the necessary conditions. Questions about the physical boundary required investigation of the actual city. Questions about publicity remained even after practical work had been done. The final decision about a particular city belonged to Rabbonim who knew Hilchos Eruvin and had thoroughly investigated its local facts.

The Manhattan correspondence at a glance

Date	Recipient	Subject
15 Iyar 5714	Rabbi Hertze Eisenstadt	Bridges, tunnels, toll barriers, waterways, the Manhattan perimeter and shishim ribo
4 Tammuz 5714	Rabbi Yosef Dovid Moskowitz	Plantings, water boundaries, unenclosed sections and other physical questions in a Manhattan proposal
18 Elul 5714	Rabbi Yosef Dovid Moskowitz	Follow-up on plantings, sandbars and related enclosure questions
First day of Rosh Chodesh Adar 5718	Rabbi Yosef Dovid Moskowitz	Continuing halachic reservations and a firm instruction against publicizing completion of the eruv
3 Tammuz 5722	Rabbi Pinchas A. Weberman	A city eruv should be undertaken only with a Rav specifically expert in these halachos; the published note does not identify the city
Chol Hamoed Pesach 5724	Rabbi Eliyohu Jung	Manhattan specifically: a conditional preference for an eruv where permitted by Din, utmost secrecy, and a decision by Rabbonim who had investigated the facts

These letters belong to a larger Manhattan discussion that also included public rulings by leading Rabbonim and responsa of Rav Moshe Feinstein. That wider history is treated on the Manhattan eruv page. The correspondence here is important for the particular questions the Rebbe addressed in his own words.

Manhattan's physical boundary had to be investigated

In 5714, Rabbi Hertze Eisenstadt sent the Rebbe his booklet proposing an eruv. The Rebbe returned detailed comments. When the booklet described the area as a reshus harabim min haTorah according to all opinions, the Rebbe wrote that the point required "examination and clarification." He recalled that Manhattan's streets ultimately ended at bridges and tunnels that were closed by a tzuras hapesach, a partition, or barriers used for collecting tolls. He therefore called attention to the possible halachic effect of those structures.

The comments then turned to the waterways surrounding Manhattan. The Rebbe wrote that the halachic status of a sea or river boundary depended on the actual condition of the water and shore, including whether a sandbar could sometimes form. His conclusion on this part was practical and specific: "Accordingly, all parts of the perimeter of Manhattan brought here must be investigated."

This was followed by further correspondence with Rabbi Yosef Dovid Moskowitz. On 4 Tammuz 5714, the Rebbe questioned why a Manhattan eruv discussion had omitted areas of plantings, since planted areas can affect the status of an enclosure according to a number of Rishonim and Acharonim. He again raised the water boundary, including whether the body of water being called a river had that status for Hilchos Eruvin, and mentioned places that might remain unenclosed or partitions that had not been made for residential use. On 18 Elul, he returned to the actual presence of plantings in Manhattan and to the concern that water could form a sandbar.

The 5714 exchange therefore cannot be reduced to a single feature such as Manhattan's rivers or toll booths. The Rebbe examined how the entire perimeter functioned under Hilchos Eruvin and repeatedly required the relevant physical facts to be established. Read the 15 Iyar 5714 letter in context.

Publicizing completion was a separate issue

A later letter to Rabbi Yosef Dovid Moskowitz, written on the first day of Rosh Chodesh Adar 5718, addressed both halachic reservations and the consequences of publicizing an eruv. The Rebbe wrote that he had not had time to examine the entire new kuntres in detail. He nevertheless identified points on which he followed the Alter Rebbe and did not accept the proposed interpretation.

At the same time, he praised Rabbi Moskowitz for having made the rental arrangements described in the kuntres and described the work as a great zechus even though, in his words, "several opinions and questions" still remained.

The Rebbe then drew a firm practical conclusion about publicity:

In any event, in my clear, definite and firm opinion, it should not be printed, nor publicized in any other manner, that the matter has been completed and the eruv has been established, at least according to his opinion.

He explained that a public announcement could create lasting habits among Shabbos-observant people who would begin carrying on the strength of the eruv. If the eruv later became invalid, news of the invalidation might fail to reach everyone who had heard of its availability. A printed warning did not remove that concern. Once the matter had been widely publicized, the resulting problem could be very difficult to repair.

The subject of publicizing a city eruv receives its own treatment because the Rebbe returned to the same concern in other correspondence as well.

A city eruv requires particular expertise

The short response published in Igros Kodesh under 3 Tammuz 5722 gives another element of the Rebbe's approach. Rabbi Pinchas A. Weberman had written about an eruv in a city. The Rebbe answered on the margin of his letter:

Regarding what you write concerning an eruv in a city: since many halachos are involved in this, it should not be done without the participation of a Rav who is specifically expert in these halachos.

The published text identifies Rabbi Weberman and the date, but it does not identify the city. Its place in this subject is therefore the principle it states about expertise. It should not be cited as a Manhattan-specific ruling. Read the Weberman response in context.

That requirement appears again, in a more developed form, in the Rebbe's 5724 letter to Rabbi Eliyohu Jung about Manhattan itself.

The letter to Rabbi Eliyohu Jung

During Chol Hamoed Pesach 5724, Rabbi Eliyohu Jung asked for the Rebbe's opinion about an eruv for Manhattan. The Rebbe wrote that correspondence was ordinarily suspended during Chol Hamoed, yet he was answering without delay because the matter had been described to him as a davar ha'aved.

The letter begins with a general halachic principle. Where an eruv can be instituted according to Din, the Rebbe wrote, it should be instituted. He then addressed present-day circumstances. An eruv that became invalid might cease to be reliable before the news reached all those who had become accustomed to carrying. The original establishment of an eruv could become common knowledge rapidly; the later invalidation might reach mainly those in close contact with the Rabbonim or the shuls.

For that reason, the Rebbe wrote that where an eruv was halachically feasible it should be carried out "in the utmost secrecy." He explained the purpose in unusually concrete terms. Such an eruv was intended to relieve people who were already carrying improperly from an issur. It was not to serve as a public permission encouraging an observant Jew to begin carrying a tallis to shul.

The letter then gives an essential qualification. The general principle expressed at the beginning "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." That question, the Rebbe continued, had to be decided by "the Rabbinical authorities who have thoroughly investigated the pertinent details in full accord with the Hilchoth Eiruvin."

This letter therefore brings several strands of the earlier correspondence together. There is a general value in establishing a valid eruv. There is a concern about publicity and habituation. There is an insistence on technical expertise and close knowledge of local conditions. Manhattan's own halachic status still requires a separate determination by the appropriate Rabbonim. Read the Jung letter in context.

The correspondence within Manhattan's public rabbinic record

The Rebbe's letters were written amid a public Manhattan eruv dispute that had already produced formal rulings. In 5722, the Agudath HaRabbonim issued a public notice stating that carrying in Manhattan remained forbidden despite eruv work that had been or might be undertaken. Rav Moshe Feinstein had also addressed Manhattan at length in his responsa.

The immediate setting of Rabbi Jung's 5724 inquiry is especially useful. On March 18, 1964, Rav Moshe sent Rabbi Norman Lamm a telegram stating emphatically that in his opinion an eruv in Manhattan was forbidden, referring to both his published responsum and the Agudath HaRabbonim psak. Twelve days later, on March 30, the Rebbe wrote Rabbi Jung. The Rebbe stated his general principles about eruvin, secrecy and local rabbinic investigation, and expressly left the particular determination about Manhattan to Rabbonim who had investigated its details according to Hilchos Eruvin.

The two documents therefore answer different questions in different voices. Rav Moshe's telegram states his own practical Manhattan ruling. The Rebbe's letter to Rabbi Jung gives the framework within which a Manhattan eruv question had to be decided and leaves that city-specific determination to the qualified Rabbonim who had investigated the matter.

A later public reaffirmation by the Agudath HaRabbonim in 5726 belongs to the same Manhattan history. The complete sequence, including the physical enclosure arguments and Rav Moshe's responsa, appears under Manhattan and the modern city eruv question.

What these letters establish for the larger subject

The Manhattan correspondence preserves several points that recur throughout the Rebbe's treatment of city eruvin. Physical features such as bridges, tunnels, shorelines, plantings and openings have to be checked as they exist on the ground. An eruv involves many specialized halachos. A particular city's status is determined by Rabbonim who know those halachos and have investigated the local conditions. Publicity can itself create a serious practical concern, even where work on an eruv has proceeded.

Those principles explain why correspondence from another city cannot by itself settle the question of carrying in Crown Heights. The Crown Heights question ultimately turns on Crown Heights itself and on the psak of the Rabbonim responsible for the shechuna. The Rebbe's broader correspondence supplies the framework in which that local psak is understood.