The Rebbe on Publicizing an Eruv in a Large City

The question of publicizing an eruv is not the same as the question of whether that eruv is valid. In the Rebbe's correspondence, those questions are repeatedly kept separate. A place may first have to be examined to determine whether an eruv can be made there according to halacha. Even where that condition is satisfied, a second question remains: what happens when the existence of the eruv becomes widely known and people become accustomed to carrying?

That second question was a major concern in the Rebbe's letters and responses. His concern was practical. An eruv can become invalid. The news that an eruv has been established spreads quickly, while notice that it has failed may reach only part of the community. Once carrying has become normal practice, even people who hear that the eruv is down may not stop as readily as they should.

The 5724 letter to Rabbi Eliyohu Jung

The clearest extended statement appears in the Rebbe's letter to Rabbi Eliyohu Jung on the first day of Chol Hamoed Pesach 5724, concerning the proposed Manhattan eruv. The Rebbe began by stating the general principle in favor of establishing an eruv where halacha permits one:

Firstly, as a matter of principle, where according to the Din an Eiruv can be instituted, it should be so instituted (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim ch. 395).

He then turned to the conditions of contemporary Jewish life. In earlier times, he wrote, the invalidation of an eruv could be communicated readily because of the close connection between the community and its Beis Din or Rav. In the present situation, the establishment of an eruv could quickly become common knowledge, while its later invalidation would be known mainly to those who remained in regular contact with rabbinic authorities or shul. The Rebbe added that people who had developed the habit of carrying might "not so readily" stop even after learning that the eruv had failed.

The next paragraph states the practical consequence in unusually direct terms:

In view of the above, it is an absolute necessity, in my opnion, that the Eiruv, if one is feasable 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 Talith to Shul on Shabbos, but only to relieve those who already transgress the Shabbos by carrying things - from doing so b'Issur.

The condition is explicit: the letter speaks of an eruv that is feasible according to din and then addresses how it should function in contemporary communal life. Its practical purpose in this passage is protective, to reduce carrying b'issur among people already carrying. The Rebbe did not present it here as the basis for a new public practice of carrying.

The same letter immediately adds another qualification. The general principle does not decide whether any particular city actually qualifies for an eruv. That requires a separate examination of the place itself. The Rebbe's requirement of local knowledge and an expert Rav is therefore part of the same correspondence, but it answers a different question.

Melbourne and the danger of habituation

A response concerning Melbourne, dated in the source publication to Motzaei Shabbos Parshas Emor, 5 Iyar 5741, makes the habituation concern even more explicit. A facsimile publication reproduces the handwritten response, and an earlier printed witness in Kuntres Tzadik LaMelech, volume 7, preserves the same text. In translation, the response reads:

My position is well known: in our generation, an individual or organization that is taken seriously, which constructs the eruv and knows that the matter will ultimately become publicized, this is a terrible stumbling block. For it is impossible that there will not be one Shabbos on which the eruv is invalid. By the nature of things, once people have become accustomed through several instances of carrying on Shabbos, no proclamation or announcement that the eruv has become invalid and that carrying is forbidden, and so forth, will avail to make them stop carrying.

And an eruv is not to be made except in secrecy.

Every eruv requires supervision and repair. The Rebbe's concern here centered on the asymmetry between the two messages. Permission spreads. A later prohibition does not necessarily spread as far, and even when it does, habit can outlast the announcement.

A firm instruction not to announce completion

The same concern appears in an earlier letter, Igros Kodesh letter 6084, addressed to Rabbi Yosef Dovid Moskowitz in 5718. The Rebbe had read Rabbi Moskowitz's Kuntres Tikkun Eruvin and discussed several technical points. He wrote that it was a "great and remarkable merit" for Rabbi Moskowitz even if, according to some opinions, particular details and doubts could still be discussed. He then drew a firm line at publicizing the result. In translation:

Nevertheless, it is clear, in my definite and firm opinion, that one should not print, nor publicize in any other manner, that the matter has been completed and the eruv established, at least according to his opinion.

Rabbi Moskowitz had argued that publicity could help people who were already carrying in violation of Shabbos. The Rebbe answered that few deliberate transgressors would learn about the eruv from such seforim or pamphlets. By contrast, observant Jews could seize on a published heter once some basis for leniency became available. He warned that after such publicity the situation could become impossible to repair, and that printed warnings had already proved ineffective.

This letter therefore distinguishes between the merit of taking steps that may prevent aveiros and the danger of announcing to the observant public that carrying is now permitted.

The typed response preserved with the Yagdil Torah request

A further response survives in a packet later published by Rabbi Sholom Dovber Levin. The surviving typed page is headed "Tikkun Eruvin Be'ayaros," arranging eruvin in towns. Its beginning is missing, so the original recipient, date, city, question, and the subject of the opening verb are not visible on the surviving sheet.

In translation, the surviving text says:

... [It] frequently becomes damaged, and it is plainly observed that the announcement about this matter, (a) in our time reaches only a minority, and (b) only a few of them will restrain themselves because of it, after they have become accustomed for many Shabbosos. Therefore, in a place where there is no reshus harabim deOraisa and the place is suitable for an eruv, etc., it is advisable to act in accordance with the statement of Chazal in this matter, on condition that this matter not be publicized at all.

That parenthetical condition is part of the response itself: the place under discussion is one without a reshus harabim deOraisa and otherwise suitable for an eruv. The surviving text does not identify a city and does not mention Crown Heights.

The same packet includes Rabbi Levin's later request to print this response in Yagdil Torah. On that publication request appears the handwritten answer כפשוט לא, "plainly, no." The notation answers the request to publish the enclosed response. It is not part of the text of the eruv response itself.

Secrecy was a distinct policy question

Across these sources, the Rebbe repeatedly distinguishes three stages. First comes the halachic status of the place: can an eruv be made there according to din? Second comes the protective value of an eruv when it can prevent people from carrying b'issur. Third comes the separate danger created by public reliance, especially when failure notices do not travel as far as the original permission and carrying becomes habitual.

The validity of a proposed eruv must first be established according to halacha. Where an eruv can properly be made, it may protect people who are already carrying from carrying b'issur. Publicizing that eruv and creating a new public reliance on it remain a separate halachic and communal question, one that the Rebbe treated with exceptional seriousness.