The Rebbe's Typed Response Concerning a City Eruv and Rabbi Sholom Dovber Levin's Publication Request

In 5783, Rabbi Sholom Dovber Levin published a one-page packet concerning a response of the Rebbe on city eruvin. The page preserves two distinct items from an earlier episode: Rabbi Levin's request to print an enclosed response in Yagdil Torah, and the typed response that he had proposed to publish.

Keeping those two items separate is essential. The Rebbe's handwritten words "כפשוט לא", "obviously not," were written on the request to publish the enclosed response. They reject the proposed publication. They are not themselves the text of the eruv response and do not mean, as a standalone phrase, "do not make an eruv."

The publication request

Rabbi Levin's old Yagdil Torah note reads:

כ"ק אדמו"ר שליט"א

ברצוננו, אולי להוסיף התשובה המצור"ב ביגדיל תורה הנמצא בדפוס.

שלום דובער לוין

In English: he was asking whether they might add the attached response to the issue of Yagdil Torah then in print. The Rebbe wrote on that request:

כפשוט לא

Obviously not.

In a 2022 interview, Rabbi Levin said that he had submitted the response for publication in 5742. He also described the wording later released as the complete response, while acknowledging that its original recipient and context were unknown.

The complete surviving typed wording

The attached item is headed "סימן כד, תיקון עירובין בעיירות", "Section 24, Establishing Eruvin in Towns." The surviving text begins with an ellipsis. As reproduced in the packet, it reads:

... לפעמים קרובות מתקלקל, ורואים במוחש שההכרזה על דבר זה א) בימינו מגיע רק למיעוט ב) מעטים מהם שימנעו עצמם על ידי זה (לאחרי שהורגלו כמה וכמה שבתות). ולכן (במקום שאין רשות הרבים דאורייתא ומתאים לעירוב וכו') כדאי לעשות כמאמר חז"ל בזה - ובתנאי שלא לפרסם על דבר זה כלל.

A restrained translation is:

... [An eruv] frequently becomes invalid, and we see in practice that an announcement about this, first, in our times reaches only a minority, and second, few of those people will refrain because of it after they have become accustomed over many Shabbosos. Therefore, in a place where there is no reshus harabim de'oraisa and it is otherwise suitable for an eruv, and so forth, it is worthwhile to act in accordance with the teaching of Chazal on this matter, on condition that this not be publicized at all.

Three points are explicit in the surviving wording. The first is the practical concern that an eruv can become invalid. The second is the difficulty of reaching people with an announcement after they have become accustomed to carrying. The third is that the positive phrase, "כדאי לעשות", is itself conditioned on the place not having a reshus harabim de'oraisa, being otherwise suitable for an eruv, and the eruv not being publicized at all.

What the packet does not identify

The typed response begins with an ellipsis. The packet does not identify the original recipient, the city, the original question, or the date on which the underlying response was written. Rabbi Levin later described the published wording as the complete response, so the ellipsis should not be treated as proof that omitted opening words once preceded it. What remains unknown is the original context to which its opening words refer. No basis has been found for assigning it specifically to Crown Heights, Melbourne, Manhattan, or another named city.

Rabbi Levin, writing in 5783, drew a further conclusion involving a city of shishim ribo. That is his application of the parenthetical condition about a reshus harabim de'oraisa. The surviving typed words themselves do not mention the number 600,000 and do not name any city. The halachic meaning of shishim ribo therefore has to be established from the relevant halachic sources rather than inserted into this response as though the number appeared in its text.

The packet nevertheless preserves a clear and important statement on its own terms. Where there is no reshus harabim de'oraisa and the place is otherwise fit for an eruv, the Rebbe's typed response says it is worthwhile to make one, but because of the danger of later invalidity and habituated carrying, it adds the express condition that it not be publicized at all.