Home Home / Letter from the Lubavitcher Rebbe to R.…

Correspondence

March 30, 1964

Letter from the Lubavitcher Rebbe to R. Jung about the Upper West Side Eruv (1964)

Eruv
View The Text

This content is currently available in its original PDF format. As we expand the library, we plan to add a text version as well.

RELATED CONTENT

Correspondence

Letter to R. Kasher about Upper West Side Eruv (1962)

לר׳ הרה״ג הרמ״ם כשר שליט״א: בטח כבר הודיע לו הרב פרוטינסקי על מה שהתרחש פה בעניין העורוז מאז עזובו את ארצה"ב. אמנם רבו הפרטים מלספר, ואי״ה כאשר נפגש פא״פ ארחיב את הדיבור. יורשה נא לי למסר למע״כ רק פרטים ספורים בפרשה זו. ראשית, עשיתי את שליחותי כאשר צוה עלי כו׳. העירוב נעשה בביתו של האדמו״ר מקפשניט ע״י הדביונז. כידוע, הרב אייזנשטט המשתט, בגדר כל הירא ורך הלבב. שלשום סדרתי עם הרב אלברג.
Eruv

Correspondence

Letter to R. Jakobovits about Support for the Upper West Side Eruv (1964)

Dear Manno: I talked privately with Rabbi Teitz about the Eruv meeting we had. It seems we made a quite favorable impression. However, he confidentially informed me that it is important to keep up the pressure on several individuals. He talked about it to Rabbi Jung, who arranged for Rabbi Langer to work on Rabbi Feinstein. Rabbi Teitz maintains it is important to keep in contact with Rabbi Kaminetsky as well. None of us really knows him. May we ask you to arrange to meet with him and press our claims? I think if we do this we may have eased the way for the Eruv.Do you think we ought now to speak with Rabbi Steinberg and Berenfeld in anticipation of a successful conclusion to our meeting with the Agudath Harabbonim?Sincerely,RABBI NORMAN LAMM
Eruv

Correspondence

Letter to Haham Gaon about Misunderstandings Concerning the Upper West Side Eruv (1967)

Dear Dr. Gaon: I am writing to you to clarify the matter of the Eruv, about which there has apparently developed some misunderstanding. Permit me to clarify the subject to the best of my ability. The intent of the last communication sent to you, from which the confusion arose, was not to limit the effectiveness of the Eruv. We believe and declare and support the full validity of the Eruv for Manhattan. Had we had any question about its legality, we would never have undertaken our venture. We did, however, decide to proceed with caution in order to avoid any public controversy which would have, in the long run, proven more damaging than an Eruv would be constructive. We therefore preferred not to publicize the Eruv in print, so as not to arouse any violent and ill-tempered opposition. We also counselled our people that it would be wise policy not to do any unnecessary carrying in public in a manner that would prove offensive to those who do not recognize the validity of our Eruv. Furthermore, we emphasized the fact that no Eruv, anywhere, can permit the handling of any objects which Jewish law considers mukzah. However, I repeat that this in no way vitiates the Eruv of Manhattan.There is one primary condition, however, which accompanied the announcement of this Eruv: the constant and uninterrupted supervision of the Eruv by a Board of Supervisors (Mashgichim) who would be compensated according to a pre-arranged schedule. The leading synagogues of the area undertook to subvent this Board by committing themselves, contractually, to pay $500.00 per year; the smaller synagogues who participate will be paying somewhat lower rates.Your Spanish-Portuguese Synagogue is one of the most distinguished and important in the entire country, and certainly in Manhattan. It is therefore absolutely crucial for the continued existence of the Eruv, and our unqualified approval of its validity, that the Spanish-Portuguese Synagogue, together with The Jewish Center, Congregation Kehilath…
Eruv