Home Home / Minutes of Midtown Rabbis re: Eruv - Me…

Assorted

February 16, 1965

Minutes of Midtown Rabbis re: Eruv - Meeting 3 (1965)

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

Note

Memo Regarding Eruv (1962)

Today, June 6, 1962, at noon, I called Rabbi Teitz and asked him what had transpired concerning the eruv. He informed me that the minutes of the meeting of Agudath Harabbanim had not yet been transcribed and requested that I postpone any further discussion for another ten days because of the imminent marriage of his daughter. I countered by suggesting that he, on behalf of Agudath Harabbanim, postpone the matter indefinitely – i.e., that his organization take no action, so that we would be free to proceed as we had desired. He replied that we ought to cons to a re moral arrangement whereby!Rabbi Eldberg may do as he wishes in his journal, but he, Rabbi Teitz, would see to it that the Agudeth Harabbania sakes no statement to the prose.It was clearly implied, though it was not explicitly stated, that thia was a *Go-Ahead* signal to our group to proceed at once towards the establishment of the Sruv.Rabbi Ka ah ar before leaving for Tarsal, suggested the fallowing arrangements concerning 8ruv supervision! Balbi Moakowits should receive ?1,200.00־ ard Ratal Parotinsky about 1800.00. Rabbi Roginsky, if ha joins the ODOKnitlM, should receive in ths vicinity of £600.00׳ (perhaps a bit less).Norman Lammcc: Rabbi Jung
Eruv

Assorted

Minutes of Midtown Rabbis re: Eruv - Meeting 1 (1962)

In attendance: Rabbi L. Jung, Rabbi J. H. Moistein, Rabbi H. Lookstein, Rabbi R. Oettinger, Rabbi I. Jakobovits, Rabbi R. Reichel, Rabbi N. Lamm. The meeting was devoted exclusively to the question of the eruv. Rabbi Lamm reported on his contacts with Rabbi Teitz, who entered the picture on behalf of the Agudath Harabbanim as a result of an editorial in Hapardes. The gist of the report was as follows: Rabbi Henkin and Rabbi Feinstein both seemed to be wavering. Rabbi Henkin is completely determined to qualify his consent with the provision of be-sha’at ha-dechak. This is to be accompanied, according to Rabbi Henkin, by a number of items spelling out the nature of the provision. On the day before the meeting, Rabbi Lamm, in the company of Rabbi Y. Besser and Mr. Abba Finkelstein, met with Rabbi Teitz, who implied that it would be unfortunate for the whole question to become involved in politics and that it would have been better to have announced the eruv without any consultation with his organization. Rabbi Teitz said that he did not know what had transpired at the Agudath Harabbanim meeting and that he would have to see the minutes later on. It was agreed that Rabbi Lamm would contact him and thus determine the course of future events concerning the eruv. After the report, Rabbi Moskowitz joined the meeting and answered the questions of the various rabbis. He indicated the desire to have at least ten rabbis of Manhattan – including those of our group – sign a statement of co-responsibility with him. This is primarily a moral issue, as he does not want to act solely in his individual capacity but desires the moral participation of others. It was decided that we would accede to his request. After discussion, it was decided to proceed on our own, announcing the eruv during the third week of June. The Hebrew announcement – which Rabbi Lamm read to the group from galleys corrected by Rabbi Kasher – would be printed and distributed to rabbis. In the Yiddish press, a st…
Eruv

Assorted

Minutes of Midtown Rabbis re: Eruv - Meeting 2 (1964)

Present at the meeting: Rabbi Jung presiding; Rabbis Adams, Gettinger, Jakobovits, Langer, Lookstein, Reichel, Serebrenik, Schneier, and Lamm. Guest: Rabbi Kasher. The meeting was devoted completely to the eruv problem. Rabbi Kasher presented a résumé of the history of eruv and asked us to decide one way or the other, since continuation of the present situation may prove to be detrimental to Shabbat rather than helpful – the eruv may lapse and certain people may continue to carry. Rabbi Jakobovits maintained that our objections were not halakhic. The question is whether or not to publicize the eruv. The Agudath Harabbanim has never given us its answer after our meeting quite some time ago. There are no older rabbis – acknowledged authorities – who live in the area affected by the eruv and who are willing to publicly commit themselves to it. Rabbi Langer agreed with this analysis. Both felt that the controversy occasioned by the proclamation of the eruv would nullify any benefits that might derive from it. Rabbi Kasher replied that there is no need for wide publicity. It is sufficient to accept the advice of the Lubavitcher Rebbe and institute the eruv quietly. However, we must make sure to establish firmly the board of mashgichim and promise to provide for it. Rabbi Lookstein urged a public declaration of the eruv. He maintained that since it was halakhically feasible, we ought not consider any other elements. Rabbi Jung and Rabbi Lamm similarly pleaded for a public announcement of the eruv despite the risk of controversy. Rabbi Adams emphasized that the major problem was one of continuity – i.e., that of paying for the mashgichim in the future after enthusiasm has waned. We need, he said, a foundation of $25,000 in perpetuity, its income to be used for paying the mashgichim plus other expenses. He expressed a readiness to raise $5,000 toward this foundation. Rabbi Lookstein said he preferred that the congregations undertake a certain stipend to be paid every year…
Eruv