Home Home / Rabbi Lamm to Discuss Controversial Man…

Shul Bulletin

Rabbi Lamm to Discuss Controversial Manhattan Eruv on Shabbat Hagadol

Shabbat Hagadol 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 on Meeting with Rabbi Aaron Kotler and Rabbi Jakobovits in Lakewood (1962)

We appeared in the succah of Rabbi Kotler at 12:30 p.m. He immediately proceeded into a "shiur" on the laws of eruv for about one hour. He would not allow us to interrupt him and divert him from his dissertation. He was anxious to prove in every way the fact that there was a clear prohibition on the eruv, in fact a "safek d'oraita." Upon questioning, he admitted that he barely glimpsed at all into the literature printed in "Noam" and the other writings of Rabbi Kahhar. As a matter of fact, his conclusions were almost exclusively based upon a reading of the polemics between the "Mishkenot Yaakov" and the "Beth Ephraim."We then shifted the matter to more practical considerations. I emphasized that we were not being driven to an Eruv by irate laymen who insisted upon it. Rather, that we want it for the sake of Sabbath observance - and here we presented to him, once again, our entire rationale. I pointed out that the opinion of the general public was that the older rabbis and especially the Roshe Yeshiva were always intent upon adding-er prohibition upon prohibition. Rabbi Kotler countered by accusing them of being Hatskalim." I repeated that, fortunately or unfortunately, this breed hardly exists any more and that, furthermore, I was quite in agreement with the mood of the public.Here was a case where with equal effort sources could be found to grant permission foran Eruv and make life more liveable for Orthodox Jews, but that those who had theauthority seemed to delight in saying "no." Rabbi Kotler was clearly unshakeable in his conclusion, and at the same time unmistakably apologetic and on the defensive in hispresentation, He protested that his hand was forced by other gedolim in Israel andEngland in the natter of the New York board of Rabbis, and that he had specificallydecreed that that "issur" not be publicized.would not need a man of the stature of Rabbi Kotler to devise ways of issuing aprohibition on the Eruvj even lesser light could accomplish that. We had h…
Eruv

Correspondence

Exchange with R. Jakobovits about Proposed Eruv Proclamation (1965)

Dear Colleagues, Many thanks for your draft of the proposed “Eruv Proclamation” which I have now read with great care. While it is well written and cogently argued, it does not quite represent the “compromise” I had in mind when I suggested we each go half-way to meet the other’s position. I was prepared, for my part (and, I believe, with Rabbi Langer’s concurrence), to withdraw the opposition to a pulpit statement affirming the validity of the Eruv, if on your part you would agree (at least pending any wider rabbinical consortia) to word your statement so as not to discourage people who never carried until now from availing themselves of the Eruv. Your reference in this context to the “pedagogic and psychological” consideration of children appears to me entirely meaningless in practice as well as in principle. Is carrying to be limited to adults, or is the institution of the Eruv to be taught only or especially for “pedagogic and psychological reasons”? It really cannot resolve the ambivalence of this clause. In accordance with what I had in mind, therefore, as a reasonable distinction between our respective views, I am attaching some draft amendments to your statement in the hope that they may conduce to a more unanimous and acceptable formula. With all my hesitation about the timing or urgency of such public action, I would at least be satisfied that we have all made some substantial concessions to reach agreement. Sincerely,
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