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

This past Tuesday, I heard that the Agudath Harabbanim had planned a meeting for Wednesday in which they were to discuss the Eruv. Rabbi Jung, Rabbi Lookstein and I contacted a number of people in order to ward off any unpleasant possibilities. Rabbi Jung spoke to Rabbi Kotler and informed him that any adverse decision by the Agudath Harobbanim would stand to benefit only the Conservative and Reformed. Rabbi Kotler's reaction was not quite clear to Rabbi Jung. Rabbi Lookstein spoke to R. Henkin who seemed to waiver back and forth. Mr. Finkelstein had...Mr. Finkelstein had R. Perotinsky speak to R. Henkin, who agreed to the publication of his announced decision, but wanted to add the fact in print that in view of the Agudath Harobbanim’s position against the Eruv,he would not take the responsibility upon himself. When R. Perotinsky informed R, Henkin that it was too late for any such additions, he seemed to agree that we should go ahead as is. I called R. Feinstein. He emphasized that he was not one of the "matirim," but when I pressed him closely far his views, he replied that whereas he was not one of those mentioned, he was also not #to be counted amongst the "os^rim." He maintained that he stands by his written decision, to wit, that whereas he cannot participate in the commission, those who do pennit the Eruv have sufficient grounds on which to thatbase their decision, and /^ therefore they can be relied upon, except that a "ba/al nefeh” should assume additional restrictions upon himself. He clearly and directly told me that he would not sig! any announcement of "issur.”On Wednesday morning I called Moe Feuerstein in Malbin asking him to intervene with R. Kutler, i.e. not to come to the meeting. He told ne that Samson R. Weiss had more influence on R. Kutler. Dr. Weiss called R. Kutler and informed me that R. Kutler would want, or a delegation of those on our side, to appear and present Aour arguments. When I called R. Cohen of the Agudath Harobbanim asking th…

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…

Memo: Concerning Meeting on Eruv – December 31, 1963. In Attendance: Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, with Rabbis Jung, Langer, Jakobovits, and Lamm. We met with Rabbi Feinstein in an attempt to secure his consent not to stand in the way of an eruv for Manhattan. He informed us that since there is a difference of opinion amongst the authorities, with the majority in favor of permitting an Eruv in Manhattan, therefore he stands on his original opinion, as published in the "Hapardes," that "one should not protest against those who are permissive in the matter of the Eruv." We thereupon informed him that our synagogues were prepared to proceed with the announcement of an Eruv on the under- standing that he remains with his decision, as mentioned. He was completely amenable to what we said.We also asked him if other Rabbis and Congregations in Manhattan had the right to block our Eruv by their protest. He said that they could not.We showed him the original printed announcement of the eruv containing the four ״conditions", and he agreed that they were satisfactory.

There is a need to announce that in one small promenade in Manhattan, on the shore of the Hudson River, it remains forbidden to carry on the Sabbath, for it is not included within the scope of the eruv. This is that part of the shore of the Hudson River which would be between 170th and 181st Streets, if the streets extended to the river. This, however, is no wise affects the validity of the eruv, for the rest of Manhattan, because before the shore there is a very high wall, part of the structure for an elevated line, which serves as a physical separation. It may be feasible to prevail upon the City government to effect certain changes at this part of the shore to make carrying on the Sabbath permissible there as well.