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…

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

Dear Immanuel: Now that the Eruv is a fact, and the proposition is just beginning to warm up, I would recommend that the plan you previously suggested be put in effect – i.e., that you devote a good part of your column in ‘Tradition’ to the problem. As you know, much of the material has been published in Noam, in various volumes, in Hapardes, and a special book by Rabbi Moskowitz. I am enclosing a talk I gave last Shabbat Hagadol which dealt with the problem of the Eruv. You may find some points of interest, particularly a brief summary of the historical material and an attempt to avoid certain popular misconceptions which no doubt will arise. I hope it will be of some value, however small, to you. Sincerely,RABBI NORMAN LAMM

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…

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.

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.

When you visited me recently, I stated emphatically that in my opinion an eruv in Manhattan is ossur as indicated in my sefer and as I also signed the psak din of the Agudas Harabonim which assures this eruv, although I am not in a position to prevent the eruv. Therefore, do not cite my name as one upon whom you rely for a heter in this matter. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein

Sholom uBrocho: My brother-in-law, Rabbi S. Gourary, informed me yesterday of your desire to know my opinion about the question of an Eiruv for Manhattan. Though, because of the sanctity of Chol Hamoed, my correspondence is generally suspended during these intermediate days, I hasten to convey to you my views, this matter being, as I was told, a "דבר האבוד." As you will surely recall, the matter was raised a few years ago, when I expressed my position, which has not changed. However, since I do not know if you are fully informed of it, I will here reiterate the main points of my viewpoint relative to this matter: Firstly, as a matter of principle, where according to the Din an Eiruv can be instituted, it should be so instituted (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim ch. 395). Secondly, special consideration has to be given to the state of affairs and attitudes in respect of the observance of the Mitzvoth in the present day and age, which has a particular bearing on the problem under discussion. I have in mind the precaution which such an Eiruv calls for under the best of circumstances, and certainly here and now, against the possibility of the Eiruv becoming Posul. In olden days, when there was a close contact between the Jewish community ("the man in the street") and the Beth Din or Rav, the invalidation of the Eiruv, and the consequent resumption of the pre-eiruv state of the prohibition of carrying on Shabbos, could be fairly easily communicated to everyone and no harm was done. Nowadays, unfortunately the position is different. While the institution of the Eiruv would quickly become common knowledge, not only through various media of communication but also by word of mouth, the rescinding of it in case of its invalidation, would only reach those who are in contact with the Rabbinical authorities, or who attend the synagogue regularly, whereas many would remain in ignorance of the changed situation. Moreover, many of those who might get into the habit of carrying on Shabbo…

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