From the Anash.org Inbox: Recently some have circulated letters with a claim that the Rebbe supported an eruv for use in Manhattan. They don’t hide their agenda, but they do hide the fact that they’re hiding half of the letters. A look at the full picture tells a simple, but very different, story.
By Moshe Chaimson
Recently there have been letters circulated with a claim that the Rebbe supported an eruv for use in Manhattan. The agenda of those circulating the letters is not a secret. They say it explicitly: Look how the Rebbe encouraged the eruv in Manhattan, and he would certainly support an eruv for all to use in Brooklyn.
However, what they don’t tell you is how they falsify the story. Using selective quotes, they try to present as if the Rebbe was in support of using the Manhattan eruv. But nothing could be further from the truth.
All that one needs to do is to read all of the letters, and you get a very clear and simple story.
The letters being circulated now are from 5715 (1955). Yet, the Rebbe discusses this very same Manhattan eruv with the very same parties in letters from 5714 (1954), 5718 (1958), and 5719 (1959). In all those letters, the Rebbe makes it abundantly clear that he will only support an eruv that is not known to anyone so that no one uses it.
So unless we assume that the Rebbe was ch”v wavery, then the Rebbe’s position was consistently against making an eruv for use. (And even if it were true that the Rebbe changed his mind back and forth ch”v, the final letters from the Rebbe are against making an eruv for public use.)
Now you ask: If the eruv wasn’t for use, then what was it for?
The motivation, as specified in the Rebbe’s letters, is that the many Yidden who unfortunately break Shabbos by carrying should be spared from sin by this secret eruv. At the same time, no one will be told of it, so that no Shomrei Shabbos should come to use it.
[In fact, when one of the rabbonim wished to publicize the eruv – so that those who carry don’t even think they are transgressing – with a public disclaimer that it should not be used, the Rebbe vehemently opposed it, explaining that the disclaimer would not help and people would come to use the eruv.]
For the sake of clarity, let’s bring a different example:
Imagine if we had an opportunity to have all meat sold in New York City undergo a subpar shechita process, this could have tremendous merit in saving countless non-frum Yidden from eating treif. Yet, no one in their right mind would suggest that we should all go eat this “kosher meat.”
This was exactly the situation with the Manhattan eruv. Though it had multiple halachic issues and concerns, it could also save many from chilul Shabbos according to some opinions.
Thus, the Rebbe encouraged the secret building of the Manhattan eruv. For those who carry on Shabbos, it could save them from chilul Shabbos, without compromising the shmiras Shabbos of the frum Yidden.
All of this is clear in the Rebbe’s letters regarding the very same Manhattan eruv. It’s sad that there are those who try to twist the Rebbe’s words out of context and intentionally omit the Rebbe’s words to further their agenda.
In merit of shmiras Shabbos, may we merit the geulah shleima bkarov mamosh!
One should also take note, that the Rebbe wrote Rabbi Moskowitz, that if he were to publicize his Heter to use the Eruv, it would cause irreparable harm.
דברי צדיקים קיימים לעד, and one can see how those words apply to our present day, the same way it applied then.
You mentioned the fact, that these people make it sound as if the Rebbe would be wavery.
However one should add, that the Rebbe would never has a position in opposition to the Frierdiker Rebbe. The Frierdiker Rebbe wrote that he was not Maskim to the usage of this Eruv, obviously the Rebbe was not turning around and say, hey let’s scratch that.
The Rebbe sent to Rabbi Eisenstat comments on his suggestion for the Manhattan Eruv.
Rabbi Eisenstat met the Rebbe in person to discuss it with him.
The Rebbe later wrote to Rabbi Moskowitz (another Rabbi who was involved in the Manhattan Eruv), that he told Rabbi Eisenstat, that it is a great Zchus to make the Eruv, but only if it is done in secrecy.
The Rebbe wrote the same thing to Rabbi Moskowitz a few years later, about the very same Eruv, that it is a great Zchus, but only when done in total secrecy, and on the contrary if it is not done in secrecy it would be terrible.
This is crucial context which has been left out by those who publicized the new letters.
This is the very Eruv which the Rebbe wrote about in the new letters, in they want to use to promote Eruvin
Some people like to claim, that the Rebbes issue was only pertinent in the case of the Manhattan Eruv being that were supposedly relying on the ocean for an Eruv.
However this is a total falsehood. Rabbi Eisenstat writes explicitly, that he is NOT relying on the ocean, and he is only relying on the built up walls that existed at the time around Manhattan. This was the written in the very Kuntres which the Rebbe wrote his comments on.
In any case, this is immaterial, because by their own admission, the Rebbe did not approve of the usage of this Eruv, and therefore it is clear that the new letters have nothing to do with a supposed Mitzva to make usage of the Eruv, and are immaterial to a discussion if the Rebbe wanted to institute Eruvin so that people should make use of it.
One should also note that they like to quote the content of a responsa which was penned by Rav Frank with regards to the Manhattan Eruv, as if the Rebbe approved its content.
In addition to the fact that it’s ridiculous to say that because the Rebbe requested his approval, the Rebbe therefore stands behind whatever he says, is should be noted, that the Rav Frank wrote a letter almost five years later, due to the strong request of Rabbi Kasher (one of the Rabbis involved in the institution of the Manhattan Eruv). It is therefore unclear what the contents of the letter have anything to do with with what the Rebbe wanted from him.