Wednesday the 24th of Shvat 5783
An In-Depth Analysis of the Rebbe's Letter
By Eliyahu Uminer
Reb Nochum Zajac recently published a letter from the Rebbe concerning the Manhattan Eruv. He presented it as an unpublished letter, however, it had been published many years prior1. The only distinction in his letter is the presence of an additional paragraph, as well as some modifications to the grammar.
The following is the additional paragraph found at the beginning of letter that he published:
My brother-in-law, RSG [Rabbi Shmaryahu Gurary], informed me yesterday of your desire to discuss with me, in the presence of your colleagues, the question of an eiruv for Manhattan. Although, because of the sanctity of Chol Hamoed, my correspondence is generally suspended during these intermediate days, I hasten to convey to you my views on this matter.
The inclusion of this extra paragraph in the letter from the Rebbe regarding the Manhattan Eruv does not alter its core content or message. Both letters bear the same date, and any assertion that it is a new letter is erroneous.
Given that Reb Zajac’s interpretation of the Rebbe's letter was misguided, I will quote each paragraph of the letter, with a clear and accurate understanding of the Rebbe's letter.
As I embark on an analysis of the Rebbe's letter, I would like to emphasize that it is an established fact2 that the Rebbe provided enthusiastic support and financial contributions to multiple public eruvin in cities both large and small. Therefore, attempts to apply the particular concerns expressed in this letter to ALL eruvin are both wrong and misleading.
In order to truly grasp the Rebbe's viewpoint on eruv, it is imperative to delve into the specific type of eruv that elicited the Rebbe's concerns. This requires a dedicated and thorough examination.
Additionally, there are two other important statements of principle made by the Rebbe that must be mentioned before we proceed.
The Rebbe states3 That a letter written to one individual may not be relevant to another, even if the content of the questions are identical, as most of my letter's contents are contingent upon the manner in which the question was asked, the inquirer's temperament, and other factors etc.
The Rebbe states4 If my letter is against Shulchan Aruch it is nullified. The Rebbe further states5 that I announced at farbrengen it is foolish to say in my name something that is against Shulchon Aruch, and only a fool would believe it.
The reason why the Rebbe was emphatic regarding these principles is, in fact, demonstrated by the various interpretations given to this letter of the Rebbe. With these interpretations both of the Rebbe’s principles have been disregarded in such a brazen way, requiring us to reiterate the Rebbe’s statements.
As to the first principle, one simply can't understand the meaning of any letter if one removes it out of context of the correspondence between the parties. In this case, we happen to have the preceding letter and we know what was the Rebbe's objection to the Manhattan Eruv. It was not a general objection to the establishment of ANY eruv, but an objection to making a public eruv that relied on the leniency of "mechitzos of the ocean." We will explain this in detail further on.
Regarding the second principle: of course, no letter of the Rebbe's was ever "against the Shulchan Aruch". The meaning of this principle is that if anyone interprets any letter of the Rebbe as being against Shulchan Aruch, they should be told to disregard that letter. Meaning that no one may use any letter of the Rebbe to make a statement contrary to the Shulchan Aruch. This is exactly what those in opposition to eruvin are doing. They are inaccurately claiming that the Rebbe instituted a gezeira against takonos Chazal thereby nullifying the mitzvah of building an eruv, r"l.
Analysis of the Rebbe's Letter6
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 reiterate the main points of my viewpoint relative to this matter.
It is noteworthy that the Rebbe only emphasizes the main points of his viewpoint regarding the matter of the Manhattan Eruv, indicating that the purpose of this letter is not to provide a comprehensive explanation of the Rebbe's position regarding all eruvin, but rather to clearly outline his stance on the Manhattan Eruv.
Furthermore, it is imperative to recognize the unchanging position of the Rebbe on the matter of the Manhattan Eruv, as articulated in this letter. Thus, in order to gain a precise perspective of the Rebbe's stance, it is critical to refer to the letter addressed to Harav Moskowits zt"l,7 which provides insight after the completion of the Manhattan Eruv.8 In this letter the Rebbe states:
Regarding your request for a haskoma it is well known that this isn’t the custom of Beis Harav, and minhog avoseinu byodainu, especially that I don’t have the time to delve into the sefer as is required. More so and the main reason for me – that in all these halochos I am riding the coattails of the Alter Rebbe the author of the Tanya and Shulchon Aruch, and my custom is davka like the Alter Rebbe.
Understandingly this also applies to what he wrote in his Shulchon Aruch9 that the ocean can't be used as a *mechitza*h.10 11
Therefore, you shouldn’t make a brocha for this eruv, nevertheless it is a big and wonderous merit [as he will still be saving those who carry inadvertently or advertently c"v] nevertheless I am certain that you shouldn’t print this kuntreis12 or publicize that you finished the eruv in another manner (at least according to your opinion) [since according to the Rebbe's opinion this eruv was not lchatchilla].
Regarding what you wrote at conclusion of the kuntreis that the publicizing of the eruv, will save those who carry in spite like brought in Gemora (Nozir, daf 23 amud 1),13 14 surely you can surmise that some of these people acting out of spite, will know about eruv thru reading these kuntereism.
However regarding the religious Jews, that Chazal state that they are (moira hetter lnafshei) have a tendency to look for ways to justify lenient behavior and excuse themselves from strict observance of Torah, thus the announcement of this eruv will lead them to pirtzos breach in their religious practices, [in this case carrying in an eruv not kosher lchatchilla] and once it is publicized it won't be possible to rectify it, even if you wanted to.15
To summarize we see quite clearly that in essence, the Rebbe's concern with the Manhattan Eruv was its lack of attaining a kosher lchatchilla status as it relied on the ocean as a mechitzah, which would prompt the religious Jews, who are naturally inclined to seek leniencies, to carry in this bedieved eruv upon knowledge of its existence. Despite this, the Rebbe still viewed the completion of the eruv as positive since it would provide a safeguard for individuals who were already carrying, inadvertently or advertently r"l.
Why the Ocean Cannot Be Used as a Mechitzah
To fully comprehend the Rebbe's letter, it is of utmost importance to comprehend the reason why the ocean cannot serve as a mechitzah, as this is a central aspect to the letters message.
The Alter Rebbe16 first presents the Mechaber's perspective that the ocean can be used as a mechitzah, before presenting the opposing viewpoint of the Rama. The Rama argues that the ocean cannot be considered a valid mechitzah due to a gezeira from Chazal, (shemo yale hayam sirton) who were concerned that a strong wave could disrupt a makeshift mechitzah made of sand and stones, leading to a situation where the eruv is invalidated and individuals would continue carrying, despite the lack of a valid mechitza c”v,17 the Alter Rebbe concludes that the Rama’s opinion is the prevailing one.
The Chok Yaakov,18 offers a more comprehensive analysis of the issue, highlighting the risk of individuals carrying when ocean-based mechitzos are invalidated due to the infrequency of waves disrupting the mechitzah (shemo yale hayam sirton). The gezeira, it is emphasized, pertains solely to ocean-based mechitzos. It is worth noting that there is a universal agreement among the Poskim that this gezeira of Chazal does not extend to man-made mechitzos such as walls and tzuras hapesachim.19 20
The English Letter Continued
First of all, as a matter of principle, my opinion is that where according to the din an eiruv can be instituted, it should be so instituted. This is based on the opinion of many poskim, including that of Admor HaZaken in his Shulchan Aruch.
Here the Rebbe makes it abundantly clear that whenever an eruv can be instituted it should be instituted.21
Secondly, special consideration has to be given to the state of affairs and attitudes in respect to the observance of the mitzvos 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 pasul.
In this letter, the Rebbe underscores the significance of considering the current state of affairs and how it impacts the issue at hand. The Rebbe emphasizes the need for utmost caution in establishing such an eruv, (relying on the ocean as a mechitzah). The Rebbe makes it clear that his concerns with such an eruv are not limited to our present generation but are applicable to all generations, albeit more relevant in our generation. It is not a new gezeira, but rather a reiteration of the longstanding caution required when establishing such an eruv.
In the old days, when there was a close contact between the Jewish community (“the man in the street”) and the Beit Din or Rav, the invalidation of the eiruv, and the consequent resumption of the pre-eiruv state of the prohibition against carrying on Shabbat, could be communicated fairly easily to the “man in the street” and no harm was done.
Why Our Generation is Different Regarding Eruvin
The Rebbe sheds light on why the concept of such an eruv posed less of a concern in the past compared to present times. The Rebbe explains that if an eruv were to become invalid, the information would promptly spread among the community and people would refrain from carrying, thus no harm was done. Which raises the question what does the Rebbe mean by saying no harm is done?
The ruling in the Alter Rebbe's Shulchon Aruch, which the Rebbe cites in his letters, stating that Chazal’s gezeira not to rely on ocean walls as a mechitzah, is in order to safeguard against the possibility of the waves destroying the mechitzos and invalidating the eruv. As a result, people would continue carrying. This raises the question: can we override a gezeira instituted by Chazal even if we have taken measures to prevent the problem? In fact, we cannot nullify a gezeira instituted by Chazal, even if we take measures to prevent the potential stumbling block.
Apparently, some rabbanim sought an audience with the Rebbe to discuss the permissibility of carrying in the Manhattan Eruv, even though it did not conform to the Alter Rebbe's Shulchon Aruch.22 As in the past, many poskim were lenient in this regard, as evident from the first eruv in Warsaw, which made use of the ocean as a mechitzah. Evidently, the Rebbe was arguing why he believed, that despite the leniency taken by certain poskim in the past, in this generation we cannot continue to be lenient. The Rebbe emphasized that in this era, the concerns raised by Chazal are a reality and must be followed.
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 Shabbat on the strength of an eiruv, might not so readily discontinue to do so even if they became aware of the breakdown in the eiruv; and this contingency is particularly to be considered in relation to the Jewish youth in this country.
The Rebbe provides a comprehensive explanation as to why, in this generation and specifically in Manhattan at that time,23 the concerns of Chazal are of utmost importance and relevance.
In view of the above, it is an absolute necessity, in my opinion, that the eiruv, if one is feasible at all according to din, should be carried out in the utmost secrecy. This means that the purpose of the eiruv would be not to enable a Jew to carry his talit to shul on Shabbat, but only to relieve those who already transgress the Shabbat by carrying things, from doing so b'Issur (under prohibition).
Why Such an Eruv Must Be Kept Secret
The Rebbe concludes that the establishment of such an eruv must be carried out with the utmost discretion and secrecy if it is feasible according to Shulchan Aruch. Although it may seem that the Rebbe is even referring to eruvin that conform strictly to the Shulchan Aruch, the Rebbe's use of the phrase "if it is feasible at all" indicates that he is referring to the Manhattan Eruv, which was considered valid according to the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch. As we have noted earlier, the Alter Rebbe acknowledged the view of the Mechaber, who ruled that the ocean may be used as a mechitzah, though the Alter Rebbe concluded that the prevailing view is that of the Rama who ruled that the ocean cannot be used as a mechitzah (shemo yale hayam sirton). Thus, such an eruv would be considered feasible according to the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch, sufficient for saving Jews who are already carrying, but cannot be relied upon as a preferred halachic option.
Accordingly, the Rebbe emphasizes that the purpose of the eruv should not be to carry a tallis to the shul, as this eruv is not meant for enhancing Oneg Shabbos. It would be misguided to infer from this that the Rebbe is negating the rulings and customs of great halakhic authorities, including the Arizal,24 who carried his tallis to shul every Shabbos without verifying the validity of the eruv, or the universal custom of past generations who used the eruv for the purpose of enhancing Oneg Shabbos.
It would not be credible to claim that the Rebbe disregarded the established practices and rulings of past Gedolei Haposkim in a casual manner, expressed through a private English letter.
The Rebbe quoted25 the views of prominent halakhic authorities, such as the Chassam Sofer,26 who believed that an eruv was established to alleviate the hardship of individuals who could not carry objects, such as a siddur or a tallis, to shul. The Rebbe also cited the Prisha,27 who maintained that an eruv was created by Chazal to allow individuals to take leisure walks and carry necessary items, including food, in observance of the mitzvah of enhancing the joy of the Shabbos.
Thirdly, and this too is an essential point in my position: the opinion expressed in the first conditional paragraph, namely, that where an eiruv is permissible according to the din it should be instituted, is based, of course, on the general principle indicated above. However, it expresses no opinion regarding any particular place, such as Manhattan in this case, as to whether or not it indeed qualifies for an eiruv according to the din. This is a matter to be decided by the Rabbinical authorities who have thoroughly investigated the pertinent details in full accord with the Hilchot Eiruvin.
The Rebbe emphasizes that he is not offering a halachic ruling on the issue of constructing an eruv in Manhattan. This is a matter to be decided by expert rabbinic authorities, a common practice as the Rebbe did not wish to issue halachic rulings.
Fourthly, assuming that it be agreed that the eiruv should be instituted without publicity, as above, the question may be asked whether it would be warranted to follow the more lenient view of some posekim regarding the qualifications of the place, in order to remove the transgression of those who carry in any case (inasmuch as the eiruv would not be intended to induce Shabbat observer to carry on Shabbat).
However, this would not be right, in my opinion, for two important reasons: a) a Rov, or Rabbinical authority, should always act only in strict adherence to the Shulchan Aruch in every detail; and b) it is inevitable that the existence of an eiruv would not become known to limited circles, with the result that some individuals would be tempted to accept it on its face value, especially in this country where there is a strong tendency to find hetterim and make religious observance more “convenient.” Hence, it is my considered opinion that not only should the eiruv be done in the utmost secrecy, but that it should be done only if the place strictly qualifies for it in accordance with the din.
May I take this opportunity to extend to you and yours my
prayerful wishes for a continued kosher and happy Pesach.
(By reason of Chol HaMoed, this letter is left unsigned)"
The Rebbe Clarifies That We Must Follow Shulchan Aruch
The Rebbe firmly refutes the notion that the utilization of minority opinions can be relied upon to establish an eruv, being that it won't be publicized regardless. the Rebbe emphasizes that a rav must adhere strictly to the Shulchan Aruch in every aspect, and it appears that some individuals have misinterpreted this to mean that even an eruv that is kosher lchatchilla according to Shulchan Aruch must be kept confidential.
However, it is important to note that this interpretation is inaccurate. As previously mentioned, the Manhattan Eruv was valid bedieved according to the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch. However, the Alter Rebbe ultimately ruled that the prevailing view is that the ocean cannot be used as a mechitzah, as per the ruling of the Rama. Therefore, if one strictly adheres to the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, they must establish such an eruv in order to exempt individuals from the prohibition of carrying, but it cannot be relied upon lchatchilla.
What the Rebbe is negating is establishing an eruv that relies on minority opinions not in accordance with Shulchan Aruch even if established secretly.
The strongest demonstration of this perspective lies in the Rebbe's support and encouragement of the Manhattan Eruv,28 (to be carried out discreetly), even though it did not align with the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch lchatchilla, this clearly indicates the Rebbe's stance. Moreover, as previously mentioned, the Rebbe clearly states in his letter that he is referring to "such an eruv," reinforcing that his remarks are not all-encompassing.
Why Wasn’t the Rebbe More Explicit That This Does Not Apply to an Eruv Kosher Lchatchilla?
The question arises, why was the Rebbe not more explicit in specifying that his remarks do not pertain to an eruv that follows the highest standard?29 However, the answer to this inquiry is straightforward: The Rebbe likely didn’t imagine that anyone would interpret his comments in a private letter as creating a new gezeira to negate the rulings of previous poskim, which would prohibit the establishment of an eruv. Especially, considering that the Rebbe when asked by Harav Moskowitz30 what is the proper approach to eruvin today? The Rebbe answered31 emphatically by quoting the Gedolei Haposkim, Rosh,32 Tashbatz,33 Chassam Sofer,34 Shita Mekubetzes,35 Beis Av36, asserting beyond any doubt that eruv is a mitzvah that must be fulfilled and is also aimed at enhancing the enjoyment of the Shabbos. Additionally, the Rebbe encouraged many public eruvin.
It is noteworthy that the Rebbe began this correspondence with the intention of emphasizing this point:
First of all, as a matter of principle, my opinion is that where according to the* din an eiruv can be instituted, it should be instituted. This is based on the opinion of many poskim, including that of Admor HaZaken in his Shulchan Aruch.*
In order to ensure the specificity of the subsequent considerations regarding the implementation of such an eruv.
In this particular letter, the Rebbe's main objective was to address the concerns of the rabbanim seeking to permit carrying within the Manhattan Eruv, which at the time could only be established through the use of the ocean walls instead of tzuras hapesachim due to the lack of permits. 37
This accounts for why Harav Moskowitz zt”l and Harav Eisenstadt zt”l pursued the establishment of an eruv in Manhattan despite opposition from the highly regarded posek, Harav Moshe Feinstein zt”l, who lived in the city. This may evoke the query of chutzpa, as to why establish an eruv in a location where Harav Moshe was residing, but not in their own communities of Flatbush and Crown Heights. The differentiation is in the existing conditions of the two boroughs, with Manhattan being fully enclosed as an island and Brooklyn necessitating the formation of many tzuras hapesachim, provides an explanation for their behavior.
General Approach to All Letters of the Rebbe
Additionally, it is crucial to understand that those advocating for an interpretation of the Rebbe's letter, suggesting that the Rebbe's reservations apply to all eruvin, thereby disregarding the established consensus among all poskim who universally agree that the Rebbe's concerns were limited to eruvin utilizing ocean walls as their mechitzos (shemo yale hayam sirton).
Are going against the Rebbe's own clear instructions as the Rebbe states:38
That it's known in all groups of Jews, that a rov must pasken only according to Shulchan Aruch and not according to hints in my letter etc, and not even according to my letters as if my letter is against Shulchan Aruch it is nullified.
The mitzvah of establishing eruvin is widely recognized in the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe and among all poskim. Furthermore, great halachic authorities have lchatchilla made use of eruvin, including the Arizal, Bnei Yissacher, Minchas Elazar,39 and the Alter Rebbe's own family.40 Additionally, the Rebbe41 quoted the Chassam Sofer,42 and the Prisha,43 who state that the purpose of an eruv is to enhance Oneg Shabbos.44
There is no doubt that the Rebbe never wrote anything in opposition to the Shulchan Aruch. However, the Rebbe was aware of the passion and love that his followers held for him, and feared that in their zeal, they may interpret the Rebbe's letters in a manner that reinterprets the Shulchan Aruch, rather than understanding the Rebbe's letters in accordance with the Shulchan Aruch. Therefore, the Rebbe made it clear that a rav must make his rulings based solely on the Shulchan Aruch and not based on his letters.
Some people argue that they have seen with their own eyes how people continued carrying in an eruv made of tzuras hapesachim after the eruv was announced to be down.
However, we have seen people nichshel eating treifos, and we don’t make a gezeira against shechita. And we see people who are nichshel in an issur d’Oraysa because of eruv tavshilin, as they cook on Yom Tov right before Shabbos, and yet we don’t make a gezeira against eruv tavshilin.
Eruvin that the Rebbe Supported
The Rebbe demonstrated support for several public eruvin, as documented in his letters. These include:
(1) Kfar Chabad45
(3) Moshav Bar Gurya47, where he also made financial contributions.
Additionally, there is testimony of the Rebbe's support for four additional public eruvin:
(4) Beverly Hills, California, where he donated $18 to Harav Tzinner shlita on the condition that a vad would be established to oversee and maintain the eruv, as related by Harav Tzinner shlita.
(5) Queens, as related by Harav Simcha Piekarski shlita, and with the same condition of a vad for maintenance.
(6) Rockaway, NJ, as related by Harav Asher Herson shlita48.
(7) Bnei Brak, established by Harav Yaakov Landau zt”l, as reported in "Kol Kore,"49 by Harav Yehuram Ulman Shlita, Harav Moshe Dovid Gutnick shlita, Harav Pinchos Feldman shlita, who were informed by Harav Moshe Landau zt”l that the Rebbe encouraged Harav Yaakov Landau to establish eruvin.
To summarize, it is clear from the Rebbe's letter when studied in depth that he had no intention of making a gezeira against the mitzvah of eruv. And certainly, if he did want to do that, it would have been communicated clearly with explanations and thorough justifications.
Rather what we see is that the Rebbe's stance on eruv is
|An eruv kosher lchatchila with proper infrastructure (responsible vaad to inspect and maintain it).||The Rebbe gave enthusiastic public support.|
|An eruv kosher bedieved that Is based on legitimate halachic leniencies.||Should be established secretly.|
|An eruv that relies on hetterim in opposition to Shulchan Aruch.||Should not to be instituted even if done secretly.|
In conclusion, I hope that all parties involved will approach this subject with an open mind and engage in respectful discourse. By doing so, we can work towards a resolution that aligns with our cherished principles and values. May we merit the Rebbe's blessing in regard to the establishment of the Kfar Chabad Eruv,50 where The Rebbe expressed that thru this accomplishment, which adds in Shmiras Shabbos may we merit to bring closer the redemption in actuality.
Vhaemes vhasholom ohavu
Junior code of law, page 206. ↩
As I will outline in the article. ↩
From the Nissin Mindel archives, which currently was republished. ↩
He was one of the main architects of the Manhattan Eruv, and the Rebbe is seemingly referencing to the letters addressed to him. ↩
The Rebbe goes on to negate an argument of Rav Moskowitz as to why this wouldn’t apply to Manhattan, but this isn’t relevant to understanding the Rebbe's position, as the bottom line is that the Rebbe was certain that this applied to the Manhattan Eruv. ↩
It is important to note that the Rebbe's issue with the Manhattan Eruv was only concerning this gezeira, and not regarding the possibility that Manhattan may have fulfilled all the criteria of a reshus harabbim d’Oraysa. It is clearly evident from the Rebbe's letters, that the Rebbe maintained that there was no issue of reshus harabbim in Manhattan, or in other large cities, but it is beyond the scope of this article.
For more in depth articles regarding the Rebbes position on rh"r please see the articles of, shlita, and shlita, and much more, available at www.chabaderuv.com. ↩
As the purpose of the kuntreis was to explain why the Manhattan Eruv is kosher. ↩
As the Gemara explains, if someone attempts to do an aveira out of spite, and it turns out that it was not an aveira, he still gets punished. ↩
Of course, there is no reason for the Rebbe to negate the benefit of establishing an eruv for Oneg Shabbos, as it is obvious that an eruv that isn’t kosher lchatchilla isn’t only for the purpose of Oneg Shabbos. ↩
Since once people know that there is an eruv (albeit bedieved) they will be moira hetter to carry in it, and they will not accept an argument otherwise. ↩
When we say that the ocean is a mechitzah, we are referring to the fact that typically next to the ocean there is a mound of sand and stones that rises to the height of ten tefachim over the span of four amos. ↩
Tshuvos Shev Yaakov, Chelek Aleph Siman 1.7 ↩
The Taz raises the issue of the validity of river-based mechitzos in areas where the river freezes over during the winter, rendering the mechitzah invalid. He concludes that it is forbidden to carry in these areas even during the summer, due to the possibility of individuals mistakenly assuming that carrying is permissible in the winter. The Alter Rebbe similarly discusses this issue in Siman 363, Sif 35, though he does not adopt the Taz's ruling. Nevertheless, the Alter Rebbe recognizes the Taz's position as a commendable practice. ↩
It is apparent that the reason the Rebbe didn’t reiterate in this English letter that the eruv was not kosher lchatchilla, was because this letter was printed six years later, two years after the eruv was already publicized, and people were already carrying in this eruv, therefore the Rebbe didn’t want to c”v call them mechalelei Shabbos. ↩
Reb Zajac’s exposes his own bias when he attempts to explain why it is permitted to make an eruv, since the Rebbe*'s* words are very clear. ↩
As is self-understood the rabbanim in Manhattan weren’t beholden to pasken like the Alter Rebbe, unlike Chabad. ↩
Accordingly, one can argue that in today's day and age, where we can easily reach everyone via email, text, WhatsApp etc., that this concern isn’t such an issue, although for Chabad Chassidim this does not really matter as we follow the Alter Rebbe shu"a, and the gezeira regarding ocean walls applies, even if isn’t as much of a chashash today. ↩
See Shar Hakovonos, amud 6 and Nimukei Orach Chayim, from the Minchos Eleazar, Hilchos Shabbos, page 229. ↩
Igros Kodesh chelek 9 amud, 43 and amud 165. ↩
As we saw in the letter cited above from Igros Kodesh, chelek 16 amud 307 ↩
Igros Kodesh chelek 9 amud 42-43 and amud 166 ↩
As the letter of the Rebbe quoted at the beginning of article states that his letters are in fact written this way, only for specific situations. ↩
See Shar Hakovonos, amud 6, and Nimukei Orach Chayim, from the Minchas Eleazar, Hilchos Shabbos, page 229. ↩
See Igros Kodesh*, chelek* 9 amud 43, and 166 ↩
It is incorrect to argue that, interpeting the Rebbe's letter that one must only make an eruv in secrecy isn't against Shulchan Aruch since we can build an eruv in secret, thereby fulfilling the requirement to establish an eruv according to the Shulchan Aruch. This is because the construction of an eruv requires the participation of many people and a significant amount of funding, which cannot be kept secret. In addition, keeping an eruv secret would also prevent its use, which goes against the principles of the Shulchan Aruch. However, in the specific instance where the Rebbe recommended to keep the eruv secret, the cost was minimal because they were utilizing the natural partitions of the ocean. However, carrying within the eruv was proscribed by the Shulchan Aruch. ↩
Tshura from Harav Levi Holtzman shlita's wedding, Sefer Shlichus Khalocha amud 194, also Igros Kodesh*,* chelek 20 amud 149, and amud 306. ↩
Can be seen at www.chabaderuv.com ↩
Igros Kodesh*, chelek* 13 amud 396. ↩