Rav Henkin’s Letters
Regarding a Manhattan Eruv
In order to contextualize Rav Henkin’s opinion regarding the
Manhattan eruv, we need to analyze all of his pertinent writings on the
matter:
1) Rav Henkin’s first mention of a Manhattan eruv was in 1936 (Luach HaYovel Shel Esras Torah, p. 62). Rav Henkin declared that Rav Seigel’s eruv of 1905 could no longer be relied upon because Rav Seigel had only enacted sechiras reshus for ten years. [Rav Seigel wrote a kuntres titled Eruv V’Hotzaah allowing one to utilize the eruv. In Gevuros Eliyahu, Rav Kleinman mistakenly referenced the wrong source, Rav Seigel’s teshuvah in his sefer titled Oznai Yehoshua, siman 18; however, this teshuvah only argued that Manhattan is not classified as a reshus harabbim and was penned prior to Eruv V’Hotzaah which was written to allow that one can actually carry in lower Manhattan, heter tiltul. No doubt the citation should have been to Eruv V’Hotzaah.] However, the main reason Rav Henkin asserted that the eruv was problematic was because of the changes to its parameters (the waterfront and the elevated Third Ave. train line) with the establishment of the bridges that crossed over Manhattan’s waterfront.
2) The above letter was later reprinted
in Edus L’Yisroel, 1949 (p. 151; Gevuros Eliyahu, siman
114; it seems that Rabbi Kleinman did not realize that this letter was
first published in Luach HaYovel Shel Esras Torah, in 1936) where Rav
Henkin added a paragraph in which he stated that although someone mentioned
that most of the bridges in fact comprise an integral tzuras hapesach,
he refutes this claim. He added that there is an additional matter of asu
rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta since the borough of Manhattan
contains shishim ribo. However, he admitted that Rav Seigel had
already paskend (Oznai Yehoshua, siman 18)
regarding this issue [that we do not say asu rabbim because
Manhattan is encompassed by mechitzos and that the shishim
ribo would need to traverse the street itself; actually, Rabbi
Kleinman in Gevuros Eliyahu, siman 114 n. 746 missed the point
that in essence Rav Henkin by declaring that Rav Seigel had already issued an
opinion on these matters was affirming that shishim ribo is conditional
of the street and that we pasken lo asu rabbim u’mevatlei mechitzta, and
therefore Rav Henkin, never cited these issues again].
4) On 7 Teves 5719/December 18, 1958, Rav
Henkin wrote a letter to Rav Eisenstadt (collection Gevuros Eliyahu,
siman 117) stating that, on the whole, he was not opposed to an eruv
in Manhattan and if sechirus reshus was enacted, it would be sufficient
for all. However, Rav Henkin stated that he did not want his name included with
those who support using the eruv. Furthermore, he declared that he did
not believe that it is fitting to publicize the heter.
[At a meeting in Rav Henkin’s house on 16
Adar Beis 5719/March 26, 1959, regarding the issue of the Manhattan eruv (HaPardes, 33rd year,
vol. 9, and Divrei
Menachem, O.C. vol.
2, p. 38), the following was discussed: the fact that Manhattan was an island
that was encompassed by mechitzos b’y’dai adam (besides for one area)
and the issue of the bridges and tunnels being halachically sealed.
On 16 Adar 5720/March 15, 1960, Rav
Henkin signed on to a kol korei of the Vaad L’Maan Tikkun
Eruvin B’Manhattan (ibid., p. 10) that stated there is a need to
investigate how to bring to fruition the plan for a Manhattan eruv.]
