5) On 13 Cheshvan 5721/November 3,
1960, Rav Henkin wrote a letter to Rav Menachem Kasher zt”l (ibid.,
p. 14; Gevuros Eliyahu, siman 118) stating that while he agreed
with the rabbanim who supported an eruv regarding
certain points, he still had some doubts regarding other issues, particularly
if all the pirtzos were sealed. He went on to say that one could rely on
the rabbanim who supported the eruv and particularly on
the Shotzer rebbe who expounded on the [heter for the] bridges and
tunnels. Rav Henkin then stated that he could not pasken for the entire
city, which contained many great rabbanim, until there was
some consensus on the issue. He reiterated that the main point was that
the pirtzos should be built up and that there should be a
person in charge of making sure that the pirtzos are sealed.
6) In a following letter (as mentioned
in the article this letter is undated, but it must have been written sometime
after 26 Tammuz 5721/July 10, 1961) to Rav Kasher (Divrei Menachem, O.C. vol.
2, pp. 14, 135; Gevuros Eliyahu, siman 121), Rav Henkin stated
that since there were many rabbanim in Manhattan, he was not the person in
charge of this matter. He continued that he would follow Rav Moshe Feinstein
[regarding Manhattan] and not join those who supported an eruv, but
he would also not be mocheh against those who allowed one. Rav Henkin
then reiterated that if any modifications where made it should have permanence
and that a vaad should be established in order to assure that no changes
[over time] are being made to the mechitzos.
7) On 28 Tammuz 5721/July 12, 1961, Rav
Henkin wrote his final letter regarding eruvin [as was
understood until Rabbi Kleinman, “unearthed this inconsistency”] to the Vaad
L’Tikkun Eruvin B’Manhattan (Divrei Menachem, O.C. vol.
2, pp. 14-15; Hapardes 36th year, vol. 4; Kisvei Hagriah
Henkin, pp. 32-33, and Gevuros Eliyahu, siman 119). He stated
that there was a sound basis to establish an eruv in Manhattan
and that the borough was no different than other cities that had erected eruvin and
was even superior to them [because of its mechitzos].
He continued that the Vaad was
comprised of prominent rabbanim, admorim and baal
habattim under the auspices of Rav Kasher, Rav Eisenstadt, and the Shotzer
rebbe who were all working on obtaining the support of
other rabbanim after which they would call a meeting of the rabbanim
to decide the matter of establishing the eruv after all the
needed modifications where made. Rav Henkin declared that it was his belief that
they should not wait until this meeting of the rabbanim to proceed,
because from experience, he knew that it would take a great deal of time until they
would come together, and it was a pity to wait so long. Rav Henkin recommended
that they should instead immediately rectify what needed to be corrected and
then publicize that there were rabbanim who were responsible for the kashrus of
the eruv. However, until the Vaad would receive the written
support of most of the rabbanim of Manhattan, the heter for
the eruv would only be for times of great need.
On the other hand, once they had
garnered the necessary support from most of the rabbanim, they could
publicize that the heter was for all.
Rav Henkin gave some examples of what
he considered a great need: Women and children who felt a need to leave their
apartments on Shabbos, particularly during the summer; doctors who needed to
carry for a choleh shain bo sakana; the need to carry on Shabbos
that falls on Succos.
Rav Henkin added, among other things,
that the Vaad should place advertisements in the newspapers stating that
only the borough of Manhattan is included in this eruv. The Vaad
should establish a fund to pay the salaries of two masgichim, and
that the rabbanim should expedite the establishment of mechitzos for
the boroughs of Brooklyn, Bronx, and Queens, since they do not have a
general eruv. He also suggested that the Vaad designate
two talmidei chachamim who are experts in hilchos eruvin to
answer people’s questions regarding eruvei chatzeiros in the
other boroughs.
There is a similar letter (dated as
above, letter seven) from Rav Henkin to Rav Moskowitz (Gevuros Eliyahu, siman
120) where he concludes that everything published regarding this matter
should be done in the name of the Vaad and not in his name; however, Rav
Henkin allowed that they can make use of the contents of his letter.
