The Day the Eruv Was Banned: New Evidence from the Lamm Archive

For years, the basic outline of the Manhattan eruv controversy has been clear. What has been harder to pinpoint are the precise events and the sequence in which they unfolded. An eruv completed in 1905 had become inadequate as Manhattan’s infrastructure changed, and in the postwar period rabbis on the Upper East Side and Upper West Side returned to the question. By the early 1960s, those efforts produced two sharply conflicting outcomes: an operational eruv and, at the same time, a public prohibition issued by the Agudath Harabanim. The ban was adopted at a meeting of the Agudah leadership and signed by several of the most prominent rabbinic authorities of the time.

Materials from the Lamm Archive now make it possible to reconstruct one of the decisive moments in that series of events. A contemporaneous memorandum written by Rabbi Lamm on June 21, 1962 records in real time the collapse of a tentative compromise and the circumstances under which the Agudah’s prohibition was issued. The document also helps clarify a key difficulty: the apparent shift in Rav Moshe Feinstein's position.

The Puzzle

Rav Moshe opposed the establishment of a Manhattan eruv on halakhic grounds as early as 1952, in a series of responsa to Rav Zvi Eisenstadt, who was working intensively on the eruv (Iggerot Moshe, Orach Chaim I:138–140). At the same time, he consistently distinguished between his own ruling and the legitimacy of those who relied on lenient positions, emphasizing that since serious poskim disagreed and believed an eruv was permissible, others should not protest if such an eruv were constructed. This distinction appears in Rav Moshe’s 1959 letter to R. Moshe Bunim Pirutinsky, published in HaPardes (33:9), and again in his 1960 correspondence with Rabbi Leo Jung, rabbi of The Jewish Center on Manhattan’s Upper West Side and Rabbi Lamm's senior colleague (published in Iggerot Moshe, O.C. IV:89).

Yet in June 1962 Rav Moshe signed the Agudah’s ban. That prohibition was later reaffirmed and published in 1966 following a meeting with colleagues hosted by Rav Moshe on Chol HaMoed Pesach. Rav Moshe again referred to his opposition in his 1974 responsum on the Kew Garden Hills eruv (Iggerot Moshe, O.C. IV:86). These statements appeared to reverse his earlier position and to rule out the possibility of legitimate dissent. Although he noted that the eruv had been established against the will of Rav Aharon Kotler and other leading scholars, Rav Moshe never publicly explained when or why his position had shifted, nor, to the best of my knowledge, did he acknowledge any change at all. R. Adam Mintz has thus observed that “it is uncertain whether Rabbi Kotler’s influence convinced Rabbi Feinstein to change his mind vis-à-vis the Manhattan eruv.”

Rabbi Lamm’s contemporaneous memorandum not only raises that possibility; it identifies the precise moment at which Rav Moshe’s public position changed.

The June 21, 1962 Memorandum

Rabbi Lamm’s remarkable June 21, 1962 memorandum records the events of the forty-eight hours immediately preceding and following the Agudah leadership’s adoption of the ban. On Tuesday, June 19, Rabbi Lamm learned that the Agudah planned to convene the following day to rule on the Manhattan eruv. Seeking to avert a public confrontation, he and Rabbis Jung and Lookstein immediately reached out to several leading rabbis.

Those efforts initially appeared to bear some fruit. Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin seemed to be wavering. Rav Aharon Kotler’s position was not entirely clear. Most importantly, Rabbi Lamm spoke directly with Rav Moshe Feinstein, who reaffirmed his earlier stance, including his letter to Rabbi Jung. Rav Moshe reiterated that while he would not authorize the eruv, he would not object to others who relied upon it, and he stated explicitly that he would not sign any declaration of issur.

On the basis of these conversations, Rabbi Lamm proposed a compromise. The proponents of the eruv would refrain from publicizing permissive rulings, and the Agudah would refrain from issuing a ban. Instead, the matter would be referred to a joint committee of senior authorities – including Rav Kotler, Rav Feinstein, and Rav Henkin – which would deliberate and issue a ruling within six months. Rabbi Simcha Elberg, the longtime editor of HaPardes and a central figure within the Agudah, accepted the proposal in principle and advised that Rabbi Lamm need not attend the meeting.

That understanding did not hold.

On Wednesday afternoon at 4:30 p.m., Rabbi Lamm was unexpectedly summoned to the Agudah meeting, which was already in progress. By the time he arrived, a written prohibition had already been prepared and signed. Rav Aharon Kotler presided. He announced that relying on the eruv entailed a possible biblical violation. He denied that any significant halakhic authority supported it and warned of its harmful effects on American Jewish life. Producing a document bearing Rav Moshe’s signature, he declared that Rav Henkin held the eruv could be relied upon only in cases of great need – a position that appeared to reverse his earlier view on the subject – and that Rav Moshe supported the prohibition. Rav Moshe himself was no longer present.

When Rav Aharon completed his remarks and the meeting began to disperse, Rabbi Lamm “quickly called upon them to be seated,” insisting that “they had not heard my point of view yet.” At age thirty-four, still an associate rabbi and far junior to every senior authority in the room, he rose to speak. He objected that he had been summoned under what he felt were false pretenses, rejected the claim that the eruv reflected pressure from lay leaders, and explained that the rabbis involved were motivated by concern for their community’s “religious health.” He challenged the way Rav Henkin’s position had been reported and expressed “open amazement at the complete about-face” in how Rav Moshe’s stance had been represented after Rav Moshe had already left the meeting.

The following morning, Rav Aharon telephoned Rabbi Lamm, implying that he wanted Rabbi Lamm and his colleagues to withdraw their support for the eruv. But, as Rabbi Lamm noted in the memo, no public permission had ever been issued in the first place.

Implications

The June 21 memorandum fixes a precise historical turning point. As late as Tuesday, Rav Moshe explicitly refused to sign any declaration of prohibition; by Wednesday afternoon, his name appeared on a formal issur. The record now establishes when his public posture changed and under what circumstances.

At the same time, the memorandum does not fill in all the gaps. While the sequence strongly suggests that Rav Kotler’s intervention was a major factor in the issuance of the prohibition, it does not explicitly state that Rav Aharon was the one who persuaded Rav Moshe to change his mind. Nor does it identify all those present who may have influenced the outcome, or what considerations ultimately led Rav Moshe to acquiesce.

Toward a Fuller Reconstruction

Other important questions remain. The June memorandum does not fully resolve the evolution of Rav Henkin’s position, if any, nor does it exhaust the new insight into the halakhic and political dimensions of the Manhattan eruv controversy afforded by the Lamm Archive. What it does provide is a firm documentary anchor, one that makes possible a far deeper reconstruction of the events of 1962–1965 and clarifies Rabbi Lamm’s central role in the unfolding of the affair, alongside the actions of his rabbinic colleagues.

Earlier and subsequent materials from the Archive – including a lengthy Shabbat HaGadol derasha in 1962, a further meeting with Rav Moshe in 1963 and a puzzling follow-up telegram, a letter from the Lubavitcher Rebbe in 1964, and debates in 1965 over public announcements regarding the eruv – fill in key additional details and require separate treatment. In particular, a dramatic meeting on October 15, 1962 in Rav Aharon Kotler’s sukkah emerges as another revealing episode. Rabbi Lamm’s account records him pressing directly on the sudden reversals attributed to Rav Moshe and Rav Henkin – and preserves Rav Kotler’s response.

Taken together, these materials allow for a far deeper reconstruction of the Manhattan eruv controversy than has previously been possible. They also clarify how much remains at stake in the unresolved questions raised by the episode – questions about rabbinic authority, institutional process, and halakhic responsibility when decisions are made under intense communal pressure. I intend to take up these questions and materials on a future occasion, building on the fuller documentary record now available.