The Rebbe's Responses Concerning Eruvin in Melbourne and Doncaster
The Melbourne response calls for expert local investigation and says that an eruv should be made only in secrecy. A later answer leaves the Rabbonim's public course of action to their judgment. Doncaster concerns whether a Rav should enter another difficult local eruv question.
A thorough local investigation, without publicity
Rabbi Yitzchok Dovid Groner submitted the Melbourne question through Rabbi Yehuda Leib Groner. The response calls the Rebbe's position well known, requires a thorough investigation by qualified local Rabbonim, and concludes: “Therefore, an eruv should only be established in secrecy.” (5 Iyar 5741).
The response assumes that the local conditions still require full halachic examination. Its conclusion about secrecy does not permit an eruv before that investigation establishes that the place can be enclosed.
Whether the local Rabbonim should continue to oppose it
When the proposal arose again, Rabbi Groner asked whether the local Rabbonim should actively oppose it or avoid further involvement. A later published compilation gives the handwritten answer that the decision depended on the local Rabbonim.
This answer concerns their public course of action. It does not say that the route had become valid or withdraw the earlier direction about expert investigation and secrecy.
Why enter such a complicated matter?
Rabbi Mordechai Zev Gutnick, Rav of Doncaster, asked about becoming involved in a local eruv question. The response transmitted by Rabbi Binyomin Klein says that the complicated discussions in this subject are well known and asks what compels him to enter it.
Doncaster was not a universal ruling against every eruv. It was a warning to a Rav not to assume responsibility for a difficult local matter without sufficient reason and command of the subject.