The Rebbe's Later Response Concerning the Local Rabbonim and the Melbourne Eruv
When the Melbourne eruv proposal arose again, Rabbi Yitzchok Dovid Groner asked whether the local Rabbonim should continue to oppose it actively or step away from the public dispute.
The earlier Melbourne instruction
The first response, given on 5 Iyar 5741, called for a thorough investigation by qualified local Rabbonim and concluded that an eruv should be established only in secrecy.
That direction addressed the halachic investigation and the danger of creating a public habit of carrying. It remained the setting when the later question was asked.
The proposal was raised again
After the eruv was promoted again, Rabbi Groner asked a different question. The local Rabbonim had opposed the proposal; should they continue that active opposition, or should they avoid further involvement?
The later response left that decision to the Rabbonim of Melbourne. They knew the people, local facts, and likely public consequences and could decide how to handle the renewed campaign.
A decision about public involvement
The answer concerns whether the Rabbonim should continue opposing the proposal publicly. It does not state that the route had been approved or replace the earlier demand for expert local investigation.
The two Melbourne responses therefore belong in sequence: first, the halachic and publicity conditions; later, the local Rabbonim's discretion over their public response.
Local responsibility in Crown Heights
Rabbi Yonason Johnson later invoked the Melbourne episode when discussing Crown Heights. He treated the authority of the local Beis Din as a separate communal issue from the technical construction of a route.
In Crown Heights, the Rabbonim responsible for the neighborhood did not authorize the publicized eruv and issued their own direct prohibition on carrying.