December 25, 2006

125 Comments

1. Not only kiruv workers-but everyone especially mechanchim should emphasize ahavas Israel for all including their students.

   Comment by mycroft — December 25, 2006 @ 3:52 pm

2. Am I the only one who finds these two statements a bit contradictory?

   “Not all Orthodox communities are comfortable with outsiders offering their suggestions about what they are doing wrong. The OU thought about it, and decided that hearing criticism – taking it to heart if it was accurate, rejecting it if it was not – would be a positive experience, not a negative one.”

   “He cited example after example of halachic areas he thought problematic. I hesitate to publicize on this blog what are essentially blows at the very heart of our mesorah (tradition).”

   Comment by DMZ — December 25, 2006 @ 3:55 pm

3. Unfortunately, that approach often results in Chabad “outreach” neglecting the goal of making Jews religious altogether. There are plenty of examples of people taken in by Chabad continuing- with Chabad approval- their old lifestyle completely, and turning to Chabad to a little Jewish feeling every now and then.

   “I hesitate to publicize on this blog what are essentially blows at the very heart of our mesorah (tradition).”

   Can we not take it? Can the mesorah not take it?

   Comment by Nachum — December 25, 2006 @ 4:17 pm

4. Does Dennis have any discomfort with Chabad’s moshichistim or see any parallel with another outreach-emphasizing movement 19 centuries ago that had problems when “their guy” didn’t complete the “big stuff” during his lifetime?

   Has Dennis read David Berger’s “The Rebbe, The Messiah, and the Scandal of Orthodox Indifference?”

   Would Dennis have the courage to bring THAT stuff up if he faced a predominantly Chabad audience? Would he be able to say that Chabad has uniquely given missionaries a nuclear bomb in their efforts by claiming that a messianic candidate can be resurrected to complete the job, in contradiction to 19 centuries of mesorah to the contrary and Psalm 146’s clear assertion that when a person dies, and is buried, all his plans end. Maybe it’s Bar Kochba that’s coming back to complete the messianic task?

   I was kind of hoping that the Yechi stuff would end after a year… after five… or even after ten. What is the statute of limitations that 95% of Chabadniks would accept as exceeding the reasonable limit of the moshichistic claim? Or are we seeing something that we really haven’t seen repeated in the centuries since Shabtai Zvi or the “other guy” whose birthday was changed to today.

   Kind of hoping that Dennis reads this.

   Comment by Aaron — December 25, 2006 @ 5:11 pm

5. It is hard to respond to criticism of “the mesorah” without concrete examples. As (vaguely) presented here, it sounds like he is rejecting the authority of Torah itself — which self-contradicts the insistence that the Torah is of Divine origin and Authority. That means you accept that which you are uncomfortable with along with the comfortable. Once you feel to reject those parts of the masorah you dislike or find uncomfprtable, then you have taken yourself out of Orthodoxy.

   Comment by Tal Benschar — December 25, 2006 @ 7:59 pm

6. How beguiled are we by star power? By popularity?

   There are many “proven draws” out there who have, nonetheless, proven themselves unworthy to address an Orthodox-sponsored conference.

   Comment by Bob Miller — December 25, 2006 @ 8:18 pm

7. Kudos to my friend Rabbi Yitzchak Adlerstein for his honesty and courage to stand up to Dennis. While not being at the debate I did participate in the next days session on Kiruv put on by the OU. There I pointed out that most people are not willing to totally change their lives. Our goal as Chabad Shluchim is to move them forward in their Yiddikiet, step by step. Halevi we would succeed in moving eveyone all the way. However reality is that not eveyone is willing to make to take the whole road. I think Nachum misunderstands that we try to make everyone fully Shomer Mitzvhas but just as many of us are unwilling to loose five pounds many Yidden will make steps but not go all the way. The differance between us and some in the Frum community is we see value in a Jew that moves partially forward and begins the observance of some Mitzvahs.

   Dovid Eliezrie

   Comment by David Eliezrie — December 25, 2006 @ 8:31 pm

8. Will the transcript of your debate be published anywhere? I’m curious about Dennis Prager’s criticisms interested to see how you rebuffed them.

   Comment by Fern R — December 25, 2006 @ 9:01 pm

9. DMZ -
   Not contradictory at all. The OU made a decision to host DP, attendant risks and all, at a live session in front of a crowd whose composition they could predict. CC plays to a much more varied audience, and I don’t feel comfortable exposing casual readers to more than they bargained for.

   Nachum -
   I know you can take it. Not everyone else can. I am already getting flak from the kanaim for even participating, even though I didn’t extend the invitation.

   Fern -
   We don’t know yet. The OU is deciding whether or not to publish the tape. There are private copies circulating, and I imagine some of them will be made available on various servers. Please keep in mind that, as is often the case in debate, I did not get a chance to address all of the issues, or make the points I would have liked to.

   Comment by Yitzchok Adlerstein — December 25, 2006 @ 9:45 pm

10. “I am already getting flak from the kanaim”

    R’A., please don’t fall prey to the temptation to paint anyone with an differing opinion to the right of you “kanaim”.

    It lacks intellectual honesty (but is certainly replete with emotional honesty…).

    Comment by hp — December 25, 2006 @ 10:25 pm

11. R’A., please don’t fall prey to the temptation to paint anyone with an differing opinion to the right of you “kanaim”.

    I certainly don’t. I have no shortage of friends to the right of me (as well as the left of me), and we cordially disagree all the time.

    But why would you think that I don’t know the identity of some bona fide kanaim? Do you doubt that they exist, or whether they would have bothered communicating directly?

    Comment by Yitzchok Adlerstein — December 25, 2006 @ 11:15 pm

12. “I am already getting flak from the kanaim for even participating, even though I didn’t extend the invitation.”

    I empathize with any people in your position.

    “Not all Orthodox communities are comfortable with outsiders offering their suggestions about what they are doing wrong…I think it was a wise move, although clearly not appropriate for every audience…He cited example after example of halachic areas he thought problematic… In that sense, I think people walked away with the confidence that they had heard what a respected and intelligent critic had to say, and it didn’t sway them…”

    It sounds like Dennis Prager discussed either areas of Halacha which are not in accordance with current Western ethics and sensibilities, or that he took in his speech a non-Orthodox, critical-historical approach to the development of Halacha and Mesorah. Neither of these areas are new, but public discussion and debate are seriously problematic if it will weaken anyone’s belief in Yiddishkeit. Certainly, for people who never encountered such ideas, discussion could be lethal.

    I would add two points:

    Even if one is not prepared to debate, people should strengthen themselves internally. Merely as an analogy, this distinction is made by the Beis Halevi regarding the response in the Haggadah to the rashah. In that vein, Rav Matisyahu Salomon said at the Agudah Convention: “…For we must strengthen all of our children, and give them the ammunition with which to fight back when their beliefs are attacked. ”

    In addition, one might distinguish between belief in the fundamentals of Judaism, versus those in a particular derech. I would hope and expect that the majority of people would be secure enough to hold their own in a thorough intellectual discussion as to why he or she chooses a certain path within Orthodoxy. In “These and Those”, Rav Schwab makes a statement to the effect that “only those who are secure in their own hashkafos can afford to hear those of others”. Rav Schwab is making a call for tolerance between adherents of TIDE and “Torah-Only”, but I think the point of security in derachim in avodas HaShem is applicable in broader contexts. I would like to see more of such amicable and open discussions occur publicly in different forums, such as the press.

    Comment by Baruch Horowitz — December 25, 2006 @ 11:24 pm

13. “But why would you think that I don’t know the identity of some bona fide kanaim? Do you doubt that they exist..”

    Regarding the term “Kannoi”, there are both the bona fide as well as the ersatz types. Additionally, some like the term and the concept, and others don’t.

    Some proudly identify with Pinchas, about whom Hashem said, “tachas ashar kinie lelokav”, or with Eliyahu, who said of himself “kanoi kineisi l’Hashem Elokei Tzavokos”.

    To others, zealotry in general, or a particular level thereof is to be shunned. Some think a particular group such as Agudah is not zealous enough ; others think the opposite.

    Regarding zealotry in general,there are very subjective opinions, and one might apply the saying: one man’s askan(activist), is another man’s kannoi(zealot)

    Comment by Baruch Horowitz — December 26, 2006 @ 12:36 am

14. Dear Rabbi Adlerstein,
    You did Avodas Hashem by standing up for Torah values against a speaker who is well spoken and a fine moral person but not completely shomer Torah and Mitzvot at this time by his own admissision. If I were looking for a rebbe in Ethical Humanism I would turn to Dennis Prager. However I believe that the Torah is true, both the Oral and Written parts of the one true Torah. I therefore can not accept Praegar’s incomplete method of Sabbath observence. I feel it was inappropriate for him to talk to us about that as well as his other comments on the mesores at the OU conference.
    People go to this conference for chizuk. Not everybody has the knowledge or strength in one’s convictions as a true ben Torah. There may be some bnei Torah that are so sheltered in their world that they too may have a difficult time with the challenges posed by one similar to Dennis Prager.
    I wish that Dennis Prager should have so much nachas from his son who is learning Torah seriously that the son should lead the father to a life filled with more Torah and Yiras Shamayim. I express my appreciation for you guarding Kavod Hatorah with strength knowledge conviction and eloquence.
    Sincerely, Gary Shulman
    P.S. On a lighter note the two of you were the best entertainment ever at an OU conference.

    Comment by Gary Shuman — December 26, 2006 @ 1:13 am

15. i am amazed that someone as sophisticated as my friend R’ Yitzchok would talk about such an absurd notion as the ahavas Yisroel of Chabad. Chabad is totally devoid of ahavas Yisroel and is consumed with ahavas Chabad. The examples are endless; one need only ask the rabbonim who share communities with the Chabadniks. The most glaring examples are the readiness of Chabad to destroy programs which they see as competing with them even if they are more successful than those of Chabad, their willingness to encourage Jews to be mechallel Shabbos for the convenience of Chabad shlichim to have a “minyon,” their lack of concern with kiyum hamitzvos in their affiliates rather than association with Chabad, their beliefs in their exemption from halacha when it interferes with their desires, etc. I could go on but what for - the evidence for Chabad being a sect rather than a branch of Torah Judaism is overwhelming to those who look even moderately carefully. What Chabad succeeds at is public relations; it makes little real contribution to kiruv rechokim. I am not commenting on the question of messianism or the “bor’einu” crazies. I have long held that Dovid Berger is too generous in seeing only the messianists among Chabad as kofrim.

    Comment by Melech Press — December 26, 2006 @ 1:20 am

16. “I fiercely reject the notion that Chabad pioneered outreach in American or put it on the map”

    - fierceness does not make it any less true

    Comment by Jewish Observer — December 26, 2006 @ 4:25 am

17. Baruch,
    Interesting is the percentage of “approved by HKB”H kannoim” in tanach versus people who think their kannous is what HKB”H wants. The purity of soul required to be a Pinchas is well known - for generations that are constantly pointing out how far below our anscestors we rank, it’s worthwhile for each of us to ask ourselves (and probably others) what our true motivations are, will we be effective and are we at the level needed.
    KT

    Comment by Joel Rich — December 26, 2006 @ 5:29 am

18. “But why would you think that I don’t know the identity of some bona fide kanaim?”

    I don’t doubt you do. I simply wonder, though, if these dissenters were categorized by you as kanaim before they voiced their opinion on something you personally did, or after.

    Comment by hp — December 26, 2006 @ 8:37 am

19. Tal, just one note: It’s possible to believe in Torah Min HaShamayim and not in all aspects of the Mesorah- after all, there’s Oral Law as well as Written Law, and there’s law as it’s developed (I don’t think anyone honest, no matter how frum, would question the use of that word) for over 2000 years. Now, you and I may accept all of that, and even link them, but Mr. Prager may not.

    Mr. Eliezre: Granted. But there are other issues, as Dr. Press notes.

    R’ Adlerstein: I suppose the whole Koran flap (or Mr. Prager’s odd allegation that Jewish officeholders swear on a Christian Bible) didn’t come up?

    Comment by Nachum — December 26, 2006 @ 9:23 am

20. Interesting fellow… Dennis Prager. I once had an opportunity to speak with him on air. While I was on hold, I tried to decide if he was making a daily Kiddush HaShem or daily Chilul HaShem. I decide to compliment him on air and say that his daily presence on air is a Kiddush HaShem. But it is really a mixed bag.

    On the one hand, his obvious love for Torah, his strong advocacy of religious practices, his often very positive comments about Orthodoxy, (while admitting that he is not Orthodox himself) and his general positive approach to religious observance and belief in God, does make observant Judaism look attractive.

    On the other hand he clearly rejects some Halacha, especially certain D’Rabbanons (Rabbinic decrees of our sages). And he obviously advocates those views as appropriate. But, he knows better, having been brought up in a religious home and having a religious education. He completely violates Lo Sassur (the commandment to follow our sages). This makes him an Apikores or at least something very close to it. As such his show can be viewed as a Chilul HaShem.

    But… I still I enjoy listening to him generally and in the bottom line is he does make observant Judaism look good in my view. And there is no better advocate for Israel than Dennis Prager.

    I would love to know what the elements of the debate were, and who said what. He is quite bright and obviously a polished debater and communicator, having many years experience as a broadcaster.

    Comment by Harry Maryles — December 26, 2006 @ 10:29 am

21. I am suprised also. That someone as intelligent and sophisticated as Melech Press would react in a emotional and hostile tone. There is no question that Chabad is far from perfect, as any community. However the absolute assertion that there is no good in Chabad expresses a deeper anxiety that does not seem to be rooted in the Tzad Hatov. A few points.
    1. I would love to invite Mr. Press to come to my Orange County California. He will find a community of 75,000 Jews that prior to Chabad had no Yiddiksiet. Today we have a Chabad day school with 350 kids, Ten Chabad Centers, five well established, and five in early stages. There is an Modern Orthdox Shul that broke away from Chabad and is doing well. Some two thousand kids attend the summer camps, hebrew schools-for kids in public schools, pre schools, and the day school. We have tons of adult education, with shiurim all over the county, lunch and learns and much more. We have established Kashruth, and the first Mikvah is set to open in a month. The Federation is much better than LA since we are such a large segment of the community they are much more sensative to Halacha.
    2. It its all hype are we to discount the rebirth of a community from nothing. Is it just spin all the Jews who have become Shomer Mitzvhas, many that moved on to LA and other Frum communities.
    3. The Borienu stuff is absolute baloney. Oh, there was this menatally ill guy in Tzefat that David Berger discovered. But he forgot to tell everyone that the guy tried twice the murder the Lubavitcher Rav after he threw him out of the community for his crazy ideas. Then he was committed to a mental hospital. I am sure that there are not lack of crazies in Boro Park but no one would assert that they represent a philosophy that has followers.
    4. Ask any Baal Teshuva, (including writers to this blog)in the great majority of the cases a Schliach played a role in that persons return to Yiddiskiet. In many cases the Schliach was at the point of first contact, since the he lived where the guy was, from from a frum community.
    5. As for Shlulchan Arouch. Ask the kid in Alaska who eats Chalov Yisroel or the Schliach in suburbia who puts up a proper Mechiza when the MO Shul down the block has a lower one. Shluchim are Moser Nefesh for Siman in Shluchan Aruch. You may find-and we are just human beings full of faults -that someone may do something improper. But to insinuate that this is sanctioned or supported in any way is absurb. The culture is Lubavitch is that Halacha is supreme. Many times we find oursleves holding up a higher standard than local Rabbonim.

    Lubavitchers are not perfect. To say that a young couple leaves his family and friends to live in Hanoi or Laos, Valivadstock or for that matter Orange County California to hype Lubavitch is absurb. There goal is to spread Yiddiskiet.
    Dovid Eliezrie

    Comment by Dovid Eliezrie — December 26, 2006 @ 11:19 am

22. I find R. Adlerstein’s post worthwhile and thought-provoking as usual. The issue of kiruv in Chabad vs. other sectors of Orthodoxy is part of the general principle of kinat sofrim tarbeh chochmah. Chabad may or may not have been the first player in organized kiruv, but are a big-time player that has brought a lot of Jews to Torah. Many of those baalei-teshuva did not end up identified as Chabad chasidim. I agree with R. Dovid Eliezrie’s point that people have to move forward at their own pace. A lockstep of measurement of halachic progress would be analogous to shutting down the beginners’ minyanim and immediately requiring raw recruits to meet the pace of a 6 am weekday shacharis. Another analogous issue that we face in Eretz Yisrael is the derech of Rav Kook who saw the return to Eretz Yisrael as a first step to return to Torah. For some it worked and for many it did not. In the aftermath of the expulsion and other abominations in the name of Medinat Yisrael the Religious Zionist public in EY is also becoming more activist in kiruv, and this is a good thing. We do have to move forward in our connection to Torah and mitzvot, all of us including FFBs, but not with a stopwatch.

    Comment by Yehoshua Friedman — December 26, 2006 @ 11:58 am

23. One thing’s for sure, Melech Press is full of Ahavas Yisroel. Every word he writes is just brimming with it. I wish him lots of success in his Kiruv work, he must be very successful with that kind of loving attitude.

    Yitzchok

    and if Chabad pioneered outreach, so what? why do you feel the need to rewrite history and deny them the little credit they DO get?

    Comment by HirshelTzig — December 26, 2006 @ 12:17 pm

24. Reb Yitzchok:

    Perhaps, I could be considered a Kanoi–defender of G-D’s honor.

    The O-U, in my opinion, did an irresposible thing inviting a non-Orthodox Jew to their gathering to freely criticise Halacha in front of an audience of laymen.

    If you felt inadequate to the task of debating with Dennis, you can just imagine how the audience felt. O-U took the irresponsible risk of confusing many BaaLei-TeShuVa beginners, who don’t have enough of a solid grounding in Judaism.

    In our tradition, only our great Torah sages, who were intimately familiar with all of Talmud, were qualified to contend with ApiKorSim. Great men, like the RAMBAM (Guide to the Perplexed)and the RAMBAN.

    People who are not at this level are better off investing their limited time in gaining a broader and deeper understanding of our authentic Torah tradition.

    As for Lubavitch, they are absolutely indispensable. Where else can a totally lost Jew in India or VietNam go to re-connect his soul to Torah Judaism?

    By providing unconditional love to all Jews, regardless of their level of observance, Lubavitch creates a non-threatening atmosphere in which each and every Jew can advance in his level of study and observance at his own pace, within his own comfort zone.

    The Lubavitch emissaries throughout the world regard themselves as lifeguards, who are attempting to save lost Jews from drowning in a sea of Pagan hedonism.

    The Lubavitch formula is a proven success.

    Comment by HILLEL — December 26, 2006 @ 1:17 pm

25. As for who came first I think that there is tendancy to Historical Revionisim in the Litvasher World. A few facts
    1. The first national day school organization was set up by the Previous Rebbe in 1941. It still is the organization that stands at the center of Chabad, Merkos L’inyonie Chinuch. It opened schools and Yeshivas all over the northeast and as far west as Chicago in its first few years. A few years later Torah Umesorah, who have done a great job was started. According to some as a reaction to Chabad.
    2. The previous Rebbe sent the first people to campus to do outreach in 1949. The first campus Chabad House was established in the late sixties before anyone else. Young Israel did set up some kitchens but that was for frum kids.
    3. Community Outreach. The first summer outreach program, as we call it in Chabad “Merkos Schlichus” was in 1943. Since then senior Yeshiva bachurim have been sent to every community in the world during summer. During the first year or so bachurim went to US states and Canada. in two or three years they started going international.
    4. The first push to reach out to American Jews in a broad way was the day the previous Rebbe arrived in the US, March 1940. He stated on the dock that “America in Not Different” claiming that outreach was the key starting Mesibo Shabbos, Release time, day shools, etc. etc. The Litvasher approach of the Roshie Yeshiva was to set up Yeshivas and have a slow trickle down effect in the broader community. The Rebbe did not agree and advocated outreach as a primary strategy, something the Yeshivash world took years, if not decades to emulate.
    5. The first Baal Teshuva Yeshiva was Hadar Hatorah set up in the early sixties in Crown Heights by Chabad.
    6. The first Shluchim where sent out in the early forties to communities primarily focusing on building schools. The second wave began in the late fifties with a broader mandate of transforming whole communities.

    The point is that Chabad, from the begining of World War 2 launched outreach as its primary strategy. Sadly when I read the Artscroll version of history I find that the above mentioned facts are ommitted. I am not minimizing the contributions of Agudah, NCSY, Young Israel etc. they are significant. However Chabad’s approach was not one of building fortress Judaism and making a foray to the outside world. It was an approach of self confidence that from the get go reached out to the broader community. It took time, money and effort to build momentum and make a large impact.

    Dovid Eliezrie

    Comment by Dovid Eliezrie — December 26, 2006 @ 2:30 pm

26. Unfortunately, in my unpleasant experience, Melech Press has a point. I or friends have been involved in succesful outreach projects that Chabad actively worked to destroy, once they showed up in town, an dwere unsuccessful in what they tried to do. In other places, all Orthodox outreach efforts cooperated (from Bnei Akivah to Agudah and Chassidic), and encouraged the kids we were working with to attend others’ events, and at the very least, did not talk against them. All, except for Chabad, that is. This occured in a few places that I am personally aware of.

    Comment by Shalhevet — December 26, 2006 @ 2:44 pm

27. Hashem loves every Jew. Chabad followers are not the only Shlichim, every Jew is a Shliach of Hashem!

    So get to work!

    Bottom Line? Moshiach now!

    Comment by Andy Rubin — December 26, 2006 @ 3:20 pm

28. “But, he knows better, having been brought up in a religious home and having a religious education. He completely violates Lo Sassur (the commandment to follow our sages).”

    The first sentence is quite patronizing; both sentences are very simplistic.

    “As for Shlulchan Arouch. Ask the kid in Alaska who eats Chalov Yisroel or the Schliach in suburbia who puts up a proper Mechiza when the MO Shul down the block has a lower one.”

    Neither of those things are worth dividing a community over.

    Comment by Nachum — December 26, 2006 @ 5:00 pm

29. “I hesitate to publicize on this blog what are essentially blows at the very heart of our mesorah (tradition).”

    I didn’t hear the debate. Nevertheless, the statement I quoted above tells me that the Torah side lost. As an Orthodox Jew who struggles with belief, I find that one of the most devastating handicaps I face in this struggle is our fondness for censorship (e.g., l’affaire Slifkin).

    Hiding Prager’s arguments is tantamount to acknowledging that we lack responses.

    The increasing insularity and slide to the right in Orthodoxy will not save us– the world is here, and we’re not getting out of it that easily. As Torah Jews, we have two (and only two) choices– 1) acknowledge and respond to challenges to Torah, trusting that we do have answers; or 2) admit that we don’t have any answers, and put our trust in ignorance of the questions to sustain our beliefs.

    Comment by David — December 26, 2006 @ 5:15 pm

30. Would the OU invite a conservative rabbi to a debate with R. Adlerstein (even if he is from the more traditional wing)? Would R. Adlerstein participate in such debate? If the answer is no, why should Dennis Prager be any different?

    Comment by Eliyahu — December 26, 2006 @ 5:37 pm

31. DE,

    Is it Jewish tradition to assert that a messianic candidate will die and return to complete the messianic prophecies or has it been that from time immemorial (or at least 19 centuries) that the typical first argument against someone whose birthday was celebrated yesterday is that the candidate died before completing the job?

    Or, per Ps. 146, once one dies is one’s job over?

    Yes or no, did the last Lubavitcher Rebbe die?

    I have MANY examples of achdus-opposing activity by Chabad in my city but would prefer to remain anonymous for the safety of my family. This pains me because I was initially mikareved by Chabad. But since the Rebbe died, the movement has scared me as repeating a tragedy that we have seen before.

    Comment by Aaron — December 26, 2006 @ 6:00 pm

32. Rabbi Adlerstein-
    didn’t you support R. Reinmen’s book on in an article in jewish action a few years back?? Why is publishing a transcript of your debate with Dennis Prager any different? And if it is because of the nature of this sepcific blog, perhaps you should present it on another website, as I would imagine that your responses to such a powerful figure could be very benificial to the readers of these blogs and the like.

    Comment by Zelig K — December 26, 2006 @ 6:15 pm

33. Given that Chabad has been wholeheartedly committed to ripping my community apart in an attempt to destroy the community’s new kiruv rabbi, I must agree with Melech’s comments. Given their actions here, I must agree with Melech that Chabad’s ‘ahavat yisrael’, while being a cute concept to slap on a brochure in order to suck money from intermarried lawyers, is apparently hardly a motivating concept for some shluchim.

    At least I know now that whenever I see a Chabad shliach, I will promptly walk the other way.

    Comment by Mordechai — December 26, 2006 @ 6:36 pm

34. Oh now we have the ideological Moshiach test. First let me state it well known my criticism within and outside of Chabad-even in the New York Times about the Meshistim.
    So the answer to question nubmer 1, is it Jewish tradition etc., is no. By the way that is not the theology of the Meschistim, that’s Dr. Berger’s redefinition of their theology.
    Did the Rebbe pass away, Yes. I was at the Lavaya. However it may suprise you that Chassidim always refer to the passing of a Tzadik as “histalkus” as the Gemrara says “beloshon Hanikia”. Some outside of Lubavitch think, by they are mistaken, that this means the person did not pass away. However this is common Chassidic terminolgy for death.

    I do not know your community and not always is Chabad right. So it is impossible to relate to your issue about breaking community unity etc. You can email me privatly if you choose, rabbi@ocjewish.com.
    Dovid Eliezrie

    Comment by Dovid Eliezrie — December 26, 2006 @ 6:56 pm

35. >ApiKorSim

    Hillel, you write this as if it is an acronym (AKS). May I ask what for?

    Comment by S. — December 26, 2006 @ 7:00 pm

36. My initial response to Dr. Press’ comment was to disagree on a number of points. As a non-Lubavitcher who taught in a Lubavitch school for 10 years, I have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly. And the good is a good deal better than the picture that Dr. Press paints.

    However, Rabbi Eliezre’s response was just as over the top. Orange County is “yours”? There was no Yiddishkeit whatsoever in Orange County prior to Chabad? What utter rubbish.

    If there is a tendency among Litvaks to write Chabad out of the picture, perhaps it is response to the Chabad tendency of writing everyone else out. Not only do some (SOME! certainly not all!) shluchim make it exceedingly difficult for other kiruv groups to co-exist with them, I am astounded by repeated attempts to re-write pre-1700s Jewish history in Chabad’s image. (Did you know that Avraham Avinu opened the first Chabad House? Yeah, me either.)

    Comment by Rivka W. — December 26, 2006 @ 8:04 pm

37. Dear Rabbi Eliezrie,

    With all due respect to many things that you write, you overlook many points made by your critics. I will mention some:

    Lubavitch is supposedly for Ahavas Yisroel for “all” Jews. But any chossid who knows a bit about the Gro, Chazon Ish, and of course R. Kotler would speak about these figures with the utmost disrespect words like “klipoh” and with utmost hatred that you decry about your opponents. It seems that these expressions show the emptiness and shallowness of the mantra that you upheld for yourself of “ahavat yisroel”. It seems that that you have lots of room for respect for shabbos desecrators and shiktze marrriers, but the GRo and Chazon Ish do not have that small measure of compassion that the aforementioned have.

    You minimize the importance of others in pioneering Yidishkeyt in the USA. Only the Freidiker Rebbe did something valuable. The growth of Yeshiva, which after everything is said and done is THE THING THAT MOSTLY HOLDS UP YIDDISHKEYT IN THE USA was started by Reb Shraga Feivel Mendelowitz of blessed memory.

    Your tactic of claiming that the messianists or boreyno are a minority can no longer hold water. You educate your youth to believe that the REBBE IS THE MOSHIACH, what chutzpah did you have to CHANGE WHAT JEWS BELEIVED IN FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS? If some of your oppoonents do something in much lesser scale your people call them “the snags” and other epithets. But you CHANGED what people believed in for THOUSANDS OF YEARS without ANY SUBSTANCE and you think that you can go by free of charge?

    Comment by truth — December 26, 2006 @ 8:18 pm

38. “have MANY examples of achdus-opposing activity by Chabad in my city but would prefer to remain anonymous for the safety of my family.”

    - I doubt CC would have allowed a comment with equivalent cynicism about haredim to get published

    Comment by Jewish Observer — December 26, 2006 @ 10:10 pm

39. kol hakavod for r adlerstein’s shul, which , while not supporting anything OU/YOLA/interfaith etc and remains chareidi mainstream, has not asked him to go elsewhere. i think that is as open minded as one could ever hope for… oh i stand corrected –the esteemed mara datra, a renowned posek, presented at the OU west coast gabay conference….

    Comment by easterner — December 26, 2006 @ 10:34 pm

40. I looked over a description of the debate posted elsewhere on the internet, and I can see how anyone had their work cut out for them.

    I found the most controversial part of the debate, Rabbi Adlerstein’s remarks about New Yorker’s greeting habits; I hope that he realizes that people in large cities are of a diverse nature.

    Perhaps someone can do a post concerning reasons why some, or many, in large cities find it difficult to greet others properly. In order to correct the problem, one must first understand what makes exchanging greeting difficult, in or out of New York, and I don’t know if that was addressed at the OU conference. Factors may include insularity, splintering of communities, and shyness.

    Comment by Baruch Horowitz — December 26, 2006 @ 11:01 pm

41. Rabbi Eliezrie,

    Do you see any way of bringing Lubavitch and non-Lubavitch communities together before the advent of Moshiach, for specific events or forums ? I have considered the same with the charedi/MO divide, and chassidic/Litvish.

    I don’t know what goes on in smaller communities, but in New York, there are little public opportunities for such unity. Obviously, there are various hashkafa-gaps which need to be overcome, and it might be best not to focus on the differences in philosophy in any hypothetical get-togethers.

    For example, would it be possible for a small contingent from Lubavitch to attend the next Siyum Hashas of Daf Yomi, and for a segment from Agudah/MO to attend a Rambam Siyum? Ideally, both groups probably should make it as comfortable as possible for the other. I imagine if the Rambam Siyum would have a Meshichist flavor(I don’t know if it currently does), then that would not be a good idea for joint gatherings or cooperation.

    Maybe smaller venues would be better, and there are such situations which I am not aware of. For example, an OK representative spoke at a meeting at OU headquarters following the Monsey kashrus scandal.

    I am curious to hear ideas on these questions which are probably more thorny than those of Dennis Prager.

    Comment by Baruch Horowitz — December 26, 2006 @ 11:30 pm

42. Eliyahu -

    I cannot speak for the OU, but I would not debate the Conservative rabbi in a public forum, in keeping with the issur of the gedolim promulgated decades ago. That issur applied to sharing platforms with clergy, however, not to laypeople like Dennis.

    Comment by Yitzchok Adlerstein — December 26, 2006 @ 11:41 pm

43. First in reference to Boruch Horowitz’s comment I wholeheadly agree. The division in the Frum world is very counterproductive. The responsibility goes both ways. Many in the Litvahser world are very hostile to Chabad, and many in Chabad are narrow and do not see beyond their community. I have tried over the last few years to create bridges of communicaton between Chabad and other segments of the Orthodox world-something that Rabbi Adlerstein has shared in. At the least we have created some communication and even some cooperation on crucial issues. We have reached out to Aguda, the OU and the most open of all Young Israel. I think the parachioalism,is ultimatly not good for Klal Yisroel.

    As for Rivkah W. comments. The facts are what they are. Prior to opening of the Hebrew Academy-Lubavitch in Long Beach thirty years ago, and its move to Orange County (California) a few years later there was no Orthodox presence in the County. Chabad opened the first center in Irvine, I was number two in Anaheim joining a small minyan that existed for a short time, and the rest is history. Since then Yiddiskiet has grown, however all the Orthodox Shuls except for Beth Jacob-which came after Chabad and was in reality a breakaway- in Irvine and small Minyan in Leisure World, as well as the Frum school are Chabad. The facts speak for themselves. All the Temples prior to our arrival where either Reform or Conservative.
    Dovid Eliezrie

    Dovid Eliezrie

    Comment by David Eliezrie — December 27, 2006 @ 2:00 am

44. DE, let me be as subtle as a sledgehammer. Do you believe that the prophesied Moshiach ben David is/was/will be the Rebbe?

    Much would be disambiguated and nervous tension about ulterior motives ameliorated if the ubiquitous yellow signs, posters and flags of the Rebbe with the phrase “Welcome Melech HaMoshiach” were altered to “The Rebbe Reminded Us to Welcome Melech HaMoshaich”, to which I’d exclaim a hearty Kol HaKavod! The common practice of speaking of the Rebbe in present tense exacerbates suspicions. What’s the statute of limitations on that? Was it a practice as common 50 years ago with the Frierdike Rebbe as now?

    Google “rebbe moshiach” and we can draw our own conclusions on what the vast majority of Chabadniks think and aggressively promote about the Rebbe.

    Two generations from now will we still be seeing cultish rationalizations, apologetics and assertions like Yechi HaMelech?

    Comment by Aaron — December 27, 2006 @ 4:49 am

45. I am under the impression that a big percentage of chabbad haters are BT (returnees). Some of the more virulent attacks I ever encountered were on the baal teshuva forum, the one which rabbi Horowitz serves as advisor.

    I am no big fan of chabbad and I saw some of them behaving unethically but I would not brash all the movement with it. I saw charedim rabbis behaving unethically as well but I know you cannot judge a movement by the behavior of few.

    Another blogger writing about the event made this following observation which in my experience is correct: “Basically, it boils down to this: Chabad values Jews whether they’re frum or not. Mitnagdim value only frum Jews”

    Comment by Leah — December 27, 2006 @ 7:36 am

46. As someone who grew up in NYC, I’m amused that Baruch Horowitz (December 26, 2006 @ 11:01 pm) thought New Yorkers might be shy. It’s true that they may zip along the sidewalk, etc., in a kind of mental cocoon, but shy? Naaaah!

    Comment by Bob Miller — December 27, 2006 @ 8:51 am

47. “I hesitate to publicize on this blog what are essentially blows at the very heart of our mesorah (tradition).”

    If the summaries I’ve seen are correct, you make a mistake by not summarizing as few OJs would consider these blows effective. His main objections seem to be to what he considers halachic legal fictions, and to drabbonons that are in effect due to minhag and/or golus/lack of sanhedrin that he feels take away from what God really “Wants” which is the d’oreisa. This is one of the main conceptual splits between Conservative doctrine (Catholic Israel) and Orthodoxy.
    Additionally, he has some sociological criticisms that I bet many sincere Orthodox share.
    I don’t know how this played out, but it’s interesting that Prager complained of lack of discussion of hashkafa, yet I bet most would consider themselves to understand and have internalized the Orthodox position.

    I think the emphasis on Ahavas Yisrael is a general aspect of Hassidus, not specific to any denomination, and of course a lesson from hassidim that all of us would do well to internalize (whether chabad kiruv reflects true a. y. or not - chabad, even premessianism, always viewed itself as special).

    Comment by kar — December 27, 2006 @ 10:35 am

48. the issur of the gedolim promulgated decades ago. That issur applied to sharing platforms with clergy, however, not to laypeople like Dennis.
    i>

    Pretty interesting, is there a copy of the decleration available on-line?

    KT

    Comment by joel rich — December 27, 2006 @ 10:39 am

49. I whole hardly agree with the Aaron, I would love nothing better that to see the removal of the signs, flags, lapels-that are called by many “speed passes” etc. But you can’t stop a guy with a few dollars and some glue to put up what he wants. I googled as you suggested and alas they well known rarely visited Moshiach sites. If you want the official view of Chabad check out http://www.chabad.org you will find another viewpoint.
    We can rehash this again and again, my views on the Moshistim are clear they have seriouly distorted the Rebbe’s teachings. I think their theology is wrong and loosing influence.

    If you want to truly see Chabad come to the Shluchim covention. Over two thousand Shluchim and not a Meshist sign, lapel, or banner. In fact a few die hard Meshichistim are so troubled by the mainline philosophy that rejects them they made a small counter convention with fourteen of their best friends. You got 2,000 Shluchim in one room and a minyan of them in another. And if you dig deeper those few guys are almost all cases where they had Maklokes in their communities. Lets get real.

    The larger question is one that was stated earlier the breakdown of the realtionship. Chabad feels there is much hostility towards it. For example a young man from my community went to Yerusahlyim a few months ago. He comes back after visiting a prominent Baal Teshuva Yeshiva where he heard unreal hatred of Chabad etc.”they are not Jewish,etc.” This guy comes from a place where the only Yiddiskiet is Chabad. I asked him did you ever hear from me negative comments about the Litvasher, he response was no.

    When one comments on this blog that Chabad is not part of traditional Yiddiskiet there is little room for common conversation. When almost every Schliach has a Aish Hatorah, Ohr Sameach etc. horror story. When prominent roshe yeshiva trash Chabad. When Artscroll rewrites history ignoring Chabad, and refuses to include the Rebbe’s Chiddushim in the Shas “because its controversial” we have a serious problem.

    We can continue the attitude of insularity -that exists in both communities- or we can try to create a new dynamic. Having dealt with some of the leadership of the Litvasher world I seen a kind of anxiety that “I would like to deal with you but the Kanoim will …..” and on the other side in Chabad people who think “why deal with them they don’t like us anyway”. There are different world views, the question can we come down the tree for a few moments for the good of Klal Yisroel.
    Dovid Eliezrie

    Comment by Dovid Eliezrie — December 27, 2006 @ 12:19 pm

50. This troubles me:

    “…I cannot speak for the OU, but I would not debate the Conservative rabbi in a public forum, in keeping with the issur of the gedolim promulgated decades ago. That issur applied to sharing platforms with clergy, however, not to laypeople like Dennis.

    Comment by Yitzchok Adlerstein — December 26, 2006 @ 11:41 pm”

    Let’s consider these two future scenarios:

    1. Conservative Rabbi challenges Rav Adlerstein to a debate about aspects of Judaism in a public (maybe OU) forum. With a sigh, Rav Adlerstein has to decline because of the above issur.

    2. Conservative Rabbi is distraught. After much tossing and turning that night, he has a new plan. He resigns all his Conservative posts, turns in his commission as a rabbi, and declares before a kosher Beit Din that he has become a layman. The Beit Din agrees and sends angelic messengers to Rav Adlerstein with the good news that the issur no longer applies to Ex-Conservative-Rabbi. Ex-Conservative-Rabbi, whose actual beliefs have not changed, renews his challenge to Rav Adlerstein, who snaps to his feet, shouting “Let’s get ready to rumble!”

    What is wrong with this picture?

    Comment by Bob Miller — December 27, 2006 @ 1:39 pm

51. To All:

    When attempting to understand Lubavitch’s sometimes puzzling behavior, we should bear in mind that the Lubavitcher Chassidim came out of a crucible of extreme persecution from Misnagdim–opponents of Hassidism.

    Their first Rebbe, ZT”L, was jailed as a result of false accusations, and the day of his release from prison, 19 Kislev, is celebrated every year.

    Comment by HILLEL — December 27, 2006 @ 2:06 pm

52. Follow-up to “Comment by Bob Miller — December 27, 2006 @ 1:39 pm”:

    This is what I consider to be wrong with the picture I painted:

    I believe that the issur Rav Adlerstein mentioned was promulgated mainly because someone like a Conservative Rabbi is presumed to harbor anti-Torah views that should not be given any “legitimacy” by public presentation while an Orthodox Rav shares the dais. Logically, anybody else who has frequently expressed anti-Torah views in public should fall under the same presumption and also be off-limits for public debate about Judaism.

    Comment by Bob Miller — December 27, 2006 @ 2:07 pm

53. Bob,
    That’s why I asked for an on-line copy of the issur. If the legitimacy issue was prescriptive, then you may be correct, if it’s because we don’t discuss this type of issue….
    KT

    Comment by joel rich — December 27, 2006 @ 2:55 pm

54. I would add to #52 that it would seem to me that the distinction between rabbi and layman is particularly inapplicable in the case of a popular and articulate person with a following such as Dennis Prager. Furthermore, if R. Adlerstein hesitates to publish the debate (for a very good reason), shouldn’t the knowledge that the debate would most likely be taped (with the tapes possibly becoming publicly available) prevented him from attending in the first place?

    Comment by Eliyahu — December 27, 2006 @ 2:58 pm

55. To Bob Miller:

    You’re 100% right!

    The MALBI”M on Mishei(Proverbs) states that, when contending with wrongdoers and wrongthinkers, you should be especially careful not to legitimize their mistaken and harmful ideas, lest the onlookers be misled.

    Comment by HILLEL — December 27, 2006 @ 3:18 pm

56. Bob:

    The issue is more fundamental than that. Our masorah should be taken as a given — not something open to debate. It is a bizayon ha Torah to have an open public forum sponsored by an Orthodox organization where the masorah itself is subject to question and attack.

    (As opposed to, for example, presentations which give the tsibbur mussar for not living up to some aspect of masorah, or presentation of different opinions within the masorah).

    Just curious: does Dennis Prager, when speaking to Xtian audiences, attack aspects of their beliefs and traditions?

    Comment by Tal Benschar — December 27, 2006 @ 3:39 pm

57. I simply must believe that those commenting to this post have missed the entire point. I became progressively more horrified when reading through the comments. How is it that a post that ends with “Maybe there is some wisdom in Chabad’s putting all their kiruv eggs in the basket of ahavas yisrael” can be followed with such virulent sinas chinum?

    Since when is it about who did what first, who hates who more, and who deserves it more or less? I feel that there are readers of this post from all sides of the spectrum who should be ashamed of themselves and their emotional (to be diplomatic) responses.

    I was raised in an “out of town” community with large yeshivish and chabad communities who’ve learned to co-exist quite well (and this is a community not free of the “politics” of small towns).

    Arguing about who has more Ahavas Yisroel & bringing mashiach into the mix makes one thing very clear. It’s this very hatred that’s going to keep us waiting for Mashiach ben David and the final Geulah.

    Comment by yka — December 27, 2006 @ 3:43 pm

58. Good for you on the debate! And why not publish - there are difficulties with orthodoxy and we all know it. So? If there weren’t difficulties the meschiach would already have come. No one can tell me why we have to burn a red heifer - it is built in that some tihngs don’t have an answer. Ultimately, it isn’t about how good your explanation for halacha is. It’s about how you conduct yourself and whether you believe that every thing you do has to be rationally explainable. In that respect, religion is no different to anything else. If everything could be explained and people only did what was rational no one would have an affair; or hit anyone else; or tell lies.

    Lubavitch outreach is a wondeful thing providing you draw a distinction between “welcoming” and “accepting”. Lubavitch has built its kiruv on the former. And why should it be accepting of a total lack of mitzvot? The difficulty arises when Lubavitch meets Jews with a well worked out and shomrei mitzvot approach which isn’t Lubavitch. At that stage they are unaccepting. Hence the need to set up parallel organisations and to fail to cooperate with a community’s exisiting activities.
    In practice that isn’t a problem most of the time. But when it is a problem Lubavitch is unwilling to compromise its own wishes for the sake of communal unity. And that is a problem.

    Comment by SM — December 27, 2006 @ 4:17 pm

59. “The larger question is one that was stated earlier the breakdown of the realtionship. Chabad feels there is much hostility towards it. ”

    The hostility is due to the Messianic pretensions of (some/most?) Chabadniks about their Rebbe (of the two Chabad shlichim in our town, one is openly Meshichist). Perhaps once you would eliminate Meshichism from your midst the relationship would improve.
    You complaining about the hostility towards Chabad is similar to Arab-Americans complaining about racial profiling at airports (at the risk of stating the obvious, no I’m not equating Meshichisten and terrorists).
    Another thing that irritates non-Chabadniks is the “cult of personality” of the Rebbe, and the falsifications that surrond it. For exaample, here’s what I heard from Hadar Torah students (quite sane ones and not given to misnaged-hatred): “Everyone acknowledged that the Rebbe was Nassi haDor” (the implication was that how could one argue with anything he did). Notice that they weren’t told–”we believe that the Rebbe was Nossi haDor,” or “Rebbe was the our Nossi haDor.” But rather “everyone acknowledged” that he was. That’s clearly factually false (I’m not speaking about whether he was or wasn’t, but about people “acknowledging” him to be) and their teachers had to have known that.

    So to answer your point about hostility to Chabad (I myself have tremendous respect for the job they’re doing in kiruv and have helped out the local chabad house with a minyan on a regular basis, so please don’t accuse me of chabad-hatred), first put your house in order.

    P.S. Hostility to Chabad doesn’t equal Sinas chinom. I can be deeply ideologically hostile to secular/religious Zionism and have a tremendous sense of respect/appreciation/love for the people of IDF/Gush Katif/Bet El etc.

    Comment by Aryeh — December 27, 2006 @ 4:43 pm

60. r eliezrie should be commended for his lone voice in the wilderness approach, trying to justify/rectify what normative chabad is. while maybe shluchim, who are on the frontlines of dealing with non-frum have a non-meshichist face, look at where spitz chassidim pray, or the chabad day schools. LA is probably typical. i have yet to see a kid in the day school without the de rigour yechi kippa…. the future shluchim of america suck yechi with their mothers’ milk… this will not die down, [well it might when the mashiach comes, but it's not so clear]…….

    Comment by de la costa — December 27, 2006 @ 5:10 pm

61. Every shliach has Aish HaTorah and Ohr Somayach horror stories? What about the horror stories in small communities like mine where the Chabad shliach goes out on a slash and burn campaign in order to destroy the other Orthodox kiruv rabbi AND the people associated with him? This is occurring on a college campus no less! Do people not realize that students seeing this are thus turned off by ALL Yiddishkeit, whether it’s Chabad, Sephardi, Litvish, or whatever?

    I find this whole debate nothing more than idiotic at best, but the suggestion that Chabad is universally subject to hostility and that’s why some act in a myopic/hostile fashion, is a bit too much of a simplification for my tastes.

    Banning people from minyanim, attempting to destroy reputations, and ripping communities apart is inexcusable, regardless of whether or not some shliach feels a vague sense of hostility from the vast non-Chabad world.

    Comment by Mordechai — December 27, 2006 @ 5:46 pm

62. I do not think the issue is analogous to profiling of Arab Americans. There is no question that the Meshichist issue has created a greater rift. But lets not fool oursleves the Litvasher hostility to Chassidim and Chabad far predates that. Take a look at the “Making of Gadol”, if I may mention that book here. A century ago there was strong hostility to Chassidim and Chabad in paticular that was ingrained in the Yeshivas of the time. That legacy still exists today.
    In the last half a century there was a conflict in the post war era. The Litvahser Gedolim taking one apprpoach and the Fredeker Rebbe and the Rebbe a diffent one on a host of issues, be it community building, outreach, chinuch, involevement with the broader society, Eretz Yisroel-land for so called peace etc. Underlying all of these divergent views was the inherant hostility to Chassidus which is just under the surface and has a two century history.
    So we can approach this one of two ways. Someone can say that Chabad will not work with the other Frum groups in a town, we will say why did you tell my Baal Teshuva that Chabad is ?!?!!?. Or do we rise above the conflicts and look for common ground.
    Dovid Eliezrie

    Comment by Dovid Eliezrie — December 27, 2006 @ 5:59 pm

63. Re Chabad: Leaving to the side the issue of messiaism, many Chabad organizations do much good, but always on their own terms. In the 34 years I have been in Montreal I have seen Chabad join with other communal organizatons only ONCE, in 2002-03 during the height of the intafada. There is also the issue of intellectual honesty; Chabad sheluchim tell you what you want to hear.

    Comment by LAWRENCE KAPLAN — December 27, 2006 @ 6:05 pm

64. “Owning up to what he saw as certain tensions between mainstream Orthodoxy and Chabad, he nonetheless sang the virtues of the latter.”

    As Dennis is not Orthodox, “owning up” seems interesting phraseology. Only a Torah-observant Jew would need to “own up” to any possible negative. Perhaps ‘observed’, ‘noted’, or ‘pointed out’ makes more sense.

    IMHO, I believe the mention of Chabad at the article’s closing was intended to stir controversy, and dilute the more significant issue here, which Bob Miller, Eliyahu, Tal Benschar, and others already pointed out.

    Comment by hp — December 27, 2006 @ 7:55 pm

65. I share the concerns expressed in the comment by Tal Benschar — December 27, 2006 @ 3:39 pm

    My first comment in this discussion (December 25, 2006 @ 8:18 pm) was an attempt to get a similar idea across more indirectly.

    Those who program these types of events for the OU should get with their Gadol or Gedolim of choice ASAP to get Torah-based, as opposed to popularity-based, guidelines for picking future discussion topics and speakers.

    It wouldn’t matter if the able defenders of Torah got a standing O and high fives all around for verbally annihilating the opponents of Torah; the opponents should never be asked in, period.

    Comment by Bob Miller — December 27, 2006 @ 8:26 pm

66. Rabbi Eliezri,

    With all due respect (and there is much respect thatshould be given to you, since you are the ONLY voice in Lubavitch that acknlwedges that there is some level of alienation of lubavitchers from the frummer world), you again miss man points in your anaysis.

    You still like many L have many”horror” stories by people who learned in Aish or Ohr Sameahc etc. What you fail to tell the audience: that in YOUR SCHOOLS (and that incldes ALL schools: the big yeshivas, the small ones) ALL your kids are educated that the “snags” (and so that it be properly unerstood: it meANS ALL NON LUBAVITCHERS) are missing in yiddishkeyt, and they care only for money, kovod or to become a godol etc. THis is PART AND PARCEL of the education of boys from bar mitzva until until the end of all the education cycles in the schools you educate that they hve no leaders, no ehrliche yidden and that all of the rebbes and rosh yehivaos sell themselvs for money and that really only “lubavitche shechitah” can be really trusted the examples would not sufice hundred pages…so it’s so dishonest of you to mention the horoor stories by those who attend aish etc. what do you tell ALL of your baaley teshuva about the “snags” etc?

    The same point to another comment here: Lubavitch accepts all frum or not frum. It’s NOT true, they accept ONLY non frum (who do not dare criticize them), but frum people are not welcomed if they are not part of the machine that aggrandizes Lubavitch.

    THey would kiss any stranger in the TV or an mdia outlet but not dare to give a warm sholom to a “Fershtunkene misnaged” (as the are often called in your circles).

    It’s time to call a spade a spade.

    With respect,

    Truth

    Comment by truth — December 27, 2006 @ 8:34 pm

67. Many thanks to Dennis Prager for providing conversation on a number of
    unrelated topics on a single thread: heterodox debate, Artscroll
    biographies, Lubavitch, New Yorker’s manners. Regarding the first issue, Rabbi Adlerstein has written that he consults with Poskim for each situation(see links at the end). There are number of concerns in dealing with heterodox clergymen on a theological, as opposed to an individual level:

    (1)Granting the heterodox rabbinate, theology, and movements legitimacy. This confuses the unlettered amongst the Orthodox, and
    encouragers the heterodox movements.

    (2) If clergymen, because of their education, do not have the tinnok
    s’hnishba status, then one is associating with those who may halachically be considered “evildoers”(see Shaarie Teshuvah).

    (3) Debates might weaken some people’s belief in Yiddishkeit.

    Regarding the third concern, it depends on the audience. Rabbi Daniel
    Korobkin is summarized as having said ” if there’s anything that’s
    bothering you, seek out your rabbi and ask…there are answers to all
    these questions.” This would appear to show a serious weakness to
    the OU decision, but on the other hand, they did not expect what
    happened. However, the questions raised were very basic, and we should
    be confronting them at least on an internal level. I think that our
    Torah is strong enough to allow us to discuss these issues openly, and
    the fact that there are people who are not confident enough to encounter
    them, may show that Orthodox education on all levels needs to be
    strengthening issues of basic belief(see quote from Rabbi Salomon,
    comment #12). From a historical perspective as well, the issue is
    related to the emunah peshutah vs. emunah al pi chakirah debate.

    Regarding the first two issues, from a historical perspective,
    Austritt was a subject of debate within Orthodox Germany, and was one
    of the causes of divisions up until the Nazi takeover. Each situation
    needs to considered separately; the question was raised fifty years
    ago, and again with the publication of “One People, Two Worlds”, and the
    subsequent ban relating to the attendant polemicizing. Rabbi Reinman
    writes:

    ” The rabbis who authorized and supported this project decided, based on
    several fine distinctions, that it was an exception to the rule. To
    mention just one of these distinctions, since I am an independent
    scholar and writer rather than a member of the rabbinate, my
    participation was considered “individual” rather than “official”
    contact; I mention this distinction in the book several times. We felt
    we could thus circumvent the rabbinate and speak directly to the people…”

    http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/02/01/postscript-to-parshas-yisro/

    http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/02/06/non-orthodox-dialogue/

    http://www.jlaw.com/Commentary/dontjudge.html

    Comment by Baruch Horowitz — December 27, 2006 @ 8:41 pm

68. I agree with Rabbi Eliezrie that the responsibility for cooperation falls on both sides. This needs to come from moderates, as the extremes on both ends will not be able to contribute to any cooperation. Perhaps it also should be in small gestures, and “under the radar screen”.

    Some Litvshe gedolim have expressed strong differences with aspects
    of the previous Rebbe’s Zt’l hashkafa, but they were merely fulfilling
    their role — unlimited to Lubavitch– of setting theological boundaries
    for the chareidi world. This need not mean that individuals need to become zealots in these matters.

    From the Lubavitch end, it would help if children and newly minted Baalei Teshuva would not broadcast their belief in the identity of Moshiach on their head coverings. However, Lubavitch is splintered on this, and in any event, change can not be forced from without.

    I think that in both Artscroll and Feldheim compendiums on individuals
    who participated in the clandestine Jewish life in Communist
    Russia, there is mention and focus on Lubavitcher heroic individuals. As far as the Artscroll Talmud, the Rebbe is not the only one excluded, and RYBS Zt’l and Rav Kook Zt’l also do not make the cut. As discussed previously on CC, there is concern of kannoim wreaking havoc, and also that some of the less sophisticated would view this as “official recognition” of these Gedolim, and would therefore come to accept any controversial opinions without exercising intellectual nuance and discrimination.

    Comment by Baruch Horowitz — December 27, 2006 @ 8:56 pm

69. “…Lubavitcher Chassidim came out of a crucible of extreme persecution from Misnagdim—opponents of Hassidism.”

    Hillel makes a good point. Besides Messianism, scars from the old
    Chassidic/Misnagdic battles are sociological factors involved in the
    Lubavitch divide. The term “anash”, or “anshei shelomeinu”, still used by various groups of Chassidim, hearkens back to those days. Generally speaking however, Chassidim and Misnagdim have years ago declared an unofficial truce to fight the common enemy of the haskalah.

    Regarding splintering within Lubavitch, we see the same within the RZ
    communities, other Chassidic groups, and most recently, within the
    yeshivah world. Anyone involved in any one of these four situations,
    should have no difficulty understanding or empathizing on the personal
    level with those involved in the other three.

    There is nothing wrong with Lubavich maintaing a certain separatism and
    “marching to it’s own drummer”. In fact, I find the example of
    Lubavitch helpful whenever reading sweeping generalizations that
    avoid nuance, in statements such as “all the Gedolim say this” ,
    ” this is against Torah-true Judaism”, or ” the Mainstream rejects
    that”. While there would be people who would have no compunctions with
    writing Lubavitch out of Klal Yisrael, Rabbi Berel Wein has stated, “we are too small of a people to be a Small People”.

    There is always tension between maintaining ahavas Yisrael and fidelity to Truth, or hashkafic purity. There is a good shiur from Rabbi Mayer Schiller on this topic which can be downloaded here:

    http://www.beyondbt.com/?p=578

    Comment by Baruch Horowitz — December 27, 2006 @ 9:27 pm

70. I wonder if it occurs to people that the very concept of a Rebbe (or placing any one individual, even a Litvak Rosh Yeshiva, at the center of your Judaism) makes it very hard for Mashiach to arrive. After all, he’s likely not going to be any of those people, or at most only one out of hundreds.

    Dennis Prager makes some solid criticisms of the Orthodox world, criticisms that the frummest of Jews could agree with. However, if he was decent, upon being invited to an OU conference, he would have stuck to those. Why would he start on halachic matters when: 1) He has no halachic training, Orthodox or otherwise; 2) He doesn’t adhere to Orthodox halacha himself; and 3) These are not matters for “debate”- not from a halachic perspective only, but from a practical one. Discussion among those well-phrased in it, perhaps, or the like, but, l’havdil, the Jewish-Christian “debates” of the Middle Ages were really anything but. No one gets convinced. As Rabbi Wein once put it, “debates” have a way of turning into arguments, and no one wins.

    Perhaps the very fact that R’ Adlerstein was “responding” and the OU structured it as a “debate” was the problem. Had Mr. Prager been told by the OU, “You have some good points to make about the Orthodox world.” (*Not* about *Orthodoxy*, which is completely different.) “Come, tell us what they are, and R’ Adlerstein will respond, agreeing ot not as he sees fit,” he would not have presumed to lecture on halacha, of all things.

    Comment by Nachum Lamm — December 27, 2006 @ 10:38 pm

71. R. Eliezrie,

    You mention the book “the Making of a Godol” as a proof for what has transpired over the past hundred years and the hostility that existed by Misnagdim against Chabad. For that matter it behooves you to be intellectually honest that Lubavitchers have educated their masses in the past 80 years with the same (and worse) hostility towards the litvisher world and also to any non lubavitch entity. THey promulgated to thier people the negative things and tidbits printed in the aforementioned book to prove how their leaders were devoid of yiras shomayim and how they lacked any real value of being someone who leads others or who serves Hashem.

    as Lubavitcher you will understand: that what the Making of The Godol records of hositlity to lubavitch are loshon horehlech similar to what 70% of farbrengens are gathering where the meaning of a misnaged (and today it means anyone who is not lubavitch) and the hositlity towards their leaders and the people who identify as such is portrayed in similar terms to those negative hostilities that you see in the book of the making of the godol.

    Better yet: most non Lubavitchers today are probably ignorant about Lubavitch and they mostly express their disdain in what they see in the beleiefs that the Rebbe is Moshiach. BUT for the most part they could not care less (and many many actually do have a very positive outlook to lubavitch and their tremendous good work). BUt most Lubavitchers are *educated* to know and understand how non lubavitchers cannot and are not real lovers of Hashem and they share negative outlook and hostility towards anyone who is not affiliated or does not acknolwedge the existence and greatness of Lubavitch.

    Comment by truth — December 28, 2006 @ 12:07 am

72. Nachum,

    You make a good point, and Rabbi Wien’s is also very true. I think the OU should have made clear to Prager exactly what extent the OU wished to debate/argue with him, and what is beyond the purview of discussion.

    In fact, Yeshivos who hire non-Orthodox or non-Jewish teachers for secular studies do exactly that. The teachers know quite well what is acceptable and what isn’t. For example, one teacher from a Conservative Jewish background who I had in Yeshivah, and later again for a college writing course said, “I wouldn’t touch evolulution with a ten-foot pole”.

    In fact, had the OU made that clear, then Dennis Prager could have focused on his pet peeve of “what he sees as [Orthodoxy] shirking its responsibility to the rest of humanity”.

    As long as the validity of halacha is not up for debate, it might have been a very appropriate discussion for the OU audience, who assumingly can handle criticism of certain natures, critically evaluate it, and “[take] it to heart if it was accurate, rejecting it if it was not”.

    Obviously, there are communities who are uncomfortable in doing even that on the public level as Rabbi Adlerstein said, “not all Orthodox communities are comfortable with outsiders offering their suggestions about what they are doing wrong.”

    However, I think that it’s arrogance to imply that an outsider has nothing to teach us at all, providing that such an outsider is fair, and merely acts as a mirror. I also feel that it would help the Orthodox image, if we project the idea that we care about valid external criticism. I think it’s represents a small extreme, but the complete opposite of this attitude was typified by a letter to Hamishpocha(which was countered in the next issue) that said to the effect, “they hate us anyway, and it has nothing to do with us burning garbage cans, so let’s not even discuss it”.

    I think both the OU and Agudah should have the equivalent of “suggestion boxes”. Not that every problem can be solved–certainly not over night, but rather to at least project that we are “consumer friendly”, and that we take other’s concerns seriously. If the IRS(l’havdil) can do that in response to Senate-hearings, certainly Orthodoxy can.

    Comment by Baruch Horowitz — December 28, 2006 @ 12:09 am

73. ‘ slash and burn campaign in order to destroy the other Orthodox kiruv rabbi AND the people associated with him’

    In my neighborhood the other Orthodox kiruv rabbi welcomed the Chabad rabbi and they continue to work together. I’ve seen the Chabad rabbi get aliyot in the shul of the other Orthodox kiruv rabbi and in other shuls as well.

    ‘Debates might weaken some people’s belief in Yiddishkeit.’

    The very first time I ever saw an Orthodox rabbi was at a debate with a Reform rabbi and a Conservative rabbi at the Reform rabbi’s synagogue. I was so impressed with the honest presentation by the Orthodox rabbi that I started attending his shul shortly thereafter — and that started me on the road to becoming Orthodox myself.

    Comment by Charles B. Hall — December 28, 2006 @ 12:51 am

74. Baruch: Lol, l’havdil indeed. But indeed, if even so foul a group as the IRS recognizes the need to appear friendly to its would-be victims…..well let’s just keep it at l’havdil! But I think we really do have an obligation to in fact be friendly and warm to outsiders and insiders. Pirkei Avos and Chazal have quite a bit to say about that. We should listen.

    There’s a lot to note about Prager’s talk, but I think we do have to acknowledge that he is raising some very serious and deeply-felt issues about being shomer Torah in the modern world. I don’t know if the OU convention is the “most” appropriate place to raise them. But it actually might be. We need to know the issues that are out there and we need to keep in mind the principle of “da mah she’tashiv l’apikoros”. We can’t pretend that these genuine questions don’t exist: whether we’ve solved them (or even just ignore them) other people haven’t and they deserve our respect and engagement. Frankly would it even be possible to have an intelligent discussion with someone who did not feel some of these issues? Were our great Halachic leaders of the past ignorant of the risk/benefit balance inherent in most psak? I don’t think so. I think that many of them probably felt these issues even more intensely than Mr. Prager does.

    The issue of venue is another question–but let’s also remember that almost any venue in which these questions could be effectively raised will ipso facto be a sensitive one.

    Comment by Ahron — December 28, 2006 @ 1:52 am

75. Read, for example, Halakhic Man by R. Soloveitchik for his grippingly simple descriptions of the profoundly felt human elements in Torah and Halacha that were lived daily by his mentors and heroes in Europe. These are the real “godol stories” that we do not hear enough of anymore.

    Comment by Ahron — December 28, 2006 @ 2:02 am

76. I wonder if the editor would comment on this blog’s rules of acceptable discourse. Without prejudice either way on the claims being made, I wonder if the charges being made were leveled at charedi/mo movements or their leaders, whether they would have been allowed.

    KT

    Comment by Joel Rich — December 28, 2006 @ 6:49 am

77. >What is wrong with this picture?

    Nothing. There’s no social policy among Orthodox Jews that Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews can’t discuss or even debate Judaism; but there is a longstanding, mainstream social policy among Orthodox Jews that Orthodox rabbis can’t discuss or debate Judaism with non-Orthodox rabbis.

    Comment by S. — December 28, 2006 @ 10:15 am

78. I would like to take this discussion somewhere else, since it is apparent that lots of people are just “itchin” for an opening to express their opinion of this or that. To what extent is it an absolute must that a Jew should, in order to serve Hashem “bchol Levovo”, be totally convinced that he is right, and every else- and here I refer only to “everyone else” who admits that the Derech Hatorah is the only legitimate expression of Yahadus- is either wrong on purpose or wrong because of ignorance.
    It seems that this necessity to know that we are absolutely right has become a hallmark of belonging to our community. I know that this is not really what Rav Yitzchok started off with, but we seem to be going there. If I am wrong please correct me. M. Halberstam

    Comment by michoel halberstam — December 28, 2006 @ 11:01 am

79. What is the big tzimmis about chabad - lubavitch. Whether they are a cult or not, the first or the second. If you want to go to them you may if you dont, dont. Most of the readers on this blog seem like orthodox jews which is great, I applaud all of you for your commitment to Yiddishkeit. Unfortunately the entire world is not orthodox, Chabad has succeeded in reaching out to that demographic, if that is through the media or not is irrelevent. I am a chabad Rabbi, I met with the annual campaign chair of my local federation (one of the top ten in the country) and his first question to me was “what makes chabad successful?”. That is a great affirmation of the invaluable contribution of Chabad to world jewry. If any of the other Jewish organizations feel that they are having the same impact, great! Otherwise all the meaningless criticism and defense of it (sorry Rabbi Eliezri) is pointless. All the Orthodox readers are welcomed to a class in Chassidus at your local chabad house, if you arent interested, I look forward to you calling me for Kosher food, Kashering your aunts kitchens, Mikveh appointment, hospital visitation minyan times or any other service the entire Orthodox jewish world has come to rely upon chabad for. Meanwhile allow me to go put on teffilin with my local intermarried lawyer.

    Comment by Mendy — December 28, 2006 @ 11:18 am

80. Dear Mr. Truth,
    As a second generation Shliach, I would like to address a few points in your post…

    You still like many L have many”horror” stories by people who learned in Aish or Ohr Sameach etc. What you fail to tell the audience: that in YOUR SCHOOLS (and that includes ALL schools: the big yeshivas, the small ones) ALL your kids are educated that the “snags” (and so that it be properly understood: it meANS ALL NON LUBAVITCHERS) are missing in yiddishkeyt,
    Firstly, you make a big mistake when you write ALL… That is simply not the case.
    I went through the school system in South Africa. While the school is run by Lubavitch, there are students from every part of the community from Lubavitch to Litvak to non frum etc. Throughout school, high school included, I NEVER heard a negative word about any other segment of Orthodoxy. In fact many of the teachers themselves were litvaks. Whenever other frum organizations brought out a guest speaker, our school tried to have them come and address us students. I can almost certainly say that the education you describe does not take place in any bona fide Lubavitch institution. Such talk might only be the result of the talk of parents or acquaintances who like getting involved in “politics”.

    and they care only for money, kovod or to become a godol etc. THis is PART AND PARCEL of the education of boys from bar mitzva until until the end of all the education cycles in the schools you educate that they hve no leaders, no ehrliche yidden and that all of the rebbes and rosh yehivaos sell themselvs for money and that really only “lubavitche shechitah” can be really trusted the examples would not sufice hundred pages…
    Again, this is simply not true. As I just mentioned the model of my chinuch and general Chabad chinuch was through High School and in fact through Yeshiva. In fact when I travelled abroad to continue studying in Yeshiva, my magid shiur for gemorah was a non Lubavitch Rov from the general community. At the end of the year the local Rabbanim and Dayanim were called in to farher us on the masechta we had learnt. If we felt as you say we do, we would not have embarked on this path. Also, your point about Lubavitcher Shechita is insane. While there are many who have personal chumros to eat only from specific shechitos, as do many communities, this is not transmitted to our students or congregants. In fact as we Kosher more homes and increase Kashrus awareness in our communities, it is the big non lubavitch hashgachos and companies that are promoted and supported. On the same note, with whatever issues Chabad might have with Artscroll, if you look around the many Chabad Centers around the world, you will see them full of Artscroll Chumashim and Gemorahs. I guess it would seem safe to say that a significant amount of Artscroll’s revenues come from Chabd.

    so it’s so dishonest of you to mention the horoor stories by those who attend aish etc. what do you tell ALL of your baaley teshuva about the “snags” etc?
    Unfortuantely I myself can tell you of several Baalei Teshuvah whose introduction to Yiddishkeit was through my father, a Chabad Shliach, who came back from non lubavitcher baal teshuva yeshivos in Israel with a disrespect and cynical attitude to our “derech” the “derech” that brought them there in the first place.

    The same point to another comment here: Lubavitch accepts all frum or not frum. It’s NOT true, they accept ONLY non frum (who do not dare criticize them), but frum people are not welcomed if they are not part of the machine that aggrandizes Lubavitch.
    It happens to be that I find most frum people tend to look for Chabad on their travels and are quite welcome when they do come. Our Mikvaos become a convenience to many who are travelling on the road. Our homes are open to all who need a place. I myself being a Shliach 5 minutes off a major highway and near some vacation spots, have many frum people coming to us to partake in our Minyanim and we welcome them with open arms without asking which organizations they are from etc. I hope one day to be able to welcome you into my Chabad Center, and I am sure you will feel at home.

    Respectfully,
    Mordechai

    Comment by Mordechai — December 28, 2006 @ 12:50 pm

81. Prager vs. Adlerstein Debate Score(I know the score because I was there)

    Prager 50%
    Rabbi Adlerstein 50%
    OU Negative 100%
    People go to a convention like this to be inspired in Torah , not to hear reechoed doubts and questions of faith and Jewish practice that many people from time to time feel in their hearts.

    Dennis’s own description of his Shaboss observance, described a very religious Shaboss observance for a Conservative Jew.He publicly stated in the debate that he permitted on Shaboss the lighting of electric lights in his house.This type of observance by Orthodox standards could be discribed as Chilul Shaboss Daorisa. Why would an organization like the OU give Prager the oppurtunity to describe his lifestyle publicly in front of an audience that is seeking to grow in Yiddishkeit, even while some in the audience are not quite yet Shomer Shaboss? An apology is due to the Jews in LA and wherever they are touched by this incident. I do not blame Prager. America is a free country. He was paid by OU to speak his mind, which he did.
    Rabbi Adlerstein answered Prager point by point. The score is even because even with answering each point Prager’s questions were good and can only be answered by faith Vyaminu BHashem ova Moshe Avdo And you will believe in Hashem and Moshe his servant. R Adlerstein pointed to faith in the Torah and knowing that Chilul Shaboss has as its consequence severe punishment. G-d help us all!!!

    Comment by Gary Shuman — December 28, 2006 @ 1:55 pm

82. Mordechai - you are quite right about welcoming the travellers (shades of Avraham Avinu!). But on a communal basis, I maintain that Chabad are welcoming but not accepting. I regard myself as Orthodox and non-Chabad. Is everything I do ok by you? would you tell me it could be imporved in what I might call “procedural” ways (as opposed to more kavanah in t’filla, more visiting the sick etc)?
    One can be welcoming but not accept the legitimacy of the view of the person you are welcoming (even MORE shades of Avrahamn Avinu). When the encounter is transient that doesn’t become an issue. But when it is longstanding there is bound to be friction.
    I am absolutely positive that if one day (bh) our family ends up in your Chabad Centre we will be welcomed with open arms and drive off on Motzei Shabbat talking about how wonderful it was to have such a facility. So disagreement needn’t mean enmity.
    Shabbat Shalom

    Comment by SM — December 28, 2006 @ 2:44 pm

83. I’m interested in these so called Aish HaTorah and Ohr Somayach ‘horror stories’. What does that mean exactly? If someone goes there and decides that being a Litvak/Dati Leumi/whatever appeals to them more than being Lubavitch, is that a ‘horror’ story?

    Chabad can’t speak to everyone, so I’m not sure what the big deal is in admitting that fact. If someone goes to a Chabad house and then decides to, horror of horrors, go to a non-Lubavitch yeshiva and become some other type of Orthodox Jew, I don’t see what the problem is.

    Not davening nusach ari or wanting to learn sichot isn’t the worst thing a Jew could decide to do.

    Comment by Mordechai — December 28, 2006 @ 4:25 pm

84. Shluchim are perfectly fine when they’re mekuravim go to ‘other’ Yeshivos. It just seems to be a recurring theme that often they return with so called ‘horror tales’ having been told out of the blue that chabad represents all the evil on the planet. This happened to a family friend so add that to the list. He never was going to be lubavitch in the first place, that’s not the issue. The issue is the vehemence he heard in the voices of the rabbis in an Israel BT Yeshiva. It did not hurt him much because he happens to have character and does not associate himself with anyone, but the facts are there.

    Comment by nickname — December 28, 2006 @ 6:22 pm

85. Most groups like Ger, Belz, Bobov, Litvish recognize each other as a true paths, without believing their derech as THE ultimate truth.

    Chabad believes there is Domeim, Tzomeach, Chai, Midaber,Yehudi, Chasid, Chabad.

    Correct me if I am wrong

    Comment by sam — December 28, 2006 @ 6:49 pm

86. “Chabad believes there is Domeim, Tzomeach, Chai, Midaber,Yehudi, Chasid, Chabad”

    I think that’s going way too far in understanding separatism of Lubavitch ! I think Lubavitch needs to understand how others perceive it, and attempt to better communicate with others. But as Rabbi Eliezrie said, the responsibility is both ways, and if Lubavitch feels that they are “under siege”, then they will have no incentive to be more integrated into the klal, or to attempt to perceive how others feel.

    Even if you feel that the burden is on them, in arbitration, both sides need to make good-will efforts, and the gestures must be bilateral. I suggested something small like removing the Yechi’s on the Yarmulka’s. Obviously it’s not easy to get Meshichists to agree to that. Litvak’s can in turn publicly emphasize good that Chabad does for the entire Jewish people. The question is who takes the first step.

    As long as there is some attempt at either integration, or at least Lubavitch understanding how some Litvishe perceive them, by putting themselves in Litvacks shoes, I don’t see what is wrong if Lubavitch “marches to it’s own drummer”. If someone wants to believe that he, his Rebbe, or his group, plays the dominant role in “l’ch’sheyafutzu maynosecha chutzah”–who cares who brings Moshiach, or about “seven generations”, or who is the “nasi hador”? I can think that my group will bring Moshiach, and my Rebbe or Rosh Yeshivah is the best, and sholam al Yisrael!

    I think that it is all a test from Hashem. If people relate internally, without jealousy, to a part of Klal Yisrael that is perceived to have a degree of separatism, then we can then ask Hashem, middah k’neged middah, that non-Jews as well should not be jealous about the concept of “atah b’chartanu” that Klal Yisrael believes in, as a whole.

    Comment by Baruch Horowitz — December 28, 2006 @ 8:43 pm

87. The horror stories are real. Just this last summer a boy from our community went to Yerusalyim. He comes back and the first Shabbos sits down and asks me “Whats the real scoop on Chabad is it Avoda Zara, thats what I was told from Aish”. Last year a Maggid Shiur in Ohr Sameach gave a Shiur on Chabad. He claimed the Rebbe did not wear a Yamulke before the war, that Chabad was just a step away from Judaism, it was outrageous. The Shiur was taped I heard it so did another thousand Shluchim when it was posted on a web site.And to top it off the guy who gave the shiur thought we had a chuzpa to let Shluchim what you really learn at Ohr Sameach.
    I am not talking about the old debates of Chassidus vs. Mussar. That is a real debate. And a debate that many should have. Baali Teshuva taste different parts of the Frum world before settling in to where they find their place. I am talking of BAal Teshuva coming back to Shluchim and saying we can’t eat in your house. And they are not occasional. Every Schliach seems to have such a story.
    I for one will not encourage anyone to go to these Yeshivas. However, and as recently as today a women told me her daughter is going to a Aish trip to Israel and left a few days ago, I told her its wonderful that her daughter is learning more about Yiddikiet. I will not let non frum peolple know my feelings since it might inhibit them from getting some Yiddiskiet.
    As a Chassid I believe that Chassidus has a abilty to give a person a deeper sense of Yiras Shemayim. In fact I would imagine that anyone, be he a Gerer, Bobver, or Litvak feels his dercech is the best.However not I, nor do my fellow Chassidim feel that we have the only derech in Yiddiskiet. Nor will I tell others that there Roshie Yeshiva are liars, avodie avoda Zara or to quote the guy who gave the Shiur at Ohr Sameach, one step away from Judaism.
    The reason we call it horror stories is we put in years of effort taking from zero to something. Getting someone to go learn in Israel is no small effort. Then they come back with hostility to the Chossid who left friends and family to live is some remote suburban area and the person that you thought would give you some nachas for all that you where Moser Nefesh ?!?!
    Dovid Eliezrie

    Comment by Dovid Eliezrie — December 28, 2006 @ 9:07 pm

88. Rabbi Eliezrie,

    I appreciate your candor in addressing these issues. I would like to comment on your previous point regarding Meshichistim, Chabad’s insularity and the anti-”Misnagid” invective that is standard fare in Lubavitch camps and schools.

    As a child of a prominent Chabad Shliach, I attended three of the most prominent Chabad summer camps in North America, Gan Yisroel of Montreal, New York and Michigan (”Detroit”). In every single one of them, Misnagdim (any non-Chasid) or “snags” were constantly denigrated by the counselors and rebbeim. Every single authority figure who expressed an opinion on the subject of Moshiach (and that is pretty much everyone in a Chabad camp) was firmly of the opinion that the Rebbe was (and IS) Moshiach.

    Many (if not most) of the children in these camps were children of Chabad emissaries. Although you claimed above that there was only a “minyan” of Meshichistim at the recent Kinus in New York, I can bear witness to thousands of Chabad children being educated that the Rebbe is:

    a) Moshiach
    b) All-knowing and all-powerful
    c) A fitting person to pray to and make requests of

    How can you claim that these ideas are not mainstream Chabad teachings when they are being propagated in Chabad institutions to thousands (if not tens of thousands) of Lubavitch children worldwide?

    Comment by Mendy — December 29, 2006 @ 12:30 am

89. Rabbi Eliezrie,
    Please realize that many people who had significant contact with Chabad and have become critical have done so through their own reasoning and accord. Not all criticism has been “spoon-fed” by Rabbis in Aish and Ohr Sameach. While I am sure that some of your guests have been influenced, I can tell you about many, many BT’s who have reached these conclusions on their own, through their own observations, and through their own Torah learning.

    Comment by SephardiLady — December 29, 2006 @ 12:33 am

90. “The horror stories are real…”

    That is indeed the part that needs to change from the non-Chabad end of things. I only know from my experience in FFB world and it’s yeshivos, but I can say that generally speaking, I was not subjected to the kannoish approach.

    In fact, when my relative asked a prominent member of the Yeshiva world about the policy towards Chabad, he was told that “we don’t talk in our Yeshivah about things which divide Klal Yisrael”, that “Lubavitchers are good people”, and that “there are much more serious issues in Klal Yisrael than Lubavitch”. This attitude characterizes the responsible attitude in the Yeshivah world leadership.

    During the height of Messianism, before and after the Rebbe’s death, I do recall two instances where students asked Rebbeim to address the topic. You can’t ignore what was prominently being discussed in newspapers, so I do remember hearing in two instances about Rav Shaach’s objections to Lubavitch. If anything, it was more the students who were interested, than were the rebbeim in addressing it, and as above, the Litvshe Yeshivos where I studied generally took the attitude of “we don’t discuss these things”.

    From your information, it appears that some in the BT yeshivos might be concerned of losing Balei Teshuva to Chabad. In the FFB world, the social divide in such, that it is completely unrealistic that someone reading the Rebbes Sichos will suddenly take up residence in Crown Heights. Nevertheless, the Rebbeim in the horror stories in the BT yeshivos are not acting correctly. In addition, Balie Teshuvah do not need to see such kannos.

    There needs to be some way to get across to BT why “our perspective doesn’t follow or accept this derech”, without the excesses of zealotry. It is no different than how the charedi BT world will presumably discourage people from exploring Modern Orthodoxy, hopefully without demonizing them.

    For what they are worth, these are my experiences, involving Lubavitch or the Rebbe:

    (1) I recall hearing on one of Rav Avigdor Miller’s tapes that fabreigens were a good source of inspiration.

    (2) The mashgiach in a large Litvshe yeshiva praised the Rebbe. To be fair, he does have chassidic leanings.

    (3) About twenty years ago there were statement back and forth between Rav Shaach and the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Prior to a pre- Tisha B’aav play in Camp Agudah attended by the entire camp, I remember one of the Rebbeim announcing that “if Gedolim are fighted at opposite ends of world, what right have we to mix in?” That has had an influence on my own attitude.

    (4) A rebbe of mine, who is a public figure as well, responded in a Jewish magazine with a large circulation, to a person who took him to task for his praise of the Rebbe, in light of Rav Shaach’s criticism. His response was that “fights between Gedolim are the curse of our bitter exile”. He is, by the way, not chassidish at all.

    (5) The schul where I davened in for many years has a Yeshivish bent. To be honest, I don’t think they would appreciate distributing the Rebbe’s Sichos or having Lubavitch bachurim come on Simchos Torah, as they come to some schuls in Brooklyn that have a dwindling membership.

    Nevertheless, over the years, there were at least four or five Lubavitcher steady members, one of whom served as an officer for a number of years. It’s not uncommon to see a nussach Ari siddur on the shelves. The Lubavitcher officer, most of whose children are active in Lubavitch, got along very well with the Litvshe Rav, and has been a chavrusah for years with one of the more yeshivshe individuals. It is interesting that this person has a very good relationship with another hyper- yeshivishe member who is an ardent follower of Rav Shaach and Brisk.

    (6) The yeshiva I was attending at the time of the Rebbe’s death had a few buses going to the Rebbe’s levayah. There were a few Litvshe Rebbeim in attendance. Coming back, I do remember a conversation with a chassidishe friend who said, “They had a genuine Gadol, but because of the Messianism which surrounded the Rebbe, his own followers bear some of the responsibility for the Rebbe being under-appreciated”. I don’t know if that is an accurate statement, but I thought at the time, that it was true.

    Comment by Baruch Horowitz — December 29, 2006 @ 1:11 am

91. With all due respect, this comes across as an issue of ‘if you became frum through us then you must ALWAYS stay with us’, at least to someone on the outside looking in. Furthermore, since when does someone’s path to becoming religious have anything to do with making the shliach feel good? A shliach should shlep nachas from any Jew he’s influenced to keep Shabbat or Kashrut, not just those who run around in a kapote and daven nusach Ari, which includes even those who decide that Chabad simply isn’t for them (or alternatively de