Letters from our Readers
From a Chabad Rabbi
New Voices could of used of “The Lubavitch Issue” to explore real questions raised by Chabad’s move into the Jewish mainstream. Instead its reporting proved to be superficial and many times incorrect.
Fact checking would have helped the story about Chabad on the West Bank. Chabad’s long known opposition to territorial withdrawal has no connection redemption. It’s based on the issue of security, a perspective supported by many military and security experts. The strange assertion by a blogger in Minnesota that Rabbi Sholom Ber Wolpo is the “most popular Chabad rabbi in Israel” is ludicrous. Facts are that the Israeli Chabad leadership, as well as international one based in New York has time and again repudiated his views. He runs no institutions, has no standing in the movement and has been banned from the Annual Shluchim Convention. The Rebbe himself told Wolpo that if he continues to promote his ideas “he is making a war against me”. There are many other inaccuracies, Rabbi Ginsburg did not study by the Rebbe in New York, he left Chabad Yeshivas, the majority of his education was in non Chabad Yeshivas. The Rebbe never revealed himself as the Messiah in January of 1993. The lawsuit for control of 770 is a strong indication that the Chabad community has found the inner conviction to stand up those voices who have distorted the its teachings. Those leading the charge on not “bureaucrats” on the second floor but the leadership of the largest Jewish organization in the world and have much support for their actions.
According to New Voices the women of Chabad are regulated to the kitchen. The facts are that Chabad women share the leadership of their centers with their husbands. They are highly educated, teach, lead and take a central role in their Chabad Centers. They present to students a role model of both wife, teacher, mother showing students how to both balance their family and a community lives enriched by Jewish tradition.
Out of a community of tens of thousands New Voices finds the sad story of a Chabad drop out from a tragic family situation. More interesting would have been to explore what does happen to the tiny percentage to in Chabad who do not choose to follow their family traditions. Or that over 65% of the married children of Chabad Shluchim in California are themselves Shluchim today.
Almost every Chabad critics is given a forum but we hear little from Chabad rabbis and rebbizens. Far from balanced journalism.
The most important and profound question was not explored in depth. Liberal Jewish organizations have articulated a vision for years of a Judaism distant from classical Jewish beliefs and observance. Chabad has challenged this claiming that Judaism must be tethered to historical beliefs and lifestyle. Mitzvos and Torah study are the key components for Jewish continuity coupled with a sense of responsibility for Jewish destiny. The courage to articulate this vision on main street has created a new vision for students to connect to the values of their Heritage. While liberal Jewish establishment struggle at retaining Jewish loyalties groups like Chabad continue to flourish.
This debate over Jewish survival would be worthy having on the pages of New Voices. The shoddy journalism, misinformation, poor fact checking brings the questions journalistic credibility of this magazine which could be an important forum for debate and dialogue about issues facing the Jewish community.
Rabbi David Eliezrie, Yorba Linda California
“Chabad on the West Bank” Author’s Response to Rabbi Eliezrie
Chabad under Rabbi Schneerson indeed ran an effective PR campaign to convince Jews that it opposed giving away land because doing so would imperil Jewish lives. But as I was told repeatedly by shluchim in Israel, including Rabbi Cohen, and as Chabad makes clear on its own website, its stance was also motivated by religious considerations, which the Rebbe consciously chose not to publicize. As Rabbi Yehuda Rubin, a moderate shaliach based in Elon Moreh told me, “Even if there was a situation where we were told that holding land was a danger [to Jewish lives], there are other reasons not to give it away. But the Rebbe always emphasized this reason [security] because it’s the most popular.” The other reasons are laid out in a respected Chabad book called Eyes Upon the Land, the text of which is available at chabad.org. It claims that Chabad’s stance on the Jewish right to the Land of Israel “is rooted in the Bible’s prophecies.” “After thousands of years of exile, our people have returned to our land,” it explains. “Every portion of the land over which Jewish authority is exercised was won in defensive wars in which G-d showed overt miracles. Now when G-d grants His people land in such ways, should it be returned? Is it proper to spurn a Divine gift?” So, it’s misleading for Chabad rabbis to focus exclusively on security, even if it makes their platform more palatable for consumers.
As for Wolpo, it’s no secret that he’s an influential Chabad leader in Israel. Earlier this year, the Forward and the Israeli paper Ha’aretz both called him “the most popular leader of the messianic strand of Chabad” which experts agree is increasingly powerful in Israel and arguably larger than its non-messianist counterpart. That Wolpo no longer needs the backing of Chabad headquarters in order to maintain his standing among moderate shluchim like Danny Cohen testifies to the movement’s decentralization since the Rebbe’s death nearly fifteen years ago. As power has diffused, strong, local leaders whose teachings concern major contemporary issues, like giving up land, have sprouted up. Wolpo is one of them.
Jeremy Gillick
An Appreciation
Dear New Voices,
Your September/October 2008 Issue was one of the best I’ve read in the 4+ years I’ve chaired our temple’s College Outreach program. Congratulations! Keep up the good work.
Alan Tolkoff, Chair
Shomrei Torah Synagogue Men’s Club College Outreach Program
West Hills, CA
Spoiled Kvetches
Every article in the Lubavitch issue (save for Sunday in the Park With Jews) followed the same, draining, whiney tone. One would think Chabad was wholly evil by reading this past issue.
The magazine’s absent professionalism reveals itself in the umbrella lights caught in Sholom Keller’s glasses in his cover portrait. The lack of journalistic integrity by not including a single voice from within Chabad is shocking. It’s clear that you had an agenda.
I have my own fair share of criticism for Chabad, but I also see the many good things they have done, like providing thousands of tons of food for Jews and non-Jews alike in the Ukraine during Passover. Or the orphanages, mobile medical units, schools and camps they set up for children across the former USSR. How about the recently opened Chabad house for the few Jews left in Seoul, South Korea, which the rest of the rabbinic population seems to have forgotten, or simply not found financially appealing. Chabad emissaries sacrifice their lives and personal comfort for the benefit of world Jewry. They deserve more than the spoiled kvetches of college grads.
Sincerely,
Daniel Cowen
Macaulay Honors College at Hunter, ’11
