Chabad - Some people just don't get it

s. klimowitzer's comment to "Chabad - G-d focused or Rebbe focused?":

Daniel Eidensohn is nothing more than a partisan rosho masquerading as an honest researcher. His carefully framed 'innocent questions' remind one of the "keitzad measrin es hateven" style research. I thought it fair to give the man a chance to show his colors, and he has. He'll print any and every unsubstantiated lie about Chabad and / or the Rebbe, but he will refuse to post simple comments or refutations to the lies he promotes. I seriously doubt whether a dishonest wannabe like Eidensohn will last very long in the blogsphere - too many people will see him for the dreck he is much sooner than he thinks. Some free advive to you, Dannyboy, go back to the yeshiva/hate factory you came from, the limelight is not for you.

Chabad - G-d focused or Rebbe focused?

LazerA's comment to "Chabad IV - The apologetics aren't satisfying/Lack...":

I'm sorry, I missed Shloime's response. Now it seems that Shloime has clarified that he, like myself, does not approve of the idea of transforming one's rebbe into one's primary focus.

In his earlier response he did NOT deny this, on the contrary, he appeared to defend it, citing sources in its favor. Moreover, other pro-Chabad commenters still appear to support it. This has muddied the waters a great deal.

The fact that Shloime, thus far, appears incapable of carrying on a conversation without insulting those he disagrees with has, of course, not improved matters.

In any case, at this point it seems that we can agree that making one's rebbe into one's primary spiritual focus is wrong and is not supported by any traditional sources, even within the chassidic world.

This brings us to the widespread perception and criticism of current Chabad that they have done just this.

The radio advertisements announcing that the Lubavitcher rebbe says that Jews should keep various mitzvos are an obvious case in point. The Lubavitcher rebbe is not the reason Jews should do mitzvos!

The widely publicized declarations that the LLR was a prophet whose words are binding on all Jews, and that he is moshiach, are similar obvious examples.

It is well-known examples like these (accompanied by innumerable private such encounters throughout the Jewish world) that have created the, in my opinion convincing, perception that current Chabad has moved from a God-centered religion to Rebbe-centered religion.

I have yet to hear anything from the defenders of Chabad to convince me that this perception is wrong.

As for my demands for proof, I have two brief responses:

A) The main issue for which I was seeking proof was the claim that it is proper to make your rebbe into your primary spiritual focus. My demand for proof in this was justified, as such a claim flies in the face of traditional Torah thought. Now it seems that this claim has been abandoned and proof for it is no longer needed.

B) Being that the concerns being expressed here are widespread throughout the Torah world, it would seem to me that defenders of Chabad would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate their falsity. Unfortunately, it seems that some of these concerns are all too justified. (Thus, thanks to R' Oliver's earnest efforts, I have become convinced that the LLR did indeed claim to be a navi without any halachic justification.)

LazerA's comment to "Chabad IV - The apologetics aren't satisfying/Lack...":

I would like to add one personal note on why I am personally convinced that current Chabad has placed the Rebbe as their primary spiritual focus.

I attended a Camp Gan Yisrael (Midwest) when I was a kid in the very early '80s. (So much for my family's antagonism to Chabad, huh?)

I remember the entire camp singing "leshana haba be770" and "u'va'u haovdim... v'hishtachavu lashem behar hakodesh b'770 - 770 - 770 etc."

We also saluted the rebbe every morning after davening. There was a picture of the rebbe in every bunk's room and we were told by the counselors that the rebbe could see through his pictures.

There was no question in my mind then, and I didn't even realize there was anything wrong with it yet, that this was a religion of the Rebbe.

Another personal tidbit (not entirely relevant but interesting) is that I actually have a personal debt of gratitue to the LLR.

When my father was in Telz yeshiva, he was a beginning student (he didn't come from a Torah background). While in Telz he got involved with a secret Chabad "kiruv" program that was trying to save the poor deluded yeshiva bochurim from their false religion.

At one point my father went to Crown Heights and had yechidus with the rebbe. My father told the rebbe that he wanted to leave Telz and go to a Chabad yeshiva so he could learn chasidus. The rebbe told him to stay in Telz and learn normal Torah.

Most Lubavitcher's accuse my father of lying when he says this story. In any case, I have to be grateful to the rebbe, because if it weren't for him I would have been a Lubavitcher. (As it is, my family remained close to Lubavitch and I have many Chabad minhagim, not the least being the siddur.)

Sinas Chinom - the danger of unexpressed hatred

Anonymous said...

Very appropriate that I came across this blog on tisha BAv. The question I have for you is when you will face Hashem will Hashem say you helped Moshiach come sooner or you were part of the Tishah BAv problem of sinas chinom etc. and delayed the Geula. In your heart I hope you have an honest answer and you will close down this hateful site before it is too late to fix the damage you are doing.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the comment that this is adding to sinas chinom and machlokos. I urge the blogger of "Daas Torah" to realize that this blog is against "Daas Torah".

The above comments need to be addressed. They are accusing me of producing sinas chinom and increasing machlokess. Both of them presuppose that if I didn't have this discussion on my blog there would be more peace and ahavas Yisroel in the world. That Lubavitchers and non-Lubavitchers would have greater love for each other if they didn't communicate with each other.

I strongly disagree with that assertion. In fact it is obvious from the strong feelings on both sides of the this dispute that I did not create any anger - but rather I am allowing the feelings to be expressed.

Is there anything to be gained by allowing feelings to be expressed? Perhaps it is best to keep the disputing parties separate and not encourage communication? From what I have seen on the many posts, I personally feel I have a much greater understanding of the issues than when I started. There have been some truly deep and insightful comments - even in those posts with hostile language.

There seems to be a built in assumption of many in Chabad that there is a genetic predisposition of the rest of us to hate them. They perceive any criticism as proof that they are being hated. What I hope has become obvious is that there is a sincere desire to hear justification for what they are doing. I have detected some awareness of the Chabad posters that they do in fact realize the need to do outreach to their fellow Orthodox Jews and that they are in fact viewed as acting or thinking in ways that arouse fears and concerns. I also hear that some Chabad posters are not fully convinced about the wisdom of the path that the organization has taken.

Finally regarding the accusation that I am not following Daas Torah. What Daas Torah am I not following? The Chofetz Chaim makes an insightful comment concerning the Torah command of not hating your brother in your heart (Vayikra 19:17) which he says is the prohibition of sinas chinom. Hatred which is kept in one's heart because it is not expressed - destroys and ruins the essence of a person. Hitting another effects primarily the external limbs of a person. It is better to express the anger and communicate to the other person that you feel he is doing something wrong.

If these discussion are creating more hatred and upset than existed previously than in fact they are problematic. While some have asserted that any criticism or questioning of their practices is proof of hatred, I hope at this point such an attitude has been attenuated in at least some of the participants. In short, there is a Torah obligation to give tochacha to those we feel are doing something wrong. This forum provides a controlled environment for both sides to fulfill this Torah obligation - and hopefully both sides will be improved by the experience.

ספר אהבת ישראל - פרק א
בו יבואר גודל העון של שנאת חנם:
כתבו הפוסקים על לאו דלא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך וז"ל ספר מצות השם, לאוין קמ"ב - מצות לא תעשה, שלא לשנוא אדם כשר מישראל, שנאמר לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך. ולא הזהירה תורה בלאו זה אלא על שנאה שבלב, אבל המכה את חבירו, ומחרפו, אינו עובר בלאו זה וכו'. וכשיחטא איש לאיש, לא ישטמנו בלב וישתוק, אלא מצוה עליו להודיעו ולומר לו (בלשון רכה) למה עשית לי כך וכך, וימחה הדבר מלבו. ונוהג בכל מקום ובכל זמן עכ"ל:
והנה בכלל אחיך, הוא כל אדם מישראל, וכדאיתא באבות דרבי נתן (פרק ט"ז) אאל תאמר לזה ישראל אני אוהב ולזה אני שונא, לאהוב את החכמים ולשנא את עמי הארץ, אלא אהוב את כולם ושנא את המינים, וכן דוד הוא אומר (תהלים קל"ט) הלא משנאיך ה' אשנא וגו'. ומין נקרא, הכופר בתורת ה' ובהשגחתו:
וכאשר נתבונן היטב ונעמיק לחקור תוצאות העון הזה, נראה שהאדם ממשיך על ידי עון זה רוח טומאה על עצמו. דהנה ידוע דכל אבר ואבר שנעשה על ידו איזה מצוה, שורה עליו רוח קדושה, וממילא ע"י קיום כל המצות נתקדש כל גופו של אדם, כדכתיב (במדבר ט"ו) למען תזכרו ועשיתם את כל מצותי והייתם קדושים לאלקיכם. ולהפך, ע"י עשיית העבירות נמשכת רוח הטומאה על אותו אבר, וכמו שאחז"ל (כתובות ה' ע"ב) אל ישמיע אדם לאזנו דברים בטלים מפני שהם נכוים תחלה לאיברים, שכונתם, ע"י שמיעתו דברים האסורים ממשיך על' אזניו רוח טומאה ועתידים להיות נכוים תחלה לאיברים, וכן כל אבר ואבר שנעשה על ידו איזה עבירה נמשכת רוח טומאה על אותו האבר, ואין כאן מקום להאריך. לבאר שמצינו ענין זה על כל אברי האדם:

לשנוא אדם כשר מישראל, שנאמר לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך. ולא הזהירה תורה בלאו זה אלא על שנאה שבלב,
והנה חוץ מזה שהוא עונש רוחני על האדם, עוד מעותד האדם לבוא ח"ו ע"י עון זה לעונשים גדולים בעולם הזה, כדאיתא בשבת (ל"ב), בעון שנאת חנם, מריבה רבה בתוך ביתו של אדם, ואשתו מפלת נפלים, ובניו ובנותיו מתים כשהם קטנים, הרי רואים אנו כמה רעות גורם האדם לעצמו ע"י העון המר הזה:
והנה אילו יפגע אדם אחד בבנו הקטן להכותו, הלא יתקוטט ויריב עמו וישנאהו שנאת מות, ואילו הוא עצמו שגורם להם סיבת מות אינו חושש לזה כלל, ואינו מתבונן עד היכן עונו מגיע. אוי לו ואוי לנפשו, איה שכלו ואיה דעתו שבעצמו גורם לכל זה:
ועל כן מאד מאד צריך האדם להזהר מעון זה, ובכל רוחו ונפשו יתרחק מעון זה, ויהיה לו טוב בזה ובבא

Chabad II - Messianics - Everyone is today!

Anonymous' comment to "Chabad - Messianics - Everyone is today!":

Arthur,

It's not an assumption. I know them first hand.

I am offering you a kind of illustration and proof. Which has a greater readership Beis Mashiach or Kfar Chabad? If the "majority" would be counter to Yechi they would not have that number of readership (which perhaps surpasses that of the KF). Why is paying for a magazine with what he could have been "koneh chayey nafshoy" not a proof where his "nefesh" is?

The meshichisten are not only the most vocal and make the most noise but they are the power that controls what is holiest to chabad: 770! If the majority would real anti meshichist they would not allow them to take control.

In Erets Yisroel they manage to gather thousands of chassidim in the stadiums for 3 tammuz when they deny the histalkus! This shows further how there is a large number that aligns themselves in beleieving the Rebbe was not nistalek. (I"ll grant that this is NOT the majority of Lubavitchers who do hold that there some kind of histalkus).

And why not base from the fact that Kfar Chabad has not produced in the past 14 years ONE article explaining that it is legitimate (not even to say with definite certainty) to beleive that the Rebbe is not mashiach? Being that it is a very important issue and that the meshichistim are loud and they educate masses it is only logical that those who believe otherwise would write articles explaining how their position is wrong? After all Kfar Chabad writes about numerous issues in which they differ with the Bais Mashiach.

A while back Rabbi Brod of KC had articles explaining how some of the BM make a chilul Hashem and that we do not have to publicize etc. but never does he explain that perhaps the whole idea is not true!

In another post someone stated that Rav Ezra Shochat holds that the Rebbe is not mashiach. Kfar Chabad had recently an interview with him. They spoke about Mashiach etc. but they did not mention that in his opinion this is not the proper belief.

Let's take another example: They do write articles negating the idea that the Rebbe is here physically. Why have they not written such articles about the Rebbe not being mashiach?

Furthermore: You had a few years back a group of people Mashpiim and others getting together and writing a book how to believe that the rebbe was not nistalek is wrong. You had people like Reb Yoel and others. But you cannot have them getting together to write about the Rebbe not being mashiach! You know why....

Chabad - Rav Schach/Disputing attack on him

The following is a refutation of the criticism of Rav Shach. I have edited some of the angry language to make it more acceptable. I personally agree with most of what is expressed here.

===========================
Yonah L has left a new comment on your post "Chabad - Rav Schach & Lubavitcher Rebbe":

Shlomie's post serves as an excellent example of the kinds of [misinformation] Chabad has perpetrated in its attack against Rav Schach. Failing to mention that Rav Schach's views were also the views of many other major rabbonim and also having utter disregard for facts.

I will illustrate a few of the misrepresentations he made. Incidentally, some one else claimed that R' Nochum Partzovits (this was heard from"reliable sources") claimed that he was fond of the Rebbe's depth(!). There is no end to the errors.

>>Unfortunately, the post and some of the articles linked therin contain some rather absurd fallacies. It is, however, important to remember that Rav Shach represented a very extreme view that was not shared by most gedolim, and that was often simply wrong.

Rav Schach's views were in fact shared by almost everyone of significance. And your opinion as to whether it was wrong is meaningless. It was their opinion.

>>It is easy to call anybody we disagree with 'apikorus', but that doesn't make it so.

And yet the Rebbe called people who did not agree with him messengers of the Samach Mem, and accused them of wearing possult tefilin.

>>Here is an article from awhile ago, making some very valid points:

These are not valid points.

>>There has been a lot of talk about gedolim and especially about Rav Shach. Before people make any judgements I think it is important to know something about the man and his teachings. If what I say appears harsh, let me assure the readers that I have said the same things to many rabbis and they have agreed with me. Since the views I will be expressing are also those of numerous others it would be best for the moderator not to censor it. I realize that others are afraid to speak out so I will say what everyone else is thinking. Needless to say, the Lubavitchers have spoken out and been a great deal harsher than I will be but that is for good reason. Rav Shach has branded the rebbe a heretic.

[...]

>>>>Furthermore, he has branded the entire movement as heretical.

Those who believe the Rebbe is God are heretics.

>>Most people respond harshly when they have been called heretics, Especially since the other gedolim seem to have no great problem with Habad.

Like whom? The Brisker Rav, Rav Hutner, Rav Ruderman, R' Yaakov and Rav Shach obviously had a problem with him. So did Rav Yaakov Weinberg and Rav Ahron Soleveitchik. Even today, Rav Ahron Feldman, Rav Zev Leff, and even more modern orthodox Rabbis like Norman Lamm and David Berger have a problem with Chabad and its Rebbe. The list is actually significantly longer. So, exactly what do you mean by "the other gedolim" who don't have a problem with Chabad?

>>They don't support everything Habad does but you don't have other gedolim using the inflammatory rhetoric of R. Shach.

Inflammatory rhetoric was the problem? I thought the problem was how they viewed Chabad. Its not that they don't support what Chabad has done--they think its "repugnant," "misse", and not in accord with the mesorah. This is not inflammatory language, perhaps, but they certainly condemn their behavior.

>>In fact he is very inconsistent

In your ignorant mind, that is.

>>He mocks the Lubavithcher rebbe's Rambam learning program saying that people knew about the Rambabm before Lubavitch came around and that no one should follow Habad's program and it is forbidden to innovate

This is not the real reason. Please read the Michtav.

>>and yet he praises Daf Yomi.

Not quite, either.

>>Well, people knew about learning Talmud before R. Meir Shapiro. The difference is that when Rav Shach likes something, when it comes from his circles, then it is ok. However if an innovation, no matter how good, comes from another circle then he viciosly attacks it.

This is not true at all. You have not read your sources and you have made a false and ignorant conclusion. Pathetic.

>>In general, everything that comes out of his mouth is criticism.

I don't know what you mean by this. Have you learned by him? Have you talked with him for many years? How do you know this? Perhaps you meant his writings? Well, you have demonstrated so far that you have not actually read them. Otherwise, aside from having a strange agenda and no problems with misrepresenting the facts, you are doing fine.

>>He does not believe in building but in destroying.

What a generalization. There are so many yeshivos and institutions, so many seforim and talmidim, so many shuls and battei medrashim, which attribute their success and methods to him. The only one being destructive here is you.

>>All of his volumes of letters are attacks against everything from Lubavitch, to religious Zionism, to Hesder yeshivot, to Rav Goreh (who has no yirat shamayim according to Shach), to R. Steinsaltz (another heretic).

You did not know who Rav Goren is? This is obviously a made up essay from an otherwise knowledgable scholar. There is no way he could have made such a mistake. But I would add that Rav Yoel, Rav Reuven Grozovksy, Rav Baruch Ber, Rav Chaim Brisker, Rav Elchonon Wasserman, the Chofetz Chaim and many others had far stronger views against Religious Zionists. Rav Goren's shiur in YU was STRONGLY argued with by the Rav himself. And his extremely bizarre and controversial rulings have been assaulted by everyone as being shallow. The fact that he made such concessions in halacha would lead anyone to think he had little yiras shomayim. None of the gedolei yisroel in Amercia--at least the Charedim--held of him at all. He loved Chacham Ovadia, though. As for Rav Steinzaltz, R' Moshe and the Tzitz Eliezer also places his books on cherem. So, again, Rav Shach was hardly ever alone on any of these issues. You can only be willfully ignorant about this. Anyone who did ANY research on these issues would know better.

>>When the rest of he Jewish world was celebrating the Entebbe raid and R. Moshe said it was an open miracle Shach gave a talk saying that what the Government did was forbidden.

[...]

>>This is exactly what the Satmar rebbe said! He gave his famous talk last year viciously attacking the kibbutzim. Why? We all know that they don't keep kosher there but why attack them.

This is just a strange argument. Then you admit Rav Shach was not alone on this position, either. . . In your opinion, it is muttar to attack Rav Shach but not muttar to attack people who know better but refuse to keep halacha--people who are kofrim biikkar?

>>Is this the way to bring people together and bring them to Yiddishkeit?

Is that what this article is aiming to do?

>>Is this love?

I ask the same question back to you. I personally think that it is love to instruct followers the difference between right and wrong. YOu obviously need a lesson on this important distinction.

>>Lubavitch knows how to be mekarev, they do it through love.

This is completely untrue. Chabad has refused to do kiruv work to those who won't be Chabad. And they are turning people into mindness messiah worshipping ignoramouses. Aish does Kiruv. So does Ohr Someach. Their people did not turn out that way. Chabad does it because they think it will make their Rebbe the moshiach. That is not love of kiruv; it is the product of indoctrination.

>>Shack simply attacks.

[...] And what is this generalization? Do you not know how the Rebbe attacked the Chazon Ish for not learning Tanya? He had no idea whether he did not or not. And yet, a young man who spent 15 years aimlessly in Europe on community funds had the nerve to unilatterally attack an undisputed gadol hador of an earlier generation!! What do you call that?

>>And then he attacked President Herzog for no reason. Herzog did more for religious Jewry than any president and he is a fine man but Shach viciously attacks him just like he attacks the kibbutzniks who have laid down their lives so that he could live in peace.

This makes no sense. Explain exactly how kibbutzniks laid down their lives so that Rav Shach could live in peace? Do you have any legitamite yiras shomayim at all?

>>And he expects the secularists to keep subsidizing the yeshivot at the massive rate they have been?

The Rebbe lived off community funds for 15 years doing nothing in Europe. Ask his people how he can do that.

>>Rav Shach has no value in his life other than that of learning Torah. People can't feel good about anything other than learning Torah.

This is actually a legitimate Torah approach--one the Rebbe attempted to replicate.

>>There is no value to the State of Israel other than that it enables us to learn Torah and its destruction would be no great tragedy if Torah continued to be learnt.

This is the view of pretty much every gadol in the Charedi world before him.

>> He opposed the annexation of East Jerusalem and Golan because it will get the goyim mad. He doesn't recognize the concept that Jews should see something positive in annexing our capital-- East Jerusalem.

Actually he does, but he ruled differently.

>>He also speaks of not provoking the Gentiles, a concept which has no validity when Jews have a state, although he thinks that the State is just as much a galut as N. Y. and London.

It is. Read the news. Did you forget that thousands of people were kicked out of their homes by their own government? WE ARE IN GOLUS. Get it through your head.

>>He says that Jews in Israel should act as if they were dancing before the Polish nobleman. In other words, the fact that Jews now have a state means nothing about how they relate to the world.

This is the view of every religious charedi. This is a criticsm? This only indicts your ignorance!

>>They still must have this inferiority comples. There is something wrong with having pride and holding one's head up.

Yes there is, actually. [...]

>>His views have infected the Haredi community. We all know that
they dodge the draft but it is even worse. They refuse to say a mi
shebarakh for IDF even though the latter protect them from the Arabs.

And Chabad refuses to say a mishaberach, as well. They were also deeply anti zionist--did you ever know this?

>>They refuse to say a prayer for the government which gives them millions of dollars. In the diaspora they alwasy said a prayer for the government but not in Israel.

So now its not a Jewish state? I am sorry, but YOU are inconsistent.

>>In the Diaspora they always acted patriotic and if there was a moment of silence for war dead they wouldn't dream of breaking with the practice.

Its a non Jewish concept. Did you ever learn anything?

>>However in Israel while everyone stands at attention on Yom Hashoah they go about their business.

They do other things lizecher nishmas the kedoshim who were killed. And far more meaningful things than the evil michallei shabbos who have instituted these goyish practices.

>>Do they realize how much of a hillul hashem this is and how it hurts the feelings of others who are remembering loved ones.

Everyone knows that learning lizecher nishmas the kedoshim means more. Except goyim.

>>Of course they know but they don't care. Unlike Lubavitch they enjoy confrontation.

There is no faction in the entire jewish community which does not ENJOY confrontation more than Chabad. They have the most fights. They have the most machlomes. Even according to their own spin story, the greatest messhugennim have taken over 770? How? By hostile force? And what do they fight over, a zatzal? And now you are writing out against the entire charedi community? What do you know about these issues? You obviously know nothing about them, what they practice, what they do and feel.

>>For R. Shach there is only one truth.

Mr. Olver said the same thing about the Rebbe. So, why is this a problem. In the end, there really is only one truth!!!

>> He has no conception of Jewsh history and doesn't realize that there can be disputes in matters of hashkafah,

COMPLETELY untrue. You have never read his works.

>>as long as we all accept Torah and halakhhah.

The problem he has with those who criticizes is that they do not accept Torah and Halacha. See above.

>>Thus when R. Ovadiah decided to join the government he threatened to ban all of the latter's books

No other? Are you sure? Do you know Chabad has banned Rav Shach books? Did you know they banned Rav Kotler's books?

>>No other gadol has ever made such irresponsible statements and acted in such a dictatorial manner.

Rav Shach did not make any irresponsible comments. You never read anything he ever wrote. As was mentioned above, everything he said was in keeping with traditional charedi--frum and ehrlich Jewish--hashkafa and was backed by nearly if not everyone in his camp. The Rebbe on the other hand was a dictator. He demanded the greatest level of respect, called those against him messengers of Satan or wearing non kosher tefillin.

>>Everything I have described so far is written in his books.

You have some nerve. You have never read his books!!! That much is clear from his post.

>>I have not made any of it up

As was demosntrated this whole thing was made up.

>>and if gets you mad hearing what he believes trust me that this is only the tip of the iceberg and there is no way that anyone who reads this line should regard him as an important gadol

He was regarded as a gadol hador by every gadol in his time, save [...] the Rebbe.

>>since everything most of us view as important he mocks (he even says its forbidden to form rabbinic organizations).

The Rebbe mocked many things I hold important--mitzvos, for example, learning, another. But his mocking what is important to me is not what makes him not a gadol. It is what he mocked which renders him possul.

>>To give one final example of this let me refer to Rav Shach's attack on R. Soloveitchik in vol. 4of his letters. As everyone knows, there were always disputes in hashkafah between the Rav and other gedolim. However this never stopped the Lubvavitcher rebbe or R. Moshe or R. Aharon Kotler from being on close personal terms with the Rav and respecting his gadlus.

Hillarious. Read Larger than Life. The Rebbe was not at all close to the Rav. In fact, the Rav visited him once in 40 years--and they lived in the same city!!! If that does not show you enough, read the book. R' Ahron held the Rav was responsible for half the tumah in America. Other than that, sure, they respected his gadlus as a genius lamdan.

>>Obviously R. Moshe and the Lubavticher Rebbe, as well as the Rav, believed that their own approach was correct and the others were wrong.

This is not true. R' Moshe saw the good in every Jew and Jewish path. The Rebbe HATED anyone who was did not learn Tanya. And this we know from what he wrote about the Chazon Ish even when the Rebbe was a relative kid.

>>But they never said that the approach of the other's was forbidden.

The Rebbe held that Chabad is the most superior. He was the greatest ethnocentrist in the world. [...] with the silly notion that Chabad is the center of yiddishkeit and that the Beis Hamikdosh would be build in 770.

>>It was just misguided.

The rebbe, you mean. . .

>> similarly, the Rav never said that everyone had to learn secular studies, that other aproaches were invalid.

But his talmidim did. Read Rav Lichtenstein's essays on this topic.

>>Rather, only that his approach was also legitimate.

Everyone believes this. Except for the Rebbe.

>>Rav Shach has a different approach, one which shows all of his feeling of knowing everything and his belief that he, and only he, knows the truth, the one and only truth.

Mr. Oliver said that the Rebbe saw truth, and this is why he was unequivocal about this. Why is Rav Shach held to a different standsrd?

>>In discussing the Rav's book Hamesh Derashot he doesn't say that we have a different view or that the Rav is wrong. No, what he says is that it is forbidden to listen to what the Rav says. Forbidden. the Rav goes against Daat Torah and the Rav has completely distorted Daas Torah (one wonders whose Daas Torah. Doesn't the Rav have his own Daas Torah?)

No, he does not. Because he and his talmidim to not BELIEVE in daas torah.

>>Since anyone who goes against Daas Torah speaks heresy it is forbidden to listen to what the Rav says!

This was the opinion of many on him. Rav Hutner did not allow his talmidim to go to the Rav's yartzei shiur for relatively smaller reasons.

>>Does he realize who is talking about? This is not some Mizrachi functionary he is mocking (not that this is forgivable either). He is speaking about R. Soloveitchik, whom R. Tendler called the greatest Rosh Yeshivah of our generation, whom the Lubavitcher rebbe stood up for etc. etc.

And you are not writing a hatchet job on just anyone--not that THAT would be forgivable--but against an undispute gadol hador that eeryone from Rav PAler to Rav Mosdhe Shmuel Shapiro, from Rav Shmuiel Barenboum to Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky, from Rav Moshe Feinstein to Rav Isser Zalman, from Rav Ahron KOtler to the Brisker Rav--had the GREATEST respect for!!! And that means a lot more than what Rav Tendler, a relative novice in learning, held of the Rav. I would say the Rav was the real deal and that would mean more. Rabbi Tendler wrote, said, and did a lot of crazy things in the past. He is not someone I would bring up. Even in his letter "defending" the Rav, he disorted things--claiming the Rav was the greatest Rosh Yeshiva in his generation--a generation where Rav Chaim SHmuelevitz and Rav Shmuel Rozovsky--separately--had more talmidim both in theiy shiur and more who learned their seforim. The fact the Rebbe stood for him means nothing. No one cares about the Rebbe's empty gestures. He was greatful someone showed him respect after 40 years.

>>May God forgive him for degrading our teacher!

[...]

>>Furthermore, R. Shach continues, it is the Rav's secular studies which are responsible for these distortions. Woe are the ears which hear such nonsense.

Nonsense? This is the view of just about every gadol preceding Rav Shach's generation. You may not like it or have another view, which is something you would claim to respect. But Rav Shach's views are nonsense? HYPOCRITE.

>>What chutzpah, to say that secular studies distorted the Rav's Torah!

But this is another view. . . does this not mean that you are. . .not respecting . . .another person's views? That is terribly inconsistent.

>>Rav Shach goes on for a few pages without any respect for the fact that the Rav was a gadol and he is entitled to have different hashkafah

But you just did that!!!

>>also throwing in some irrelevancies about how Hesder yeshivot have destroyed
any notion of striving for greatness in Torah learning.

Mark his words: there will never be a gadol produced by a hesder yeshiva.

>>(He also hates hesder because their students actually get a job. For R. Shach, and Israeli Haredim, as oposed to American haradim, there is something negative about actually working for a living. There is no concept of a Baal ha-Bayit. That is why he put Leo Levi's book Shaare Talmud Torah in Herem, since it advocates a Torah im Derekh Eretz [i. e.earning a living] approach).

This is irrelevant commentary.

>>Shach is also confused how come the rabbis in the U.S. did not protest The Rav's opinions and furthermore that they contributed to the book Kevod ha-Rav .

Its Rav Shach to you. And plenty did not. Most did not, in fact.

>>This is a great hillul hashem since by giving the Rav a book in his honor and praising him the yeshivah students will see this and think that is ok to follow in the Rav's path, God forbid, and will absorb his views which are completely "pasul".

And yet Chabadniks like you can lie about a gadol because you want to emphasize that his views about the rebbe are pasul. And that's ok?

>>I could go on but I think everyone gets the point. When it comes to gedolim we should consult R. Eliashiv, R. Shlomo Zalman, the chief Rabbis, R. Ovadia etc. We should not even take Rav Shach's opinion into consideration. By adopting such a hateful tone and being so opposed to everything we consider decent he is not really different than the Satmar rebbe, who was, as R. Aharon Soloveitchik told me, a great scholar who made a terrible blunder. So too with Rav Shach. He has slandered great gedolim and for his sake we should hope that it was all done le-shem shamayim. When I asked R. Aharon why we don't put him in Herem in accordance with the pesak of the Rambam re. anyone who slanders a gadol all he could say was that we no longer use the Herem. One thing must be said for Lubavitch, even thought R.Shach says they are heretics and that their rebbe is one of the greatest sinners alive, and going straight to gehinnom, they have not lost their cool. I don't think there will be any rejoicing in Crown Heights when he passes away. They realize that this whole affair is very sad. Unfortunately, however, when the rebbe passes away there will be rejoicing in Ponovezh because one is supposed to rejoice at the death of a heretic. What have we come to!

First, since Rav Eliashiv did not pasken the way you wanted him to about Slifkin and others, I am sure you would retract that, too. this is because you don't know what it means to have respect for talmidei chachomim. You only care about them doing what YOU want them to do. No one in Ponoves danced when he died. In fact, Rav Shach davened for him to get better because he was only against his false views, nothing more. But shlomie, Tzig, Albert and others in the blog world have stooped so low in fighting Rav Shachs views that you have shown no respect for yourself. The entire Chabad was giddy with laughter when Rav Shach passed away. They hate him, hate anyone like him, and they hate anyone who is not like them. That is Chabad. That is what you defend.

>>P. S. As I already pointed out, everything I have said in this letter has met with the approval of rabbis, none of whom are in the Lubavitch camp.

This is obviously untrue as no one would endorse lying about Rav Shach.

Chabad - A voice of reason/A chasid needs a living rebbe

Anonymous' comment to "Chabad IV - The apologetics aren't satisfying/Lack...":

I believe that things got out of hand after the Rebbe's histalkus. While a lot of radical things may have been said (many many times), there was ALWAYS the power of the "brake" which stopped and halted the lunatics from taking things out of hand. For instance, it is known and public record that the Rebbe in public audiences scolded and rebuked chassidim for looking at him during davening. (He did it twice if I'm not mistaking). He spoke at length how this is completely wrong. He told them that next time he would notice that he would give them a Siddur to look inside the siddur during their prayers. He scolded the elders for not telling the youngsters what is right and what is wrong!

This really reflects all your discussions here: All these things said by the Rebbe are found in earlier sources but he said it in a way that purposely remained vague and abstract so that the masses not abuse it and misuse it and so that it is NOT translated in a way that is contrary to the regular belief in Jewish thought. (So the earlier quote was kept in a way that certainly fits let's say the explanation of Rabbi Posner and which actually, as many here have said is extremely consistent with the way these issues are explained in Chabad thought -as Micha acknowledges that with chabad version of tzimzumim he can hear how this is not contrary to general thought- and after all that statement was said to those who were familar with this language. As a matter of fact, later in time when this work was supposed to be reprinted the Rebbe asked that those passages be ommitted).

From the early quote under discussion, and throughout every single issue there was and is a strong even "radical" (akin found in Reshit Chochmah etc. and the like and probably some of these are found in Noam Elimelech etc.) statements but there were always brakes, and if needed in ACTION by the Rebbe to stop the misinterpretation thereof to ways that are contrary to the general thought as beleived by Jewry for millenium.

The same with the primary focus of a Rebbe. While certainly there were strong statements as to the role and position of a Rebbe (and as pointed out, there are extremely strong statements in earlier chassidic writings by tzadikim such as Kedushas Levi and Noam Elimelech etc.) ; nevertheless the focal point by the Rebbe's most of statements were that the Rebbe is merely a Shliach to connect Jews to Hashem and to serve Hashem better was always the bottom line. (One can see this stronger in the Videos of the Sunday Dollars where many came to thank the REbbe for this or that issue and he responded so frequently and with a strong vehemence; that he is only a conduit and messenger and repeating what Hashem says etc.).

What happened was: that after the histalkus the more hothead mashpiim and unfortunately even the level headed and the "thinkers" have lost the cool and the common ground in these matters. They also want to keep the real connection with the Rebe alive. But they misapplied it in practice and were not skillful enough to know how moderate the ideas and to channel these "Radical" ideas in a way that conforms and combines with the normal way Jews thought for centuries. Let us hope their less hotter heads (there are very few of them but there are) and those who are filled with the ideology that anything that is criticized from outside is automatically to be shunned will prevail, for the truth must be told: the ideologies of Chabad and the Rebbe that have so much to contribute to all of Jewry and in so many areas of Jewish life (study and fulfillment of mitzvot and serving the ALmighty) and that we must ultimately meet the final destination that everyone of us is so much awaiting the final redemption where and when we will all dedicate all of our energy to know and serve G-d.

Chabad - Was the Lubavitcher Rebbe infallible?

Rabbi Oliver has 3 posting on his blog asserting that the Rebbe or at least his father-in-law was infallible.

I just contacted an old friend Rabbi Eli Touger who is a well known Lubavitch translator and is accessible on the Chabad website for queries in English.

I wrote the following:

[...] A Chabadnik told me there is a sicha where the Rebbe said he had been fooled by someone - and thus he made a mistake. Do you know where this is?

Rabbi Touger replied

That I don't know, but just recently there was a sichah printed in Dvar Malchus where the Rebbe was explaining why when Rosh Chodesh Av fell on Shabbos, the week before he made a mistake he said טעות היה בידי and read two haftorahs on the previous Shabbos. [...]

Chabad IV - The apologetics aren't satisfying/Lack of sources

LazerA's comment to "Chabad III- The apologetics aren't satisfying":

I have noticed in an interesting repeating pattern in the posts from the defenders of Chabad (asides from the ad hominem attacks that continue unabated). In general, they will make an assertion and then support it with citations without even a brief synopsis of the material. Having looked up a few of these citations, I begin to suspect that this is a strategic approach, being that the material cited is frequently inconvenient for their purposes.

The responses by Shloime is illuminating if only because he apparently acknowledges that current Chabad teaches that one's primary spiritual focus should be one's rebbe. He simply claims that this is not a chiddush, rather it is found is found in earlier chassidic and traditional sources.

If this is found not to be true, then we are left with a serious problem in Chabad.

Unfortunately, I was not able to look up all of the citations (I couldn't find anything in the Tanchuma Kadum that was relevant, but the print I have doesn't have paragraph numbers, and I don't own the Chida's Midbar Kedemos). Nevertheless, the sources I was able to look up did not, in the least, support the idea of making one's rebbe into one's primary spiritual focus.

Midrash Lekach Tov, hak. l'p noach - simply states that there is great benefit in being davuk to tzadikim. This, of course, is not a chiddush. There is a mitzva of being davuk to chachamim, as discussed at length by the Rambam in Deios 6. This does not mean that one should make his rebbe into his primary spiritual focus.

Tzavaas HaRivash par.50 - Simply says that one should not look at the faces of those who thoughts are not always focused on Hashem. However, looking in the face of those who are always thinking of Hashem is beneficial. That's it. Again, this does not constitute making one's rebbe into your main spiritual focus.

Reishis Chochma, shaar hakedusha 8 is a lengthy discussion on taharas einayim. In one paragraph (17 in my print) he states that looking into the face of your rebbe is a mitzva and a tikkun for your eyes. From the context he may even be speaking about during davening. This, clearly, is the most radical statement so far (though the entire perek goes far beyond our normal standards of behavior). Nevertheless, even this does not constitute making your rebbe into your primary spiritual focus.

Maybe others can fill us in on some of the other citations. However, if this is a representative sampling, we are left with only one possible conclusion. Chabad, as acknowledged, sees their rebbe as their primary spiritual focus. They have convinced themselves that this is true for all chassidic groups and is actually a mainstream idea. However, they are wrong.

The rest of Shloime's comment isn't worth responding to.

Chabad - Common ground at last!/G-d spoke through Moshe

Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver said...

See Likutei Sichos vol. 4, pp. 1087 ff. for a fascinating explanation of this concept, and one that ties in with the sicha that is oh so controversial concerning the revelation of Hashem via Tzadikkim.

Would you please present what it says there and I will present some of the non-Chassidic understandings and we will hopefully see where we agree and perhaps disagree. Instead of debating we can actually do some Torah learning!

This topic looks like it might provide common ground on understanding the ultimate heights man is capable of in the world of spirituality. There is an overlap between Kabbala, Chassidus the Gra and the Baal HaTanya - hopefully we can ascertain whether there are points of disagreement as well. Perhaps we can also come to understand why the Chassidic rebbe - the Munkatcher considered this heresy.

Chabad III- The apologetics aren't satisfying

shloime's comment to "Chabad II - The apologetics arent' satisfying":

LazerA wrote:

"Current Chabad's focus on it's rebbe goes far beyond that found in mainstream chassidic sources. In Chabad today we find a totally new phenomenon of people using their human leader as their primary spiritual focus and purpose. Mitzvos are done to give nachas to the rebbe; the rebbe sees all, knows all, and controls all. Such an approach, transforming one's rebbe into one's primary spiritual focus, is not found in any sources outside of current Chabad."

I'm not sure whether your arrogance trumps your rather presumptuous ignorance, or vice versa.

"I would be interested in learning of Chasidic sources that justify using one's rebbe as one's primary spiritual focus. It cerainly isn't in Tanya ch. 2 as you seem to imply."

Before getting to Tanya (where you'd be better directed to Iggeres Hakodesh anyway), you might look at Tanchuma [kadum] bereishis:21 & vayeira :9, as well as the Midrash Lekach Tov, hak. l'p noach. Also see Reishis Chochma, shaar hakedusha 8, Tzavaas HaRivash par.50, and Midbar Kedemos s.v.tziyur, for starters...

"This standard line that the current complaints on Chabad are actually expressions of the old Misnagdim is simply ridiculous."

Ridiculous because you say so, of course... Mina hani milli d'omar kra ?!

"First of all, many of the current critics of Chabad are from Chasidic (or Chasidic-influenced) backgrounds."

Yes indeed - the old 'some of my best friends are Jewish' usually works, doesn't it ?

"Secondly, few of the non-Chasidic opponents of Chabad have any antagonism against any other Chasidic groups."

Ah, that's a very strong set of proofs ! You might want to take a look at Siach Sarfei Kodesh 1:p.4 (or was R' Aron Karliner part of Chabad's conspiracy too...lol)

"It is simply a way of turning aside criticism without addressing the issues. It is another form of ad hominem response. Defenders of Chabad usually end up resorting to one of these. Either, "you are too ignorant of Chassidus/Kabbalah" or "You are a misnagid."

It doesn't take much to turn aside criticism born (at best) of ignorance - and I'm being generous here.

shloime's comment to "Chabad II - The apologetics arent' satisfying":

Bright eyes wrote:

"Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver said...
".... Hashem speaks through the Tzaddik, which is a core concept in the entire derech of Chasidus, as evidenced from countless stories of emunas Tzadikim from all Chasidishe groups."

BALONEY!!

Maybe Chabad thinks Hashem speaks through their Rebbe, which would make him a Prophet. The other Chassidic groups do not think that their Rebbe is a Prophet.

Is Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver saying that Menachem Mendel Schneersohn was a Prophet? If not, then what exactly does he mean when you say that Hashem speaks through the Tzaddik?"

Bright Eyes, might be time for some new glasses. Rabbi Oliver is more likely aware of the many identical (if not stronger) expressions of this concept in such chassidic classics as the Noam Elimelech, Meor Einayim, etc. The focus on these ideas in Chabad seforim is relatively minimal in comparison.

Chabad - Messianics - Everyone is today!/Disagreement II

eliyahu's comment to "Chabad - Messianics - Everyone is today!":

I'm sorry but what is written here is a total lye.

I myself have studied in Lubavitcher Yishivos, and happen to know as a matter of a fact that there are many bocharim there that do not believe that the rebbe zy”a continues to be moshiach even after his histalkus (petira). Besides this I know many very choshuver rabbonim & roshei yeshivos who explicitly stated their view point that the rebbe does not continue to be moshiach.

A partial list: Rabbi Berel Levin, the chief editor of the new edition of the Shulchan Aruch Harav & one of the prominent moirei tzedek in crown heights (his view was expressed in a booklet that he eddited called Koivetz Moshiach Ugeula); Rabbi Leibell Shapiro, Rosh Yeshivas Lubavitch of Miami & his son Rabbi Chaim Shapiro, rosh beis medresh lehora'a of morristown NJ (I myself heard this from R' C Shapiro himself); Rabbi Yosef Avrohom Heller, Rosh Kolel of Crown Heights & one of the most prominent (if not the most prominent) poiskim of chabad today (he has stated his view publicly on many occasions); Rabbi Ezra Shochat, the renown rosh yeshivas ohr elchanan chabad of LA (he has publicly stated his opinion on many occasions); Rabbi Yechezkel Sofer, one of the well known mashpiem & lecturers of chabad in EY (his view is recorded in the book he wrote yisborru veyislabnu); Rabbi Chaim Rappeport, a more tzedek & from the well known hoige deiot of chabad (he stated his view in the book he wrote answering david berger) & the list go's on and on.

It is also important to note that contrary to what has been stated here, those who do not define themselves as meschistim, which (at least in Chutz La'aretz) is the vast majority of chabad, besides what I already wrote that many (or most) of them don't bichlal believe that the rebbe zy”a is moshiach, even amogst those who privately do believe so, they do not believe this as a defendant thing & as one of the Ikrei Haemuna, rather they believe so only as a thing which is probable. Also a big deal is not made about it, it is something which is rarely mentioned, and by the lookes of things it is something which (even if we CH”V remain in golus) will not pass to the next generation.

In summery in chabad there exists three camps:

1)the minute camp of the meshechistim who make a big deal of the rebbe being moshiach (and within them itself there are a minute number of believers who believe that the rebbe is alive in a physical sense).

2)Many of the anti meshechistem who totally reject the idea that the rebbe is moshiach.

3)A section of the anti meshechistim who althogh believe that the rebbe is moshiach but don't make a big deal out of it not just to the outside but within themselves too & believe so only as something which is probable.

This therefore being the case I would like to make the following point:

Rabbi chaim rappeport, in his book authored as a response to david berger, makes an important point, namely that even if one is to argue that believing that the rebbe after his histalkus continues to be moshiach is contrary to halacha, nevertheless he still cannot render a meshechist as an apikores. The reason is that although many poiskim are of the opinion that one who denies any of the 13 ikrim (even beshogeg, as is known the vort from R' Chaim of brisk zt”l az a nebach apikoires iz oich an apikoires) is begeder Koifer, nevertheless that is only with regard someone who denies one of the ikrim in it's entirety, but someone who makes a mistake with regard to one of the details of the Ikrim (in our case: someone who mistakenly believes that moshiach can come from the dead), can certainly not be rendered as an apekoires (for example: lets say someone decides that moshiach has to be someone six feet tall & have black hair – although his belief is totally wrong and he is a fool but he is certainly not an apikoires). This therefore takes away david berger's demands that all meshechistim cannot shecht and be sofrim etc.

This being said there is however still a concern that many make with regard to chabad (and I fully understand & agree with it): true that a meshechist is not an apikores, but meshechizem is develeping into a new religion; being that the belief that the rebbe is moshiach is such an integral part of the meshichsts beliefs therefore they are developing into a seperate stream of judaisim.

However based on what I discussed before, this does not apply to any of the anti meshchistim (the majority of chabad) because besides the large numbers amongst them who don't believe the rebbe is moshiach, even those who do, don't believe so in a new-religion style as I wrote above, and therefore being that they are not apikursim and are not going away from the mainstream etc., just because they might be making a mistake is no reason to disclude them from the regular frum orthodox jews.

May we all merit to be marbe in ahavas chinam & see moshiach here soon in our days.

Chabad - Ad hominem attacks are not convincing

There seems to be a problem with some of those defending Chabad. I would suggest they read Rabbi Oliver's posting to see how one can communicate disagreement and raise intelligent points without being offensive. If the below posters are mainly concerned with ridiculing those who disagree with them - they should stick to blogs such as Hirschel Tzig's Circus Tent. This is an old complaint about Chabad - the arrogant in-your-face attitude of "why are you people so stupid and hateful that you don't recognize our spiritual superiority and loving kindness towards our fellow Jews?"

Anonymous wrote:

Very appropriate that I came across this blog on tisha BAv. The question I have for you is when you will face Hashem will Hashem say you helped Moshiach come sooner or you were part of the Tishah BAv problem of sinas chinom etc. and delayed the Geula. In your heart I hope you have an honest answer and you will close down this hateful site before it is too late to fix the damage you are doing.

mashpiaonline's comment to "Chabad -The apologetics aren't satisfiying":

i have tried unsuccessfully to get on this site posts-apparently anyone above imbecile intelligence isn't allowed.
you say you aren't an expert about certain kabbalistic concepts but you favor reb nachman's interpretation-if you aren't an expert who are you to favor?
furthermore you say about oliver-whoever he may be that you wish he were more convincing but then you go about trashing Chabad as another religion because it wasn't what YOU SAW . again if the person only saw one way all of his life how could he be open to another way unless he truly studied wanting to understand. in your case you study lekanter which excludes you from ever understanding. Reb Moshe was saved from Russia by the efforts of the Lubavitcher Chassidim according to a close friend of the family and he reported that the rebbetzin spoke often to the Rebbe's rebbetzin. Reb Moshe calls the Rebbe hagaon Hakodosh in a teshuva-is that the title for shabsi tzvy ?
your level of argument goes like this-this is how i understand idon't want to understand differently therefore you are an apikores-wonderfully intelligent!

Hirschel Tzig wrote:

I was recently made aware of the DaatTorah Blog. In a nutshell; the blog can be defined in one word: Hateful. In a scholarly, "We're concerned about the problematic teachings and sichos" kind of way. Which is kind of like the white supremacists pointing out the "problematic passages in the Talmud." If you have a problem with Jews then you'll believe anything. The same goes for Lubavitch, a microcosm of the entire Klal Yisroel. What DaatTorah is, is basically rehashed Areivim posts and thoughts by some of the shining stars who post there, Mr. Eidensohn included.

Anonymous wrote:

"this commentator is ignorant and he is going to criticize tanya or the Rebbeim?! get a grip as to who you really are and stick to simple gemores and kitzur shulchan aruch my friend.this is the level of scholarship of the critics who are taught to mindlessly hate chabad even while we were taught to love all Jews even this level of ignorant soiney-do teshuveh my friend- learn tanya chelek alef especially chapter 32"

Chabad II - The apologetics arent' satisfying

LazerA's comment to "Chabad -The apologetics aren't satisfying":

Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver said...
"You say that these ideas concerning Tzaddikim are foreign to you. All this gets back to the original point of mine that your complaint is not against Chabad per se. Your complaint is against the idea of koching in the relationship with the Tzaddik, and that Hashem speaks through the Tzaddik, which is a core concept in the entire derech of Chasidus, as evidenced from countless stories of emunas Tzadikim from all Chasidishe groups."

Current Chabad's focus on it's rebbe goes far beyond that found in mainstream chassidic sources. In Chabad today we find a totally new phenomenon of people using their human leader as their primary spiritual focus and purpose. Mitzvos are done to give nachas to the rebbe; the rebbe sees all, knows all, and controls all.

Such an approach, transforming one's rebbe into one's primary spiritual focus, is not found in any sources outside of current Chabad.

"...your problem is not just with the derech of Chabad..., but with the Baal Shem Tov, the Maggid, the Chevraya Kadisha (inner circle of talmidei haMaggid), and so on. It's about Chasidim vs. misnagdim, not Chabad vs. everyone else."

I would be interested in learning of Chasidic sources that justify using one's rebbe as one's primary spiritual focus. It cerainly isn't in Tanya ch. 2 as you seem to imply.

This standard line that the current complaints on Chabad are actually expressions of the old Misnagdim is simply ridiculous.

First of all, many of the current critics of Chabad are from Chasidic (or Chasidic-influenced) backgrounds.

Secondly, few of the non-Chasidic opponents of Chabad have any antagonism against any other Chasidic groups.

It is simply a way of turning aside criticism without addressing the issues. It is another form of ad hominem response. Defenders of Chabad usually end up resorting to one of these. Either, "you are too ignorant of Chassidus/Kabbalah" or "You are a misnagid."

Big Brother in Beitar IV - Fear of Shababnikim & Baalei Teshuva

Anonymous's comment to "Big Brother in Beitar III - Undesirables in Beitar...":

I have mentioned in a previous post that the people who the community is afraid of are those who threaten their facade of "kedusha", such as baalei teshuva with their individuality and diverse backgrounds, including many breslovers and russian chabadniks, divorcees and single parents, serious social work cases, etc. The main issue though, as in most of the Charedi world today, is clearly that of the growing presence of "off the derech" youth at various stages of non-conformity and with a general lack of framework or direction, who have nowhere to go and so are very obvious around the city. Many of these kids have serious issues due to the broken, abusive, or poverty stricken homes they come from. Baalei teshuva are blamed for bringing with them outside influences and a lack of mesora and strictness, and have become the city scapegoat for all its problems. This was explicit in the false propaganda statement released by the city PR man in response to the acid attack on that girl (see earlier post).

In the recent elections a political party was created just to represent all the "pariahs" here. they won one seat in the city council. a small victory but not nearly enough. i have sent Rabbi Eidensohn some of their info, perhaps he can post that here.

The following Haaretz article (June 12) is not entirely accurate but it is good enough to give you a sense of the dynamics going on around here:

Excerpt from Haaretz:

For two weeks now, the streets of Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) Beitar Illit have been rife with tension. Bulletins have been posted throughout the city, denouncing problematic youths and sowing panic. Residents have taken to the streets to demand that the troublemakers be expelled from the city, riots have erupted and rumors have spread.

It is difficult to tell whether these demonstrations were organized by supporters of the ousted former mayor, Yitzhak Pindros, who is supported by the Hasidic Ashkenazim (that is, Jews of Eastern European origin). People are wondering whether the unrest was planned as a provocation, or whether it is a spontaneous reaction to various incidences of violence perpetrated by the shababnikim (disaffected ultra-Orthodox youth, who are religious, but relatively more worldly than other Haredi teens). This latter explanation is the one put forward by supporters of the elected mayor, Meir Rubinstein, who is backed by Shas and an additional Sephardic (i.e., Jews of Middle Eastern descent) faction.

The problem of youth at risk has been a recurring one in Beitar Illit, located west of the Etzion Bloc. Statistics indicate that the numbers of troubled youth increase as the city expands. The local municipality estimates that there are between 60 and 70 high-schoolers who are not enrolled in any educational framework. Motti Pindros, brother of the outgoing mayor, also runs a local youth club. According to him, the actual number of at-risk youth is higher: Some 30 kids make up the "hard core" of problematic teens, while about 70 others tag along. Residents, for their part, say that until recently - or, to be more exact, up until the recent municipal elections - the problem was under control and adequately handled by the welfare services. In recent months, one resident said: "The shababnikim are emerging."

Locals point to the wave of burglaries in the city, kids smoking in public on Shabbat, and - apparently the height of audacity - one of the youngsters actually took a stroll through the streets with a dog. According to the best-case scenario, the breed in question was a Chihuahua; the doomsayers claim it was a huge bulldog. Later, the troublemakers even brought a horse into the city, residents say. Rumor has it that the police seized the horse because it was not properly vaccinated. But that didn't stop the shababnikim: They obtained the requisite shots and brought the horse back. But the dog was truly provocative, since the fear Haredim have of canines dwarfs even their fear of the shababnikim. When these two forms of trepidation merge, "it seems like the hatred genie is out of the bottle," according to one official who deals with the youths. [...]