Reply To: questions about the yeshivish world

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee questions about the yeshivish world Reply To: questions about the yeshivish world

#2214584
Avram in MD
Participant

n0mesorah,

Thank you for the thoughtful reply.

Regarding exclusivity:

“I made this point before. Also, you can find Chabad speakers all over the internet. Other groups are not as public. Maybe you mean something more specific.”

I agree that Chabad’s outreach puts their exclusivity on a bigger display. That’s a big part of it. I do feel however that there’s a difference in degree that goes beyond visibility. The only thing more specific I can say is that the villainizing of other groups makes me particularly uncomfortable due to their broad outreach. It doesn’t seem like a good idea for animosity to be spread along with the Chabad-style chassidus. I’m in a community where Chabad is particularly well integrated with the rest of the frum structure, and I’m in some Chabad focused groups for community info, etc. There’s a lot of MO and BT types who have gravitated towards the local Chabad, sometimes not even because they originally wanted Chabad teachings, but they liked that nobody gives death glares if their kid accidentally breathes in shul, they liked the people, the rabbi, etc. And yet they like to share memes that put down the Litvish or “misnagdim”. I get the desire to identify with your chosen group, and I know there’s some reciprocity, but Chabad’s outreach hits a huge audience, with an exploding number of non-Jews in the mix, and this animosity seems to have a quick uptake. Are we ok with Noahides hating on the “snags”?

“You don’t seem to have a problem with either point other than the debate here is playing both sides. Am I right about that, or do you have an objection to one or both of these points?”

I don’t have a problem with people holding either the idea that kabbalistic mysticism is abstruse or that it can be straightforward. You’re right that it’s the playing both sides that I object to, particularly because the tactic denigrates those with different viewpoints and can shut down discussion.

“Since their knowledge is based on integration as opposed to foundations, they assume we are just lacking in all the confirming information. They do not understand that we are questioning the fundamental concepts.”

“But without accepting the simple form of it, it can’t be understood without really studying it.”

These points are really insightful. I think I agree with you.