- This topic has 145 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 4 months, 1 week ago by .
-
Posts
-
I’ve been noticing a trend after 10-7. Talk of hanging Israeli flags in front of a ChaBaD Shul, talk about how things are different nowadays. Now all the sudden Mendy who joined the IDF years ago isn’t a frie loser for washing out of mesivtah. Magen Davids everywhere in Shul, while the iggros of the Rebbe Rashab are carefully hidden away.
So I guess Lubavitch is Zionist because it’s “different” these days…..?
Did we really go to the moon? is Whoopie Goldberg Jewish?
1. Get help
2. Chabad does a lot of things for shlichus but not necessarily because they’re ZionistWith many goyim, including important political leaders, are marching through the streets of the world calling for the murder of Jews, and clearly not distinguishing between frum or frei, Hareidi or Reform, Israeli or living in golus – then it is not the time to be philosophizing after Zionism or the nature and halachic status of Medinat Yisrael.
With many goyim, including important political leaders, are marching through the streets of the world calling for the murder of Jews, and clearly not distinguishing between frum or frei, Hareidi or Reform, Israeli or living in golus – then it is not the time to be philosophizing after Zionism or the nature and halachic status of Medinat Yisrael.
Chabad definitely became much more Zionist once their last leader took over their movement.
As well, this war is bringing out the latent Zionism in many who fooled themselves that they are not Zionist.
I agree that in some cases it’s becoming a little too close for comfort, but it is unfair to pigeonhole Chabad based on the Rashab’s shita–after the hakomas hamedina, things changed (of course though, both the Rayatz and the Rebbe maintained that the hakoma itself was a rishus and that concepts such as the idea that the State is the “aschalta d’geula” are kefira).
Plenty of Lubavitchers join the army, and this has been going on for a very long time. I can’t speak to the social attitudes of the community from decades past (I wasn’t here), but certainly the Rebbe didn’t feel that they were freiacks…coffeeroomguy: The last Lubavitcher Rebbe didn’t call anyone freiacks… even if they were freiacks.
SQUARE_ROOT:
Actually, it very much is the time to do so, given that untold thousands of Jews are set to march on Washington this Tuesday under the banner of the Zionists with one of the stated goals as “March for Israel”.chabad’s view on eretz yisroel is very complex see sefer אגרת מענה חכם
for a short (not complete) shiur about it call 845-999-4949 – hotline.
saying lubavitch is zionist because you heard Talk of hanging Israeli flags in front of a ChaBaD Shul, is like saying that apparently satmer is zionist because i saw a satmer chassid going to isrealLostspark:
Great question!
My response as a Lubavitcher:
Since the “founding” of the “state” in 1948, Lubavitch has become less VOCAL about their opposition to Zionism, the reasons for which are discussed in the sefer mentioned by sechel, and other places.
(This change was already brought about by the Rebbe Rayatz. As a matter of fact, the Rebbe was much more vocal about anti-zionism than his father-in-law was in his later years).Due to this, unfortunately, there are Lubavitchers nowadays who are ignorant of our shita on zionism and may confuse strongly supporting Eretz Yisroel with promoting zionist symbols r”l.
The Rebbe was adamantly opposed to the hanging of the flag, singing hatikva, celebrating yom haatzmaut, and even referring to Eretz Yisroel as “state of Israel.”
The Rebbe stripped his נשיאות from Tomchei Tmimim (the central Chabad yeshiva) in 5715 when they allowed a balebos to sing “הניגון הידוע” (the Rebbe wouldn’t even refer to it by name) at a dinner.
On a separate occasion, the Rebbe wrote that singing this can interrupt Hashem’s brochos to the institution.The Rebbe railed against the concept of אתחלתא דגאולה in no uncertain terms, even saying that this idea has brought much darkness and hardships to klal Yisroel (I won’t get into specifics due to the public nature of this site).
At the Lag B’omer parades, children would march with American flag and Tzivos Hashem flag, but the zionist flag was not allowed.
B”H, most Lubavitchers and shluchim know this info, and keep a proper balance between supporting the Yidden in Eretz Yisroel while rejecting the zionist ideology and symbols.
Unfortunately, there are indeed some who are either uneducated on the subject, or were unable to withstand the נסיון of appealing to the wider Jewish public and have allowed such symbols and ideologies to infiltrate their Chabad Houses, etc.
These are B”H not many (though they may be vocal), and I and others have done our best to reach out to these people and influence them to correct their ways.
It’s also important to note that some may call themselves Lubavitchers while being totally rejected by Lubavitch. Figures such as Shmuley Boteach who has been banned by Chabad rabbis and doesn’t represent us whatsoever.
In conclusion: No, Chabad is not zionist. Our IDEOLOGY has not changed one iota from the times of the Rebbe Rashab (as opposed to the manner of vocalizing our ideology).
P.S. Joining IDF is a completely separate issue that has nothing to do with zionism. However, I would still venture to say that it’s still the same type of bochurim that you described (though I wouldn’t describe them that way) who join, because for the most part, the way for yeshiva bochurim to protect Eretz Yisroel is solely through limmud hatorah.
Re magen davids: While there are issues with the symbol, it’s in no way comparable to the zionist flag.
Menachem Shmei: Thank you for your comment. It is very insightful.
Menachem “this change was all ready brought by the rebbe Rayatz……in his later years”
look at שיחת אחרון של פסח תש״ט to see what was the שיטה of the Rayatz towards the state of Israel in his later years5783: look at שיחת אחרון של פסח תש״ט to see what was the שיטה of the Rayatz towards the state of Israel in his later years
I’m sorry, I couldn’t find anything in the source that you gave, please be more specific.
P.S. I would like to clarify again that by “change” – I’m referring specifically to the MANNER of opposition, not ch”v a change in ideology.
The Rebbe Rashab (and Rayatz in his early years) fought strongly and publicly to prevent the actual establishment of the “state”.
However, once the state became more of a reality, the manner of public opposition changed by the Rebbe Rayatz and the Rebbe, despite the fact that they continued reject the zionist ideology (as can be found in their sichos).
Menachem,
are you also as strict regarding movement members who sign another “infamous nigunim” of maschihistim or you are more understanding about that?Menachem,
are you also as strict regarding movement members who sign another “infamous nigunim” of maschihistim or you are more understanding about that?I was wondering how long it would take for a thread on Chabad’s attitude to Zionism to become a thread about the Rebbe being Moshiach… Only 15 posts in!… 😏
Menachem sorry I made a mistake its the sicha of Purim תש״ט in the foot note at the end ״ער האט אונז געשיקט אין גלות און ער וועט אונז ארויסנעמען אליין גייט מען ניט״
its the sicha of Purim תש״ט in the foot note at the end ״ער האט אונז געשיקט אין גלות און ער וועט אונז ארויסנעמען אליין גייט מען ניט״
Indeed, the Rebbe Rayatz expressed this often. (See his letter from ח’ מנ”א תש”ח (אג”ק חי”ג) – regarding “הכרזת הציונים מלכות ישראל”. Also י”ד אייר תש”ח (אג”ק ח”ט)….)
The Rebbe also spoke about this often, perhaps even sharper than the Rebbe Rayatz.
My point remains. No change in ideology. But there was a change in manner of vocalizing opposition.
P.S. The Rebbe once wrote to someone:
וכמה פעמים אמר כ”ק אדמו”ר (מהוריי”ץ) נ”ע גלוי, ובפעם האחרונה אמר זה בשנת תש”ט-תש”י, שאף שיסד כפר חב”ד בארץ הקודש ת”ו, אבל אין כל שינוי בהשקפת ליובאוויטש על הענין דארץ הקודש ת”ו ואביזרייהוChabad assimilation warning ⚠️: they are not usually using a loaded term kiruv in regards to their heilike work, but I just saw in an internal shlichus journal a photo title; shaliach X and a mekurav at a yechidus. I perused the whole magazine, nobody else used such loshen. Maybe the junior editor is a misnagishe spy.
I just saw in an internal shlichus journal a photo title; shaliach X and a mekurav at a yechidus
The idea of kiruv in itself was never a no-no in Lubavitch.
Perhaps we named our work “shlichus” while the name “kiruv” is mainly used by other organizations, but you’ll ALWAYS find the term “to be mekarev a Yid” or “someone brought a mekurav” – going back all the years.There may be more of a dislike in Chabad for the term “kiruv rechokim” since we try not to label a Jew as rachok.
Hence, it WOULD be surprising if a Chabad magazine would say: “Shliach talking to rachok. Trying to be mekarev”
But what does that have to do with Zionism?
I stand, partially, corrected. I found, in the depths of internets, some chabadniks using the terms “a shaliach and a mekarev” and the like in articles and in section headers. I did not, though, see these words in direct quotes from Rebbeim and Rabbonim. In many cases, mekarev means a less loaded term, as in a close talmid or friend, as in “R X was a mekarev of Gadol Y”. So, the question is whether “kiruv” is a shortcut for “kiruv rechokim” or has a separate meaning. I would err to the side of caution and not offend Yidden.
“kiruv rechokim” deserved an article on the chabad site, with this quote from L Rebbe ZT’L:
You call them “distant”?! What gives you the right to say that you are close and they are far? You must approach each one of them as though you are the King’s servant sent with a message to His most precious child!Similarly:
One Chabad supporter told the Rebbe about a Shabbaton he had sponsored for over forty couples who “had no Jewish background.”
“No what?” the Rebbe responded, as though in shock.
“No Jewish background,” was the hesitant response.
“Tell them that they have a background! Their background is that they are children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob!” the Rebbe replied.It has to with Z, that Chabad is now not a small group of dedicated shluchim, but a large movement that includes some people who use yeshivish language and others who appreciate binyan EY and this is not surprising.
as far as i know being a lubavitcher: there is nothing wrong with the term kiruv, the problem is rechukim – the idea of saying that some jews are far. (kiruv is not short for kiruv rechokim nor does it imply they are far.) there is the famous story of a shliach who told the rebbe that he mentioned to yiden that hes like a traveling sofer who fixes worn out sifrai torah – letting rubbed out, cracked etc. the rebbe told him that yidden are like the letters of the luchos, they are engraved, they just may have dust covering.
anyway there are plenty of seforim to learn about chabad shitos from much better sources that magazines and todays publications (espesially ones that are against obviously just point out the things they argue with and usually twist the real sources or at least take things out of context)
i would advise to start with tanya. daily tanya new cycle starts on 19 kislev – shabbos. perek 2 explains the essence of every jew – a peice of g-d. and like the magid said והתופס במקצתו כאלו תופס בכולו
and the rebbe rashab said “Chassidus changes what exists, and uncovers the essence-character. The essence-character of the Jewish person is beyond estimation and assessment, for he is a part of (G‑d’s) Essence, and whoever lays hold of a part of The Essence is as though he lays hold of it all. Just as The Essence is unlimited, so is the part unlimited. This is similar to tzitzit being “on the corner”1 – i.e. “of the same material as the corner”2 of the garment. (The existence of the soul as an entity discrete from G‑d’s Essence) is only because G‑d3 created the soul to be a created being; and Chassidus reveals the essence-character (of the soul).”
The Alter Rebbe told his son the Mitteler Rebbe: Grandfather (the Baal Shem Tov)1 said that one must have mesirat nefesh (total self-sacrifice and dedication) ahavat Yisrael (love of one’s fellow), even towards a Jew whom one has never seen.sechel > there is nothing wrong with the term kiruv, the problem is rechukim
I agree, I brought quotes from L Rebbe about that. But, to clarify the issue, maybe someone can find L Rebbe’s quotes where he used the word kiruv?
I agree, I brought quotes from L Rebbe about that. But, to clarify the issue, maybe someone can find L Rebbe’s quotes where he used the word kiruv?
There are many. Here are some:
לקוטי שיחות חלק ט”ו ע’ 496 (“הדרך לקירוב הלבבות ליהדות ומצותי'”)
אגרות קודש חלק ח ע’ צז (“דורך קירוב קען מען אויפטאן מער ממה שע”י דיחוי וריחוק… לקרב את אחיו וב”ג תחי’ יותר לדרכי היהדות)It is necessary to point out that while there may be general dislike for the term קירוב רחוקים, this is not to say that it is completely taboo. The term does get used in Chabad circles in certain contexts (e.g. in the indexes in back of the the Rebbe’s seforim, you can usually find an entry called “קירוב רחוקים”).
As a matter of fact, I have actually found one place (I think it’s the only one) where the Rebbe himself writes a private response using the term קירוב רחוקים!
נלכה באורחותיו ע’ 220. וכ”ה בליקוט מענות קודש תש”מ ע’ 17:
“כיון שמוכרח קירוב רחוקים, ובמילא צ”ל הפעולה צעד אחר צעד”
However, in that context the Rebbe is specifically highlighting the idea that they are (meanwhile) רחוקים (he actually underlined the word) in the context of the manner of dealing with them.והיינו שישתדל לידבק בו יתברך בכח מעשים שתולדתם זה הענין והם הם המצות.
Mesilas yeshorim perek 1. Mitzvos bring one close to Hashem. Aveiros, every single one, makes one far. People who do not do mitzvos as a commandment from Hashem are by definition far from him. They are rachok. There is nothing that brings a person close to Hashem other than mitzvos.
To Avirah
I think that this is a case where your position and the Chabad view can both be justified. On the one hand, there are Jews who are totally entrenched in Aveiros, consider Norman Finklestein, as an example. He continues to support the Palestinians and refuses to criticize the Oct 7th massacre. On the other hand, I used to think that the Rebbe was off the wall for positing that all Jews would be redeemed by Moshiach. I think and/or hope that recent events are preparing the world for Moshiach, and I find it very encouraging that a number of Jewish celebrities(nonobservant) have stepped up on behalf of Israel. Along those lines, I paid a Shiva call a few weeks ago to the family of a Russian Jew. I worked with the father who was a lovely person, but we focused on the events in Israel. I was so impressed by their concern. One daughter asked me if I could help her get her Mezuzas checked. So yes the Pintel Yid is active in many Jews that might be thought of as Rachokim. In contrast, the psychos who continue bashing the “Zionist state” are probably irretrievably lost even if they have long-payos and only eat Cholov Yisrael.Menachem, you convinced mew that L Rebbe used the word”kiruv”. As to “rehokim”, your observation is similar to mine – while L Rebbe himself generally objected to it, the expression pops up in indices and descriptions provided by editors, who assimilated in part into general community and lost sensitivity.
Avira, general theory is fine, but does Ramchal claim to direct kiruv of those rehokim? As Qwerty says, many Yidden who are visibly non-observant have a lot of mailos. That Russian family you visited and were surprised they care about Israel (dah, in my town, half of Yidden coming to pro-
Israel events are Rusim, not sure where they are coming from ..) – you are talking about people probably 5 (five) generations after Soviets wiped out all religious environment, then last 1-2 being further lost in American freedom – and seemingly married Jews through all of that, and probably more, despite the risks and opportunities… Similarly, with, say, Persian Jews who often travelled through remote areas to get out of there … compare their mailos with an American Yid who was surrounded by supportive environment and had limited interaction with outside world. I am not saying that everyone should go out there and experience interactions with KGB, but to consider that you are closer to Hashem than such a person is not a sure thing.Rabbi Miller blamed the Holocaust on Chillul Shabbos, but Rabbi Yisroel Salanter started the Modern Mussar Movement because the Middos of many frum Jews were sorely lacking. And very little has changed. Always is absolutely right that we have no idea who Hashem favors.
Hillul Shabbat of 100+ years ago was different – it was a rejection. Nowadays, it is ignorance or at least, maintaining a status quo. R Salanter in his time said that he prefers to deal with Western European Jews who were low but stationary and could be talked to, rather than Litvishe (where haskala came later) who were on the downslope and nothing could be done about it.
I would also add to R Miller’s shita that it is not just those who fell away who were the cause of a problem, but whole communities that failed. R Hirsh was able to save a part of his community and there were other successful cases, but often leaders were not able to offer attractive alternatives. Not saying that it was an easy task, haskala changed human condition faster than anything before that,
To Always
Thanks for your comments. You clearly know more about the subject than I do. When I make statements they’re empirically based. The point is that the Yetzer hora wants to lull frum Jews into thinking that they’re perfect and the problem is with the freier. It’s definitely not that simple.
To the Lubavichers
To my understanding(If I’m wrong correct me) the Rebbe believed that the Holocaust was a Gezerah and therefore it shouldn’t be discussed. The Friediker Rebbe, on the other hand, basically held like Rabbi Miller that the Holocaust was a punishment from Shamayim for the breakdown of European Jewry. Now since the Rebbe venerated his predecessor, how was he able to disagree with him?
the expression pops up in indices and descriptions provided by editors, who assimilated in part into general community and lost sensitivity.
My point is that using the term “kiruv rechokim” is not any assimilation. It depends on context.
The publishers of the Rebbe’s seforim in Kehos can hardly be classified as assimilators.
I showed how even the Rebbe used it in a certain context.
Nuance is very important here. No one said the term is ossur, it is just disliked in certain contexts.the Rebbe believed that the Holocaust was a Gezerah and therefore it shouldn’t be discussed. The Friediker Rebbe, on the other hand, basically held like Rabbi Miller that the Holocaust was a punishment from Shamayim for the breakdown of European Jewry.
Again, as I mentioned in my previous post, nuance and context is very important.
Your quotes of the Rebbe and Frierdiker Rebbe are anything but that.Did the Rebbe ever say that the Holocaust “shouldn’t be discussed”?
Did the Frierdiker Rebbe ever say that “the Holocaust was a punishment from Shamayim for the breakdown of European Jewry”?Please provide the statements that you’re actually referring to, and then we can properly discuss it.
To Menachem Shmei
Why not make things easy for everyone. You’ve proven your expertise regarding Chabad lore. So elucidat the last two Rebbes’ opinions vis a vis the Holocaust. Did they agree it was a punishment? Or did they agree it wasn’t a punishment? Or did they disagree? Of course you won’t answer tbe question because you know the Rebbe didn’t agree with the Friediker. But tbe answer is simple. A Chosid can’t disagree with his Rebbe unless the Chosid is god clothed in human form.
To Menachem Shmei
Unlike Dr. Berger I am not a scholar with regard to Chabad. What I know is experiential, based on what I read and pick up from interactions with Lubavichers. In 2009 I gave a speech about the Holocaust in a shul witb a Chabad Rabbi. He ordered me to stol saying tbat the Rebbe didn’t allow this subject to be discussed. The Rabbi then added that the Holocaust was one of those times when G-d didn’t know what He was doing like when Rabbi Akiva was being killed and the Malachim protested. As for the Friediker being a hardliner vis a vis the Holocsust this is found online. I’m not profrssing to be an expert on tje dubject but I’m reasonably certain that I’m correct. If not you have the chance to refute me.Dr. Berger has no credibility.
To ujm
That’s your opinion and as far as I’m concerned you have no credibility. I asked a simple question to the group, specifically the Lubavichers, “Did the Rebbe have a different view than the Friediker Rebbe vis a vis the Holocaust?” Based on what I’ve read and been told by Lubavichers the Rebbe held that the Holocaust couldn’t be explained while the Friedike Rebbe said it was a punishment from Shomoyim for the breakdown of Yiddishkeit in Europe. It’s not such a difficult question. But, as I’ve learned from the months I’ve spent on this site, Lubavichers rarely answer any question. So again, would someone please answer, rather than obfuscate the question.Qwerty, when you follow up your “innocent” question about the Holocaust with your classic “G-d in human” rhetoric, you make it clear that your entire goal is לקנטר, and you’re not actually interested in an answer.
I’ve learned from the months I’ve spent on this site, Lubavichers rarely answer any question
This is a good reason for me to not answer your question. After hundreds of posts that I’ve written to answer the silly arguments here, you still have the audacity to write this. What a disgrace.
Anyone can go back to previous threads and see how your questions were answered time and time again.
This reminds me of what the Rebbe once told Rabbi Tzvi Kahana by dollars (10 Sivan 5750):
ע”פ דין איז “מילתא דעבידא לאיגלויי – לא משקרי אינשי”. איז ידוע אין דערויף די שאלה וואס מ’האט געפרעגט בא א גדול אין דורות שלפני זה: היתכן, מ’זעט דאך אז “משקרי אינשי מילתא דעבידא לאיגלויי”? האט ער אויף דערויף געענטפערט: דער תירוץ אויף דערויף איז א פשוט’ער, ס’שטייט “לא משקרי אינשי” – זיי זיינען ניט בגדר פון “אינשי”! עכ”ל, והמבין יביןR Steinzaltz answered the question about shoah with “it is too early to make the conclusions ” and pointed out that statements about causes of destruction are often made hundreds years after the event. This was in the context of his generic description that Judaism is an old religion and is not in a hurry to answer complicated questions definitely like electricity.. this was 30 years ago, so maybe we are closer to history now.
Ps there were faster assessments in later history though like Kozak pogroms due to talking in shuls80% of the jewish nation forsake the Torah, which says we will be utterly destroyed if we leave it
Steinzalts: “hmm… let’s wait and see. Maybe we need to reread pesukim that cheder children know and in a few hundred years we’ll know the answer”
Come on.
To Avirra
Rabbi Steinzaltz was associated with Chabad so it’s obvious that he wouldn’t challenge the Rebbe’s shitah that all Jews are perfect and the world is ready for Moshiach.No, the Rav didn’t make such claims and he was addressing a question from presumably a survivor looking for a serious answer. I agree with what he said, the question what caused the downfall of the European Jewish community is not yet answered. We usually associate both success and failure to a combination of leadership and mass Jewish response. See, for example, Shmuel v community on the issue of a melech. So, blaming erev rav is not a full answer. And I don’t think anyone gave an accounting of what went wrong with leadership and community. Currently, we have both mo and nonmo developed new institutions that we didn’t have at a time, but it is under cover of restoring old order (that failed)
To Always
I can accept that we can’t definitively explain catastrophic events, but do you agree that they are caused by our sins or do you agree with the Rebbe that things just happen and there is no rhyme or reason?
To Always
Let’s ask a more general question. Do you agree that when the Jewish people face tragedies such as the Holocaust and what’s unfolding now we must turn introspective and try to correct our errors? Or do agree with the Rebbe that every Jew is perfect and Moshiach will come tomorrow morning to save us?Qwerty, yes I agree that we should introspect and try to correct the errors. I am just a little weary of people offering quick answers, as common seichel just said in another thread. Theoretically, I learned that we lost access to direct info from Hashem, we can still use (carefully) mida kneged mida approach. I also favor looking for factual rational explanations and then see if they can be further extended into the moral ones. As R Avigdor Miller said, if you put your hand into a fire to save a kid, your hand will still be hurt.
Along these lines regarding the recent events, I heard several people mentioning increased machlokets in Israeli politics with groups relating to others as enemies. I would add possibly a moral hesaron of pragmatically relating to the Russian aggression against Ukraine. This connects factually: hamas used some of the tactics that became established in last 2 years, and Israel didn’t assimilate these lessons, and hamas being supported by Iran, while Iran is exchanging technology with Russia, and on moral side also – ignore atrocities towards others … as r Soloveitchik wrote, when there are historical perturbation. Jews should not think that we will not be affected.
Not sure what L or any other rebbes were holding. Rav S didn’t sugarcoat jewish history and didn’t say that shoah is unexplainable, he just said that he can’t give a precise answer at this point.
Re: Moschiach, he relied on the gemora (where is it?) that if all t
ch of one generation will come together on the same street in yerushalaim, moschiach will come..To Lostspark
No I’m not. Please explain it to me. I really never heard pf it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.