In a recent episode, for close to half an hour in the beginning of the program (approximately 2:00-29:35), the featured topic was 'Revisiting our relationship with Lubavitch'.
Below is a synopsis of the program, with some comments and analysis. It is not a full transcript of the program, nor the full story.
The Question
The host's question to his panel of prominent rabbis, allegedly from a listener's letter, basically was that 'given all the favors that Chabad does for Klal Yisroel, that travelers and anyone with a sick family member in a far away place will attest to, and given that dire predictions that they would leave our religion, or even commit suicide, after the death of their Rebbe, did not materialize, should we revisit our attitude to Chabad?'
Lichtenstein was very open about his sympathies to Lubavitch, relating episodes where he was helped by their shluchim in Mexico and Italy in difficult circumstances, during his travels, and that definitely produced a significant tilt in the program in favor of Lubavitch.
Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky
The first Rav who the host turned to in the program is Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky shlit"a, Rosh Yeshivas Philadelphia, from whom he played a short, enigmatic snippet proclaiming that Lubavitch are our brothers ("We should surely consider them our brothers.").
The host describes that as "an amazing opinion". Obviously, he wants us to view it answer as a full-throated endorsement of Lubavitch, with the Philadelphia Rosh Yeshiva going along with his advocacy of general acceptance of present-day Lubavitch. Of course, that would be a giant departure from the longstanding Litvish Yeshiva world position. But is it indeed so?
Analysis & Reality Check - Despite what the host might wish, that is not what the Rosh Yeshiva said. Someone can be viewed as a brother, but still as a person with a different way of life, whom you differ with in important ways, and keep some distance from. We did not hear exactly what query was proposed to Rav Kamenetsky either (at other times, both the host's queries as well as answers of guests are aired, in contrast), nor what else he may have said beyond the short snippet aired. It is clear that editing is involved in the program, which is almost always prerecorded. In view of the above, a giant question mark hangs over Lichtenstein's interpretation that Rav Shmuel shlit"a has suddenly departed from the longtime Litvishe Yeshiva world consensus to embrace Lubavitch unconditionally. Large questions about editing, spin, and interpretation loom in the background.
Just to be sure, I contacted a very highly placed source in Philadelphia who confirmed to me that Rav Shmuel does not give a total, blanket hechsher on Lubavitch.
If the host would ask the Rosh Yeshiva about our attitude to non-Orthodox Jews, he would also agree that they are our brothers. But does that mean that we accept them totally, with everything they stand for? Of course not.
Similarly, in another Headlines program just one week after the one under discussion (http://podcast.headlinesbook.com/e/2417-do-we-still-love-a-child-that-has-become-an-apikorus-secular-studies-in-mesivta-chiyuv-or-bitul-torah/), at just after 15:00, when the Rosh Yeshiva was asked about dealing with a child 'who is seriously off the derech', the Rosh Yeshiva said 'we should accept them, and love them, and tell them that we hope they change their mind.' So we see that to the Rosh Yeshiva, acceptance of someone as a relative does not preclude serious disagreement.
Rav David Cohen, Congregation Gevul Yaavetz
Following Rav Shmuel, the host presented the well known mechaber Rabbi David Cohen of Congregation Gevul Yaavetz of NY, who commented 'I don't even know why you need my comment. Of course they should be embraced - they are our brothers. The fact that many of them believe that the Rebbe was moshiach, in no way excludes them from Klal Yisrael. Throughout the ages there have been people who had this kind of hashkafah and it's not a psul. The only people who deserve richuk are people who are apikorsim and it is very difficult to be mekareiv them. There are unfortunately those who believe in the 'Elokai milimatah' (not clearly elaborated upon, but referring to certain belief with regard to the last Rebbe) Those individuals need richuk. But Lubavitch as a whole? The fact that some people resented that they believe the Rebbe is moshiach, has nothing to do with richuk.'
Analysis - a) Rabbi Cohen says that many believe the Rebbe was (past tense) moshiach. He does not address the belief of at least some, perhaps many, in Lubavitch, that he still is moshiach now, b) he does mention an undefined group that does need richuk (distancing), but doesn't define what they believe exactly.
Nevertheless, despite those two very important caveats, the host gushes about how pro-Lubavitch the response allegedly was. Which is not telling the entire story.
Rav Hershel Schachter, Yeshivas Rabbeinu Yitzchak Elchanan
Rav Hershel Schachter, Yeshivas Rabbeinu Yitzchak Elchanan
Rav Schachter said that he thinks the Yeshiva world is worried about people davening to the Rebbe, and those that believe the Rebbe is moshiach, which can lead to avoda zara, as it did in history. Overemphasis on moshiach can lead to avoda zara.
Rav Menachem Mendel Shafran, Chasidishe Dayan in Eretz Yisroel
Nobody hates them, everybody who really travels is mechabed Chabad for good they do, whatever they are doing good is very good, but what they are doing no good is no good.
We don't have to be machshir problematic things due to good things done. They can't be toveia (demand) that we have to accept their hashkafos, a hechsher on everything, because they are doing tovos for Klal Yisroel.
Rav David Yosef, Rav, Rosh Kollel, member Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah (Shas)
Opened by saying 'it's a very difficult question'.
He starts with high praise for Lubavitch and the late Rebbe, talking about shluchim he met, and their work in distant places.
From the other side, he believes that they are not allowed to say that the Rebbe is still alive. He wishes they will open their eyes. That he could convince them that they are wrong, it's a very bad idea, against Judaism, against Torah.
Reb Dovid Lichtenstein, the host, speaks
Says that he grew up in 'a Litvishe environment', went to great Litvishe yeshivos. He never saw the Rebbe (Ramash), and never was in 770 E.P. (Lubavitch HQ). Says 'I'm a Litvak' (I believe he means in terms of institutions studied at - family roots can be a different matter).
He repeats old Lubavitcher arguments claiming that it is not problematic to believe the late Rebbe is moshiach, both before as well as after his passing, claiming that is okay based on gemaras. Of course, interpetation is key. How the passages are interpreted.
Rav Nisson Kaplan
Rav Nisson Kaplan of Yeshivas Mir in Jerusalem, refrained from giving an opinion, as he stated that his mother told him not to get involved in such a matter, due to her personal history during the WWII era.
Rabbi Moshe Kotlarsky of Lubavitch
At the end, the host brings on Rabbi Moshe Kotlarsky of Lubavitch, who works with Lubavitcher shluchim and chairs their annual conference. Lichtenstein asks him about people davening to the Rebbe, to which he says the Rebbe was a Shulchan Aruch Yid, and that if anyone does that he is not a real Lubavitcher (the no true Scotsman response).
The host says that we have to take him at his word, he's certainly an עד כשר (kosher witness) (but isn't the category of נוגע בדבר relevant?).
Closing thoughts
There are longstanding differences of opinion, חילוקי דעות, in the Jewish world about certain inyanim. The fact that Lubavitchers do chesed, and did not convert, or commit suicide, after the passing of their Rebbe, is a red herring. The differences still exist. Those that agreed with Lubavitch in the past, likely still agree with them, while those that didn't, likely still retain reservations. Everyone can/will believe as they wish, but we should be honest about things.
The bottom line here is that the host was advocating for Lubavitch and spinning things for them to the point of distortion and misrepresentation. People should be aware of this and not be misled. It also raises questions about the program in general, e.g. how reliable is it? In this program, as well as in a later follow up segment with Rabbi Dr. David Berger, the program is seriously compromised by the host's obvious feelings about the matter. It leads one to wonder if that has happened in other instances as well.
As our holy Torah tells us, כי השחד יעור עיני חכמים.
In a way, it is sad, but it is also good that it brings this issue to light, that we need to be wary of conclusions based on programs that can be edited and manipulated.
May Hashem lead us in the path of truth, and may we merit שלום על ישראל במהרה בימינו.
Rav Menachem Mendel Shafran, Chasidishe Dayan in Eretz Yisroel
Nobody hates them, everybody who really travels is mechabed Chabad for good they do, whatever they are doing good is very good, but what they are doing no good is no good.
We don't have to be machshir problematic things due to good things done. They can't be toveia (demand) that we have to accept their hashkafos, a hechsher on everything, because they are doing tovos for Klal Yisroel.
Rav David Yosef, Rav, Rosh Kollel, member Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah (Shas)
Opened by saying 'it's a very difficult question'.
He starts with high praise for Lubavitch and the late Rebbe, talking about shluchim he met, and their work in distant places.
From the other side, he believes that they are not allowed to say that the Rebbe is still alive. He wishes they will open their eyes. That he could convince them that they are wrong, it's a very bad idea, against Judaism, against Torah.
Reb Dovid Lichtenstein, the host, speaks
Says that he grew up in 'a Litvishe environment', went to great Litvishe yeshivos. He never saw the Rebbe (Ramash), and never was in 770 E.P. (Lubavitch HQ). Says 'I'm a Litvak' (I believe he means in terms of institutions studied at - family roots can be a different matter).
He repeats old Lubavitcher arguments claiming that it is not problematic to believe the late Rebbe is moshiach, both before as well as after his passing, claiming that is okay based on gemaras. Of course, interpetation is key. How the passages are interpreted.
Rav Nisson Kaplan
Rav Nisson Kaplan of Yeshivas Mir in Jerusalem, refrained from giving an opinion, as he stated that his mother told him not to get involved in such a matter, due to her personal history during the WWII era.
Rabbi Moshe Kotlarsky of Lubavitch
At the end, the host brings on Rabbi Moshe Kotlarsky of Lubavitch, who works with Lubavitcher shluchim and chairs their annual conference. Lichtenstein asks him about people davening to the Rebbe, to which he says the Rebbe was a Shulchan Aruch Yid, and that if anyone does that he is not a real Lubavitcher (the no true Scotsman response).
The host says that we have to take him at his word, he's certainly an עד כשר (kosher witness) (but isn't the category of נוגע בדבר relevant?).
Closing thoughts
There are longstanding differences of opinion, חילוקי דעות, in the Jewish world about certain inyanim. The fact that Lubavitchers do chesed, and did not convert, or commit suicide, after the passing of their Rebbe, is a red herring. The differences still exist. Those that agreed with Lubavitch in the past, likely still agree with them, while those that didn't, likely still retain reservations. Everyone can/will believe as they wish, but we should be honest about things.
The bottom line here is that the host was advocating for Lubavitch and spinning things for them to the point of distortion and misrepresentation. People should be aware of this and not be misled. It also raises questions about the program in general, e.g. how reliable is it? In this program, as well as in a later follow up segment with Rabbi Dr. David Berger, the program is seriously compromised by the host's obvious feelings about the matter. It leads one to wonder if that has happened in other instances as well.
As our holy Torah tells us, כי השחד יעור עיני חכמים.
In a way, it is sad, but it is also good that it brings this issue to light, that we need to be wary of conclusions based on programs that can be edited and manipulated.
May Hashem lead us in the path of truth, and may we merit שלום על ישראל במהרה בימינו.
No comments:
Post a Comment