Reflecting on Judaism

Because of the increasing activity of the Lubavitch, and the vast sums of money which it appears to have at its disposal, I suggest that it is timely to begin a full and wide-ranging analysis of its influence within the United Synagogue, its Members and the Community at large.  I set out at the end of this memorandum details of my own recent experience which prompted me to prepare this memorandum as a contribution to the discussion.

 A most interesting article appeared in the Jewish Chronicle on 1st November 1991, headed “Lubavitch - The Vital Questions."  Its author made some very interesting comments from which I quote the following extracts:-  “For decades now Neo-Orthodox and even Progressive and Secular Jews have praised and financially helped the Lubavitch structure of Schools and Missions to lapsed Jews.  This support was given because the general perception was positive: a dedicated group of Jews seeking to preserve Judaism and to give Jews religious meaning in a period of secularisation and assimilation, cannot be a bad thing, even if you do not share their beliefs.

 He continued:  “In what light do the Hasidim view their revered Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson?  Is he in fact the only proper intercessor between Jews and their Creator?  Indeed is he believed to be ....The Messiah himself?  And are his thousands of disciples, 50,000 of whom erroneously predicted the Coming of the Messiah on Rosh Hashanah, still waiting for that golden moment when their Rebbe reveals himself as such?

 “Yet the fundamental question remains “What does the Lubavitch Movement believe in?" "

 After reading the correspondence subsequently published in the Jewish Chronicle, other articles published about and by followers of the Lubavitch Movement, having tried to discuss Lubavitch Theology with some of its followers, I consider that the United Synagogue would be well advised to treat Lubavitch with caution for the following reasons:
 On 22nd November, 1991, the Jewish Chronicle published a letter from a Minister of the United Synagogue, in which he too praised Lubavitch as one of the miracles of modern Judaism but continued “Unfortunately, the Judaism to be found in the writing of Chabad - Lubavitch is often a travesty of what most would believe to be the true spirit of our Torah.  It is possible, while being filled with admiration for the `public` face of Lubavitch, to feel deep anxiety about the `private` ideology which fuels its intense dedication".  He accused Lubavitch of being virulently racist and he gave examples.  He expressed the opinion that such racism is repugnant both to humanity and to common sense, is inconsistent with experience and is the opposite of true Judaism as expounded in the Torah and in our Ancient writings.  In support of his allegations, he also referred to the Tanya, the central text of the Lubavitch Movement, and to other Lubavitch Publications.

 On 29th November, the Jewish Chronicle published a reply from Dr. J. Immanuel Schochet, which attacked this letter but he then provided in full the quotation from the Tanya to which the Minister referred and which, in my opinion, fully supported the Minister’s allegation.  Dr.Schochet tried to justify the quotation by providing two explanations which I find to be mutually contradictory.  The first explanation is that the racist comments contained in the Tanya are also to be found in the same Scriptures and Talmud on which the Minister relied and are, therefore, justified.  His second explanation is that the quotation should not be taken at face value and does not really mean what it says.  I found the Minister’s argument far more compelling than that of Dr.Schochet.  In practice, and in spite of Dr.Schochet’s explanation, I know a number of Rabbis of the Lubavitch Sect who continue to preach the racist doctrine just as it appears in the Tanya.

 Two articles recently published, one by the Lubavitch  Movement, the other by a Rabbi belonging to Lubavitch, should also cause us to have strong reservations about Lubavitch Theology for I believe that they contain teachings which run counter to the three fundamental principles in which we Jews believe, namely:- one Omnipotent God, with all that this implies, Divine Revelation; Reward and Punishment.  These three principles are included on page 65 of the New Singers Prayer Book.

 The first article entitled “Divine Miracles are not past History" recommends that people study the “inner Mystical dimensions of the Torah - which prepared the world for the Messiah’s coming."  This is not “Divine Revelation" but “Divine Concealment" a Theology which, in the past, has often caused serious problems to Judaism.  As I mentioned in my letter published in the Jewish Chronicle on 15th November, 1991, there have been many psuedo-Messiahs who, by their mystical interpretation, erroneously foretold the coming of the Messiah, which, in many cases caused loss of life and fortune to their followers.  To give just two examples:-

 The Judaeo-Christians used the “mystical dimension" method of interpretation to justify the foundation of, and belief in, their Faith.

 Shabbetai Zevi and his followers, the Shabbetians, also adopted this concept of “mystical dimension" which resulted in some of them turning the Fast of Av into a day of feasting.  Others took up the idea of “redemption through sin" and even committed adultery to hasten salvation.  Others in more extreme circles followed Shabbetai Zevi himself into Islam.

 How different is this advice to study the “inner mystical dimensions" of the Torah from the advice given by Rabbi S. R. Hirsch and which was published in a leaflet prepared by the United Synagogue.  This stated “Only the place on earth where the last of his faithful words were heard by his people, is handed down with the most possible precision so that, if a later descendant of his people comes to this place, it may bring to him an echo of the words of Moses and inspire him to be a faithful follower of his people and for his people.  Rabbi Hirsch describes precise Divine Revelation.

 The second article written by a Rabbi of the Lubavitch Movement states quite explicitly that there is a Satan and that He has the power to effect people as though his powers were separate from God.  This Theology is not Monotheism; it is not a belief in one Omnipotent God.  It is akin to Gnostic Dualism against which the great medieval Rabbi and Philosopher, the Saadia Gaon argued so powerfully in his “Book of Doctrines & Beliefs".  The concept of Satan as an all powerful figure, almost a rival to the Almighty was part of the ancient Persian faith.  The Rabbis of the early Middle Ages fought against this anti-monotheistic heresy but in Russia and Poland their battle was almost lost.

 I must, at this stage, make it abundantly clear that I am in no way suggesting that the followers of the Lubavitch Movement are behaving in a manner as extreme as described above.  I wish only to show the dangers which have and can arise if one tries to delve into “the inner mystical dimensions" of the Torah.

 There are, however, some current Lubavitch practices which should cause us concern.  In an article about Lubavitch which appeared in the Jerusalem Post on 30th September, 1991, we read “Pictures of the Lubavitch Rebbe are a mainstay, not only of Chabadniks around the world but of countless religious people.  His photograph hangs in thousands of homes, produce stands, taxis, hairdressing salons ...... you name it, the Rebbe’s picture  is there in all shapes and sizes.  “I have a picture of the Rebbe in nearly every room in my house" a young Kfar Habbad resident said.  “Sometimes, if I am thinking about doing something that isn’t quite right, I will look at the Rebbe and decide against it.  It’s like having a bit of Holiness in the house."

 I know of another instance of a follower of Lubavitch, a rabbi, who kept a picture of the Rebbe in his child’s bed to protect her.

 There is also the Lubavitch attitude to the Messiah.  The belief in the Coming of the Messiah is an intrinsic tenet of our Faith, but, in my opinion, Lubavitch is creating Messianic Hysteria.  In the previously mentioned Jerusalem Post article, the reporter asked the leader of the public relations and publications department of the Habad Youth Organisation, whether the Rebbe could be the Messiah.  He replied, “I cannot tell you that it is the Rebbe, I know that he is a truly great person.  He is an incredible person and an incredible leader." Will he be revealed as the Messiah?  “Only the Holy One knows that.  I would not be surprised if he is the Messiah but I have no way of knowing that today."

 The Times Newspaper published an article on 29th August, 1991 in which the Habad’s Director of Humanitarian Relief, cited the Rebbe’s lineage to King David and his Spiritual and Leadership qualities. An advertisement published in the Jerusalem Post by Lubavitch informs us that the era of the Messiah is upon us and cites the happenings of 1991 as the basis of the belief in his imminent arrival. There are reports that 50,000 followers of Lubavitch erroneously predicted the Coming of the Messiah on or before Rosh Hashanah 1991.

 We should also be concerned at the practice of Lubavitch of recommending that one examines his Mezuzah in the event of ill-health or ill-fortune in the family.  This is treating the Mezuzah as a form of amulet.  The Mezuzah is a healer of the spirit and not of the flesh.

 Is this really the kind of Judaism which we in the United Synagogue want for our children and grandchildren?  A Judaism which promotes Racism; Satan; Amulets; Messianic Hysteria; where photos of the Rebbe  serve instead of the more traditional Tephillin, Tsitsis and Mezuzah, to remind its followers of the Mitzvot?  The Lubavitch Movement appears to have adopted many ancient superstitions.

 Many of us will recall the address delivered by our emeritus Chief Rabbi, Lord Jacobovitz at a symposium early in 1990 and printed in the Jerusalem Post on 19th September 1990, when he considered the parallel between the aftermath of the Holocaust and the Expulsion from Spain.  He said “The depression, the despair, following the disappearance of Spanish Jewry, in due course gave rise to numerous pseudo-Messianic Movements, all led by pretenders or charlatans whose amazing hold on the Jewish masses played such havoc with Jewish life."  The circumstances which the emeritus Chief Rabbi described have so often occurred after troublesome times in Jewish history that we must be on constant guard to ensure that it does not again happen following the Holocaust.  The emeritus Chief Rabbi has also been reported to have expressed his concern at the current resurgence of “Messianic Fervour".

 I would like to conclude by clarifying my own attitude to Lubavitch.  Just like the author of the the original article in the Jewish Chronicle and others, I share in the perception of a dedicated group of Jews seeking to preserve Judaism and giving Jews a religious meaning in a period of secularisation.  I also believe that they do a lot of good work.  I admire their energy, vitality and self-sacrifice.  I can, however, in no way share their Theology.  I have, over the past many years, enjoyed the friendly acquaintance of many Rabbis of the Lubavitch Movement and I believe that today I still enjoy the friendship of some of them.  I believe that it is possible to argue and disapprove of the Movement’s Theology whilst maintaining a friendly and respectful relationship with members of that Movement.  I have tried diligently to adhere to this principle.

 The reason for my wishing to start a wide-ranging discussion about Lubavitch is because some months ago, there were displayed in a United Synagogue foyer, the two leaflets previously referred to and which were given equal prominence.  I requested the Honorary Officers of the Synagogue not to distribute the Lubavitch leaflet for the reasons I give above.  They carefully considered my request but could not accede to it.  I then repeated the request to the Honorary Officers of the United Synagogue.  This request was acknowledged by them and they informed me that they had delegated one of their colleagues to discuss the matter further with me.  However, instead of discussion, I received a letter from him informing me that there was no purpose in continuing the dialogue.  I have since learned that this Honorary Officer, who took it upon himself to stifle the discussion, is a strong supporter of the Lubavitch Movement.  Hence my suggestion that it is timely to begin a full and wide-ranging analysis of the influence of Lubavitch within the United Synagogue.

 I am aware that, when quoting or summarising articles or correspondence, it is possible, inadvertently, to misrepresent the writer’s true intention.  If you consider that I may have done so in the course of this memorandum, please let me know and I will gladly send you photocopies of the originals.
 January 1992

 Addendum.  Extract of second Memorandum of March 1993
 In January 1992, I circularised a Memorandum suggesting that it was time to begin a full and wide ranging discussion concerning the influence of the Lubavitch Movement within the United Synagogue.  Much has happened in the interim.  Firstly, the United Synagogue set up a Review Committee under the Chairmanship of Mr. Stanley Kalms, to consider, in detail, its administration and structure.  When the Report was published, the Honorary Officers of the United Synagogue resigned and fresh elections were held.  It would have been wrong to continue the public discussion before giving our new Honorary Officers the opportunity of settling in.

 When the previous Honorary Officers received my first Memorandum, instead of referring it to the Chief Rabbi, one of them, a Lubavitch supporter, tried to browbeat me, whilst a second, also a Lubavitch supporter, arranged for a Lubavitch Rabbi, living in North America, to prepare a reply which was then circulated on official Notepaper as if it were accepted United Synagogue theology.  This increased my concern about the direction in which the United Synagogue was moving.

 The Memorandum of January 1992 received an interesting response; perhaps the most interesting item coming from a most eminent and respected United Synagogue personality. He stated that, before the first Lubavitch Rabbi was appointed, an understanding was reached with the Lubavitch Movement  that  “they would refrain from challenging or duplicating our communal establishment, whether in Beth Din matters, Kashrut, Shechita, etc."  He continued, “The one subject you left out is the Anti-Zionism of Lubavitch despite their militancy on Israeli policies‿. He reminded me of the argument which we had with them over the recitation of the Prayer for the State of Israel, upon which we insisted, now that it formed part of our statutory service.  He maintained that there were other more substantial examples.  From this letter, it is reasonable to imply that the appointment of the first Rabbi of the Lubavitch Sect was made reluctantly and probably only because of the acute shortage of Rabbis to fill the existing vacancies.  These arrangements were not known to many leaders of our individual Synagogues and must surely have been relevant considerations which they would have wished to take into account before making appointments.

 There are other aspects of Lubavitch theology which would have been known centrally, but probably not known to many of our local Honorary Officers and Lay Leaders which should also have been brought to their attention and should be taken into account before making a Rabbinical appointment.  Lubavitch theology as expressed includes, and I quote just three examples:-

 1.  “Rabbi Schneerson is King Messiah  - he will live for ever."   Prayers are currently being recited by followers of the Lubavitch Movement calling for the restoration of health to  “our King Messiah".

 2.  According to an article written by one of our Rabbis, a recent Lubavitch publication stated “Lubavitch is our Jerusalem, the Rebbe’s Shul is our Temple and the Rebbe the Holy Ark containing the tablets of God’s Torah."  This is a frightening and dangerous development.

 3.  Satan and the evil eye are present at our Synagogue services and can adversely affect those who transgress against Jewish customs as interpreted by Lubavitch.

In these days, when United Synagogue is battling for membership, we should consider what effect such theology might have upon our members and potential members.  Certainly, I for one, who might by the definition in the Kalm Report, possibly be included in the “Right Wing" of the United Synagogue, would not send my children to Hebrew Classes or Schools where they could be influenced by such theology.  This is something which was mentioned in the correspondence.

In the light of the United Synagogue’s current financial difficulties and a recent statement that Rabbis should try to attract new members for their congregations, would you please consider the following facts:-

 Some of our Lubavitch Rabbis are also associated with Lubavitch centres which contain Synagogues.  No doubt they wish to develop these Synagogues.  These Rabbis raise money locally to maintain these centres, often by donations from United Synagogue members.  Indeed, fund raising functions on behalf of Lubavitch are actively publicised in our Synagogues.  A Lay Leader informed me that he knew of members who had resigned from the U.S. and joined a Lubavitch Synagogue because of this close association.  How can the United Synagogue allow such conflicts of interest to exist?  Could it be that, wherever possible, Lubavitch is using its connections with the U.S. to strengthen its own Organisation?

 I have also received items from Lay Leaders and Rabbis employed by the United Synagogue supporting my views.  With one or two notable exceptions, they requested that their anonymity be respected as they did not wish to be `targeted` by Lubavitch in the manner experienced by our Emeritus Chief Rabbi.

 Our Emeritus Chief Rabbi often supported the Lubavitch Movement, but the Movement turned against him when they considered that he no longer served their purpose.  We now employ several Rabbis of the Lubavitch Sect.  Can we imagine the difficulties they will cause our present Chief Rabbi if he were ever to decide on a course of action with which the Lubavitch Movement disagreed?  I am not suggesting that our Rabbis should not be allowed to disagree with our Chief Rabbi, but such disagreement should be for the benefit of the United Synagogue and its members and not dictated by the Rebbe of the Lubavitch Movement.  With this in mind, the proposed draft agreement for Rabbis, as set out in the Kalms Report, should stipulate that the Rabbis’ primary loyalty is to the United Synagogue and its Chief Rabbi.

 I received a very angry letter from one of our Rabbis, a Lubavitch follower, who invited me to the leave the United Synagogue and try another Synagogual Body.  He accused me of “jealous crude prejudices and malicious instigation" and of persisting “in attacking Lubavitch while in the same breath trying to cover up pretending to be fond of their efforts."

 With this Rabbi and persons of similar opinion in mind, I repeat, in all sincerity, that I share with others the perception of Lubavitch as being a dedicated group of Jews seeking to preserve Judaism and giving Jews religious meaning in a period of secularism.  I believe that they do a lot of good work.  I admire their energy, vitality, and self-sacrifice but as I argued in my previous Memorandum, their teaching of Judaism promotes Racism; Satan; Amulets; Messianic Hysteria, where photos of the Rebbe serve instead of the more traditional Tephillin, Tsitsis and Mezuzah, to remind its followers of the Mitzvot.  The Lubavitch Movement appears to have adopted many ancient superstitions and in promoting Messianic Hysteria can cause damage to Judaism which similar Messianic Movements have caused in the past.
March 1993