Baila Olidort, Director of Communications at Chabad-Lubavitch World Headquarters, wrote the following op-ed in Haaretz.com:
In his response to a recent article in Commentary in which Jack Wertheimer examines the role of Chabad and its significant contribution to Jewish life today, Rabbi Eric Yoffie acknowledges many of Chabad’s strengths, but the purpose of his article in Haaretz, headlined “Chabad’s dangerous message of love without commitment” is, strangely, to raise alarm bells about Chabad.
Perhaps he means to humor his readers? It is hard to take seriously such a point from the past president of the Union for Reform Judaism, whose movement is now considering whether to officially accept rabbinical students who are intermarried. But he complains that Chabad teaches “love without commitment”!
Chabad – which has to its credit countless once-alienated Jews now committed to Jewish life and Jewish continuity- offers “feel good Judaism,” says Yoffie. He condescends to those who have been inspired to make profound, often difficult life changes as a result of Chabad’s outreach, which he pooh-poohs as shallow and fluffy: “Friendly is good, a little glitz is fine, and being non-judgmental has its virtues; but who wants to be part of a Jewish tradition that doesn’t ask anything of you?”
Would the Reform rabbi like to see Chabad be more aggressive in convincing Jews to commit to keeping kosher? Is he impatient with Chabad’s approach that encourages but does not coerce Jews to observe Shabbat?
This of course cannot be, because Reform Judaism has abrogated the commitment to halachic Judaism and is, according to one of its own rabbis, “on the verge of not believing in anything”. What commitment is his own movement promoting?
What does Rabbi Yoffie mean when he says, as he did in another article back in 2007, that Chabad represents “minimalist” Judaism because it does not make “requirements” of the parents of those celebrating their bar mitzvah? What requirements does the Reform movement make of these parents?
Membership fees. Though he denies it, protecting Reform’s membership model is Rabbi Yoffie’s only real concern. Chabad’s model, as he says, has “no use for hierarchy and bureaucracy,” and as a result many Jews are less inclined to pay heavy membership dues as a prerequisite to spiritual engagement. They want real Torah learning opportunities, a substantive Jewish experience, and meaningful connections as offered by Chabad. Is Reform Judaism willing to meet these demands?
This discussion is actually an important one, because outreach models are a reflection of the philosophical and ideological underpinnings of the organizations that adopt them. In looking at how an organization reaches out, communicates, and shares, we can learn a lot about its deeply held beliefs and attitudes, especially about how it perceives itself in relation to others. Anyone who is in the process of choosing a Jewish community will want to consider this.
In its contemporary manifestation, Chabad outreach was inspired by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, and almost 20 years after his passing it continues to draw from his teachings. In the early 1970s, the Rebbe launched popular mitzvah campaigns with young rabbinical students approaching strangers on the street, offering Jews the chance to don tefillin or light candles in honor of Shabbat.
This one-time invitation to do a mitzvah would lead to others, and then to a transformation in the lives of many who were headed in another direction. Many subsequently embarked on a journey that led them to marry Jewish, and raise children and grandchildren with strong Jewish identities, living lives deeply committed to God, Judaism and community.
But back then this method of outreach garnered mixed reactions. The most severe criticism came from other religious Jewish organizations (which ironically would later emulate the Chabad model) arguing that it is wrong to offer ignorant Jews mitzvahs unless they first satisfy certain conditions.
The Rebbe rejected this attitude. He found offensive the idea that “conditions” or “requirements” be met before helping Jewish people exercise their birthright. In his view, enabling someone to perform a mitzvah was no more and no less the fulfillment of the ethical obligation of hashovat avedah, returning a lost item to its owner. And you do not negotiate or make demands of the owner before returning his belongings to him.
So, it is true, as Rabbi Yoffie says, that Chabad makes no requirements or demands of those who come knocking. But there is deep humility in this approach, and this may be one explanation for the remarkable receptivity that Chabad enjoys. It is a shame that instead of applauding this as an example of unconditional acceptance while remaining faithful to the spirit and the laws of Torah, and teaching others to do the same, Rabbi Yoffie dismisses it, incredulously, as “a tradition that doesn’t ask anything of you.”
To be sure, supporting synagogues and Jewish institutions is a mitzvah, and Chabad needs and depends upon this support to continue its work sustaining and growing Jewish life around the world as it does. But tzedaka (giving) is an obligation established in the Torah, not in synagogue boardrooms. And no rabbi should be so presumptuous as to believe that Judaism – if that is what we are talking about – belongs to some Jews and not to others, that it may be gifted selectively by those who “have” it to those who pay for it.
In the Chabad worldview, such attitudes have no place in Jewish outreach. Finances are important, membership has its virtues, but Jews will continue to be drawn to Chabad because of the vibrant experience of living yiddishkeit that it offers: Torah study and Jewish education, the joy and warmth of belonging, of owning traditions and practices that keep us connected to family and community, to our history and to our future.
I don’t know why Rabbi Yoffie feels the need to spend time critiquing another branch of his own religion. Last I checked, he’s not been asked to oversee or evaluate that subject. Chabad does not travel the Reform route, and Reform does not travel the Chabad route! Good! There are weaknesses or issues with both! Better one’s own, leave others alone, or come together for a sensitive and honest discussion! Rabbi Yoffie is not an authority on Chabad, and visa versa! Can you tell….I found his post annoying!
I think Baila has done a great service to Chabad by writing this article, I’m becoming a fan! You can please everyone, and if you have any opinion you’ll always offend someone somewhere, like commenter # 12 etc… I’m wondering what #7 and #8 suggest as alternative solutions? when someone writes something like that against Chabad, should there be no reply?? Thank you Baila for writing the article and putting yourself at the risk of the peanut gallery crowd….
says it helped him a lot.
12 and 13 are lacking geon Yakov!
Has Mrs. Olidort written any books?
The Rebbe spoke about Mihu Yehudi or Shetachim did anyone get offended? To defend your honor you got to tell the truth.
Jews offended by this article, although it is preaching love to everyone.
It would be a defense of any other group. But to defend Chabad in the arrogant way the author does, assuming many things about the Rabbi she is attacking, does not portray “unconditional love”. Notwithsatnding his criticism, the Reform rabbi gave praise to Chabad for being “loving”, but this response makes you wonder “Did he give too much credit to Chabad?” If this author would actually love her fellow, I don’t think she would imply that the reform movement doesn’t believe in anything and the only thing it asks from its members is money. It is true that the Reform… Read more »
The ONLY commitment issue I see is commitment with people who become ba’al teshuva. When people first start out going to Chabad they get attention, scholarships you name it but once they become frum they are dropped. Not always and not everyone but that is the commitment issue I see.
Dear Shluchim and communities just because people became frum and are now committed to keeping the Torah and Mitzvos does not mean it’s time for you to drop your commitment to them.
So well written and the Chabad approach clearly defined.
to no 7 &8, Why should one keep quiet when being accused falsely???
It was HE who came out against Chabad and it’s model and i think the writer did VERY well clarifying the issues HE brought up.
Done in such a positive way! At the end of the day those who have negative things to say about Chabad are either ignorant or jealous. The Rebbes attitude was not to engage in argument as Truth Prevails.
Rabbi Yoffee has the right to choose his style of religion, Chabad has their right to choose their style of religion. I do not understand why anyone needs to critique, degrade, judge, or insult another way. Is there a point to that? Is there a reason why there has to be a better or lesser way than one’s own? G-d is One, no? But how can EVERYone be the same? Impossible! Is the issue one of ego, wherein one rabbi needs to win over another rabbi’s way? I see no point in it! Isn’t it one’s own choice or preference?… Read more »
All this senseless bickering is not helping anyone. Chabad is meaningful to some people, Reform Judaism is meaningful to other people. As long as both bring people closer to Judaism and to G-d (and they both do), then they are both positive movements. Sniping at each other is corrosive.
Until Rabbi Yoffee explains what commitments he is talking about that Reform parents have, I don’t under stand what he is referring to. Until he explains what commitments Chabad is lacking, I do not know what he is talking about.
Simply stupendous!
Yes, must by Leah O.
Leah, apparently, the writing talent runs in the family.
Mrs. Olidort is very eloquent and sharp at the same time. She makes a lot if sense in a sophisticated way.
A kiddush Lubavitch. Her response is reminiscent of the good ole days. Working with the elegant Rabbi Krinsky all these years surely shows.
Thank you for this response!