Chabad's Kiruv Double Standard: Outrage Over Being "Duped"

     By now you've probably heard about Baci Weiler, the University of Chicago student who was mistaken for a male by a Chabad kiruv worker who then went on to help her don tefillin. If you haven't, feel free to read the story here. Orthodox Jews consider the wearing of tefillin to be a male-only mitzvah, (commandment) despite stories that the daughters of Rashi, a well-known biblical commentator from the Middle ages, wore the little black boxes.
     As expected, much of the orthodox community--especially the Chabad community--is outraged  that an unsuspecting yeshiva bocher (student) was "duped" into believing that Ms. Weiler was a guy based on her haircut and clothing. It is the responsibility of the Chabad missionary to make sure he's practicing what he believes in the correct manner. It isn't the responsibility of the person he approaches to rebuke him, because many times, that random person on the street might not know the minutiae of Jewish law--or that there even is a law.
     As it turns out, Baci Weiler does wear tefillin on a regular basis, and obviously has no issue with egalitarian Judaism. And yet, many Chabadniks--the very people who publicly preach about loving all Jews, who often refer to the Lubavitcher Rebbe's belief that all Jews are like one body and each Jew is important, had no problem blaming Baci Weiler for "taking advantage" of this kiruv worker.
     Now, to be clear, I don't blame anyone. I don't believe that there was any wrongdoing in this situation. If anything, there was a misunderstanding. He offered, she accepted, she wore it, it was good. She posted a picture on social media, it got around. Now, many in the Chabad community are showing their true colors and rather than seeing the good (nothing bad happened, this woman's Judaism was inspired, maybe others might be inspired,) many are choosing to denigrate Baci Weiler. You know, blame the woman, the evil temptress who led the man astray--you know, the typical witch hunt accusations that have been tossed around throughout human history. But this isn't about feminism, right?
     I've provided a few screen shots of some of the comments from Collive.com, a Chabad community news site. There are some comments that genuinely reflect modern, progressive, and mainstream views. There are more that represent a community mired in both fear and ignorance of gender equality, feminist issues, and progressive thought. There are some people who feel bad for the yeshiva student. (Click pictures to enlarge.)

Click individual frames to enlarge.
From Collive.com.1

Click to enlarge photo.2

     The above are some examples of what people in Chabad are saying online. Baci Weiler did write an explanation on her public Facebook page, and I'm including that as well. Towards the end, she states:

On another level, and more importantly, the photo is powerful because it depicts an instance of accidental pluralism and of shared joy in the mitzvah of hanachat tefillin. It is a serendipitous glimpse of the world I wish I lived in: a world where both he, a bearded chabadnik guy, and I, a buzz-cut egalitarian girl, could be “frum”, regardless of gender or labels, equally bound by mitzvot.2

Baci's response sums up so many issues inherent in ultra-orthodox Jewish outreach.
     Within kiruv, there is a constant and deliberate white-washing of women's roles within the ultra-orthodox community. During the kiruv process, women are pushed into the community's rigid gender roles while receiving nice, stock answers about why women do certain things and not others, all while pushing them away from egalitarian thought and practice.
     Within kiruv, all are accepted as Jews, but Chabad (and other ultra-orthodox groups) do not recognize Reform, Conservative, and other liberal forms of Judaism as legitimate expressions of Judaism. The only pluralism that exists is the "accidental pluralism" that Baci Weiler experienced. Chabad writer Shalom Paltiel claims that "the problem is the labels" and asks:

Why can't we all just be "Jewish"? Why the need to label ourselves based on our level of observance?

It's true some of us are more religiously observant than others. Is that reason to categorically divide us into splintering groups? Let us each observe Judaism and its precepts to the best of our knowledge and ability, without the need of a name tag proclaiming ourselves a particular brand.
In addition to dividing us, the labels also limit our growth as Jews. Once we've been labeled, we no longer feel the need to learn more about our heritage than is typical for members of our particular group. Remove the label, and Judaism is yours to explore, completely and freely, without fear you might cross the line and observe some tradition that's not for your type.3

Click to enlarge.4

Sounds great in theory, and yet, there is no true freedom in a Judaism (or any religion, culture, community, etc.) divided by prescribed community gender norms and expectations.
In a letter from the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem Schneerson, dated July 21, 1959, it's quite clear that Chabad's official stance is that anything other than orthodox Judaism is heretical. To explain Paltiel's question regarding why we all can't "just be Jewish," it needs to be understood that according to Chabad doctrine, if you are born of a Jewish mother, you are Jewish, but your liberal denomination is not Judaism. Paltiel, Schneerson, the Chabad commenters, and many ultra-orthodox Jews do not recognize other forms of Jewish expression as Judaism, but rather, as heresy. Sure, they'll reach out to you and tell you that "we're all Jews" without a second thought as to the duplicitous nature of their own actions when they want a donation, or when they want to nudge you towards greater observance. What is being left out of all kiruv, is that these outreach organizations--including Chabad--don't, and won't, consider non-orthodox Judaism as legitimate.
     There exists a double standard within the Chabad community. Chabad missionaries deceive by intentionally withholding information in order to do kiruv, yet many in Chabad (and other orthodox communities) feel that Baci Weiler's choice to not reveal her gender was what was truly deceitful. Knowing what the Lubavitcher Rebbe preached, and knowing what his followers believe, I can only hope that those who are so outraged by Baci Weiler allowing this Chabad bochur to put tefillin on her, will take a good look in the mirror and realize that this is minor compared to the deception that they are perpetrating daily through the willful suppression of information that might change the minds and actions of the non-orthodox Jews that Chabad approaches.


Works Cited
1. Rabbi Calls Out Liberal Hypocrite. Collive. June 23, 2015
2. Weiler, Baci. Facebook post. June 23, 2015.
3. Paltiel, Shalom. Labels are for Suits. Chabad.org.
4. Schneerson, Menachem M. The Conservative and Reform Ideology. Correspondence by Rabbi Menachen M. Schneerson, The Lubavitcher Rebbe. July 21, 1959. qtd. on Chabad.org.
.

Partners in Intolerance, Part 1

The original email to Partners in Torah from Sholom R.
(Click to enlarge.)

 Several weeks ago, Partners In Torah's "Mentor Talk" email focused on an email sent in by an orthodox chavrusa [study partner] complaining that despite working with his partner for several years, his partner has made little progress and has not made any move to pull his children from public school and enroll them at least in a local non-orthodox Jewish day school. During the weeks that followed, Rabbi Meisels posted some of the advice that other "partners" sent in about this issue. Many were very adamantly opposed to public school, believing it to be a cesspool of immorality. Many expressed the same opinion regarding Conservative and Reform schools.
     What is especially upsetting in the original
email from "Sholom R." is that he believes that he has the right to insert himself into the decision-making process regarding how his study partner and significant other have chosen to educate their children. His non-orthodox study partner's decisions on how to educate his children "frustrates" him and he writes in, asking for advice on how to "get him to reconsider his decision." Ironically, the only word that comes to mind here regarding this email is "chutzpah."

Dov's response, part one. (Click to enlarge.)

     An emailed response from "Dov" on this issue prompted several responses to his take on this situation. "Dov" feels that no Jewish child should attend a public school. He elaborates in the second email to Rabbi Meisels, showing his clear lack of tolerance to anyone and any values that are not what he would consider to be Torah values. To him "the values being inculcated in the public schools are amoral to the point of immorality." In response to children in public schools learning about LGBT families, Dov claims that "militantly atheistic values utterly inimical to those of the Torah" are being promoted. He further claims that "public libraries have become mine fields to be negotiated cautiously," not considering that many non-orthodox families support libraries, public education, and liberal social values such as equality--the same equality that open-minded Jews supported back in the 1950s when fighting alongside civil rights activists for an end to segregation.

Dov's response, part two. (Click to enlarge.)

P.A.'s response. (Click to enlarge.)

    Taking this further was a response from P.A. who claims that "while it's true that public schools are bastions of filth ... it's naive to imagine that the problem does not exist in many Conservative, Reform, and pluralistic schools." P.A. then mentions that there is a "deviant lifestyle club" in a non-public, pluralistic school in his/her hometown. While I have my doubts that any school actually has a club that is called "the deviant lifestyle club," I find it very interesting that this writer is afraid to even mention the accepted name of this club. Is P.A. perhaps afraid that by saying "LGBT," he/she might catch a bit of gay? Perhaps P.A. is concerned that something will rub off on him/her. This blatant homophobia will be carefully hidden when learning with P.A.'s partner in Torah in order to keep the relationship growing. The people writing these responses to Rabbi Meisels of Partners in Torah are the same people who are getting on the phone with you, your college-aged child, your partner, and your friend, and exposing them to an orthodox approach to Judaism.

E.M.'s response. (Click to enlarge.)

     When you read E.M.'s response, it's easy to see the disdain that this orthodox partner in Torah has for the Conservative and Reform movements. From the condescending tone of the email to the insults hurled at Conservative and Reform practice, it's not hard to tell how those doing Jewish outreach feel about non-orthodox belief and practice. If you can get past the obvious lack of respect shown for non-orthodox Judaism, take a quick look at the bottom of E.M.'s email. E.M. states that even though "those who receive a Conservative education may be a few steps ahead if they pursue Torah-true living, they are often more difficult to bring closer to a Torah-true lifestyle, for they feel they know Judaism well and need not look into it any further." That statement right there is an admission that these "Partners in Torah" are there specifically to bring people to orthodox Judaism, which is what they consider a "Torah-true lifestyle."

"Public schools are a cesspool of immorality."
(Click to enlarge.)

     Another response given, in which the writer claims to be a public school teacher, mentions that public schools are "a cesspool of immorality and educate the children to believe that there are no absolute values, it's okay to "do your own thing," and all forms of self-expression are okay." He/she further states that, as a preschool teacher, "we are already expected to depict alternate lifestyles to the children and pretend they're legitimate alternatives." The writer continues to state that public school is "not the place for a Jewish neshama [soul.]" Having spent many years as a public school teacher, I find this to be both offensive and inaccurate. First of all, families come in all forms. Teaching children that some kids come from single parent households, some from homes with a mother and a father, some from homes with two fathers, some from a home with extended family, and some from homes with two mothers, should really be a non-issue. Secondly, some of these kids may even be Jewish. And it's even possible that the mom of the second grader to whom you're teaching the Hebrew alphabet is going to get off the phone with you and have a cup of tea with her wife before they go to sleep--together. This is reality. Nobody is pushing the writer of this email to have a same-sex relationship. The writer also shows his/her ignorance by assuming that people choose who they are attracted to. His/her very concern that Jews don't belong in schools where this is taught implies that perhaps they will be negatively influenced. Does the writer think that by teaching that what used to be considered a non-traditional family is finally acceptable, that kids will suddenly decide that they must marry someone of the same gender? Is this simply mass homophobia disguised as a justified concern for other Jews?

Response from a ba'al teshuva.
(Click to enlarge.)

     Finally, an email was sent to Rabbi Meisels from a ba'al teshuva (one who became religious later in life) who, I'm pleased to say, actually gave a response not based on intolerance, homophobia, and fear. The writer stayed on-topic and addressed the issue. This married couple asked several people for their responses and gave a summary of their answers, feeling that sending kids to Jewish (but non-orthodox) schools was good in that it laid a framework if they ever did become religious and that it also helped to prevent intermarriage.
     At this point in time, Rabbi Meisels has yet to give his own response to the question, and when that is sent in the weekly email, I will post it.
     It sickens me that Partners in Torah, might actually put mentors in place who omit information and are dishonest about their intentions and true beliefs. The word "partner" implies some sense of unity, sharing, and honesty. The orthodox side of this partnership has no problem sharing amongst each other their blatant intolerance for anything not orthodox. At what point in this Torah education partnership will they honestly share their true feelings for the beliefs and practices of those Jews who are not orthodox? And if they won't, what kind of partnership is this?

(image from photo-dictionary.com)

(You can read Part 2 here.)