Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
London – Over 50 Brighton and Hove Hebrew Congregation members are demanding an EGM to protest against what they see as anti-Lubavitch sentiments by the shul’s management.
They want Lubavitch rabbi Herschel Rader to be given a permanent contract when his temporary deal expires on November 1.
The synagogue board has refused to commit itself on a rabbinical appointment.
Speaking for the dissenting members, former congregation chairman Keith Davis complained that the board had ignored several requests for information and a meeting. “We took exception to some policy decisions,” he said.
Another concern of the group had been that a picture of the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem Schneerson had disappeared from its position of honour in the synagogue’s Mark Luck Hall.
Board chairman Russell Gross was saddened by the group’s demand. “I’ve already held three surgeries at the shul and nobody has raised these issues there,” he maintained.
“In addition, we have now formally invited Mr Davis to a meeting to discuss these matters.
“I do not know the circumstances of the picture’s disappearance from the Mark Luck Hall and we totally deny any form of prejudice.”
well, here we go again!!!
Chabad – don’t be nispoel, keep up your good work in bringing ppl closer to yiddishkeit
And what is wrong if the shul does not want to become lubavitch? This is not a chabad shul, and the Rabbi has no right to force the Rebbe down their throats.
This is not discrimination, but a legitimate choice. You can be lubavitch, but not in my shul.
Does every shul need to hang a picture of the Rebbe, and if not, they are discriminating?
If it’s not a Lubavitch Shul, then why should there be a picture of the late Lubavitch Rebbe? Also, in most shuls, no one gets a permanent contract, just a contract for a number of years with early termination provisions. What’s the fuss?
it may not be a lubavitcher shull but it looks like the congregation wants a lubavitcher rabbi.as for a permanent contract. why
I thought you weren’t allowed to have a picture in a shul.
Is this shul Jewish? or is it chabad?
You People make News Everyday…..
from NJ:
You are so ignorant. A picture of the Rebbe adds to people’s connection. Whether you are Lubavitch or not everyone can agree that the Rebbe was a uniquely saintly tzadik . A rabbis primary job is to share the yiras shamayim he recieved from his rebbe. Any shul that attempts to censure the rabbi sharing his message is not a shul. It makes no difference if he uses the pulpit or pictures to elevate the congregation. While it is true that there could be other reasons why the management doesn’t want to hire this rabbi, it is probably because they are anti chabbad. Many shluchim have told me how they are persecuted in their communities just for being chabbad. All they try to do is help bring people closer to the Rebbes teachings of ahavas yisroel. It is time to wake up and embrace these heroes in our midst!
To “From NJ”– your brief entry has revealed two things: your inability to accurately read a short article and your warped view of Chabad.
If you’d have taken a better look, you’d have read that the Rebbe’s picture was hanging in the Mark Luck Hall, NOT the shul itself. Next time read more carefully before misjudging and slandering a major sect of Yidden.
To anonymous 4:24. Name calling is not useful. Not all rabbi’s have “rebbes.” You are assuming that all shuls are hasidic. They are not. Pictures of the late Lubavitcher Rebbe can be particularly problematic due to all the connotations with chabad messianism. While I have nothing against Chabad, if they want to bring the message of ahavos yisroel and they believe a shul is the place for pictures, then put up pictures of non-chabad, non-hasidic leaders as well.
Anonymous Says:
from NJ:
You are so ignorant
************************************
Unfortunately, chabad seems to have an elitist attitude and they set them apart from the rest of Yiddishkeit.
Although the Rebbe was a good candidate for Moshiach, like Reb Moshe and many, many others, a new religion has arisen that beleives that the Rebbe will come back from the dead to lead us out of Galus.
Heresy! Aside from an oft quoted but misinterpreted Gemora in Sanhedrin, there is no basis for this new religion. Yiddishkeit has enough problems without a new moshiach claim coming up that will rip Yiddishkeit apart and make a chullul Hashem in the eyes of the goyim.
Anonymous 4:36:
I knew someone would bring bring up messianism and paint all chabbad in one brush stroke. The vast majority of chabbad are NOT messianic! Saying you have nothing against chabbad provides little cover for your slandering an entire group in klal yisroel.
Anonymous 4:59:
How dare you, in your own condescending and elitist manner, accuse others of what you are guilty of!? It is you who are trying to expell a group of from klal yisroel and blame it on your targeted victim. “It is their fault. They are elitists!” Shame on you! Before you accuse anyone of heresy check your own bein adam lechavero and see if you are even a greater heretic!
Anonymous 4:53: No slander was intended. If you read the comment carefully, you will see that it only refers to the connotations, and no one can dispute that there is an issue. The comment did not take sides on the issue. The point is, this apparantly is not a chabad shul, and the congregation should have the right to decide if it wants to become one or not, with all that that means.
Anonymous 5:06
I’m sorry about my tone. I see your point but I disagree that anti-chabbadism in not at play. Unfortunately it is so prevalent that it must be assumed to be at play until proven otherwise.
to the 2nd comment:
who said the shul wants to be Lubavitch? it’s just the fact that they find a Chabbad Rabbi to be more interesting. Once the shul puts up a photo of any special person they have a valid reason as to why they took it off.
to the comment from “NJ”:
who said the photo is in the shul itself?
by the way, the way you posted you comment shows that your really stupid
The picture is in one of the halls of the shul, not the shul itself! Read the article!
Anonymous 5:11: Thank you for your apology. If there was so much anymosity for this Rabbi because of his affiliation with Chabad, then wouldn’t it seem that he would not have been hired in the first place? Not every Rabbi and every congregation click for a variety of reasons, or there may be other rifts or power plays going on here. Those of us who are not part of this congregation are really not in a position to comment, or allege improper prejudice. This probably never should have been a news item in the first place since it just leads to speculation.
what kind of surgery is going on in shul aside for brisim?
they may like the RABBI but seeming they want no part of the REBBE.
If you could take Lubavitch out of Chabad, Chabad might be a great organization. As is ….. (nuf said)
I’ve met Rabbi Rader and he’s a top guy so I don’t doubt that he is able to fulfill his duties fully. As for whether the community want a Chabad rabbi, that is really a decision for them. Chabad rabbis tend to bring a dynamism and enthusiasm to their work. Some of their theological and halachic positions are questionable though:
“atzmus oomahus ,meluvash baguf”
dead messiah
“seudat shlishit”
dimensions of the menorah and hannukiah
Why is everyone getting all ruffled up?
The board will be the board.Those that are pro and those that are against. Everyone is just sticking up for what they believe is better for the Shul, etc.
Yes, where ever there is a Lubavitcher there is obviously going to be an Anti-Lubavitcher.
In most cases, it is a Lubavitcher that is willing to sign a “life time” contract in a small town Shul. That is what the Rebbe teaches his Chassidim to do. No Shul is to small, no Jews should be left out and not be given the oppurtunity to be a proud and practicing Jew.
No strings attached!
I think they shouldn’t give him a permanent contract, simply because those chabad rebbis they tend to live forever!
Why is there no photograph of the Satmar Rebbe in the Shul ? Is there anti=Satmar sentiment there perhaps ? Let us make a protest !
If there had been a picture of the Satmar Rebbe and it was taken down, that would be disrespectful. Reading and comprehension people.
This is absurd. If the shul has no shaichus to satmar or non-hassidim, then why on earth should it have their picture? If the Rav is a lubavitcher, which the whole shul wants as a rav, and the picture is in a hall which is 100% in line with shulchan aruch, then why not?
I’ll tell you why not. It doesn’t take much for chabad haters to show their true colors. It happened long before the moshiach controversy and continues to this day, just in a new form.
Why didn’t they have a photo of someone else, e.g. Rav Schach or Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l ?
The Shul is not a Lubavitcher shul, why was there only a photo of the Rebbe ?
I was also wondering about the surgeries taking place in the shul. No one seems too upset about THAT!
I learned in Litvishe Yeshivos all my life (I’m 35 now) and I remember being part of the “yeshivishe crowd” where we young Mesivta bochrim, in our naivete’, would bash the Rebbe, JB, etc. taking our cue from the “higher ups”. But now that I’m older and more mature (and in my mind, wiser) without the desire to be involved in the politics of Rosh Yeshivas, I’ve come to respect Lubavitch for what they do, and some individuals in particular. They do many great things for Klal Yisroel and have such love for Yidden I’ve never seen before (I’m not talking about the crazies).
So what’s the harm in keeping up a picture of the Rebbe that’s already been there for whatever reason? Klal Yisroel can learn a lot from him.
The chairman is holding surgeries, i.e. times when he is available for people to visit and talk with him, as in a doctor’s surgery.
As for the rest of it, this is a dispute between a group of congregants and the board, such as happens in any shul. The board is certainly entitled to take down any picture it likes – so long as it reflects the membership’s views. When the board misreads the membership’s views, then it’s up to that membership to correct it.
(This is all slightly complicated by the fact that this is not an independent shul, it’s part of the United Synagogue, so really all the hiring is done by the US, not by the individual shul’s board. But the US tends to accept the shul board’s recommendations unless it has very strong reasons not to.)
More achdus less narishkeit. Anything that’s ever been to a chabad house knows that there are never ch’v pictures inside the shul itself. This is a clear din and the Rebbe instructed many times such a thing is prohibited.
Why not put up a picture of the Satmar Rebbe? Why would you say that? Why don’t chassidim daven nusach ashkenaz? Because there’s no shaichus. If the rav wants a picture of the Rebbe nosi doreinu than what on earth could be the problem?
Stop looking for things to make machloikis about we already have no lack..
I really don’t understand why there would be a picture of the Lubavitcher Rebbe in a synagogue, not associated with Lubavitch.
I they hired a Lubavitcher rabbi to the apparently temporary position as rabbi, does he already have to hang a picture of the Rebbe there?
If I was a member of the synagogue I would feel that the rabbi is trying to ‘force’ his views on me.I would not give such a person a contract.Just my opinion.
Btw, I’ve never understood the Lubavitcher obsession with pictures of the last Rebbe:A)Isn’t it frowned upon, a bit at least, having pictures of people, the idea of ‘loh saaseh lecho pesel’ etc? I mean that such wholesale distribution of an image goes against the spirit of the law, even if technically you are not transgressing the prohibition of making a ‘graven image’.B)Even in Lubavitch it appears that the obsession is a new one, since pictures of previous rebbes of the Lubavitch dynasty are not widely dessiminated.
anonymous 7:30,
“Why is there no photograph of the Satmar Rebbe in the Shul ? Is there anti=Satmar sentiment there perhaps ? Let us make a protest!”
———
The Satmar Roov did not like having his picture taken, just like the current Viznitzer, Skverrer, Rachmistrivsker, and Kashaver rebbes shlit”a. The hard core Sakmer chasidim (yes, that’s the way they pronounce it.) do not have pictures of the Satmar Roov. If you posted a picture, they would protest, not because of it’s absence.
anonymous 4:50
“Heresy! Aside from an oft quoted but misinterpreted Gemora in Sanhedrin, there is no basis for this new religion.”
———-
Rashi, Sanhedrin 98b:
“If he is from the living(he would be)like Rabbeinu Hahadosh. If moshiach is from those that are living now it would surely be Rabbainu Hakadosh who suffered terribly and remained completely pious as it says in Baba Metzia (85a). and if he is from those that already died it would be Daniel Ish Chanudos, who was sentenced to tribulation in the lion’s den and was completely pious. and the wording “k’gon”
is not necessarily exclusive….”
If you don’t like that one you try the Yerushalmi Brochos 2:4. Very similar. The P’nai Moshe (The GR”A’s Rebbe) writes concerning Moshiach: “If he’s from the living.If he’s from the living, his name will be Dovid, if he’s from amongst the dead, it will be Dovid (hamelech) himself.”
As a side note, a friend of mine who is a talmid of Reb Dovid Feinstein Shlit”a, told me Reb Dovid doesn’t have a problem with mishechisten. Feel free to be frummer than Reb Dovid and continue to spew baseless hatred where you see fit.
I am not Chabad-in fact my opinions are very stong on certain aspects of Chabad.
However I knwo for many years Rabbi Rader- having worked with him- he is not the typical Chabad Rabbi, he does not use Chabad as a mechanism for bringong people closer to Yiddishkiet.
Brighten Shul is a regular Anglicised Shul, in an area that was once very stong in Yiddiskhiet that has now dwindled to struggle to get weekday Minyonim.
The previuos Rov was a Lubavitcher and had been there many years ( I suspect the Rebbe’s picture hung in the hall not the Shul was removed after he resigned about a year ago)he had set up a school and tried to ge a proper YTiddishe infrastuctre in place.
Rashi in Sanhedrin is pretty clear.
The kisvey arizal also states that mashiach must come from someone who will be revived from the dead.
For forty years, the Lubivatcher Rebbe z”l publicly claimed that his shver (the previous Rebbe) would be revived and cause the geulah.
I have always been curious as to why the world is obsessed with fighting about these inyonim…
“Matzahlocal101 Says:
anonymous 7:30,
“Why is there no photograph of the Satmar Rebbe in the Shul ? Is there anti=Satmar sentiment there perhaps ? Let us make a protest!”
———
The Satmar Roov did not like having his picture taken, just like the current Viznitzer, Skverrer, Rachmistrivsker, and Kashaver rebbes shlit”a. The hard core Sakmer chasidim (yes, that’s the way they pronounce it.) do not have pictures of the Satmar Roov. If you posted a picture, they would protest, not because of it’s absence.”
So why not a picture of someone like Moreinu Harav Schach זצוקללה”ה ? Maybe the Vilna Gaon ? Rav Moshe Feinstein ?