Prof. Marc Shapiro on Haredi Revisionist History, Spin and Covering Up For Gedolim

When is it proper not to tell the truth?

Luke Ford quotes Professor Marc Shapiro:

…"If you read my blogs, you’ll see that I am a relentless exposer of the fraudulence not just in the chareidi world but in the Modern Orthodox world. It all needs to be exposed. But that doesn’t mean that every simple person needs to know… As Rav Kook says, if they come into our world and try to affect us with their fraudulent stories, it needs to be exposed. But if they want to live by these bubbemeisers (old wives tales), that’s a way of life. I’m like Rabbi Slifkin in this regard. Only if it threatens to interfere in the wider community. And for the intellectuals. Anyone can go on the internet and find books by me and others.

"The son of the first Lubavitcher rebbe, Moshe, converted to Christianity. Any Chabadnik who’s intellectually honest knows this. Do I need to go to the simple Chabad person and start telling him this? They just can’t grasp this. I don’t believe in universal enlightenment. Universities used to be places for elites… In America, they got the idea that everyone needs a university education."

"It’s hard to know what lashon hara (gossip) is. You don’t really know what lashon hara is. I have read many letters of gedolim and they are full of negative comments about other rabbis, which you would say is lashon hara. As anyone knows, they badmouth them all the time. If you asked the rav, he would say it is not lashon hara. The Torah says you have to expose chanafim (hypocrites, flatterers).

("The admonition to expose hypocrites is stated in Yoma 86b where it is derived from [the legal category of] Chillul HaShem" emails Marc in reply to my question.)

"We are supposed to expose hypocrisy. I would say that if you asked all these rabbonim who say terrible things about other ones and were great talmidei chachamim, if you asked them, they would say it is not lashon hara, but he’s a fraud and I have to expose him. It could be that he’s not a fraud and that it’s just a personal dispute.

"I don’t think it’s lashon hara to talk about a dispute that the whole world knew about and it was in all the newspapers… If a certain rav did a bad thing. There’s a rav, not a gadol of the first calibre but of the second calibre, but he had a child out of wedlock when he was about 17 and in yeshiva. About 20 years ago, one of the Israeli newspapers exposed him and published the birth certificate. I think that’s a terrible breach of privacy. He made a mistake when he was young. I don’t think it’s anyone’s business. I would never expose something like that. If I knew about it, I would probably choose not to write about him because how could you write about him and not talk about it?

"If there was a case like this where he abandoned the girl and wanted nothing to do with them and then he became a big scholar, a Talmud Chacham, a posek, I don’t think that’s lashon hara. This would be an example of exposing the hypocrites."

"I try to balance Jewish values with secular values. As a secular historian, you go into a grave and dig up the body if you need to. They dug up Zachary Taylor’s body to see if he was poisoned. I would have no problem as a secular historian if I was writing about a figure like Einstein, but among gedolim, I do not do that. I can honestly say that I’ve never had to make that choice with Rabbi Yaakov Jechiel Weinberg. I would rather not write about somebody than have to cover something like that up… Certain great rabbinic figures, I would treat differently than other figures. If that is not in correspondence with historical [analysis], what are they going to do? Take my tenure away? Life is not only about historical craft."

I find this troubling. Shapiro has no way to know what will be historically or communally significant years from now. His job as a historian should be to tell the truth. At the same time, his job is to put that truth in context.

If someone is still living – that rosh yeshiva who fathered a child out of wedlock at 17, for example – there is room not to write about it unless there is something very important about that story that needs to be made public.

But there is little if any room for doing the same for current gedolim or other leaders and there is certainly no room for this type of coverup if these leaders have passed on.

The difference between a truth seeker and an ideologue is that a truth seeker draws conclusions based on the evidence he has; the ideologue draws his conclusion and then finds the evidence to support it. 

A professional historian should be a truth seeker.

I think we would all be much better off if we followed the truth seeker model and relied on historians like Shapiro to give context to that truth.

Yes, some of our dreams and closely held beliefs may be shattered as a result, but I believe the people we become and the Judaism we follow will grow stronger and clearer as a result.

That rosh yeshiva who fathered the child out of wedlock at 17? I know of another rosh yeshiva who did the same – except his wife / live in girlfriend was not Jewish. In fact, she was an African American Christian. This guy was a Chabad hasid, and the Rebbe sent Rabbi Hodokov to fetch the guy and bring him to the Rebbe. The Rebbe convinced the future rosh yeshiva to abandon his wife and child and return to Chabad. I'm told he never saw that child again. He married a Chabad woman who is to this day extremely racist as are her children. These children – now married adults – may not–even realize where their mother's racism comes from.

Should I report the story in full? Should I give his name?

I choose not to do it. For years I did not tell or write the story. But there is a purpose to telling it even in this edited form. Chabad is inherently racist. Its theology demonizes blacks (more on this in another post soon) and it calls for complete abandonment of non-Jewish children fathered by Jewish men.

I know a Chabad rabbi who, before he was Orthodox fathered a child with his non-Jewish wife. The rabbi has been a Chabad hasid for 20 or more years and by rabbinical advice (I believe from the Rebbe) has no contact with his first (non-Jewish) child.

Fathering children means accepting responsibility for those children. Children need financial security, protection and parental love.

Instead, based on a Chabad hasidic teaching, Chabad rabbis are known to tell fathers of non-Jewish children to pray for those children's deaths.

(To PC this up, sometimes these rabbis say to pray that the non-Jewish children choose on their own to convert to Orthodox Judaism. To their credit, most Chabad rabbis wisely avoid the subject altogether.)

It takes a certain type of cultlike personality to abandon your small child on the orders of a rabbi. Of course, it's that same type of cultlike personality that allows Chabad to send rabbis to tiny outposts all over the world.

Perhaps a professional historian should explore all this and put it in context for us. The two rabbis I mention may not be gedloim, but their lives shed much light on Chabad today.

[Hat Tips: Joel Katz, Yisroel by the Bay.]

Comments

[omg]

I'd like to know what happens to these children abandoned by their fathers?? Depression? suicide? what kind of a f--ked-up attitude is that, to abandon your own flesh and blood that you fathered?? leave the mother and child?? because you fooled arouond with a non-Jewish woman, maybe even loved her and had a child, so you should just leave them?/ This part of chabad I cannot stand. G-d cannot look kindly at the abandoners, Jewish or not. Mean-spirited and really horrific, ruining the lives of others so you can walk stain-free?? Ultimately selfish point of view, pains me to think that this is supoorted and thought to be correct, inflicters of pain upon others. Not torah-esque!

[jake]

What do shlumchim do if a non relgiouse Jewish man married to a gentile,wiht a child, starts getting involved with a Chabad center?

I beive sometime in the last year I read about aChabad Rabbi encouraging giving the non Jewish child of a Jewish man a Jewish eucation because the child has a special status of being from zerah kodesh.Any info about this concept?

I know a woman who married a Jew.After they got married they started becoming relegiou s and she under went a Orthodox conversion. No you can definetly consider her cHAREDEI.Several of her younger children converted WITH her.A child from a previouse marriage did not convert.this woman loves all of her children Jewish and non and her Jewsih grandkids and non Jewish grandkids.

Non Jewish daughter recently came to visit her in her Israeli charedei community. no problems.

[Marc Shapiro]

Hi,

I just saw your comment. What I was trying to say (and you have to hear it, as reading a transcription of a lecture does not always come off so good) is that there are times when I would choose not to write about a certain figure. If I didn't think I could do an honest job, and to do an honest job meant to slaughter some sacred cows, I might choose not to write about this topic. I choose what topics to deal with. I don't have to discuss every historical personality. If I am uncomfortable with dealing with a certain figure, for whatever reason, there is nothing wrong with choosing not to deal with him. What would be dishonest would be to write about X and cover up certain things. Then you would not have an authentic portrayal. But what is the problem with choosing not to write about something?

Here is an example: If I was writing a biography about politican X I would report about the child he father out of wedlock and supported throughout his life. But if a great rabbi (not one of the phonies) made this mistake, and lived up to his responsibilities, I wouldn't want to make this public. I wouldn't want to tear him down. But I certainly couldn't write a biography about this person and leave out this information. So the answer is not to write about him.

Many archival collections have restrictions barring access until after the death of an individual or sometimes even many years after the death. This is not in opposition to any historical standard. That was my point

[Ben]

The Lubavicher Rav who abandaned his child fathered with a black Christian woman, looks much like our president Obama's black muslim father who abandoned a child that he fathered with a white Christian woman.

[Chicago Samson]

Very sad story--one which I know firsthand as well; some of my friends over the years many of whom later became ba'al teshuva in Chabad were told to basically disown their children--and so they did .... I think this is more a problem with male ba'ale teshuva, but I may be mistaken.

Praying for their death? I have only heard that to be the case if the child is a mamzer, but this is definitely something I have not heard of before, but I wouldn't be surprised by it either. Nothing Chabad does now really surprises me because of the chaos that now exists within its ranks.

Can someone show me in Chabad ideology where the Rebbes actually encouraged their followers to do such a hideous thing?

I think this is a tragic story and it reveals the level of dysfunction that exists in many of these communities--Chabad and Haredi alike, where "looking frum" is a higher priority than "being good." Gevalt.

WRT to converts, Chabad does not encourage them to remain in close contact with their family of origin either.

[pierre]

This "truth for the masses" and the "truth for the enlightened" does cut both ways. There are respectable disputations between theists and non-theists in the academia, thoughtful, dialogues between religious/non-religious scientists who believe in the deliverances of reason and in revelation - but many of the philosophical settings for the DISCUSSION of principles of religious life and belief are rooted in *general* philosophy; i.e., the doctrine may be Jewish in origin, but the formulated *argument* for it is made in non-Jewish setting. Much of Orthodoxy has cut itself off from both the give and take of the exchange, and when it has engaged in the exchange, it is often cut off and ends with a few thinkers in cloistered settings. Of the Jewish movements that fractaled out of the impact of modernism at different times, I primarily blame Orthodoxy for convincing Jews that things must be 'untouched' by humans and the facts of human life, must be 'unchanging' to be sacred or holy. Truth can be tainted or by falsehood, revelation soiled OR spoiled by thoughtless OR over zealous custodians. As a result, any movement speaking of "tradition and change", of evolution, is a comically embarrassing Frankenstein dabbling in genetic engineering, and anything claiming to be "timeless and uncompromising" shows itself to be DATED and *compromised* by revisionism. Something can true, may be Torah eve, but that doesn't make it [currrently] kosher...let alone Charedi.

[Archie Bunker]

Shmarya, think about it.

Is it possible that you might have fathered some children with Black women of which you are not even aware?

You might want to investigate this lest you be a hypocrite in abandoning your own half-breed spawn!

[omg]

lol archie. You're a pisser!!!!and what I mean by that is the only way to take you is to laugh at your jokes.

[Reb Doniel]

Oy vey.

He's back!

G-d help us.

[Jack Bauer]

Archie,

You make no sense , why Shmaria should go and invesgtigate it? . No one goes to all the girls who he slept with and ask. If a girl would come to Shmaria and says ‘That your bambino; then he will have to deal with that.

[The Monsey Tzadik]

You should report the person who had a child fron a wedlock which he abandoned . At least the state can sue for back child support

[Yochanan Lavie]

The more I learn of Chabad racism, the more I sm surprised that they in fact have some black converts. What gives?

[Archie Bunker]

Shmarya won't tell you that once a person converts, the religious community views them as having a Jewish soul like everyone else. There is even a rosh yeshiva of a BT place in Israel who is married to a Black convert. But if Shmarya mentioned that it would undermine the sinister picture of the orthodox he is trying to paint.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Archie; I know Orthodoxy accepts African American converts, as does Chabad. But I think Chabad is different from mainstream Orthodoxy. That's why I'm surprised.

[Dr. Dave]

YL - how about a song:

Archie's back and there's gonna be some trouble.

Oy vey, oy vey, He "don't" like blacks.

[Archie Bunker]

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xstpe_mark-morrison-return-of-the-mack_music

Oh, oo-o-oh, come on, ooh, yeah
Well I tried to tell you so (yes, I did)
But I guess you didn't know, as I said the story goes
Baby, now I got the flow
'Cos I knew it from the start
Shmarya, when you blocked my IP
That I had to come again, and show you that I'm real

(You lied to me) all those times you said that you don't censor
(You lied to me) even though you know I'd set the record straight for you

1-(Return of the Arch) it is
(Return of the Arch) come on
(Return of the Arch) as Doniel said: oh my G-d
(You know that I'll be back) here I am
(Return of the Arch) once again
(Return of the Arch) pump up WSC
(Return of the Arch) watch my flow
(You know that I'll be back) here I go

So I'm back up in the game
Running things to keep my swing
Letting all the people know
That I'm back to run the show
'Cos what you did, you know, was wrong
And all the nasty things you've done
So, Shmarya, listen carefully
While I sing my come-back song

2-(You lied to me) 'cos you said you'd never delete free speech
(You lied to me) but you did, but you do
(You lied to me) all the anti-orthodox hatred you said you never feel
(You lied to me) you do, you do, do, do

(Return of the Arch) here it is
(Return of the Arch) hold on
(Return of the Arch) don't you know
(You know that I'll be back) here I go
(Return of the Arch) oh how you tried to keep me out
(Return of the Arch) what's with lies against the orthodox you tout?
(Return of the Arch) up and down
(You know that I'll be back) round and round
(rpt 2, 1)

(You know that I'll be back) don't you know

(Return of the Arch) here it is
(Return of the Arch) hold on
(Return of the Arch) to point out your wrongs
(You know that I'll be back) here I go
(Return of the Arch) after banning me as would a little girl
(Return of the Arch) Shmarya and his fans can go hurl
(Return of the Arch) up and down
(You know that I'll be back) round and round

[Chicago Samson]

So Archie does rap too? Glad to see you again!

[maven]

Oh, good, hopefully AB will increase the amounts of actual texts he quotes and decrease the amount of racist venom he used to spout.
Saying something positive about an AA giyoret was certainly a step in the right direction.

[Reb Doniel]

I don't like being misquoted.

I said G-d help us.

For you, I wish you the czar's brocha from Fiddler on the Roof- Keep Archie far, far away from us.

[Yochanan Lavie]

DD: I aready did an Archie's back parody.

[yidandahalf]

I am also glad to see Archie back. He will have his work cut out for him digging up the shit on the Rubbishclan. Don't disappoint us, Archie!

[Yochanan Lavie]

Welcome Back Archie (apologies: John Sebastian)

Welcome back,
Your screams were your ticket out.

Welcome back,
To that same old site that you kvetched about.

Nu, the names haven't changed since you posted here,
And those bloggers remained and that's very clear.

Who'd have thought we'd see ya (Who'd have thought we'd see ya)
Back here where we need ya (Here where we need ya)

Yeah we tease him a lot cause he's got us bothered hot, welcome back,
Welcome back, welcome back, welcome back.

[alternative childcare]

YL: "need ya" may be pushing it :)

[maven]

AC: yes, "back here where we reamed ya" may be a truer rhyme.

[Wondering]

Dr. Shapiro wrote: "and lived up to his responsibilities, I wouldn't want to make this public. I wouldn't want to tear him down. But I certainly couldn't write a biography about this person and leave out this information. So the answer is not to write about him."

Why is that the answer (to not write about the person at all)? If he DID live up to the responsibilities, why not write about him and simply omit that bit of information so as to not "tear him down" ?

Does this mean you only write about rabbinic figures who engaged in scandalous and outrageously improper behavior, ...or those whose sins you cannot perceive and appear on surface level to be faultless in life?

[Shmarya]

It means you write the truth and let the chips fall where they may.

Some rabbis will be near faultless. Other, less so.

That is what objective scholarship means. And that is exactly what the haredi would does not do.

[Ben]

I see one serious fault with professor Shapiro's approach. He would not write about a famous rabbi in cases when he knows some serious wrong exist but he doesn't want to disclose it.

This approach is one of the subtle ways to develop revisionist history. All the books available on the market, about all the rabbis will show all of them as faultless, excellent and upright individuals. The books about their shortcomings will not be written and we'll end up with totally false picture of our past.
How can future generations earn from our history if we would not know it? (false picture is worse then no picture at all)

[Wondering]

Shmarya you missed my point.

This "approach" is not just writing the complete truth. It omits certain figures who were involved in certain types of controversial matters but nonetheless "did the right thing". This basically amounts to a situation where if a certain great rabbi lived a great and honest life but happened to have one unfortunate circumstance or "uncomfortable scenario" present it itself in his lifetime, to which he responded in an appropriate manner, "historians" with this "approach" as you and Dr. Shapiro have described will avoid writing about said rabbi altogether.

I just don't see the point of that.

[Michael Makovi]

Archie,

It shouldn't take a conversion to give a person a Jewish soul. (Actually, they don't say the conversion gives them a new soul; rather, the conversion proves that retroactively, the person had a Jewish soul all along. Well, at least until Rabbi Sherman comes along...)

But it shouldn't take a conversion to do this. What happened to "sefer toldot adam"?

When one read Rabbi Hirsch's saying that the more Jewish one is, the more universalist he'll be ("Religion Allied to Progress" and "Judaism Up-to-Date"/"The Jew and His Time"; and when one reads Rabbi Benzion Uziel, who says that Judaism respects gentiles and their learning by virtue of our common mission of tikkun olam (see Rabbi Marc Angel's Loving Truth and Peace: The Grand Religious Worldview of Rabbi Benzion Uziel), and when one reads Rabbi Yom Tov Schwarz's unequivocal pesak of Meiri on page 17 of Eyes to See (he doesn't even leave room for a hava amina that perhaps Meiri is not halakhah l'maaseh); and then one reads everything else out in Orthodoxy today, one realizes we're dealing with two different religions.