I am at a loss for clear thought on how to approach a tough issue. I hope this is the right forum for discussion. I live in a small town with one OU Shul and one Chabad. Given the relatively small amount of Torah Jews here, I am stunned to see the lack of unity in the community. No one person is at fault and no one group. However, I have my opinions which will be kept to myself as to who might want to undertake a little introspection. How does one work with a community which is divided amongst itself? The two shuls rarely share in anything and one shul even has two full "camps" of people. Perhaps I am just venting, but I would like to hear thoughts on this issue. Given the struggles of Torah Jews in small communities, I am frustrated by what I see. There are some very special people here and great souls but how do we live an example to others when we cannot even get along internally?

I think part of the problem, and thus I really don't see it as too much of a problem, is when something is so important as how Judaism is supposed to be run, it means something to people, so they try to change it to how they understand it should be done. This is the reason that we think commercials like fighting over taste great and less filling is humoures, since it really doesn't make any difference to people. If someone sees someone or oganization do something that is questionable in his eyes, is he supposed to keep quiet to keep the peace or is he supposed to take a stand on it? It would depend how bad the thing he was doing, but it's not simply let's avoid arguments at all costs.

Are you saying that all the discord among Orthodox Jews today are LeShem Shamayim?

First I'd like to point out we're talking about organazations and sects and not individuals.

Secondly, I would like to point out, I'm talking about the side that protests (which is the one making the fight) and not necasseray the side that does the questionable act.

With that out of the way, I would like to say that the protesters are doing it, or at least under the impression they're doing it, Lshem Shamayim (though it would be easy to fool oneself to think it's Lshem Shamayim, even if it's not)

In both organazations mention before, there are people who raise valid questions about what they do. I can imagine both have a lot to question the other one.

I apologize for not providing more specifics. I have been distracted of late but hope to shortly post some concrete examples of my issues in a manner that maintains the anonymity of those involved.

RAV Chayim,
You should call yourself R Yisroel Emir or R Levy Yitzchok
for the Chofetz Chayim who only spoke good or the 'berditshover' who only saw the good to begin with. I am afraid if we want to improve ourselves we must first hold up an honest mirror.
Only 200 years ago in lithuanian russia there were suspicions of greater issues the those found within today's OU or Chabad.
yet your name sake R Chayim of Valozhin found ways of making peace.
(the gravity of accusations in those days was such that separation even to the point of not davening w/ a MINYAN was a tool for peace, to avoid the DEATHS that took place earlier!)
at first there was total separation, misnagdim were not allowed (by their own rabbonim!) to enter chasidic shuls - even to save a relative who was in danger of joining the 'cult' (SIC) and vice versa chassidim were told (by their own rebbe!) not to enter 'nusach Ashkenaz' shuls
the gedolim kept in secret contact (hence anyone who studied the sforim of both can see ideas borrowed, without being refuted) and within one generation the ban was removed and not only were they allowed to daven in each other's shulls but rav chayim's son reb itzelle of vallozhin met publicly with a chassidic (actually LUBAVITCH!) rebbe and worked on the same side as him against some of the students of talmidei hagra!!!
(NOTE: MUCH of this was told to me by a member of the soloveitchik family who has a tradition in his family that in zchus of being the 'oseh sholom' reb chayim became the progenitor of a dynasty of talmidei chachomin like none of his contemporaries, I was not able to verify that last bit of info and rav sternbuch would seemingly be disproving that. hasn't his lineage all the way up also been as illustrious? if anyone can inform me as a matter of historical interest I would be highly appreciative)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Rabbi Hillel,

Rav_Chayim:
one other VERY IMOPORTANT point
machlokes between jews, although it usualy might not be l'shem shomayim but we know it is negative and we try to lmake peace or let it die
the problem when it gets to be an inter-commmunity machlokes is that people delude themselves to think it is lshem shomayim (or maybe really mean it lshem shomayim) and thus have no incentive to ever settle the machlokes. We know from creation of the world that any machlokes even for the most sublime reason as the necessity to divide the testerial waters from the waters above, does not have hashem's seal of goodness (vayar hashem ki tov)
or to qoute one of the g'dolim most of the tzaros we suffer is from a machlokes lshem shomayim, may heaven spare us from that.

But on the other side of the coin, what do you do when someone is doing something that is not right? Are we supposed to let it go by without a peep? Peace is important, but is it so important you must have it at all cost?

the question is a valid and important one
the answer however is very obviously not these splits because they only serve to perpetuate the problem and cause the one who were previously erroneously misbehaving to be deliberate entenched in their positions.
usually by approaching the rabbi of the individual or community involved quietly (or the central authority elsewhere is the rabbi himself is the problem) the matter is easily solved.
not allways quickly but it is better to solve the matter completely over a year or two (or more if really necesarry) then have a quick fix which though it is instant - "they" arent realy obsevant and the fact that we are no longer in the same shul proves it - but then causes some to remain at that position and newer or less informed member will think both are valid positions acc. to torah (assuming of course you are reffering to things which are contrary to shulchan aruch, if it's only you hashkofo that isn't comfortable with it, then grin, bear it and in the wya of torah have it out discuss and argue over it. the litmus test is if the end result is shalom then it was truly a torah issue as it is written 'es vahev besufa' (=love is it at the end of a torah war) and if there isnt shalom then ...
may we have the prophet eliyahu come soon to answer all out torah question for all the teiku's and machlokes' of our times

I have to disagree with you on this matter. It’s wishful thinking that everything would come out to satisfying results by spending enough time explaining to the other person why he’s wrong. This is seldom the case. Most people (that come up with controversial ideas and actions) have a certain agenda to do, and they’re not too interested for someone to give any advice contrary to their beliefs. (B”H I don’t have much to do with the community politics, but what I see from an outsider plus the personalities that are involved, I don’t think talks would do it.) They know more than everybody else and they are going to do what they want whether they have your permission to do so. (After all, their opinion is as valid, because of “Eilu V’Eilu) Besides, Treifa Hashkafas are Treif and they leave Treifa results in actions. Meanwhile, many bystanders would follow Treifa Shitas, since they don’t know any better, since nobody said boo about it. BTW, you can’t prove what pushes off Eliyahu more, speaking out or keeping quite

We can't condone a wrong action, but what harm is there in showing friendliness and ahavas yisrael to the perpertrator of the action?

I think our universal problem - as ***s; as human beings; as G-d's partners in Tikkun Olam - is that we assume that if the other person's opinion does not coinside with mine, then he has to be wrong. As a result, instead of listening to why the other person thinks he is right, we start explaining to him why he is wrong. But how do we know that? We've never been under that other kippah. We've never worn that other person's shoes.

It is relatively easy to defeat the attacks from so called messianic Judaism, or from Mormons, or whoever else: their logic comes from a premise that is not our premise. In logic, there is a theorem that says, if your premise is wrong, then you may or may not arrive at the right final conclusion by making all the right intermediate conclusions. As a corollary, if your premise is right, and you make all the right intermediate conclusions, you are guaranteed to arrive at the correct final conclusion.

Sorry about milmul hamuach with all this mathematics, but let's face it. We are each at a certain (his or her own) stage in our development to understanding Hashem's Word. We all have our different paths. We all have different lifestories to share and lifestories to keep to ourselves. From my position, how can I understand the position of someone who like Moses conversed directly with Hashem? I may think - from my standpoint 3,300 years later - that the punishment he meted out upon the Midians was too harsh. But from his point of view, I don't think it was. And he was right in doing so, because the only way to stop the plague in absense of medication (antibiotics ?) is to kill the hosts of the disease. It was a tough decision that need to be made, and we were blessed by Hashem to have such a leader who could make such decisions and carry them through.

Was Pinchas right or was Pinchas wrong? Was Rachel right in stealing her father's figurines? Was Abraham right in telling the Pharaoh and Avimelech that Sara was his sister? With Avimelech, it almost caused a disaster. Was Yaakov right in stealing all rights from his brother?

Not by chance does Bil'am say that Hashem "did not see dishonor in Yaakov and did not see evil in Israel" (Bemidbar, 23:21)

The point of my long speech is that we need to think about the other person's position. When the other person says that we are wrong, what's our reaction? Not much different from a child. We plug our ears - figuratively. It is not going to change our mind. It is not going to win him the argument. And it is definitely not going to bring shalom al yisrael.

And please don't try to tell me I am wrong in this speech

To start at basics, I think it is safe to say that not all opinions are worth listening to, and definitely not to give it a second thought. To go to the extreme (and I’m not comparing anybody to him, I’m just trying to make a point from using the extreme), let say Hitler. Hitler wrote a whole book explaining why his plans are the best for humanity. Did Hitler think himself as the epitome of evil? Of course not. He thought that humanity should owe him their appreciation for what he did. But yet, you would agree that his ideas should be dismissed out of hand, since they are wrong. No discussion needed. No think tanks, no meetings. He’s unequivocally wrong. So there is no such thing as a universal rule that all sides must be given credibility.


Then on the other hand, there are others you may disagree with, but you realize that the other side has valid points, and you know your opponent to be a respectable person who’s whole purpose is to find the truth. Though you may disagree in a certain area and feel that your proofs outweighs his, never the less, there is no personal problems and you allow him to follow his own reasoning (after you exhausted trying to convince each other.)


Then there is more of a gray area. Once you move over the spectrum from Hitler to let say Arafat, so not everybody would say that he was completely bad. Some people would suggest that his cause was just and he was a freedom fighter. (I remember an interview with him with Time Magazine a few decades ago where he compared himself to George Washington.) There are even Jews that hold this position, either completely or partially. I myself feel it’s complete bunk, no reason even to think into it at all. It’s simply a wrong part of an issue. I feel that it’s all propaganda without any substance. I feel that their side is presented in a way that a lawyer would present if the client doesn’t have a good case, just try to confuse the issue. Nobody there is trying to get it right. I feel it’s because they can fool the public that feels that all sides have to be somewhat right, thus giving weight to any side of an issue, no matter how preposterous it is.

So as this is an example, there are many issues which seem in the gray, as it refers to religious issues. But there are many that are simply wrong and there are no excuses for it. It’s not necessary because it’s not my opinion. It’s because it’s blatantly wrong. That it’s blatantly wrong may not be obvious to all (though in some cases it will be.) But the experts in the fields can pick it up a mile away. I’m sure in your field you can pick out who’s ideas have merit and which people are just being a Drei Kup (really not making much sense.) Yet, to an outsider, he couldn’t tell the differences between the two. Even in my own development, I find myself understanding more about the right way as I progress, and the gray area gets less and less. I’m someone who’s can’t decide thing easily because I see 2 sides of an issue too much. But I get to see much clearer what is a proper side and what is just a distortion, whether it comes to an explanation in the Talmud or in religious practice. Thus for things that seem as a distortion, I can’t give it any creed.

To end up, it’s not a clear rule whether you must give credence or not to an opposing view. Some have merit, some don’t. Thus sometimes you need to accept the other view as a valid view, sometimes not. The more experience you have in the field, the easier you can figure out what is valid and what is bogus.

Rav Chaim, as always, with all due respect, you seem to be responding to the wrong thesis. Hitler, Arafat, Amlaik - who cares? There will always be them rising against us - ad bo haMashiach. And they will always be wrong, because it is wrong to want to destroy a nation.

You expressed concern that "It’s wishful thinking that everything would come out to satisfying results by spending enough time explaining to the other person why he’s wrong. This is seldom the case."

I simply explained why it is seldom the case.

I am very glad that for you, after all these years of studying Talmud and Torah, the world is becoming so clear-cut. In my area of expertise, it is never the case, like in that story about the long road that was short and the short road that was long.

Shalom!

That's my point,the very fact that someone has an opinion, doesn't make it necassary worth considering.. You see that you disagree with a view that is contrary to yours out of hand. when you wrote "And they will always be wrong, because it is wrong to want to destroy a nation. " This of course is your opinion, which there are plenty in the world who would argue on that (who don't think of themselves as evil either.) But, being a discerning human being, you realize it's wrong and you didn't need any great amount of time to come to that conclusion. So using this as the extreme example of this, why can't you go a little further and understand that there are other issues that to you may think is simple and others feel it's a gray area. The others can feel this way for a few reasons

a) They honestly see a side that you either didn't see or you think there is no merit to it

b)They do not have all the facts or expertese in the field or niave or other reason why they don't get the whole picture

c)they are trying to distort reasoning in order to convince themselves or others to something that is wrong, but they want anyhow.

Of course the example of Hitler is c), but how about all other in between cases. This I believe depends on the case. In most cases you can tell if the person means honestly like a) or dishonestly (even though they convinced themselves and they really believe it, but you can tell it's really an excuse and not the reasoning to come to real truth.) and they expect to get sympathy from the b) group that can't tell why the a) group is so upset by. So ther is no set rule that the "Shalom" rule is in order at all cost. Thus I leave it to the experts to decide in their particular cases.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Rav Chaim,