mentalblog.com comments:
when we discuss hadakov's resume, shouldnt we look at the work he did rather than how he got the job. Many people get the job for all the wrong reasons but then prove themselves to be very capable leaders.
Did he do a good job as dean?
Did he do a good job at Merkos? how about untill 1950?
you tell me, brother, but history is important.
Thank you Tzemach - very interesting indeed.
It's also interesting that R' Chodakov seems to have established mosdos quite different than those that he ran in Latvia.
history is important and very interesting and to the extent that understanding a persons background and enviroment can give you some insight into his phsyche a persons family, friends and resume, is important especially a person like Hadokov, that had such a big influence on chabad.
I just thought that you were a little too hard on him, for things that he didnt do, (he didnt disolve parliment etc.)
RE: his performance, I am not qualified to make that assesment, I myself never had anything to do with him, and amybe my impression of him is shaped by the legends we discussed earlier, but one thing I can say is that he was a great public speaker.
RE: Bere's opinion of Hadokov.
Hadokov wasnt a decision maker by the rayatz, (maybe) because the rayatz had people like R' chatche feigin, and then in america The Rebbe and Rashag.
playing second fiddle to them is no insult.
The rebbe spent plenty of time working with R' hadokov untill 1950, he must have liked him enough to keep him on after 1950.
Sometimes in a new regime, you have to keep on power brokers from the old structure in order to ensure continuity etc. I dont think that Hadokov accomplished that so keping him, was most probably only based on his abilities.
with hadokovs background in eductaion, why was he in Merkos and not Tomchei temimim?
"One of Chaim Mordechai's tutors was Rabbi Yoel Baranchick, a leading disciple of the Navaradok school of Mussar". This proves my point:You can send your son to a non-Lubavitch cheder, and with the right chinuch, he might end up running the whole Lubavitch system some day. So what exactly is a "Lubavitch Chinuch"?!
Of course, one can't generalize about schools, but must look at all the options locally.
Yossi: What do you have in mind?
Yossi, evidently you can send to a secular Scholl as well.
Yossi:I believe Hodakov was not of a Chabad backround, he became Lubavitch as an adult, if I'm not mistaken.
I'm sure you'd find many examples of people who became Lubavitch and than went on to head Lubavitch educational institutions.Some examples:R'Yosef Heller, rosh hakolel in 770 and former member of beis din.Rabbi Hertz, rosh yeshiva, lubavitcher yeshiva in London.there are many more, but it's late now
Hodakov was bourn in Bechenkovitch ( Jan. 12, 1902), White Russia. His father Sholom Yisroel was a Chabad Chosid who worked for a timber merchant. In 1904 the family moved to Riga.
The "supposed" ideology of a school should not be a determining factor in deciding where to send one's child. For 8-12 hours a day, school is doing the job that idealy parents would do themselves (if they were independently wealthy), so one would think that the school's priorities should reflect the type of chinuch the parents themselves would personally give their child, in my case: teaching how to make a "layning" on a blatt gemora, how to be mechaven in Shma for more than 30 seconds, etc.
Much of Lubavither's tzedokah resourses are, by necessity, spent helping friends and family members who are on shlichus, thus diverting money that would otherwise go to building up Lubavitch schools.
yossi, your logic dissapoints me...
What I meant to say is that shlichus is business too, big business, and unfortunately schools and education is not a focus. By design that is.
But it's written in Likutei Diburim that education is a focus?! Who had the audacity to change this? It better have been someone on the level of a minister, not just a supervisor.
Perhaps, in a free-market organization without ministers, a superviser can grab the power of a minister
I do not have the energy to write about the following. So I will keep it short. The inter war years saw the development of a interesting hybrid from of orthodoxy in Latvia. Strands from Cabad (Dubin, Hodakovs) Novogrudek (Rav Yoel Barantchik etc) Mithnagdim (Rav Zak of Riga ) and Torah Im derech Eretz all came together to form a unique brand of Orthodoxy of which Hodakovs was a product. The uniting factor was the Aguda Israel party, although there was a Mizrachi headed by DR.MOrdechai Neurock. The rebbe Rayaatz in his Likute Dibburim is sharply critical of this Tora m Derech Eretz approach and blasts the Zeire Aguda and the orthodox gymnasium etc.
So the Rayaatz had a complex attitude towards Latvian orthodxy. On one hand he did not like its modernity and attitude to secular studies, yet he liked its finely organized model and saw hope in turning this youthful community into a serious Torah community.
I think to properly understand Hodakovs transformation from a Chasid hageza vehanusach into a Chasid Chabad , this situation needs to be studies.
I can tell you from personal experience (both with myself & my children), and the expirinces of friends, it is gor nisht pashut.
First of all, all mosdos have their problems; I've look into this, and tried some, and I have a very low opinion of most of them. It would still be very hard for me to enroll children of mine in the big Lubavitcher institutions, as much as I would like to.
There are some Lubavitcher schools out there(see Monsey, Boro Park) that are trying to address the issues that they are faced with; they have their own challenges, but hopefully they will have great hatzlocha. The fact that there are mosdos that are in-touch with the problems, and are trying to address them, is itself encouraging.
But if you want to enroll a Lubavitcher child in a non-Lubavitcher mosad, he will have a rough time of it. It does occasionally work, but there is a price that will be paid, and you might not be happy with the results. It's not like the heimishe school are all that great either, as a rule.
When you propose sending to a non-Lubavitcher school, which school do you have in mind?
I have friends, yereim ushleimim, who did not attend Lubavitch schools. I, on the other hand, had my problems in the Lubavitch schools I attended, and I wonder if I would be better off now had my parents been open to sending me to other schools (though, in all fairness to them, I didn't communicate sufficiently with them, and I'm sure they would have at least considered switching schools if they thought that it would have helped).
Yossi my friend, it is very hard to predict what may have happened if the past had been different - live is about the present.
As to the mosdos, I have no children in main-stream Lubavitcher mosdos, mostly for the reason that you state - but I am not all that impressed with the heimishe either...
I had in mind Torah Temimah, Torah vodaas. There are children there from all backgrounds. "Kvar oloh sancherev uvilveil kol ho'umois".
Well, it all depends on what you're looking for.
Torah Voadaas, for example, has produced more than it's share of "failures" (although I do understand that improvements have been made over the last couple years). I don't know how much better the student body will be as an influence on a child, unless you don't mind "cool guys."
In both those yeshivas, a high percentage of the students are also exposed to influences that chassidishe homes would frown upon.
I have been there a number of times, and I live in the neighborhood; they are not going to be congenial places for Lubavitcher kids - and they will be exposed to real hisnagdus (T"T more than T"V).
Kids in those mosdos will also not be given an appreciation for anything chassidish, and you'll have a big job supplementing the chosronos from home.
Thnks for your feedback. The only things I know about those schools is from judging choshuve graduates of years past. And it's axiomatic that schools change and go through good periods and bad.
It's always been interesting to me that when a Lubavitcher thinks about sending a boy to a different Yeshiva they tend to consider the Litvishe first.
This is surely for a number of reasons, levush, culture, accent, appreciation for intellect of emotion... But, it does support the theory that "other" chassidim constantly say, that Lubavitch is not really part of the "Chassidishe world."
Shouldn't it be more logical to assume that groups that came out of the Baal Shem Tov & the Maggid would have more in common? (You don't have to get excited, I know that the answer is "no" - it's just that I find it interesting).
Chabakuk:Funny you choose Tora Vo'daas as a school where kids will be exposed to 'real hisnagdus'.If anything Tora Voda's is the most chasidic friendly of non chasidic institutions.
In general I believe though, that you first and foremost want to see that a school is well run ,the kids seem happy and well acclimated, before you look at how chasidic friendly or other things that are culturally important for the parent.You are better off at a normally run school were your child will be happy and well treated than things done 'your way' and an unhappy, mistreated child.Thats how kids leave the derech
Malach, Have you been to Torah Vodas lately?
Have you gone down there to consider registering your child? And do you say that T"V is "a normally run school where your child will be happy and well treated?"
I actually have looked at it for my son.
I also did not bring up T"V, and I never said that one shouldn't send there - I just wanted to highlight the challenges.
Chabakuk:I'm no fan of T''V, though I don't speak from personal experience.
Malach, so what did you want to add to the conversation here?
My point was that it's more important that the school be a decent, with happy kids, than following a partisan persuasion, be it chasidic or yeshivish.You can send your kids to a badly run Lubavitcher school and wake up one day to your kids smoking weed etc. and vice versa.
Malach, apparently you have not been reading my posts on this subject.
But, when it comes to schools there are various considerations that must be taken into account:
Quality teachers / administration
Student body
Quality curriculum
Stated mission / views/ goals
No school is good for everyone. For example, it would be unwise for a Litvak to send his son to learn in Satmar, even though the school is good. A school needs to be culturally and philosophically compatible for the success of the child. Personally, I think that schools are made to destroy children – I try to find a school that will do the least damage.
Ideally, however, I would like a school that will assist me in imbuing my children with the values that I believe in – to be ehrleche chassidishe Yidden, with a positive outlook on life bichlall, and Yiddishkeit befrat. They should be given strong skills in limud haTorah, strong moral values, respect for others, Ahavas Hashem, an appreciation for what a chosid means, and what they’re purpose is in this world. And to do this we need people who are living examples of this. Any institution that undermines these goals, regardless of its success, will not be ideal for my child.
Realistically, we have to make concessions in this search, but it is not at all as simple as you describe.
By the way, although I personally never had any children in standard Lubavitcher mosdos, there are many fine boys and girls that do come out of there.
There are fine kids who went to public school. You need to look at the average kids to see what the mosod is producing.
I too have experience with "heimishe" mosdos and obviously they too could be greatly improved. The major difference is the general level of yiras shomayim, the greater concern for the children’s Yidishkeit and the greatly reduced influence from secular culture.
Baruch, Yes, I understand that. These issues motivated me as well, but I often wonder what we're really getting...
The situation is far from optimal - and the supposedly vaunted "yiddishkeit" they are providing is (in my opinion) not all that meaningful; it is a shallow, empty, caricature of Yiddishkeit... and yet it is something. -Sigh-
The main thing is the secular influences are greatly reduced, so the child is still a כלי instead of being introducted to אלע שווארצע יאר'ן
Chavakuk Elisha Vitebsky!
Cut the sighing & the wining! Please do not blush, but need I remind you of the absolutely extraordinary personal attention you had received from The Rebbe? אשרי חלקך! Think of the Chassidim of old that made it their life עבודה to implement a few words from just one יחידות! You have directly received so much more! You have been blessed with a personal Rebbe, why the self-pity? (Don't be angry at me, this is a cumulative response to a bunch of your comments)
And how does this help our children?
Berl, I have no self-pity! I'm simply frustrated with the situation that we're all faced with now. As a father, I am looking at a wasteland in which to raise my children.
As for myself, I don't cry - it's my own fault that I am not what I should be; I can't say that I didn't have the opportunities...
(And I'm not offended. It always makes me nostalgic when I see your posts - it's one of the things that has me addicted to this site - especially when I have so little time for it)
I can't say that I didn't have the opportunities...
There you go again. Why the past tense? :)
chavakuk Elisha,
Do you mind telling us about your personal relationship with the rebbe?
Commenting by HaloScan
