mentalblog.com comments:
I heard from Binymin Klein recently, that all letters which were sent out from the mazkirus including merkos & machne, were approved by the Rebbe first before sent out. Obviously this does not mean that everything chodokav SAID came from the Rebbe.
This distinction (oral vs written) sounds exactly right. No way Rabbi Chodakov would dare put in writing an important policy statement without the Rebbe's approval (at the very least). As to the content of the letter, I will only say this right now: If this is the only document to support the head shaliach institution in its current incarnation, to my mind, it does no such thing!
as one who has complained about other news publications not attributing credit to earlier sources, shouldn't you credit chabadtalk for the letter?
The last paragraph clearly indicates that the HS is NOT the final word in his kehilla, as if he were the owner of a private business.
"city and country where there us an accredited special representative" - anybody? what is "accredited special?" who is an accredited special in the usa, israel, or britain? or in nyc? it may be easier to speak of an accredited-special in moscow, russia, for instance, where chabad representation is relatively young and centralized. the definition of the accredited special representation is vital.
the letter reads like an internal memo written specifically for legal reasons and filed internally with other corporate papers to be used when need arises. TA, was this letter actually sent to shluchim?
Boruch, I agree with you, but drop "der ayzel", please.
also, "as per terms agreed upon with said representative"?
the way i see it, above all, the main point of the letter is the designation of Merkoz as the highest artbitrator in resolution of conflicts arising between shluchim.
Boruch, "HS is NOT the final word in his kehilla", i think you are absolutely right in a sense that this letter does more damage to the institution if HS as it is understood and practiced today than it supports it. "should there arise any point of disagreement" the personnel and the "representative" may have legitimate disagreements, that must be arbitrated?! WOW!
Not quite, faruq. The letter addresses specifically administrative personal (in today's vernacular: sheluchim in charge of their own meisdeis, as opposed to sheluchim on the head sheliach’s payroll). Or am I reading it wrong?
"Boruch, I agree with you, but drop "der ayzel", please"
The ass has already bolted...
this might be netira.
berl, i am not sure what you mean.
yes, i do think you are reading it right, ".. in charge of their own...as opposed...payroll." however, in practical terms it means:
1. the head shaliach institution does exist, and other local sheluchim should be (ideally )subordinated to him.
2. other sheluchim in the region are entitled to negotiate terms (!)
3. in case of a conflict, the HS cannot kick the unsubordinated shaliach out but must seek legal resolution.
4. one of the most important aspects of current shalichus business is not addressed here at all. what is the legal point of entry of the new subordinated shaliach? it seems that nothing in this letter precludes a yungerman from entering business anywhere he desires, (it is only that he must become immediately subordinated to the HS :))
Nice to see TA haunts chabadtalk as well. Do you post there?
as to the observation by our host that there is not a single hint that the directive was requested or agreed by the Rebbe, i must completely disagree. af al pi sheein raaya ledovor esh zekher ledovor. וד״ל
lehoir, i would credit chabadtalk but it was emailed to me without a link. please provide a link. thanks
http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/...90&
postcount=77
In addition to faruq's note, there is an additional obvious point.
The very fact that the memo was printed on the Merkos letterhead, which states quite clearly תחת נשיאות כ"ק אדמו"ר מליובאוויטש רבי מנחם מענדל שניאורסאהן שליט"א, puts the onus on the Rebbe to have protested in the event that he would not be in agreement with it's comments.
The Rebbe never missed an opportunity not to get involved.
To a point. I am not capable of stating clearly where that line is, but it is clear to me that such a momentous policy making (esp. for those that read into it more than is really there) is past that line.
770 bochur, once again formulate your thoughts clearly please.
post from Torah 613 on chabadtalk
Exactly the problem...if you feel R' C made up policies out of thin air or better yet - out of negios - fine. Don't expect those who have respect for R' C and what and who he stood for to accept it. And like the Rebbe wrote (not about me. and not about you) about him: ואם הי' מכיר את הרב חדוקוב לא הי' כלל ספק אצלו שאינו שייך לדברי שקר וגוזמא.
[Also, he was referred to by the Rebbe at times as the משלח בפועל... Understand it as you want...].
faruq, i don't know if the letter "was sent."
TA,
I fail to see what is not clear. The rule of Torah is that שתיקה כהודאה. When somebody says something in the name of the organization that you purport to lead - and not about what time the garbage is to be taken out, or which secretary to hire/fire - but what seems to be the document that made the very idea of a Head Shliach (and if you read into it the meaning that "Head Shliach" means the Mafia-style way in which things work today, as you seem to - then the document that introduced nepotism, corruption and many other maladies into Lubavitch), - I find it preposterous to assume that the Rebbe would simply "not get involved." It goes against the grain of basic responsibility.
I do not see a contradiction from cases where there were issues with Shluchim, and the Rebbe stayed out of it (referring to Rabbonim and the like) - again, here the letterhead is of the Rebbe's own organization. If you know of a similar case where the Rebbe stayed out, I will stand corrected - provide documentation, or at least the reference.
TA, what's not clear here? While it is true that the Rebbe did not micromanage, he most certainly did personally direct the significant policy making. What 770 bochur is saying here is that while he is not sure where exactly the line between the two extremes lies, it is irrelevant when talking about a letter "with such momentous policy making" implications.
"The ... never missed an opportunity not to get involved" - you have taken R.S.J. initial idea to the level of the absurd. Paraphrasing the stupid statement of Abba Eban is also out of place when talking about this subject.
The letter might seem more important in light of the recent abuses of power by the HS. You look at the letter from today’s perspective and you conclude that this is such momentous decision that for sure the Rebbe was involved. But I see a room to assume that at the time this was justa plain common sense. It was a self evident policy. As a matter of fact every organization in regular business has a head sales rep. or whatever. My point being that it might be that at the time it was so self-evident for R.H. that he didn’t even think the Rebbe would second guess him.
My point being that it might be that at the time it was so self-evident for R.H. that he didn’t even think the Rebbe would second guess him.
No way! Such a letter would only go out as response to a real-life situation (also note the date: 1973 – not exactly the beginning of the institution of shlichus) and you better believe that the Rebbe would hear directly from the parties. Unless you know for a fact that the Rebbe protested these "guidelines" you have to assume they are his.
Maybe R.H. could honestly have not thought so (though even this is questionable), it is much more difficult to pin this line of thought on the Rebbe. This kind of thing must have been foreseen.
It was a self evident policy. As a matter of fact every organization in regular business has a head sales rep. or whatever.
Precisely the point. There is nothing wrong (not too much, anyway) with the boss of a business deciding who will be the "head sales rep" or whatever else. It is difficult to call nepotism truly bad only in a business environment, in which the goal is purely selfish - to make money. And how to try to do so is up to the boss. If he likes it this way, then as we say in Hebrew - זכותו.
The reason that people consider the system bankrupt is precisely for the reason that Shlichus is not a "regular" business. If so, then it was up to the Rebbe to nip the first indication that it is being treated as such in the bud - unless he considered this particular memo OK. Which could be for two reasons: 1) the Rebbe truly approved of the way thing worked today, or 2) as others mentioned before, there is no need to read the way things are practiced now into this memo. I personally find the former improbable enough.
נמנו וגמרו:
1. the policy is the Rebbe's
2. it does not provide succor for the abusers
"the Rebbe truly approved of the way thing worked today" once again we did sperak about this already. The things were bad, really bad long before 3 tamuz.
The words used in the letter are: management, supervision, representative, chief executive.
Nothing more than an organizational hierarchy. A CEO runs a business on behalf of shareholders, employees, or owners. His power derives from them. There are mutual rights and responsibilities. There is a dispute resolution mechanism.
This is clearly not the current model used by out of touch power hungry despots trying their best to shore up power for the own families and friends and hangers on.
The things were bad, really bad long before 3 tamuz
Again, I am not getting into the level of the Rebbe's involvement in the whole situation. I specifically backed off that topic. Moreover, I suggested the obvious difference between official policy being hung on the wall and micromanagement (or lack thereof).
The things were bad, really bad long before 3 Tammuz.
This tendency to broaden a topic of discussion makes it nearly impossible to have a meaningful conversation. The topic here is not just any "things" that might or might not have been "bad before 3 Tammuz". The topic is very specific: the guidelines letter as a source of the HS סמכות and the current new and latest abuses of that סמכות .
Management, not despotism
Supervision, not tyranny
Chief Executive, not owner
We are back where started. The American system or any system is predicated law. Supreme Court even got involved in the presidential election. So the letter is based on an arbitration opportunity. Provided there was viable arbitration opportunity then and only then this letter (as representation of the Rebbe�s wish) would be properly implemented.
As to the memo itself, to me it is very clear that we are dealing with an honor system here. (In general, the system is inherently such; this memo makes it that much clearer).
We are in the week of Parashas Shelach, and the Rebbe's approach to שלח לך - לדעתך is well known. The שליחות system is eminently abusable; the Torah makes reference many times to a Shliach who is מועל בשליחותו. (I do not want to go back to Simon Jacobson's analysis of the Rebbe as some hermit who distrusted people and could never really work with them).
Notwithstanding the above (and as was pointed out in comments to said topic), the Rebbe not only gave Shluchim leeway to do as they see fit on the operational level, but moreover, we find many answers from the Rebbe to the tune of "this is what I sent you there for, do I have to decide everything for you?"
If there were problems, there were to be addresses to turn to for resolution. The memo specifically offers such a forum.
The Rebbe offered an excellent framework for an excellent system; much in the way that we (observant Jews; anyone else please skip to the next comment) believe that the world is an inherently perfect place for the experiment of דירה בתחתונים. The fact that it does not look so at this point is a stupid question. בחירה האט מען ניט צוגענומען. Moreover, even with the abuses taking place today, I challenge someone (with a shred of decency, not the "malachim") to say that in the big scheme of things, it was or was not worth it.
"it was or was not worth it." or could not easily have worked out better?
I posted the last post before I saw TA's.
The same Supreme Court has been ruling for a long while that the Constitution - written by the same people who declared Independence because they belived that Men are endowed by their Creator with inalienble rights, which take precedence over givernment - is intended to remove G-d from American society. Even law depends on a certain honor/value system to uphold and justify it, and the problem with democracy is that it tends to erode these values.
Have Yiddishe kehillos not historically organized themselves along democratic lines?
Theocratic. Much like this blog. 8)
There was always a voice with higher moral authority, whether the Judges, the kings or the Rabbis
Ah, higher moral authority....the Head Shaliach. I was not aware that the insitution was so old. I stand corrected.
So the letter is based on an arbitration opportunity.
That is again another topic, though a very legitimate and worthy one. However - first things first. The underlying reason the HS authority can be abused so easily is that the subordinate sheluchim are intimidated into thinking that all the powers the HS claim to have are, indeed, granted to them by the Rebbe. You hear this refrain all the time: דער רבי האט אזוי געוואלט . So before you discuss the need for arbitration opportunities (or the "how"), there has to be a clarity on the Rebbe's intent on the matter (or the "what"). Lacking that clarity, what exactly are you going to arbitrate? To have that clarity you need to see ALL the relevant documents, one letter is not enough. But I reiterate - if this letter is all the HS got, they ain't got nothin.
I believe that what SJ was trying to say is also along these lines � the ever increasing need for such clarity will force it to come fore.
Berl, what else is needed and what specifically this document is lacking?
This document lacks nothing, as long as there is no other document that augments it. But if the HS believe they "have got the power", it is upon them to provide any and all such documents.
berl, you ever heard of "special accreditation" before?
No faruq, I have not heard of "an accredited special representative from the Lubavitch Headquarters in Brooklyn" before. It is, admittedly, a very cool title.
"accreditation" by definition means that it is easily verifiable. and obviously, this memo does not dictate the necessity of the HS, "in any city or country where THERE IS an ASR..." it deals only with the situation where such HS already exists
The plain implication is that in any place where there is an "accredited special representative" (read: shliach), he is by default a "head shliach".
"accreditation" by definition means that it is easily verifiable
faruq, the word "accreditation" means that the person was one of the following:
1. given the authority to perform a function;
2. officially recognized as having met a standard or criterion;
3. appointed as an envoy or ambassador representing his or her government or country.
(courtesy of the Encarta Dictionary)
In case of an ASR, all this means is recognition by מל"ח as their ASR. As to the need of the ASRs everywhere – that is irrelevant in the year 2005. They are everywhere, save for the PRM (People’s Republic of Massachusetts).
... he is by default a "head shliach".
770 bochur, not quite. It all depends on the definition of a "region". That definition is, perhaps, the most important issue here.
Very true berl, case in point Germany.
Funny how "Commonwealth" and "PR" ought to mean the same thing, and in reality...
long live the Kingdom!
according to this letter TNLR is not a 'shliach' of the Rebbe, bec. from what i understand he is not under supervision of any "accredited special representative". correct me if i am wrong.
oh here we go again...
He is the Rebbe so why would he need to be an "accredited special representative"?
LOL! :lol:
dh, "according to this letter TNLR is not a 'shliach' of the Rebbe" - this is wrong, nowhere in the letter does it say that an insubordinate is not a shaliach of the Rebbe.
has anyone noticed the cable address that merkos used?
How did one sends a cable?
"The Rebbe never missed an opportunity not to get involved"
I have a hard time believing that the Rebbe ever bought into the whole "corporate Chabad" concept. His vision was education, no child left behind, no Jew unvisited, and visible leadership. Most of all, it was "by any means necessary".
I do not think that he ever envisioned the strife between shluchim, other than nodding to its possible existence. He never envisioned anything othe that all shluchim would be on the same team, no exclusive territories, no cost benefit considerations, no arbitrations. Jsut a bunch of eibergegebener together pushing the vision on all sides. The fact that it was not fully practical is not surprising. It was a "vision" after all.
Although impratical, sending cable telegrams is still practised by old-world people who get a kick out of it. When I Googled send a telegram, this is what came out.
rebel, oh did he envision the strife. I can tell you story after story... What he did do was send an older Chosid to a place of strife to settle it, and when unsuccesful, shed tears...
In one or two instances the Rebbe cut short the employer or head, but mostly the employer moved on and was found a different position.
In other words, the boss was rarely ordered to change, and the employee was almost always taken care of. I do know of some cases where the latter did not happen either. And they were specifically when the employee was too eidel to bother the Rebbe with their problem.
Commenting by HaloScan
