From the Anash.org Inbox: Some local residents have invited Minister Itamar Ben Gvir to speak in 770. But is inviting a controversial political figure to speak at 770 truly in line with the Rebbe’s approach? While we welcome every Jew, giving some an official platform will deter others from putting on tefillin.
By Yisroel Nelberg
This Thursday night, Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, leader of Israel’s Otzma Yehudi political party, was invited by some local residents to speak in 770. I would like to share some thoughts about the matter that I believe are worth considering.
Obviously, we as Chabad welcome every Jew. The Rebbe showed immense respect to government officials from across the political spectrum, including those who held different and sometimes opposing views from the Rebbe. The Rebbe would often quote the Gemara that every appointed official is nominated from Heaven.
At the same time, the Rebbe made very strong demands that Chabad avoid getting involved in politics, not because we don’t care, but because it risks chasing Jews away. The Rebbe once asked Shluchim to step back from even the mihu yehudi campaign – something the Rebbe personally fought for – just to avoid pushing some away. The Rebbe explained why there was no Israeli flag at the Lag B’Omer parade, because it could alienate certain groups. And for that exact reason, the Rebbe didn’t want politicians running for office to appear at Chabad events.
Given these points, we ought to consider: Is inviting a political figure to speak at a central farbrengen in 770 in line with the Rebbe’s approach?
I’m not saying this with certainty, but it seems that while we should welcome and respect Ben Gvir like we would any Jew, offering him warmth, a smile, and even a seat at the farbrengen, giving him a microphone to speak officially sends the wrong message. It creates an association – intentional or not – that Chabad is endorsing a political side. And even though his values may align with many of ours, the reality is that this could push people away.
In fact, someone like Ben Gvir, due to his strong political views, could have a very direct impact on how Chabad is perceived by many Jews around the world. A picture of him speaking at 770 might deter a secular Jew in Israel or in the U.S. from putting on tefillin or attending a Chabad event. (Ironically, with left-leaning figures, the opposite is likely – their presence could encourage many to engage with Chabad and put on tefillin.)
In the past few months, both former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and Minister Amichai Eliyahu were allowed to speak at 770. Specifically because Ben Gvir carries strong views on some issues the Rebbe cared deeply about, like shleimus haaretz, inviting him to speak officially at 770 risks sending a message that Chabad is siding with him. And that’s something the Rebbe was consistently, clearly against.
Our shlichus is to reach every Jew. No matter who they vote for or what they believe. And anything that risks narrowing that reach, even if well-intentioned, deserves a second thought.
We have to be honest with ourselves: there’s a real difference between respecting and welcoming someone and officially giving them a platform at the heart of Lubavitch. Especially when that person is a political figure in the middle of today’s highly charged Israeli political scene.
To conclude with an interesting tidbit:
Reb Gershon Ber Jacobson once relayed to the Rebbe that people were wondering why the Rebbe had received Prime Minister Menachem Begin at 770 with such respect, and even spoke to the news reporters – a move that was unprecedented.
The Rebbe responded, “These visits give publicity and a completely different status to my shliach when he goes to a Yid and tells him to eat kosher, keep Shabbos, and send his children to a Jewish school. They work tirelessly just to reach another Yid…”
With all due respect, I strongly disagree with the sentiment of this article.
If we allow Gallant to speak at a Farbrengen, but then we shut the door on Ben Gvir, then we are basically saying, that there are two different types of two types of people, one that we find acceptable and one that we dont.
Once Gallant was allowed to speak, it would be a terrible thing, if the door were closed on ben Gvir.
the fact is that some politicians will turn people off and some won’t plus just because we did something wrong a couple of months ago doesn’t mean we can do it again
B”H.
I don’t have much time now, but I will try to address what you wrote quickly.
You made two separate points.
1. Some people are are a bigger turn off.
2. One wrong does not justify other wrongs.
Response:
1. Davke because Ben Gvir is vilified, Davke because of that reason we should davke not Passel him (even if personally I feel that he is an ineffective person).
To paste what I wrote to others:
Basically they built this narrative, that Ben Gvir is not legitimate (he by the way thinks that eliyahu is ok, but ben gvir is somehow a problem), and we have fallen for it.
I was actually upset that Gallant was invited to speak, but then I thought, if the rebbe could allow chaim cohen, then we can also allow gallant, but this writer somehow thinks that gallant is fine, but ben gvir is not. that itself is crazy.
my comment however, is a another point, that basically the crazy left and also the deep state, has this idea, that there are two sugim, sug alef and sug beis, sug alef always has standing and sug beis never does (And neither do their votes count or their petitions to the supreme court).
that is terrible
2. The question is not about doing two wrong. But rather once Gallant spoke, and then don’t let ben Gvir speak, you create the perception, that one party is more legitimate then the other.
P.S. Some people have written to me personally, arguing on my points, both from a rational or factual basis. One can argue about those points. But these two points that you made, dont even start.
you brought up very good points and i have to agree aside from one point which is that i think left wingers are more likely to be put off from chabad from these reasons than right wingers so there is (sort of) a difference between politicians
If no other politician was ever invited and allowed to speak in 770 then we should keep it this way, but since we already did, including long before Gimmel Tammuz when Minister Professor Avner Chai Shaki, who was also a controversial figure in his time, was invited to speak in 770 and treated like a hero, so now to pick on Ben-Gvir would be very wrong
was it with the Rebbe’s consent? because if not it means nothing and the fact that other people did something wrong doesn’t mean that now we can
First of all he was placed to sit behind the Rebbe by the Farbrengen and the Rebbe called him over and honored him with a L’Chaim, and the Rebbe reminded him that he had promised him that he will ultimately be the winner in the internal party politics to become the party head because he did what the Rebbe wanted. So the Rebbe himself took part in celebrating him at the time and that’s why he was invited to speak later for the crowed.
Secondly, in general in those days if anyone dared do something like this and the Rebbe was not pleased he would let us all know about it, and if was advertised in advance it would be scrapped per the Mazkirus or Vaad Hamesader. 770 is not a place of rallies and Hefkeirus.
Third, I can’t say with 100% certainty because I don’t remember all the details, but I remember that the Rebbe was actually interested that we should help him and honor him in a very public way, and inviting him to speak at a Farbrengen was part of it.
The point is, that inviting politicians during election season was an absolute no no, because then Lubavitch seems to endorse a candidate for elections, but to honor a politician for doing the right thing even if it’s not popular by some, the Rebbe was for it all the way, in order to encourage them to hold strong and continue on the right path, and the politics of looking good in the eyes of others was not a consideration.
B”H.
According to the Yumanim of the time, it was done with the Rebbe’s initiative.
“And for that exact reason, the Rebbe didn’t want politicians running for office to appear at Chabad events.”
Did you ever hear of the official farbrengens in Kefar Chabad? where the Rebbe MHM incuredged more then onece to bring politicions (BTW till today they still come) also one’s that are veary conturvurtual.
“The Rebbe explained why there was no Israeli flag at the Lag B’Omer parade, because it could alienate certain groups.”
The Rebbe MHM said that this is a easy “political” way to ansewer other pepole why we dont have those flags by the parade although (as is famous) this is not the (main) reason that we dont have them. (as proof, Mivtza Neshek can alienate meany frum jews. Mivtza Taharat Hamishpocha can alienate meany non frum jews. and still they are a part of the parade!)
The story in the end is a proof the other way around, Menachem Begin was a veary conturvurtual right wing extreamest, and specialy before camp david (when the Rebbe MHM met him), and still the Rebbe MHM met him with all the news…
I am sorry, but you completely missed the point because the author was talking about officialls RUNNING for office and all the points you brought up are about already elected people
the article is in regards to ben gevir which is not just a elected official but also a minister in the goverment in eretz yisroel
Correct, but he was quoting one line, which was “And for that exact reason, the Rebbe didn’t want politicians running for office to appear at Chabad events” and about that, my point is correct
I need to kindly disagree with you
With trump being invited to the ohel ?
And in the end we have rabonim in CH and I hope they were asked and approved
If not ……
Then someone needs to be accountable for that
We are torah people and listen to rabonim
he clearly pre-empted your question in his article which is that we won’t stop anyone from coming etc. but to bring him to speak is another level
You are mixing up people that are running for office with people that were already elected.
the point stays the same
it might be dangerous for shluchim worldwide
gallant ws far worse e have had others worse speak Ben Gvir desrves the chance to speak participate in a siyum Harambam is a big plus And ask let him answer our questions after all if goyish politicians come to Simchas Bais Hashoiva make rallies outside the museum even outside 770 let him come speak He can learn something positive from us & visa versa/
the fact that we have had other people speak means nothing also who let them (goyim) make rally’s outside 770 and also whether or not we can learn from him or vice versa doesn’t change the fact that it can be merachek people from chabad
He was originally supposed to speak at the JCM, but they cancelled due to potential backlash.
there is no point in mentioning what other people do without bringing their reasons
This is the most confused author I have seen in a long time. First he says we invite elected officials then he argues we shouldn’t invite this one? Chabad has always invited elected officials and when someone didn’t like it we always said we invite all sides. Inviting all sides excluding one wouldn’t that infact make us politically motivated?
In my opinion, this article is written on a faulty premise, which is that Lubavitch HQ, while having noble intentions, must conduct itself כלפי פנים the same way it conducts itself כלפי חוץ. While there is room to say that a local Shliach, when he is in his place of shlichus, should be tight lipped about a certain topic (nonwithstanding the utmost importance that the Rebbe places on preserving the 3 שלימיות) , that doesn’t apply to HQ. Farbrengen after farbrengen, the rebbe clearly spoke about these burning issues that directly affect all Jewish people. Furthermore, a recent derher article on mihu yehudi described how the Rebbe allowed a certain mihu yehudi activist to speak publicly by the farbrengen for a few minutes! Never mind that the farbrengens were recorded and some were broadcasted.
A similar analogy can be like the announcement of Yechi after davening. When you’re in a distant place on shlichus, and you have worries and חששות and you’re not sure how it will be accepted, there are reasons for and against. But in 770? To argue against saying Yechi on the grounds of possibly(???) having an adverse effect on someone across the globe, is meritless.
At home we do not mince words. Sometimes when going out, one must put on a tie etc, but that the same attitude should become our standard כלפי פנים, is worrisome.
It is very naive to think that what happens in 770 will stay separate from the world.
As the Rebbe once wrote to a publication that was labeled “Pnimi” (that it’s only menat for internal Lubavitch, “Who are they fooling?”…
My point was not that what happens in 770 will not go around the world. My point is, is that while in a chabad house there might be a need to take certain precautions etc, but by HQ that doesn’t exist.
Mihu yehudi was a constant topic in 770, and yet at the same time the rebbe told certain shluchim not to engage publicly in it.
you didn’t answer his ta’anos and the rebbe in the beggining encouraged everyone to publicize mihu yehudi and only told shluchim to stop when it was affecting there shlichus etc. and wasn’t getting anywhere and the point stays the same
“a similar anology can be like the announcment of yechi…” we see clearly that this announcment causes a chilul hashem and in general anything that happens in 770 everyone finds out about for example the tunnels so please open up your eyes look around and see
Ben Gevir is also coming to Boro park and Flatbush. He was accepted very well in Florida shuls. He is getting around to many Frum communities and had also spoke at Yale. He is also visiting some wealthy yidden in Brooklyn on private meetings.
2 wrongs don’t make a right plus the fact that there is a difference between shuls (i am not sure if you refer to lubavitch shuls/chabad houses or not) and the international center of chabad 770
It was a mistake to let Gallant speak, and it would be a mistake to let Ben Gvir speak.
You can’t fix one mistake by making another…
the author has a point but on the other hand we see that there are other places who also refused his coming and they were all because of anti-isreal/anti- semitism (they are the same thing) so if we would also do this it could be we would come off as the same.
i dont think anyone will think chabad is anti semetic
1. It is also very naive to think that this conversation is Pnimi.
2. Therfore, I’m not sure this is the place for such a debate.
3. There are many valid points being brought up on both sides.
The writer wrote that he is uncertain.
4. (Although I’m leaning toward the opinion of “he can speak”)
I THINK WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE REBBE’S DIRECTIVE AND HAVE THE RABBONIM DECIDE!
AND WHAT THEY DECIDE WE SHOULD ACCEPT!
while in theory you are right, and you are 100% right about residents of Crown Heights for the rest of us who don’t live there it is a good discussion because they are not our rabbonim and to say what you want to say would be to say that because the rabbonim in crown heights decided one thing now we must all listen including all rabbonim throught the whole world so we are disscusing from the perspective of someone not bound by the rabbonim of crown heights what would you do if they wanted to bring ben gvir to your city what would you do so this is not neged the rabbonim of crown heights and not neged the kavanah of the rebbe and its a good discussion
This author is terribly biased against Ben gvir, pandering to the left, while ben gvir is stands up for the rebbe’s inyonim on shleimus haaretz.
Btw many politician’s spoke in 770 before the expulsion in gush katif, and no one had a problem.