The Lessons of Outremont

I hope every Mishpacha reader read and absorbed last week’s cover story about the public relations efforts of chassidic residents of Montreal’s Outremont district, which had implications for Torah Jews far from Montreal.

Outremont’s chassidic residents – a full quarter of the neighborhood – discovered that their neighbors, particularly a local city councilor, were not all enthusiastic about their presence. The traditional response would have been to do nothing, other than mutter about the anti-Semities and pray that matters did not degenerate further.

Nor would such a response have been entirely unjustified. Xenophobia has long been a prominent characteristic of Quebec’s francophone population, and it would be hard to think of a group more likely to arouse suspicions of outsiders faster than strangely garbed, generally non-French-speaking, chassidim.

Blaming the anti-Semitics also benefits one’s psychic health. For one thing, it means that one never has to examine one’s own actions to determine whether they could have in anyway contributed to the animosity displayed. And second, it means that one need not worry about doing anything to change the situation, which is just part of the natural order of things.

Outremont’s chassidim, however, rejected the quietist approach. Aided by an unlikely ally — Leila Marshy, a local resident of Palestinian and Egyptian descent – they formed a meeting ground where local residents could discuss contentious issues. In addition, they created an on-line presence to introduce themselves to their neighbors.

Most important, they asked themselves what they could do at the person-to-person level. Cheskie Weiss, a Belz askan, tried to view matters from the perspective of the neighbors: “The more space we take up, the more visible we become and the more we must interact with our neighbors. It’s hard for those living around us, within such close quarters, when they aren’t greeted or acknowledged.”

Community leaders worked on creating a new communal ethos, and getting out the message that anyone who does not say hello or thank you is harming the entire chassidic community.

Have all communal tensions melted away in a sea of good feelings? No. Are there gentile neighbors, whose distaste for Jews is not ameliorated by a show of good manners and a pleasant smile? You bet.

Yet everyone acknowledges that there has been a real change in communal perceptions over a short period of time. Says Leila Marshy, the Arab woman who helped get the ball rolling, “[P]eople have stopped seeing chassidim as a monolith, but rather view them as a group of individuals.”

THE ISSUES DIVIDING JEW FROM JEW in Israel are far more complex than the local turf battles in Outremont. But if the Torah community could even achieve what the chassisim of Outremont did, and get outsiders to see the community as comprised of a diverse group of individuals, holding many different views, headlines beginning “Chareidim threw rocks . . . ” would have far less impact.

“All politics is local,” former Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill used to say. And the same might be said about public relations. But there are common elements as well. Trying to view matters from the point of view of those whom one wishes to influence is an essential element of any effort to change perceptions. And I would guess that smiles and pleasantness go a long way in most cultures, including Israel. Finally, the greater the interaction at the individual level the easier it is to break down the myth of the chareidi monolith of automatons marching lockstep to the orders of their leaders.

The lesson of Outremont is that attitudes are not immutable – at least not everyone’s attitudes all the time. It turns out to be a lot easier than we think to change perceptions of us. But it doesn’t happen without a conscious effort on our part.

We are too easy on ourselves when we keep repeating mantras like, “Esav hates Yaakov” or “an am ha’aretz hates a talmid chacham“, as an excuse to do nothing. Those mantras serve to absolve us of all responsibility for the manner in which we are viewed. It would make no difference, we tell ourselves, if we forcibly condemned those who act contrary to the Torah in the name of Torah; it would make no difference if we refrained from name-calling – e.g., Amalek, Nazi. They would still hate us.

In the United States, every major piece of legislation must include an environmental impact statement. As individuals and as a community, we need to include a Torah impact statement in everything we do: Will this course of action increase the kavod Shomayim in the world or decrease it?

TORAH JEWRY IN ERETZ YISRAEL is entering a new period, in which the old ways of doing things will no longer suffice. With chareidi political power at a nadir, at least for the present, we can no longer depend on United Torah Judaism MKs to protect us. A new more entrepreneurial, more decentralized model of community leadership will have to develop quickly, as different approaches for addressing communal problems are tested.

Efforts to change public perceptions of chareidim will be part of the mix, but only part. Think tanks serving the Torah community are another idea whose time may well have arrived. Not only do we need to know much more about attitudes towards us – e.g., how deeply entrenches are they, upon what are they based, what kind of information would have a positive impact on popular perceptions – we have to know much more about our own community.

At present, we don’t even have a very good idea of the size of the chareidi community, much less the size of its various component parts. How do families make ends meet? How many families are unable to provide the basics of food and shelter? What are the aspirations of young chareidi men and women?

This week I received an email from Leah Aharoni, one of the co-founders of Women for the Wall (W4W), the “start-up” operation of three friends in Kochav Yaakov that has shown how a few determined, skilled, and energetic women can change the tenor of public debate on an important issue in the space of a few months. So when she talks, I listen.

Mrs. Aharoni’s suggestion was that the chareidi community create its own “incubator” to support grassroots efforts on social issues. Since 1981, the New Israel Fund has been funding Shatil, precisely such an incubator for more than a 1,000 different left-wing groups, pushing an agenda of social justice, Palestinians rights, and religious pluralism. Shatil provides new organizations with lots of training, technical and computer support, grant-writing assistance, and legal advice – in short, it is a one-stop shop for all the logistical support and training a start-up organization needs.

Opponents of the NIF decided to lift a page from their playbook. In the wake of Gaza expulsion of 2005, the national religious world was left in a state of hopelessness, shock, and anger, just as the chareidi world is today. The founder of one of the groups at the forefront of the battle against expulsion came up with the idea of creating an incubator like Shatil for the national religious world. As a result, there are today different organizations dealing with issues such as immigration, the environment, land usage, and media coverage from a nationalist perspective.

Aharoni suggests that the chareidi world tap its own considerable human resources to do the same. Precisely what form those efforts would take no one can say. Such is the nature of decentralized, entrepreneurial models. But it is clear that we cannot afford to remain mired in despair. And taking action is the best antidote.

This article was first published in Mishpacha.

You may also like...

17 Responses

  1. Nachum says:

    Unfortunately, you contradict yourself. You speak about self-examination in Montreal and then, moving on to Israel, write:

    “and get outsiders to see the community as comprised of a diverse group of individuals”

    Really? That’s it? Charedim don’t have to change anything, they just have to present themselves better? This is a deep, deep flaw: The belief that the Charedi world is perfect (apart from some easily condemned “fanatics”) and just have to do a better PR job.

    Every other group of Jews can find fault with themselves and try to improve. Why can’t Charedim? Is belief in perfection so ingrained in their philosophy? Because that’s not healthy.

  2. DF says:

    “We are too easy on ourselves when we keep repeating mantras like, “Esav hates Yaakov” or “an am ha’aretz hates a talmid chacham“, as an excuse to do nothing.”

    So true. This is part of the fatalistic mindset so common in our religious community that God Himself decries: מַה-תִּצְעַק אֵלָי; דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְיִסָּעוּ Moreover, if we are honest, the opposite of the above mantras are also true, and these positions are so ancient that it is both unknowable and irelevant as to which provokved which.

    The Outremont example is outstanding. There are many, simple ways in which we can be better neighbors, which will in turn make us better people. It is the natural responsibility of the shul rabbinate to create such meetings, and then, most importantly, actively use the pulpit to spread the message. I must have heard more than a thousand (1,000) sermons and derashos all focused on urging more “learning.” I cannot recall a single speech devoted to concrete suggestions (eg, get out of the street on shabbos) towards our outward relationships.

  3. dave says:

    This article is right on the mark. It is just unfortunate that we in the Torah community, be it in Montreal or Eretz Yisrael or anywhere, need to be forced to behave in this manner because we face opposition from suspicious neighbors and fellow Jews.

    Pirkei Avos is quite clear about greeting our neighbors with kind faces. We have all heard the little maysalach of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein and Rabbi Yaakov Kaminetsky about how they interacted with everyone, Jew and gentile alike, with manners and respect. So why should this be a big chiddush now?

    The problems the Torah community faces right now are directly related to our failure to interact with our neighbors who are not yet part of the Torah community. We are many years, even generations, behind in this aspect of Torah Judaism – the idea of always striving to create a kiddush Hashem – living by the Torah impact study model that JR so correctly asserts. Let’s start with a smile and a warm handshake. We can change how other people think if we change the way we act and look at the “others” as brothers.

  4. ben dov says:

    “Really? That’s it? Charedim don’t have to change anything, they just have to present themselves better?”

    Nachum, did you read this part?

    “Efforts to change public perceptions of chareidim will be part of the mix, but only part.”

  5. Jewish Observer says:

    “our failure to interact with our neighbors who are not yet part of the Torah community”

    – it is patronizing and arrogant to view non from as “not yet part”. This not so subtle ad for kiruv also has nothing to do with the point being discussed

  6. CJ Srullowitz says:

    Nachum,

    How do “efforts to change public perceptions” – particularly efforts based on being “mekabeil es kol ha’adam beseiver panim yafos” – presuppose “the belief that the Chareidi world is perfect”?

    Jewish Observer,

    How is the phrase “not yet” patronizing or arrogant? I find it inclusive. Apparently, you do too if you recognize it as an “ad for kiruv” – literally, “bringing close.”

  7. Mr. Cohen says:

    Maybe G_d is telling the Jews of Outremont to make aliyah.

  8. Ben Waxman says:

    Such is the nature of decentralized, entrepreneurial models.

    This model will have a head-on collision with the current model of askanim and Da’as Torah.

  9. Shades of Gray says:

    “The more space we take up, the more visible we become and the more we must interact with our neighbors. It’s hard for those living around us, within such close quarters, when they aren’t greeted or acknowledged.”

    The Outremont article was a positive example of attempting to ameliorate a social problem. The part of the Mishpacha article that puzzled me, however, was the paragraph after the one quoted above, where an activist quoted a community dayan who told him that,

    “it is absolutely no problem initiating a hello or a thank you. Most Chassidim do that, but those who don’t should realize that they are hurting the entire community.”

    Why would anyone(“those who don’t should realize…”) have a havah aminah that there is a halachic issue involved? This brings to mind a story about RSZA quoted in an article by R. Henoch Plotnik of Chicago(Mishpacha, 1/2/13):

    “Someone once approached Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach ztz”l with a halachic inquiry. A non-Jew was lost and needed directions. In light of the prohibition of “lo sechoneim,” is one permitted to give directions?

    “I know one thing,” replied Rav Shlomo Zalman. “If a person is lost and needs directions, you give him directions.” It is yashrus, decent behavior. Rav Shlomo Zalman thus gently rebuked the questioner that not only is there no question of lo sechoneim, but to ask such a question shows a lack of human decency.”

    “How is the phrase “not yet” patronizing or arrogant? I find it inclusive. Apparently, you do too if you recognize it as an “ad for kiruv” – literally, “bringing close.”

    People who use “not yet Frum” mean well–it’s seen as better than “non-Frum”. However, R. Ron Yitzchok Eisenman, in “Not-Yet-Frum”, posted recently to the Ner LeELef kiruv resource website, argued as follows:

    “Where does it say that everyone will become Frum in our lifetime?… if what we really mean when we refer to our brethren as ‘not-yet-frum’ is an expression of the hope that when the Messiah arrives everyone will return, then why just refer to non-frum-Jews as ‘not-yet-frum’? How about referring to our deceased relatives as ‘not-yet-resurrected-Jews’?!…Would anyone of ‘us’ feel good if we found out that Satmar Chassidim refer to us as ‘not-yet-Satmar’? Would you appreciate it if a Modern Orthodox Jew (whatever that is) would refer to you as: “My not-yet-Modern Orthodox” Chareidi cousin?…None of us would be happy if a member of another religion would refer to Jews as ‘not-yet-Christians or Moslems?’”

  10. Bob Miller says:

    Ben Waxman wrote above, “This model will have a head-on collision with the current model of askanim and Da’as Torah.”

    Is the authoritarian model inherently inferior for managing communal affairs, or does the model fail only with current personnel in the current situation?

  11. S. says:

    “How is the phrase “not yet” patronizing or arrogant?”

    It wouldn’t be arrogant, or obnoxious, if people referred to Chareidim as “not yet Chilonim”?

  12. Nachum says:

    “or does the model fail only with current personnel in the current situation”

    This has been the excuse of authoritarian apologists throughout the ages, e.g., “Communism is fine, it was just the people who were running the show who were bad.” No: Authoritarianism breeds bad leadership, and always fails.

    “It wouldn’t be arrogant, or obnoxious, if people referred to Chareidim as “not yet Chilonim”?”

    Of course, such arguments don’t work with those convinced that theirs is the one true path.

  13. Michael Halberstam says:

    I think it should be obvious that the intent of this article was to stress that all of us need to rethink what we say and do in view of the fact that we are not here by ourselves, and that nobody can claim to know what HKBH wants. To this extent his points are well taken. Those of the respondents who choose to pick on a stray phrase here or there have clearly missed the point. Wake up guys. No body is going to say ” we know you are right, and have been all along.” If that is what you are waiting for, go home. We all need to grow up. This means everyone.

  14. dave says:

    My use of the term “not yet” was quite deliberate and certainly not meant to offend. My point was that the Torah community (note I did not use the term frum, nor did I differentiate between different styles of Torah communities such as chasidim or MO or whatever)has failed miserably to date in its responsibility to behave in such a manner that those who do not adhere to the Torah might say “Hinei Ma Tov Uma Na’im”. That in turn would lead to a time of “Sheves Achim Gam Yachad”.

    To be more clear – the term “not yet” points to a lost opportunity that is decades in the making. Maybe my approach is pie in the sky, and certainly I would not expect all non-religious Jews to come marching atrance like some zombie army into our warm embrace. But if we were sweeter, we surely would attract more bees to our honey.

    And to dear Mr. S., again I made no mention of “chareidim”, but if you feel that our ultimate purpose as a nation is to be “chilonim”, that is unfortunate. I happen to believe that our purpose is to follow the Torah and forge a close relationship to Hashem. And our hope is that every Jew will one day feel that way (pace R. Eisenman). Whether that day is tomorrow or 100 years from now, we can only do what we should do. And the very minimum is the passive kiruv of being a mentch and creating kiddush Hashem.

  15. Jewish Observer says:

    S

    You are 100% correct. Non frum is only a pejorative in the eyes of someone who looks down upon them. But it surely is presumptuous and opportunistic to view a non from person as a kiruv target before we view them as a person

  16. Zadok says:

    Without disagreeing with anything written above one question remains.Why are American secular Jewish newspapers so hostile?They can’t possibly blame their issues on Israeli Chareidim or negative personal impact from frum people.

    Ami magazine once had a article about gratuitous hostility to Chareidim in the secular Jewish press. Astoundingly one of the newspapers they discussed wasn’t even willing to pay lip service to claiming otherwise.Both the magazine staff in general and one of their more hostile writers absolutely refused to discuss the issue with Ami after repeated requests for their point of view.And that writer once acknowledged privately, to someone I know, that she personally never once had any type of bad experience with a frum person.

  17. Ariel says:

    Do you live in Montreal? I do.
    Those efforts have had almost zero impact, because despite a few token gestures, the main issues that some have with the community here remain. Make no mistake – the principal noise-makers are quite petty and are looking for every single little thing to make the chassidim look bad.

    However, no amount of token gestures will change the fact that the Outremont chassidim have been bypassing zoning bylaws for decades and then presenting the neighborhood with the facts on the ground. That is not the way to do things in a neighborly way and will continue to breed resentment that has nothing to do with the typical xenophobia and anti semitism of certain elements of the francophone community here.

    The fact is, the chassidish leadership here has point blank admitted that they used to “resolve” issues by appealing directly to the elected officials and “smoothing things out” in a way not consistent with the legal process.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This