The Mile Only Runs One Way
A new Skver shtiebel opened this past Shabbos in the Nanuet–New City area.
According to Rockland Daily, the shtiebel was established after several Skver families moved into the neighborhood and was opened with the encouragement and bracha of the Skverer Rebbe. It is reportedly the ninth Skver shtiebel serving families throughout the greater Monsey area.
Under normal circumstances, there would be nothing objectionable about that. Yidden should be free to purchase homes legally, establish shuls, educate their children and build communities wherever the law allows.
But New Square’s leadership has demanded that the same freedom not be extended to everyone else.
Remember the Letter
Years ago, New Square’s leadership issued a letter asking Orthodox Jewish families not to purchase homes within approximately one mile of the village.
The explanation was explicit.
New Square needed to remain an “isolated corner” and a “secluded shtetl.” The letter warned that if other frum families moved too close, Skver children could be exposed to different standards of business, shopping and tznius, threatening the community’s supposed “high level of purity.”
The message was unmistakable:
Stay away from us.
Do not move near us.
Do not allow your families, institutions and children to come too close to ours.
We must remain isolated. We must remain separate. We must remain pure.
Yet today, Skver families are being encouraged to move directly into the established neighborhoods of other frum Jews.
There is a growing Skver presence on McNamara Road. The Francis Place shtiebel continues to expand. There is a Skver girls’ school on College Road. And now another shtiebel has opened near New City with the reported encouragement of the Rebbe himself.
So where did the concern for isolation go?
If living among Jews with different customs, shopping habits and standards is so dangerous, why is New Square leadership encouraging its own followers to establish outposts throughout greater Monsey?
Why are Skver families permitted to live among us, while we are told that living near them threatens their purity?
Isolation in One Direction
No one is demanding that Skver families leave Nanuet, New City, Wesley Hills or any other neighborhood.
No one is calling for their shtieblach to be closed.
No one is claiming that their children threaten the character or purity of our communities.
The surrounding Monsey community generally accepts a basic principle: Jews have the right to live, daven and build institutions wherever they may legally do so.
But that principle must work both ways.
New Square cannot insist that its followers may expand throughout the surrounding region while demanding that the surrounding region remain frozen a mile away from its borders.
It cannot celebrate new Skver communities inside other neighborhoods while describing other Jews moving near New Square as a spiritual danger.
It cannot say, “Stay away from us,” while steadily moving closer to everyone else.
That is not isolation. It is a one-way policy of control.
Choose One Standard
New Square’s leadership must choose.
Either living among the broader frum community is acceptable, in which case the entire justification for the mile policy collapses.
Or living among other frum communities is genuinely dangerous, in which case New Square leadership should explain why it is encouraging families, shuls and schools to expand throughout greater Monsey.
They cannot reasonably claim both.
Skver families are welcome to live among us. They are welcome to establish shuls among us. They are welcome to educate their children among us.
But the same right must be extended to everyone else.
The original letter should be withdrawn. The mile policy should end. And the families harmed by it deserve acknowledgment and an apology.
Until then, each new Skver outpost will expose the same glaring contradiction:
The mile only runs one way.
7 Comments
i couldnt say it better
i think its an ego problem
he needs full control of the residents and if there are other shuls nearby he might or will lose some congregants
i remember that around 15 years ago when i was in pine valley nursing home for a few weeks after surgery and was told then that the shul was closed because the rabbi of new square told them to close it so i couldnt go to shul then
This article is too nice. It doesn’t speak to the bullying taking place within the mile. The notion that isolation is even an option is ridiculous. Skver leadership are sinners, haters and not part of the nation we all are proud to belong to. The day the people responsible for these crimes are brought to justice will be a happy day for Monsey and all of Klal Yisrael.
The obvious double standard is truly something to behold.
As a community that supports the expansion of the broader community and helping create an inviting and warm atmosphere in our town.
It is appalling to see how one group holds such a large contrast in terms of a wholesome and healthy goal for this town unlike the vast majority of the residence.
The Mile has got to go
1. Spiritual Preservation and Enclave Lifestyle
• Honoring the Founders’ Intentions: The shtetl was established almost 70 years ago explicitly far away from secular cities to foster a secluded, spiritual lifestyle.
• Fulfilling the Rebbe’s Will: Followers believe the current Rebbe is a holy individual trying to protect the unique visual, behavioral, and modesty standards (kedushah) of his community.
• Protecting Children from Outside Exposure: Defenders argue that surrounding neighborhoods with differing religious dress standards and unrestricted smartphone usage can spiritually harm or dilute the chinuch (education) of their youth.
2. General Real Estate Rights and Intentions
• Free Market Rights: Multiple commenters argue that in a free country, Skver individuals and investors have the absolute right to purchase property anywhere they want for living or investment.
• Not an Intentional Smear Campaign: Pro-Skver voices argue that purchases are meant to create a protective buffer zone for their community, rather than a malicious campaign to intentionally spread inappropriate behavior (pritzus).
• Economic Realities of Landlords: Commenters explain that landlords bring in high-occupancy tenants strictly out of financial necessity to cover high property prices and mortgage rates—a practice they claim is a standard real estate reality across many Orthodox neighborhoods (like Boro Park or Williamsburg).
3. Openness to Torah Law and Formal Arbitration
• Active Desires for a Din Torah: Defenders emphasize that Skver’s leadership and Dayanim (judges) explicitly put out letters welcoming an objective Din Torah (Torah court) to resolve the boundary issues correctly according to Jewish law.
• Condemnation of “Public Shaming”: They argue that the anti-Skver campaign is choosing to launch public internet forums, name-calling, and mudslinging rather than following standard Halachic protocol, which prohibits bringing community disputes into public platforms.
4. Rejection of Communal Blame and Extremist Labels
• Decoupling Radicals from the General Public: Commenters ask that the actions or vulgar recordings of a few bad actors, teenagers, or independent investors not be used to villainize thousands of peaceful, simple, and chessed-oriented Skver families.
• Unfair Double Standards: Pro-Skver advocates mention that other large dynamic groups (such as Satmar or Lakewood) have historically restricted outsiders or protected their unique religious flavors without facing this level of organized online backlash.
1. Spiritual Preservation and Enclave Lifestyle
• Honoring the Founders’ Intentions: The shtetl was established almost 70 years ago explicitly far away from secular cities to foster a secluded, spiritual lifestyle.
• Fulfilling the Rebbe’s Will: Followers believe the current Rebbe is a holy individual trying to protect the unique visual, behavioral, and modesty standards (kedushah) of his community.
• Protecting Children from Outside Exposure: Defenders argue that surrounding neighborhoods with differing religious dress standards and unrestricted smartphone usage can spiritually harm or dilute the chinuch (education) of their youth.
2. General Real Estate Rights and Intentions
• Free Market Rights: Multiple commenters argue that in a free country, Skver individuals and investors have the absolute right to purchase property anywhere they want for living or investment.
• Not an Intentional Smear Campaign: Pro-Skver voices argue that purchases are meant to create a protective buffer zone for their community, rather than a malicious campaign to intentionally spread inappropriate behavior (pritzus).
• Economic Realities of Landlords: Commenters explain that landlords bring in high-occupancy tenants strictly out of financial necessity to cover high property prices and mortgage rates—a practice they claim is a standard real estate reality across many Orthodox neighborhoods (like Boro Park or Williamsburg).
3. Openness to Torah Law and Formal Arbitration
• Active Desires for a Din Torah: Defenders emphasize that Skver’s leadership and Dayanim (judges) explicitly put out letters welcoming an objective Din Torah (Torah court) to resolve the boundary issues correctly according to Jewish law.
• Condemnation of “Public Shaming”: They argue that the anti-Skver campaign is choosing to launch public internet forums, name-calling, and mudslinging rather than following standard Halachic protocol, which prohibits bringing community disputes into public platforms.
4. Rejection of Communal Blame and Extremist Labels
• Decoupling Radicals from the General Public: Commenters ask that the actions or vulgar recordings of a few bad actors, teenagers, or independent investors not be used to villainize thousands of peaceful, simple, and chessed-oriented Skver families.
• Unfair Double Standards: Pro-Skver advocates mention that other large dynamic groups (such as Satmar or Lakewood) have historically restricted outsiders or protected their unique religious flavors without facing this level of organized online backlash.
1. Spiritual Preservation and Enclave Lifestyle
• Honoring the Founders’ Intentions: The shtetl was established almost 70 years ago explicitly far away from secular cities to foster a secluded, spiritual lifestyle.
• Fulfilling the Rebbe’s Will: Followers believe the current Rebbe is a holy individual trying to protect the unique visual, behavioral, and modesty standards (kedushah) of his community.
• Protecting Children from Outside Exposure: Defenders argue that surrounding neighborhoods with differing religious dress standards and unrestricted smartphone usage can spiritually harm or dilute the chinuch (education) of their youth.
2. General Real Estate Rights and Intentions
• Free Market Rights: Multiple commenters argue that in a free country, Skver individuals and investors have the absolute right to purchase property anywhere they want for living or investment.
• Not an Intentional Smear Campaign: Pro-Skver voices argue that purchases are meant to create a protective buffer zone for their community, rather than a malicious campaign to intentionally spread inappropriate behavior (pritzus).
• Economic Realities of Landlords: Commenters explain that landlords bring in high-occupancy tenants strictly out of financial necessity to cover high property prices and mortgage rates—a practice they claim is a standard real estate reality across many Orthodox neighborhoods (like Boro Park or Williamsburg).
3. Openness to Torah Law and Formal Arbitration
• Active Desires for a Din Torah: Defenders emphasize that Skver’s leadership and Dayanim (judges) explicitly put out letters welcoming an objective Din Torah (Torah court) to resolve the boundary issues correctly according to Jewish law.
• Condemnation of “Public Shaming”: They argue that the anti-Skver campaign is choosing to launch public internet forums, name-calling, and mudslinging rather than following standard Halachic protocol, which prohibits bringing community disputes into public platforms.
4. Rejection of Communal Blame and Extremist Labels
• Decoupling Radicals from the General Public: Commenters ask that the actions or vulgar recordings of a few bad actors, teenagers, or independent investors not be used to villainize thousands of peaceful, simple, and chessed-oriented Skver families.
• Unfair Double Standards: Pro-Skver advocates mention that other large dynamic groups (such as Satmar or Lakewood) have historically restricted outsiders or protected their unique religious flavors without facing this level of organized online backlash.
1. The Right to Rent Houses to Gentiles
• The Source: Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 151:9.
• The Text: “One may not sell or rent to three gentiles together in a Jewish neighborhood (Shechunat HaYehudim), but to one or two it is permitted to sell or rent whatever he wishes…”.
• The Skver Explanation: Pro-Skver commenters argue that according to the literal text of the Shulchan Aruch, there is no blanket prohibition against renting a home to gentiles. They contend that because the properties are scattered single-family homes (or handled independently by investors), it does not violate the threshold of establishing a localized gentile neighborhood
2. Legal Realities Outside the Land of Israel
• The Sources: Beis Yosef (on Yoreh Deah 151) and the Dagul Mervava (Siftei Cohen, Yoreh Deah 151).
• The Text: The Beis Yosef observes that modern-day towns are already heavily populated with non-Jewish residents. The Dagul Mervava points out that legal opinions, including the Rambam, suggest strict property restrictions on land ownership apply predominantly or exclusively within the Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael).
• The Skver Explanation: Defenders quote these commentators to argue that outside of Israel, the strict boundary rules are complex and flexible. They use this complexity to state that the anti-Skver side has no clear, absolute claim to prevent real estate sales based on neighborhood boundaries.
3. Acceptance of Local Non-Jewish Neighborhood Demographics
• The Source: Shut Ateret Paz, Choshen Mishpat, Siman 12 (quoted in the thread text).
• The Text: This responsum handles situations where gentiles already live in an apartment complex. It suggests that if three or more non-Jews already occupy a building, the neighborhood is already defined as having that character, meaning a third or fourth sale doesn’t change the dynamic (“Idchei Idchei”).
• The Skver Explanation: Pro-Skver voices argue that the area “within the mile” was not historically a fully homogenous Jewish neighborhood to begin with, meaning investors are simply maintaining a pre-existing real estate status quo.
4. General Financial Autonomy in a Free Market
• The Source: Choshen Mishpat 176 (referenced broadly regarding partnership and investment).
• The Explanation: Supporters use general monetary laws to emphasize that individual investors are fundamentally permitted to use legal entities (like LLCs) to buy real estate, manage property, and maximize their financial returns to cover steep mortgages without checking with community neighbors.
5. Prohibition on Public Humiliation and Disrespecting Scholars
• The Sources: Rambam (Hilchot De’ot 6:7-8) and Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 334 (Hamizveh Et HeChacham).
• The Explanation: In their official letter (Gilai Daat), the Skver Beis Din quotes laws against public shaming and embarrassing Torah scholars. They argue that launching an unvetted internet forum to bash an established community and its leadership is an outright violation of the ethical laws of speech (Lashon Hara) and carries severe spiritual consequences.
Dovy, even with those explanations, the fundamental contradiction remains unanswered.
If Skver families have the right in a free country to purchase homes wherever they choose, establish shtieblach, open schools, and preserve their way of life in Nanuet, New City, Monsey, Lakewood, Brooklyn or anywhere else, then other frum families have precisely the same right near New Square.
You cannot invoke the free market when Skver buys a house and then invoke “spiritual preservation” when another Yid buys the house next door.
You cannot say that Skver families moving into our neighborhoods are merely exercising their legitimate property rights, while families moving near New Square are threatening the kedushah, chinuch or “purity” of Skver.
Calling it a “protective buffer” does not answer the objection. The buffer consists of other people’s neighborhoods and other people’s homes. The surrounding communities existed before those properties were purchased. The people living there are not scenery surrounding New Square.
If the goal is isolation, New Square is entitled to regulate life inside New Square to the extent permitted by halacha and law. Isolation cannot mean controlling who is permitted to live in the communities outside its borders.
As for the argument that some landlords pack houses with high numbers of tenants because the mortgage is expensive: financial necessity does not excuse violating zoning, occupancy or safety laws. “The mortgage is expensive” is not an answer, and does not excuse lawlisness.
Din Torah: If there is a serious proposal for an independent and mutually acceptable Beis Din with jurisdiction over the actual dispute and all relevant parties, put the proposal forward.
The issue is a policy, and the leadership behind it, and the conduct carried out in its name, i.e. the Skver Rebba. The “mile” policy was instituted and endorsed by the Skverer Rebbe himself.
But neither can “don’t blame everyone” become a way of avoiding accountability for an organized policy.
The original article made a simple point: Skver families are welcome to live among us, establish shuls among us and raise their children among us.
We are asking for exactly the same thing in return.
One standard. For everyone.
Very well said Binyomin!
correct– one standart for everyone — you can buy wherever you want . for you or for rent out. to anyone you wanna rent it out to.
and thats exacly what skver is doing