By COLlive reporter

A mysterious booklet has been landing on doorsteps throughout Crown Heights this week, bearing the provocative headline: “I sent my son to Crown Heights for Shiur Daled.”

Its subtitle reads: “A wake-up call I never thought I would have.”

Featuring AI images of Kingston Avenue, Eastern Parkway and 770, the publication raises concerns about the spiritual atmosphere of Crown Heights, particularly for young bochurim arriving from out of town to spend a year learning near the Rebbe’s shul.

But who is behind it?

There is no author’s name, sponsoring organization or signature identifying those responsible. The only identifying detail is a return address in Monsey, New York, associated with the Tzemach Tzedek shul. Whether the shul had any involvement remains unclear.

The text is written from the perspective of an out-of-town Lubavitcher parent who sent his son to Crown Heights for Shiur Daled, expecting a year immersed in learning, Chassidus and the atmosphere of 770.

“I was not prepared for Kingston Avenue,” the anonymous writer declares.

The booklet presents a troubling portrayal of Crown Heights, suggesting that the neighborhood surrounding 770 has become an environment where young bochurim risk losing some of the spiritual sensitivity instilled in them at home.

“Anyone who regularly walks these streets understands what I mean,” the writer states, describing what he calls “the exposure to immodesty, the erosion of standards of tznius long associated with a Chassidishe shechunah.”

He warns of “the ease with which a bochur can encounter, simply walking between yeshivah, 770, his apartment and a store, an atmosphere fundamentally at odds with the one his parents believed they were sending him here to absorb.”

The author also suggests that residents have become resigned to the situation, asking: “When did yiush, giving up, become a Lubavitcher strategy?”

It is a striking characterization of the Rebbe’s shechunah, particularly coming from an unidentified author whose connection to the community remains unknown.

The publication does acknowledge the efforts of local organizations, volunteers and community activists, while calling for greater involvement from Rabbonim, schools, community leaders and residents.

“This is not a call born of despair,” it concludes. “It is a refusal to despair.”

For a publication demanding greater communal responsibility, the refusal to publicly take responsibility for its own message is particularly striking.