Lockdowns Violate the Torah
On March 17, 2020 I published an article called The Torah Temima on Plagues (below). At the time I understood that the redemption process was rapidly unfolding, but I was still in the dark about so much that is clear today. It takes time for people to realize that everything their government is doing in response to an “emergency” is intended to harm them, and I was no exception.
Israel had placed its unsuspecting population under house arrest for the first time, and we believed it was to prevent a plague from ravaging us. The Gemara in Bava Kama (60B) came to mind, which teaches that in a time of plague one should stay inside. This certainly seemed to mesh with the idea of a temporary “lockdown” until the plague could run its course.
Of course, we now know that the plague wasn't really a plague (certainly not how halacha defines one, even if all those “covid” deaths were really as advertised), and the lockdowns were never about protecting people's health. Furthermore, even if there were a real plague, nowhere does the Torah or our tradition indicate that the government should force people to stay inside. The risk/benefit assessment of leaving one's home for any reason is always left to the individual, even as the Gemara advises people to generally stay indoors.
This point must be emphasized. Jewish law does not grant the government the power to restrict people's movements during a plague, neither to protect them nor for “the public good”. Those who wish to enter the public domain know that others have the same privilege, and this comes with certain risks for everyone. Each individual may take personal precautions as they see fit, or avoid the public domain if they prefer. No one has the right to ban anyone from the public domain because they are afraid of other people exercising their G–D-given right to be there; they can only ban themselves. (Also see Public Safety in the Torah.) (below)
Indeed, the Gemara that people take out of context to support government-imposed lockdowns refutes their logic on the very same page.
One Baraysa teaches that when there is a plague in the city, one should not walk in the middle of the road, because the Angel of Death is walking there; since he has been given permission to go out, he goes out openly. In a time of peace, one should not walk on the side of the road, because then the Angel of Death must skulk around.
Leaving aside scientific corroboration or lack thereof, this teaching clearly indicates that the previous teaching – to stay indoors during a time of plague – is a general recommendation, not an ironclad rule. People were still expected to go about in the streets, and even travel between cities, albeit with precautions to avoid bumping into the Angel of Death.
The next Baraysa is even more striking. It states as follows: “If there is a plague in the city, an individual should not go to the synagogue, because the Angel of Death deposits his instruments there. However, this is only true if there are not children learning there or ten men praying there.”
There are surely deep spiritual lessons here, but the primary message could not be more straightforward. Not only are people supposed to continue to assemble to pray and study Torah during a time of plague, such assemblies offer special protection! The Angel of Death takes up residence in the synagogue specifically when the people abandon it.
Closing shuls and yeshivos during a plague is the worst possible response according to the Gemara. They should be filled around the clock with people praying and children studying Torah.
I know of one shul in Beit Shemesh, most likely one of many, in which the members asked the rabbi a tragic question before Yom Kippur. The shul required everyone to wear a mask and was extremely strict about it. Both the mouth and nose had to be completely covered at all times, no sneaking in some unobstructed breaths whatsoever! However, many of the members were concerned about wearing the mask for so many hours while fasting.
Did they ask if they could relax their strict masking requirements for the most important prayers of the year? No.
They asked if they could hasten the prayers.
The rabbi gave his blessing.
The Master of the Universe was sitting on His throne that day, while these Jews with faces covered petitioned Him for forgiveness, protection, and life. They rushed through this petition, because they were afraid they would get sick and die if they uncovered their faces even momentarily. G–D's house, where they were begging Him for life, was full of deadly diseases.
“G–D, please grant us life, but we have to hurry and get out of here, or we might die.”
Was this gathering a treacherous balancing act like sneaking in a prayer under the shadow of the Nazis or the KGB? No. It was paranoia and slavish obedience to G–Dless “health” authorities, concretized as a holy sacrifice, more life-preserving than anything they believed their prayers to G–D would really do for them. Unreligious Zionism.
If the threat of baring one's Tzelem Elokim in shul on Yom Kippur were truly clear and present, all the devout Jews throughout Israel would have readily taken the necessary precautions. That was far from the case. Clearly, this was more about conforming to social expectations than anything to do with science or Torah.
The Torah is quite clear about this, for those who are unwilling to subvert it to please the G–Dless ones. If there is a plague in the city, public prayers and Torah study keep the Angel of Death at bay. It is no wonder that the G–Dless ones – and their Erev Rav shills – insist that just the opposite is true.
Lockdowns are against the Torah; entering the public domain is a sacrosanct personal right.
Restricting access to shuls and yeshivos flies in the face of the Gemara, which encourages public prayer and Torah study to continue unabated during times of plague – all the more so when it isn't a plague as defined by halacha.
Religious Jews who are truly religious, G–D-fearing people must take guidance from the Torah and fight for the Torah's position. They must educate the “health” authorities and stand firm for what is true. If the “health” authorities refuse to accept the truth, they must be replaced, period.
This is our religious duty. In the merit of petitioning Hashem properly, together, without fear of illness or one another, He will surely bless us with life. That is the way of the Torah, the tree of life for all who hold fast to it.
__________________________
If you received this from someone else and want to receive future articles directly, please send a request to endthemadness@gmail.com.
* * *
I prefer natural immunity to artificial immunity, and natural intelligence to artificial intelligence.
March 17, 2020
Incredible Torah Temimah to share with you. Thousands of years ago our sages knew more about how to react in times of plagues and viruses than most of the "experts" of today, with all their technology and presumed enlightenment. Don't try this at home, kids, but those who are true masters of the Torah can derive all knowledge of this world from the Torah. The translation is my own.
Torah Temima on the Torah, Sh'mos 12:22
"And you shall not go out". The Rabbis taught, when a plague is in the city, gather in your feet [stay inside], as it says "And you shall not go out, a man from the entrance of his home until the morning." (Bava Kama 60B)
We normally explain "gather in your feet" to mean that one should not flee his city to another city, and in contrast to what is written here [it says] when a famine is in the city, scatter your feet. There it means that one should leave the city, as it brings the proof there from the verse "And there was a famine in the land, and Avram went down to Egypt.”
However, the Maharsha writes that regarding a plague we cannot explain it thus, for certainly when a plague is in the city it is also good to scatter one's feet, meaning to escape for one's life. Rather, here is means that so long as one does not leave the city, he should gather his feet to his home and not go out in the streets. These are his words.
It is unclear how he knows to explain it like this based only on logic. Indeed, also in the responsa of the Maharil (35) he writes similarly in a different vein. That is that in the beginning of the plague one should leave the city, but not in the end, and it is unclear how he knows this as well.
However, the words of the Maharsha are implied by the verse that the Gemara brings as well as support for this, and that is the verse in Yeshaya 26, which is referring there to the time during the plague: ìGo, my nation, come inside your rooms and your doors for your sake...until the anger will pass.î This implies that ìgathering inî refers to inside the home. And also from that which they bring there, from the verse in Parshas Ha'azinu, ìOutside the sword will bereave, and inside there will be fright,î implies that if they are simply not outside they will have a small rescue.
As for what the Maharsha writes based on logic that when there is a plague in the city it is good to escape for one's life ñ the truth is that one can bring a proof to this from Taanis 20B. They said to Shmuel, there is a plague in Bei Chozai. He decreed a fast in his city, and the reason is explained that because there were caravans [going from Bei Chozai to Neharda'ah] it would come with them. That being the case, all the more so in the city [of Bei Chozai] itself it would be possible for the illness to be contracted.
And this is like what Rabbeinu Bachye writes in Parshas Korach a reason for what Hashem writes,
Separate from this congregation and I will consume them,î it is so that they should not be infected by the bad air of the plague, as it says by the wife of Lot, ìAnd she looked behind him…î
As for what the Maharil writes that at the end of the plague one should not leave the city, perhaps the reason is that since it has already become entrenched in the city and has not harmed him, he has already become used to it [immune] and it will no longer harm him.
___
In sum, he reconciles seemingly conflicting sources to suggest that before a plague has become widespread in an area, it is advisable to leave the area. However, once the plague is widespread, it is best to remain indoors until it passes. Once this occurs, it is best NOT to leave the city, for he is likely immune to the strain that afflicted the city. Gold.
March 12, 2021
Apropos to the following article, yet another Erev Rav has come out with an insane "ruling" that defames innocent people, encourages segregation and baseless hatred, and pressures people to take an experimental drug against their wishes.
So-called "ethicists" are the worst. Ethicists are to ethics what fact-checkers are to the truth.
I was given the opportunity to respond to the story on the INTR Daily Newscast, beginning at 1:51.
This wasn't included on the newscast, but I also stated that a rabbi who makes a ruling like this must have his credibility called into question, as well as that of the organization he represents.
Keep pushing back, without fear. This is a fight, and the gloves have to come off.
Chananya
Public Safety in the Torah
We hear a lot these days about sacrificing our most basic personal rights for the sake of public health and the greater good. Even the most essential rights, such as the right to show your face, breathe unencumbered by a mask, leave your home, earn a living, pray with others, go to school, meet loved ones and friends, travel, and so much more, have been sacrificed on the golden altar of public health. Any of these activities might incrementally raise the chance of getting yourself or someone else sick, and must therefore be prohibited indefinitely.
Most recently, the right to refuse being injected with an experimental drug has also been eroded, with the eventual goal of making it untenable for people to continue resisting. The people behind this cynically insist that no one is being "forced", as they continuously tighten the screws in every way possible. Medical autonomy, informed consent, and the right to decide what drugs if any you put in your body have also been sacrificed on the altar of "saving lives”.
All this has been thrust on the public by powerful people with conflicts of interest, media mouthpieces, and establishment shills who decided for them as one. They demand our blind trust and unswerving obedience, with no transparency or accountability. Of course, there is no time for that when public health is in jeopardy.
Even G–D proved Himself before imposing laws on Man, and G–D can get away with whatever He wants. G–D's prophets must prove themselves before being trusted, and must adhere to strict standards to maintain that trust. The wealthy and powerful people who wish to replace G–D consider themselves above such petty inconveniences. We must "follow the experts", period.
Anything can be rationalized in the interests of public safety, and these days it sure is. The day will come when "medical ethicists" declare that we should murder certain people to harvest their organs. After all, if we can sacrifice one life to save many lives ñ particularly if the first life is not "worthwhile" ñ it should be done for the greater good.
The only source we can turn to for objective moral truth is the Torah. Let's see what the Torah has to say about public safety.
Of the 613 mitzvos, there is exactly one which obligates people to take a proactive measure to reduce the likelihood of others being harmed in the course of normal life. This is mitzvah #494 in the Rambam's count, to make a fence for one's roof to prevent someone from falling (Devarim 22:8). This is followed by the negative commandment not to place blood in one's house.
Chazal derive from this a prohibition to keep a dangerous dog or a faulty ladder in one's home. The Rambam elaborates that we should build fences around dangerous buildings and pits, and remove things that pose a clear and direct threat to human life. Contemporary examples would include having safe construction sites, maintaining roads and other infrastructure, and clearing minefields. (See Sefer Hamitzvos positive commandment #184, negative commandment #298, Kesubos 41B, Bava Basra 61A.)
Rashi cites a Midrash that provides important insight into the Torah's position on public safety. The Torah refers to the potential victim as "the one who will fall". One who is destined to fall will fall regardless of whether or not the homeowner builds a fence on his roof. The Torah is commanding us to prevent the tragedy from happening in our home.
In essence, the mitzvah is not so much to protect the lives of others, for the Angel of Death will do his job regardless when the time comes, but to protect ourselves from being his assistant! Obviously we are forbidden to actively jeopardize other people's lives, but this does not condone restricting normal human behavior inside or outside their homes. We must take basic protective measures to ensure that a tragic accident ñ which will happen anyway ñ will not happen in our domain, and that's it.
Chazal illustrate the sanctity of individual rights in the public domain. It is the responsibility of those who enter public spaces not to actively harm others with reckless behavior. At the same time, they must recognize that others have every right to be there as well, and protect themselves accordingly. If two people are walking in public and unintentionally collide, neither is liable for damages. The responsibility of one not to cause unintentional harm to his fellow is equally balanced by his fellow's responsibility to protect himself from unintentional harm when he leaves his home. If both were running, the same applies.
If one was walking and the other was running, our Sages dispute whether one's right to run in public, which creates an additional threat of danger to others, makes him liable for an accident. The Mishna rules that the runner is still not liable, for the walker should be aware that others have a right to run in public and take precautions. Issi ben Yehuda argues that in this case the runner is liable for doing something out of the ordinary, and the halacha follows this opinion.
However, he agrees that if he were running "with permission", for the sake of a mitzvah, then he is not liable, for that is considered acceptable behavior even if it increases the potential risk to others. (See Bava Kama 32A.)
Similarly, if a shopkeeper places a lamp in public and it causes damage, he is liable. Rabbi Yehuda argues that if he places the Chanuka lamp in the street he is not liable, though the halacha does not follow this position. Lighting a fire in the street is not sufficiently normal and justifiable to receive indemnity from unintended harm.
Nevertheless, it must be noted that one is not forbidden to place a lamp outside his store; he is simply liable if it causes unintended harm. The Torah and Chazal did not restrict the right of people to engage in irregular activities in the public domain. They simply did not grant them indemnity in these cases.
The Torah does not obligate people to take extreme, self-harming measures to protect others from unintended harm. One who takes such measures voluntarily is either a saint or a fool, but this is never imposed on people. The damage caused to society by such measures far outweighs any presumed benefits, especially in light of the fact that whoever must fall will fall regardless. The imposition of extreme protective measures on the public will always cause more harm than good, and violates the Torah's teachings on human rights.
Those who claim that people are required to wear masks in public to protect others from the remote chance of getting sick are falsifying the Torah (aside from the dubious science behind their premise).
Those who claim that people are obligated to take a drug ñ let alone an experimental drug that has already been responsible for many injuries and deaths ñ to protect others from getting sick are falsifying the Torah.
Those who claim that businesses, shuls, and other places normally open to the public must discriminate against people who do not engage in self-harm to prevent one who will fall from falling are falsifying the Torah.
Those who suggest that one who behaves normally and by some remote chance gets another person sick is liable for damages is turning the Torah completely on its head. If this person is a rabbi, he has forfeited his credibility, irrespective of his knowledge and credentials, and his words are null and void.
Those who claim that anything goes in the name of "public health" and "the greater good" are ignorant of history, and abetting evil.
All the above will have to give a reckoning for every ounce of harm they inflict on individuals and on society.
Those who voluntarily wish to take extreme precautions to avoid the slightest chance of harm may do so, but they are mostly likely exhibiting mental illness or lack of faith. That is their right, but they have no right to infringe on the rights of others to behave normally in the public domain. If their main preoccupation in life is to reduce their presumed chances of catching a virus at the expense of all else, they should stay home. No one needs to accommodate them or indulge their obsession.
The Torah's position on public health and safety is quite clear. Our rights to live normally and behave normally in public are sacrosanct, even in times of elevated concern about a virus. That is the public good.
No comments:
Post a Comment