Q&A: Rabbi Kanievsky
Rabbi Kanievsky
Question
I asked this before, and it seems to me that I didn’t get a satisfactory answer to it—
Why is it unacceptable to you that a rabbi could decide the question of whether to close a Talmud Torah when there is a health danger? After all, this is a value-based decision, and in the appendix to your book God Plays Dice you argued that a rabbi is entrusted with such matters.
What’s so complicated? Suppose they told him: there is a virus that causes severe illness mainly among older people; the number of confirmed infected is such-and-such; the Ministry of Health ordered educational institutions to close (that’s the medical opinion up to this point).
It seems to me that any person with average intelligence or above can think a few steps ahead.
How many are liable to get infected, in a rough estimate (a number that rises geometrically),
how many deaths there could be,
and make a value judgment—which is what a rabbi is entrusted with: Torah study in the yeshivot while maintaining the rule of small groups, or sending everyone home.
And the rabbi, by means of his low intelligence quotient (with which he wrote Derekh Emunah), decided…
Maybe he was wrong and maybe not, but on the level of principle, why can’t he be called upon to deal with such a question?
The famous video with the grandson doesn’t convince me that that was all the information presented to him, in my opinion… and even if it was, I’m asking on the level of principle too!
To claim that his grandsons bias him (which definitely may be happening there… but again, the question is on the level of principle)—there’s no end to that. He decides to rely on them, and presumably he knows them a bit…
You could also say that the doctors in the Ministry of Health recommend things to the political echelon so that when a commission of inquiry is opened they won’t be caught being negligent—and the economy? Let it collapse…
Answer
If you’re the one who asked, then you received a full answer. I’ll repeat it again.
Indeed, value-based decisions are supposed to be given over to a value authority. A rabbi or religious court for its community, the Great Religious Court for the Jewish people as a whole, or the Writers’ Council for Meretz supporters. That is not what the discussion is about.
I criticized the decision on entirely different planes: 1. The one who made the decision made it hastily and did not properly examine it. 2. He probably was also not really in a position to examine it properly. Therefore his community should have chosen a different value-decider. 3. The decision affects the general public and not only his community. And regarding that, he has no authority. I did not accept him upon myself, and I did not give him authority to make decisions that affect me. His decisions infected many people in the public who are not members of his community, took up many beds and much equipment in hospitals that belong to all of us, and required very large public resources that were given to them by us.
Notice that the first two points do not deal with the question of what kind of person the decision-maker is. There I accept the premise that a rabbi can and should be the decision-maker, and I criticize the specific way this was done here. The third point challenges even that.
And in the end, all of this brings about a terrible desecration of God’s name, and no one there even thinks of doing some soul-searching and sending the Jew to repent and stop issuing instructions to the public, and the public doesn’t think of stopping listening to his instructions.
It seems to me that all of this was clarified in the column itself, and also in my previous response to your question (if I remember correctly).
Discussion on Answer
This has nothing at all to do with intelligence. And comparing the works is really not the measure for this issue. In Netanyahu’s case, he is probably a very intelligent person, and I don’t know which of the two has higher intelligence. But Rabbi Kanievsky does not really understand mathematical processes. He didn’t study it and doesn’t understand its principles. I assume he also won’t devote much of his life to getting into the matter. Therefore, in my opinion, he is not really in a position to do this. Beyond that, he lacks data and information sources. And the very fact that he doesn’t understand these deficiencies of his, itself indicates that he is not really in a position to do it. That is a basic condition for your ability to decide such public questions.
The third claim has no connection at all to the discussion. A private person is not obligated to violate his principles for the sake of the public. But he must consider his steps and bear the consequences. But here a decision was made that is not Jewish law, but just a rash decision made without examination. And in fact, a little later it was changed.
Is it possible that Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky is indeed convinced that he understands mathematical processes by virtue of his great expertise in all the recesses of the Torah?
P.S. My Haredi neighbors in Har Nof claim this, and it is very hard to budge them from their strange position.
What’s so hard to understand? There is a number of infected people and it rises; the number rises in a way that multiplies itself. You don’t need years of study to understand this principle; you don’t need to study mathematical principles for this; any average person can understand it.
Just as Bibi explains it in his announcements to the public, because he assumes that any reasonable person can understand it.
A. Why do you assume that the rabbi is not capable of understanding this?
A quote from your words—(in which you rolled several claims together at once, and I have to note that I got a bit dizzy from the transition from topic to topic in a way that is seemingly unrelated, as a response to one substantive claim I raised about a rabbi’s ability to issue a halakhic ruling even against the public interest of the state):
The third claim has no connection at all to the discussion. 1. A private person is not obligated to violate his principles for the sake of the public. But he must consider his steps and bear the consequences. 2. But here a decision was made that is not Jewish law 3. but just a rash decision made without examination. And in fact, a little later it was changed.
There is no connection at all between sentence 1 and sentence 2!
According to sentence 1, it comes out that the entire public must listen to the instruction, because there is no distinction between a private person and the public as a whole when it comes to principles of Jewish law. Exactly what I wanted to hear from you, and thereby the claim you raised in your first response is rejected. Quote:
"The decision affects the general public and not only his community. And regarding that, he has no authority. I did not accept him upon myself, and I did not give him authority to make decisions that affect me. His decisions infected many people in the public who are not members of his community, took up many beds and much equipment in hospitals that belong to all of us, and required very large public resources that were given to them by us…" It is to this quote that I responded above, and I didn’t drift into other topics like you did!
B. Did I infer correctly from your words that if he had received reliable information, he could have decided even though it affects the whole public (assuming he has the talent and analytical ability)? Again, I’m speaking on the level of principle, not about a specific rabbi!
In sentence 2 you already shift entirely to discuss that this is not a halakhic ruling at all—why does Maimonides rule that one must study Torah in every free moment, and this is certainly neglect of Torah study, even though one can study at home, but between us it’s not the same level and not the same commitment (human nature)—is one obligated to suspend Torah study in such a situation… The fact that the Haredim turned Torah into a supreme value around which everything is brought close does not mean that we need to cancel explicit rulings of Maimonides as a counterweight.
And then yet another claim—claim number 3: "This is a rash decision." Fine, we got it, and on that I also agreed that perhaps in practice it was rash, although there is no way to judge that from the video they published… and again I asked to discuss this on the level of principle.
Please examine the points and answer questions A and B clearly and at length, because for once I want to understand properly.
Dear Skeptic, your words above, "What’s so hard to understand?" are excellent proof that neither Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky nor his followers are really in a position to do this. Please look at least at: https://he.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%A7%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%94_%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%AA
I don’t see any point in this discussion. Whoever wants can rely on the decisions of whomever he wants. If you don’t understand that Bibi’s explanations do not provide enough information to make decisions, then there really is no point in talking.
I expect you to use a little reading comprehension. When I write a response to a comment, I write relatively briefly, and sometimes there are several claims in one sentence. There is no problem with that in principle.
If he had received reliable information, he still could not decide for all of us, because we did not appoint him for that. So no, you did not understand correctly.
According to your logic, every statement related to Torah study is a halakhic statement. That is nonsense, and I see no point in discussing it. By that logic, Rabbi Kanievsky should also rule for you what to eat for breakfast, because maybe it will take you a bit more time and there will be neglect of Torah study here.
That’s it. I’m done. I explained what I had to explain, and for the listener it will suffice.
Wow, Gurlin, really, I’m left gaping… amazing… I’ve never seen these things in my life…
And now seriously—
A. There is no difficulty understanding, my friend: 2 to the power of 4 is 16,
and 2 to the power of 10 is 1024.
"Birth rate—if each person has two children born to him (4 children per couple), then the birth rate is exponential with base 2"—from the link you sent.
The base indicates the number of children each person has, and the number of generations we’ll mark in the exponent… and thus we get, for example, that if there are 2 people on an island, then after 7 generations there will be 128 there.
What got you so worked up? You saw a graph and a few complicated words?
Is it really that hard for you to understand… if so, don’t worry, in the near future no one will ask you to decide important matters.
The fact is that Bibi explains it every time; he apparently thinks every reasonable person understands it.
Besides, I always speak on the level of principle, and if there is something so terribly hard to understand, a rabbi could ask a professional to assess the situation for him…
https://www.kipa.co.il/%D7%99%D7%94%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA/957931-%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%91-%D7%A7%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%99%D7%91%D7%A1%D7%A7%D7%99-%D7%97%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%A7-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%9C%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%90%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%97%D7%9E%D7%A5-/
"But Rabbi Kanievsky does not really understand mathematical processes."
I don’t know what the Rabbi means when he says "mathematical processes," but:
A. It’s hard for me to believe that Rabbi Kanievsky is unfamiliar with Rashi on "six in one womb."
The calculation of the years of the children of Israel in Egypt is built more or less on that. And it’s hard for me to believe that Rabbi Kanievsky, may he live long, did not understand the exponential growth that emerges from this interpretation of Rashi.
B. Again, I have no idea what the Rabbi means by "mathematical processes," but understanding exponential growth in the context of an epidemic does not require mathematical understanding. You don’t even need a high school matriculation certificate.
The fact is that the whole country already understood what it means.
Likewise, "flattening the curve" does not require any mathematical knowledge. Basic understanding that everyone in the country who listened grasped.
It’s not for nothing that the news keeps repeating these two concepts all the time; it’s something every person can understand. Certainly a person with developed intelligence like Rabbi Kanievsky.
If understanding these two concepts at their basic level counts as "mathematical understanding," then that would mean we are all a country of great mathematicians.
I very much hope that the decision-makers are not people who understood what exponential growth is from explanations on television. And also that they are people who understand the difference between understanding the processes and understanding the explanations on television.
Netanyahu very intelligent hahaha, and who is smarter, Kanievsky or Netanyahu. Hahaha, that’s a good one.
"The difference between understanding the processes and understanding the explanations on television."
Since the honorable Rabbi says that claims need to be well defined, otherwise we are dealing with a very problematic discussion, and even a waste of time, I would be glad if the honorable Rabbi could explain the difference between "an explanation on television" and "understanding the processes."
That sentence is rather undefined.
The explanation on television demonstrates very simply how exponential growth can cause crazy rates of illness. Likewise, the growth calculation is also explained in a very understandable way.
I’d be glad if the honorable Rabbi sees fit to explain the difference between that and "understanding the processes"?
That is to say, I, as someone who does not participate in government meetings, would be glad to know what "understandings of processes" are taking place in government meetings, according to the Rabbi.
I really do not intend to explain all this here. I’m sure you can understand it yourself. If not, maybe they’ll explain it on television.
Sorry, but do you really think the decision-makers are so smart that they understand complicated mathematical processes studied in a master’s degree in mathematics!?
Obviously they do not understand mathematics and medicine at a high level.
And by the way, in security matters too—just to remind you, Lieberman was Minister of Defense even though he barely served in the army… rather, they hear professional opinions.
They understand at the basic level, as Ehud described, which Rabbi Kanievsky also understands… and beyond that they present to them some 9 scenarios worked out by doctors and mathematicians and other professionals, but they also don’t really know what will happen. The main thing is to present 9 scenarios? In my opinion, no. Usually the differences between them are not great, and the courses of action are few, and it doesn’t really matter what you decide—in the end you need to make a concession and place one value against another.
The main thing is to understand the basics, but to understand them clearly and well, and the values, and then decide…
The fact is that we allow people who have no professional knowledge to run our lives in the government! We trust that they understand the basics and will make a value decision.
Michi, really…
Clarification:
Certainly it adds something, and it is good, to hear more opinions and scenarios, but again, in the final analysis the decision is made based on a clear basic understanding of the situation professionally as it is… and weighing the values…
And again, I’m talking about the principle, not about Rabbi Kanievsky and not about the specific case.
In the last message, every word is correct.
Why then do you not give Rabbi Kanievsky credit for being able to decide questions?
Without talking about how he reached the decision here (since you assume, based on certain pieces of evidence that can be questioned a lot—but in truth that is how most of the public inferred it from the video that was published), but in a case where they would give him reliable professional information… and not 9 optional scenarios…
B. Regarding your words above about Torah study… quote:
According to your logic, every statement related to Torah study is a halakhic statement. That is nonsense, and I see no point in discussing it. By that logic, Rabbi Kanievsky should also rule for you what to eat for breakfast, because maybe it will take you a bit more time and there will be neglect of Torah study here.
Indeed, in principle, a person should study Torah every free moment of his life, and he must consider whether his action is necessary or not.
It is a very difficult commandment, and maybe it’s not pleasant to hear… If he thinks about it every moment he’ll go crazy, and therefore not thinking about it either—but rather thinking responsibly in a general way—is also defined as a need!
And obviously one does not need to ask Rabbi Kanievsky every question whether it is neglect of Torah study… one asks a rabbi only if one does not have enough Torah knowledge to decide, but in such a question each person is his own rabbi, and each knows himself very well… unlike a rabbi who does not know him personally.
Agreed?
Rabbis of the Jerusalem Faction:
If the police prevent carrying out the commandment of burning the leavened food, then every God-fearing Jew should burn the leavened food inside the house:
www.gfvuibiujl.il
If he had sat and studied the issues for a significant amount of time, heard opinions from experts, and received the full data without filters, perhaps there would be room to trust him (although I very much doubt it. I don’t know him, but I get the impression that he is not really in a position to do this). But that is clearly not the situation there.
In any case, I already wrote that whoever wants to rely on him, good for him. Everyone chooses whom he trusts. But in no way instructions that affect the general public, which did not express its trust in him.
There is also room to discuss what you wrote about what one asks and why one asks or doesn’t ask. But I won’t get into it here. I’m worn out.
Moshe, that could actually significantly thin out the number of fools. A welcome evolutionary step.
Regarding the "great ones" of previous generations, about whom it was said that they were expert in various fields of wisdom (for example, the Vilna Gaon in various sciences, the Chazon Ish in medicine to the point that he advised a heart surgeon: https://www.tehillim-center.co.il/article/2991, and more).
Are there different "great ones" today, or are the stories old wives’ tales?
1. I assume most of the stories are old wives’ tales.
2. The question is what counts as being expert in the sciences. Today, in Bnei Brak you can hear people marveling at someone’s expertise in the sciences because he knows English and maybe can solve a quadratic equation. There have been many such cases. When the storyteller has no idea what he is talking about, then in the story there can be greatness and heroism on one table. To determine that someone is expert in the sciences, you yourself need to understand them sufficiently.
3. Sometimes there was someone who learned the sciences from external sources, and people attributed his knowledge to Torah. For example, as far as I understand, the Chazon Ish looked into neurology books (in the library, back in Europe) and drew his knowledge from there. One must remember that the earlier the period, the easier it was to be expert in one science or another, because the knowledge was quite limited.
Even in the Talmud it is told that Rav spent 13 years with a cattle shepherd to learn from him about blemishes in animals. If so, Rav—who is a tanna and disputes with tannaim, and one of the greatest Babylonian amoraim—did not know how to derive this from the Torah. But the rabbi from Weisskhovos did know?!
Maimonides too learned from foreign sources. The Vilna Gaon instructed his student to translate Euclid and write Ayil Meshulash for the benefit of Hebrew readers. He did not extract this by letter-skipping from the Torah.
These were Renaissance people, people who simply learned quite a few sciences in addition to Torah, and they indeed were expert in them. Like Maimonides, for example. He was a great sage, but his wisdom and expertise were not derived from the Torah.
Rabbi Kanievsky is 92.
It is enough for a 92-year-old to be able to manage his affairs independently—most human beings do not merit that.
I would not rely on a 92-year-old for any decision even if in his youth he had been an expert in epidemiology.
Why don’t people retire from public leadership?
A typical story about Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky:
http://onegshabbat.blogspot.com/2016/08/blog-post_31.html
"Our great teacher Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky was asked… whether Coca-Cola is considered a ‘national beverage,’ and he answered that he does not know what Coca-Cola is, and this was conveyed to us.
Therefore, when we came in the evening to pray the evening service with our teacher the rabbi, may he live long, we bought at the grocery store near the rabbi’s house a bottle of cola, and after the prayer we showed the rabbi the bottle. We said to him: ‘There is a sweet black drink here that everyone likes and that is found in every celebration hall,’ and we asked: ‘Does it have the status of a national beverage?’ And the rabbi answered: ‘Today there is no national beverage’…
And we asked the rabbi further: ‘There is cola under the supervision of the Edah HaHaredit and cola under the supervision of Rabbi Landau; which should one buy?’ And the rabbi answered: ‘Why buy cola at all?’ And we said to the rabbi: ‘But drinking this beverage provides Sabbath delight or holiday delight,’ and the rabbi answered: ‘Drinking water is more pleasurable than drinking cola.’ "
Rabbi, you wrote regarding burning leavened food at home: "Moshe, that could actually significantly thin out the number of fools. A welcome evolutionary step."
Your wish came true:
https://www.kikar.co.il/356085.html
Oy vey. That was of course not a wish, but rather finding a favorable angle (finding an advantage in foolish acts, in the sense of extracting the precious from the worthless, or making lemonade from a lemon).
As for the first claim, again, it may be that he specifically was not updated with all the information and details, but you don’t have clear information about that… and to slander him like that is not necessarily just…
As for the second claim, why do you say he was not in a position to examine it properly!?
He is no less intelligent than Benjamin Netanyahu (come on, let’s compare the works they each produced, between A Place Under the Sun and Derekh Emunah).
Again, it may be that they didn’t tell him all the details, but if they did tell him, why would he not be in a position to do it!??
And regarding the third claim you raised: if a rabbi is asked whether to work on the railway on the Sabbath because it costs millions of shekels and causes enormous damage, or regarding operating public transportation on the Sabbath—so from now on, should the worker in the railway or in Egged listen to the government or to the rabbi?
If he rules that halakhically it is forbidden, then according to your approach there is no place for his ruling because it affects the whole public, which will lose many things from it (economically and socially)?