With God’s help, 23 Tishrei 5781

To Shlomi — greetings,

The Belz Rebbe warned his followers that anyone who does not feel well, or has any symptom of the illness, must leave the study hall and return home.

Likewise, a public proclamation was issued by the religious court of Machzikei HaDat that anyone who feels even a single symptom must isolate at home and not go out until fully recovered. See the article “In the Name of the Belz Rebbe: Corona Declaration in the Study Hall” (on the Kikar HaShabbat website, dated 13 Tammuz 5780).

Since he knows he can rely on his followers to obey and voluntarily place themselves in full isolation even over a mild symptom, one could say that the concern about infection in the public sphere from asymptomatic carriers is smaller. Therefore, when weighed against the concern over the spiritual harm caused by the disruption of Torah and prayer life, in the Belz Rebbe’s view there is room to suffice with fully distancing only those who have symptoms.

Regarding the “test of results,” I would note that from the article “Pray: These Are the Severe Corona Patients from Belz Hasidism” (Kikar HaShabbat, 1 Av), it emerges that in the Belz community, which numbers thousands of families, there were then only 7 severely ill patients! Of course, voluntary self-isolation is something that can be carried out in a relatively small Hasidic community where obedience to the Rebbe is absolute. Therefore I would not suggest learning from Belz’s success for societies that are less obedient.

With wishes for a healthy winter,
Sh.Tz.

Paragraph 3, line 3
… the concern over the spiritual harm in disrupting Torah life …

Sh.Tz., if the words of Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky and the Belz Rebbe are so understandable and pleasing to you, why do you remain in the Religious Zionist ציבור? Why not elevate yourself, higher and higher, by donning a kapoteh and wearing a shtreimel, and grabbing leftovers at the tish?

Since the main purpose of the lockdown is to reduce the burden on the healthcare system, it makes sense that the interest of every small group is to ignore the issue, knowing that if illness comes there will still be enough room in the hospitals. If everyone were Belz (and others, etc.), then Belz would run into much more serious trouble, and all the strength of those who make law for themselves exists only because others absorb it in silence and spread a health safety net under their roofs. Like the story about a town where everyone agreed to pour a cup of wine into a barrel in the center of town so they’d have a barrel for the festival day, but clever Moishkovovitz brought a cup of water, because either way: if everyone else brought wine, who’ll notice my water, and if everyone brought water, why should I be the sucker. In the end everyone really did bring wine, and Moishkukovitz came out jubilant and happy that he’d outsmarted the fools. In the end, in the latter days, those same fools seized him, spat a juicy gob in his face, and fined him a hundred dinars until his face grew dark like the curtains of Solomon. And to this day he sits alone and silent while a dove relieves itself on his head morning and evening.

With God’s help, 24 Tishrei 5781

To Natan — greetings,

What we learned from Rabbi Yosef Karo, the author of the Beit Yosef, is this: before setting a “tish,” a set table for all Israel — that is, a Shulchan Arukh — one must gather all the approaches and opinions, striving to understand deeply the reasoning and rationale of each one. Only after clarifying all the approaches can one reach a clear decision: what is the main Jewish law, what is the most widely accepted opinion for practical Jewish law by which one should act ideally, and what are the less accepted opinions on which one relies only in extenuating circumstances.

Our teacher Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, head of the religious court of the Machzikei HaDat community in London (who also wore a spodik 🙂 taught us that just as in Jewish law, so too in matters of faith and outlook, and also in questions of public policy, one must study all the approaches in depth and understand their reasons and rationales, and only through a comprehensive clarification of the different approaches can one who is qualified to rule decide what the “royal road” is.

That same approach — understanding the different positions and their reasons — is what I try to apply to every question on the table, and it’s what I’m trying to do with the “corona” question now before us.

Personally, I connect more with the approach of Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky and Rabbi Gershon Edelstein, that one must insist that Torah and prayer life continue, but also be careful to follow the requirements of the health experts: avoiding crowded gatherings, dividing into small groups, ensuring ventilation, and wearing masks. Measures that allow routine Torah and prayer life to continue while preserving health.

In my humble opinion, this is the “royal road” agreed to by most of the leading sages of our generation from all sectors, but alongside it we also have a duty to understand the different approaches in either direction, such as the approach of Rabbi Asher Weiss, who called for being much stricter than the Health Ministry and continuing to keep synagogues and yeshivot closed even when the Health Ministry permitted reopening.

And on the other hand, one should also understand the Belz Rebbe’s approach, who holds that there is no need for distancing measures in synagogues and yeshivot. For that I suggested the explanation that since they are strict that anyone with even a mild symptom should enter voluntary isolation, their method may allow greater leniency regarding distancing in the public sphere. Understanding an approach does not obligate accepting it in practice, just as in every Talmudic passage we analyze.

With blessings,
Sh.Tz.

By the way, the only Hasidic “tish” I ever attended in my 62 years was apparently a Belz tish that I went to with friends from Merkaz HaRav yeshiva about 40 years ago. Maybe thanks to that tish I merited understanding the Rebbe’s view forty years later 🙂

In paragraph 6, lines 2–3
… since they are strict — that anyone who feels even a mild symptom should enter voluntary isolation until fully recovered — they can be more lenient about distancing in the public space that is free of symptomatic people. Understanding the approach… does not obligate accepting it….

The big mistake here is that the Belz Rebbe’s approach should interest no one. It really doesn’t matter for the discussion whether he has good reasons and whether he is right. His gall in deciding for the general public in a place where he is liable to others, and without anyone appointing him, is gall for which he ought to be sitting in prison, and the sooner the better. Instead of studying this idiot’s profound doctrine, that’s what should have been done to him. Again, entirely regardless of whether he is right.

Rabbi Kanievsky’s approach also shouldn’t interest anyone. He ought to be sitting in prison too, and the sooner the better!!!

Why don’t you say that about the restaurateurs who are rebelling, and about most of the Jewish people who violated the guidelines and went beyond the 1000-kilometer range?

https://m.maariv.co.il/amp/business/economic/israel/Article-794934
The business revolt. In short, we are at the height of anarchy, and every anarchist gets articles and coverage — unless he’s Haredi, in which case he’s an arrogant idiot who belongs in prison, and there’s no need to discuss at all whether his words are good and whether he is right, because no one should care about the ruling of the rebbe from Lod. There are people for whom the world is a parable, and the lesson is money, and those people, and only those people, should be heard and encouraged.

It interests you so little, that ruling from Lod, that you make a mighty effort tens of thousands of times over to spring into action and talk yourself senseless about it.

Ah, a ruling like “ate,” not a ruling like “bill.”

In column 335 the Rabbi wrote, among other things: “For some time now I have felt frustration and helplessness in the face of what is happening around me. The discourse has been lost. Facts have stopped playing a role because there are always counter-facts, suspicions and conspiracies (some of them justified), and various interpretations (some of them downright stupid but presented confidently and by ‘experts’ who know everything and are only pushing an agenda), and in truth you can never know who is right and who is wrong. What is reliable information and what isn’t. Not to mention analytical ability and independent thought, which no longer exist. People make utterly foolish arguments with absolute confidence, because after all all the facts point to it. And besides, this genius or that expert said so explicitly. Why is he a genius and an expert? Because he says the truth — meaning he thinks like me. Is his genius relevant to the discussion? Certainly. Why? Just because, he’s a doctor….” What I am showing here at intervals is indeed that your being a genius and a doctor is not relevant to the discussion, and enough said.

The Rabbi wrote*

https://tech.walla.co.il/item/1546865

https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%93%D7%9E%D7%92%D7%95%D7%92%D7%99%D7%94

Rabbi,

A. Please give a summary of the content in the link you posted, for the sake of those who are blocked.

B. You have explained several times that in extreme cases there is room for civil disobedience and refusal of orders.

Someone here raised the example of the restaurateurs. If they feel, as one, that the state is ignoring them and not compensating them properly, we can understand their rebellion, even though their need is sectoral.

How is the Belz community different? They have an existential need for a certain kind of religious life, and they feel they have no attentive ear in the government.

Rabbi,

1. Please give a summary of the content in the link, for the sake of those who are blocked.

2. You have explained several times that there is room for civil disobedience and refusal of orders where the instructions are unreasonable.

Above they brought the example of the restaurateurs. If the restaurateurs feel the government is ignoring them, we would understand if they disobeyed the government.
Why is it different here? Why can’t we understand that the Haredi community feels the government does not see their elementary needs, and that they have no attentive ear?

My dear Chaim, the Rabbi has moved into the realms of demagoguery, after it was proven many times that he acts out of an agenda and suppression of speech instead of dealing with claims and facts.
In the link he attached instructions on how to neutralize trolls… that’s what happens when there’s nothing to answer — you move to petty tracks. I attached a link to the Wikipedia entry on demagoguery.
Don’t expect your questions to be addressed, Chaim, because there are no answers.

Chaim, at your request, from the Wikipedia entry:

False analogy — using some similarity between two matters in order to create a full parallel between them, while ignoring essential differences.
Distorting the claims of the opposing side — turning one’s opponent into a laughingstock by distorting his claims and presenting them in a ridiculous light.

With God’s help, 24 Tishrei 5781

To Rabbi M.A. — greetings,

Is the Belz Rebbe “liable to others”?

The current situation in the country, following the attempt to suppress corona by means of lockdowns, is the greatest harm one could imagine.

After all, the lockdown destroys the economy and social life, and its medical and psychological damage is no less dangerous than corona. And its long-term effectiveness approaches zero. Once the lockdown is lifted, the plague will return, so what did the sages accomplish with their ordinance?

So necessity cannot be condemned, and we have to look for solutions to the problem “outside the box,” because even the experts don’t really understand how the virus behaves, and they do not offer a paved road to a solution.
So it is not superfluous to seriously examine other ways of coping as well.

As for the “method” adopted by the Belz Rebbe — placing anyone who feels a symptom into voluntary home isolation, while only the completely healthy remain in the public sphere — there is room for two questions:

(a) Is it effective?
On the one hand, there is the problem that even an asymptomatic carrier can infect others, and on the other hand it may be that such a carrier still has lower chances of infecting others, especially severe infection, since the lack of symptoms shows that the quantity of virus in the carrier’s body is small (and for that reason, for example, they do not isolate a “second-order corona contact,” someone who came into contact with someone who came into contact with a verified corona carrier).

(b) Can this serve as a systemic solution for the public?
Voluntary isolation of anyone who feels weakness or a symptom can be implemented in a small Hasidic community committed to obeying the Rebbe’s instructions, and beyond that because of the individual’s fear of the community’s watchful eyes. It seems to me this cannot serve as a solution for an entire public, who may adopt the disregard for distancing in public space without adopting the necessary condition — voluntary self-isolation of anyone who is even a little sick.

With wishes for a healthy winter,
Sh.Tz.

As for putting him in prison —
It seems to me that since the overwhelming majority of the country’s citizens violate the lockdown laws, or at least “cut corners,” it would be better to put in prison the select few who keep the regulations in every minor and major detail, and that way the few righteous people will be safer 🙂

With God’s help, 24 Tishrei 5781

Why should we starve the “troll”? After all, as Jews we are commanded: “Draw out your soul to the hungry and satisfy the afflicted soul” 🙂 On the contrary, it is our duty to be “mindful of the poor,” and there is no poor person except one poor in understanding, and to answer the one who argues with a reply that will leave him satisfied.

And there are two kinds of “troll”:

If your troll is hungry — feed him bread,
Bread symbolizes knowledge. Don’t pour on the head of someone whose position annoys you. Address the substantive “hard core” of the valid arguments within the flood of your disputant’s claims, and explain your position while grounding it in reasoning and evidence.

You won’t convince your rival, who is already fixed in his position, but there is a chance that the undecided reader will listen to your words. And in any case, “you heap coals on the head” of your bread (not on your rival’s head…) — your own method will become clearer and better grounded, as a result of the need to deal with your rival’s arguments.

And if your troll is thirsty — give him water to drink,
Read not “thirsty” but “attention-seeking.” Very often, the stubborn debater who attacks coarsely again and again is simply thirsty for attention. When he does not get it in a positive way, he seeks it in a negative way. Do not withhold attention from one who thirsts for it, but instead of the fire of quarrel, give him the refreshing waters of kindly, non-offensive humor, which may bring a smile even to the face of the angriest “troll.” And may God repay you!

With the blessing “we are blemished ones, children of blemished ones,”
Blemish-Troll

In the last paragraph, lines 3–4
… but instead of the fire of quarrel, give him to drink…

Mr. Blemish-Troll, may he live long, it’s too easy to dismiss someone who argues with you stubbornly as doing so because he wants attention, and then arrive at the solution of giving him kindly humor to drink. In my opinion (and based on our shared experience, with each person according to his own taste), this automatic solution (“very often”) simply testifies to an advanced rigidity on your part, which allows you to stick to your opinion even when the error is obvious in itself or when the other person explicitly pointed it out to you (and in his opinion = my opinion, with arguments such that if Nachmanides had seen them he might have said that sometimes our Torah really is like the science of combinatorics). The honor of politeness has its place, but when it is only verbal it loses most of its importance.
Most people simply write what seems right to them without deep agendas. In rare and obvious cases, yes, Torah emerges under its bridal canopy that a troll stands before you who will not tire, will not hear, won’t succeed, doesn’t get it, is agenda-driven, a useless nag, and pitiful.

To Muminama — greetings,

Indeed, there are many debaters who keep repeating their claims because they don’t have the patience to read beyond a line or two in order to find the full and detailed answer to their arguments.

For such claimants, a short summary of the matter may help. If even a brief summary and clarification do not help, there is no need to continue the argument, and one can stop, for the discussion has exhausted itself.

Regards,
Sh.Tz.

This morning’s report in Yedioth: “Despite the morbidity in the army, the Chief of Staff announced: ‘We will hold the large exercise in the north even at the price of 1,000 infected. There is no choice; we must be prepared. Corona cannot paralyze the IDF.’”

Everyone has his own values — here it’s the Chief of Staff and there it’s the rebbe.

Tam, are you okay?

The IDF’s readiness for war is not a matter of values. It is a matter of human life (unless human life is not a value for you and for the Belz Rebbe). The risk of death in war (and of injuries and disabilities) is simply much greater than the risk of death from corona. Only infantile Haredism can compare these two things. Is everything life-saving necessity for the Haredim? Even second hakafot? About this it was said: folly is set in high places.

Immanuel,
Apparently you didn’t read the Belz Rebbe’s explanation as brought at the beginning of the thread. He argues that spiritual death is more severe. You can argue with that; I only proved that everyone, according to his values, acts as he sees fit even though the legal system says to act otherwise.

And for the sake of those who are blocked…. Amit Segal: One conclusion from the plunging infection data: the gap between the media coverage of the reckless extremists during the holidays and the silent, responsible majority has never been greater. Food for thought not only on corona matters, but in other areas as well. All of our coverage focused on a few hundred on the beach and a few thousand Hasidim, but the overwhelming majority of millions of Israeli citizens followed the rules. That’s the nature of the media, but here there is actual mathematical proof that maybe in the future it would be worth thinking outside the box of extremism in other areas too, such as economics, politics, and more.

To Tam — greetings,

I am astonished at you: nowadays, when it is a danger to life to go “outside the capsule,” you suggest “thinking outside the box”? Did not the sages say: “A man shall live each in his capsule” 🙂

Regards,
The Box of Rabbi Sh.

It really is scary to go out, especially if you’re not going to demonstrate. .