Moshe Feiglin on the Corona Vaccine Threat

‘You’ll have to kill me before you stick a syringe in me’: Feiglin distrusts COVID vaccine

Moshe Feiglin calls for herd immunity and to protect at-risk populations, attacks government: ‘Worse failure than Yom Kippur War.’

Mordechai Sones , Oct 29 , 2020 11:49 AM
Former Knesset Member Moshe Feiglin called to introduce a “herd immunity” policy in Israel while protecting the elderly and at-risk populations, doubts the promised COVID-19 vaccine.

In a Facebook post today, Feiglin attacked government and coronavirus cabinet policies.

“This is a worse failure than that of the Yom Kippur War,” he wrote. “The number of deaths is already the same, but there, in 1973, the war ended and everyone understood there was a failure – a failure of the ‘conception’.

“The problem is that the coronavirus cabinet and decision-makers are physically blocking any other opinion. With real terror,” he said. “It’s forbidden to express another opinion there. And I know this mostly from the inside, from professionals who sit there on committees. There’s no humility or ability to hear opposing viewpoints.”

He called for a policy of herd immunity: “The doctors I met call to focus all resources and efforts on protecting the elderly and sensitive populations only,” he wrote. “In this way, it will be possible to continue the full functioning of the rest of the population, which will be exposed to the virus and develop resilience, with no significant morbidity or mortality. Like this: Overall mortality will decrease, a devastating economic crisis will be avoided, and the end of the crisis can be expected when ‘herd immunity’ is created.”

Even if there is a COVID-19 vaccine, Feiglin suspects it: “You’ll have to kill me before you stick a syringe in me with this vaccine,” he wrote.

In his remarks, Feiglin compared the situation in Israel today with the situation in Sweden, where a policy similar to the one he hopes for has been applied. He said that from now on he would continue to make comparisons between the countries and even promised: “To be continued.”

From Arutz Sheva, here.

Corona Vaccine VERSUS Bitachon

“God Watches Over Fools” Explained

The concept of שומר פתאים השם is being touted as a reason to take the experimental vaccine and not worry.  We are being told that because “most experts and the greatest experts” have decided that the risks are minimal, and the dangers of not taking the vaccine are severe, we must listen to them and vaccinate.
Unfortunately this ruling is based on fundamentally flawed reasoning and a complete distortion of the concept of שומר פתאים השם.  Here are links to two excellent in-depth treatments of the concept in Halacha, the main principles of which I will summarize below.
There are two opposing principles in Halacha which must be reconciled in all situations so that we can live healthy, balanced lives.
1) We have an obligation to protect our lives and wellbeing from danger.
2) We must trust in Hashem to protect us.
If we take extreme, abnormal measures to protect ourselves from danger, we demonstrate a lack of trust in Hashem.  Such measures have unintended consequences that compromise one’s mental health and ability to live a normal, productive life.  We are not supposed to be hypochondriacs or live with paranoia.
Indeed, such fear is a sign that one is a sinner (see Berachos 60A).  The righteous live with purpose and confidence, and put their trust in God.
On the other hand, we are not allowed to expect God to protect us without taking reasonable measures according to the situation.  Behaving in such a fashion requires miracles (of the more open variety) to be protected, and we are not allowed to rely on such miracles.  Even if a reckless person is protected, it detracts from his merits.
The shiurim I provided above illustrate these fundamental principles through a variety of halachic sources. According to the poskim, the following variables all impact the balance between what are considered reasonable risks to take, what is considered dangerous enough to avoid, and when to rely on God:
1. Is it a definite and immediate danger?
2. Is the behavior one that all of society has accepted as normal?
3. What is the likelihood of being harmed?
4. What are the benefits of the behavior?
These criteria must be weighed to determine the proper balance of appropriate risk, appropriate protective measures, and trusting in God.
A few examples will help illustrate this and provide clarity for our situation.
1. It is more dangerous to ride a car or fly in a plane than to go for a walk or stay at home.  However, the dangers are extremely remote, all of society has accepted these modes of transportation as normal, the likelihood of being harmed is close to zero, and the benefits of these modes of transportation are great.  Therefore, these risks are entirely acceptable and one should rely upon  שומר פתאים השם.
2. One is more likely to suffer an injury from playing sports or riding a bike than other forms of exercise. Some sports, like tackle football and boxing, have an extremely high risk of injury, including serious injuries, and are not advisable.  Others have less risk of injury and extremely low risk of serious injuries.  Bike riders, for example, have a greater risk of being hit by a car or suffering a head injury even with a helmet, but overall, with proper precautions, these risks are minimal.
At the same time, these activities have important health benefits, they provide a recreational and social outlet, and in the case of bike riding an inexpensive mode of transportation as well.  The risks involved are low and entirely acceptable, and therefore here too one should exercise caution but otherwise rely upon שומר פתאים השם
When it comes to activities with greater danger, the benefits must also be greater to justify the risk.  For example, one should not go into a jungle to hunt wild animals, for the danger is great and the benefits are minimal at best.  However, one may hunt animals for the sake of his livelihood or the performance of a mitzvah.  These primary benefits justify additional risks.
Similarly, we know that some workers will die during the construction of roads, bridges, tunnels, and other critical infrastructure.  However, the benefits to society far outweigh the risk to any individual worker, and therefore one is allowed to work in construction and rely upon שומר פתאים השם.
With these examples in mind, let us consider the current situation.  The coronavirus is real; we know quite well by now that it can cause long-term health problems and even death. We would be wise to take reasonable precautions to protect ourselves from it, as we would with any illness.  At the same time, we must avoid measures that are extreme and unduly harmful in their own right. We must find a reasonable balance, and then rely on שומר פתאים השם.
Some noted rabbis have urged people to take the experimental vaccine.  They claim that the risks of the vaccine are minimal, the risks are accepted by society, the benefits are great, and the dangers of not taking it are severe. Therefore, one should take it and rely upon שומר פתאים השם.
Unfortunately this is a faulty application of the concept.  The risks of the vaccine are largely unknown and cannot possibly be fully known for many years.  Many thousands of doctors all over the world have raised serious red flags about it, and their opinions cannot be cavalierly disregarded.  Not only are they being disregarded, those who express concerns are being mocked, censored, and punished.  That is hardly reassuring, nor the manner in which new drugs and treatments should be introduced under any circumstances.
In fact, governments are threatening to restrict the basic human rights of people who refuse to take the vaccine  This should be considered far more scary and dangerous than the coronavirus itself.
The benefits of the vaccine are hardly overwhelming.  At best they reduce the chance of developing a severe case of coronavirus if one is infected.  The same benefits can be achieved by boosting one’s immune system and other treatments that have proven to be highly effective and safe.
The risk of coronavirus cannot be compared to smallpox, which killed as high as 20 percent of some populations, nor can the benefits of this vaccine — which are minimal and achievable through other means — be compared to the smallpox vaccine, where there was no alternative.
Indeed, considering the low likelihood of developing a serious case of coronavirus without any intervention, the ease with which one can reduce the likelihood through safe and proven means, and the many unknowns and possible dangers of the vaccine, one cannot in good conscience urge people to take the vaccine and rely on שומר פתאים השם.
Just the opposite!  One should boost his immune system, demand that safer, proven treatments be readily provided as the primary option, then live with normalcy and confidence, and trust God to protect him.
If, down the road, one or more vaccines are truly proven to have tremendous benefits that far outweigh the risks, and are far superior to alternatives, they should be recommended.  We are not there yet.  Not even close.
In the meantime, compelling people in any way to take this vaccine, or restricting their basic human rights for choosing not to, is extremely unethical and must be challenged.  The restrictions that have been imposed upon us to this point are tyrannical and have caused overwhelming suffering and even death in a variety of ways.
We must be allowed to earn a living, spend time with our loved ones, socialize, and live our lives without hysteria and paranoia.  No political leader or rabbi has the right to take this away from us.
I will conclude with two particularly interesting sources that I stumbled upon just yesterday in my regular learning purely by “coincidence”.  They come from Yerushalmi Terumah Chapter 8.
There is a lengthy discussion about the dangers of leaving wine, water, and certain foods exposed.  It begins with the Mishna on page 42A, and I encourage those who are capable to look it up.
At the time there was a clear and present danger of snakes poisoning their liquids in particular, and the Gemara outlines the balance between reasonable precautions and risks in different situations.  Although poisonous snakes are not a concern for us today in most places, the principles are extremely relevant.
The Gemara on page 42A relates that Rabbi Ami had guests, and apologized for not serving them the pasteurized wine he had, for he had left it uncovered.  Rav Bibi said “Bring it and I will drink it.”  Rabbi Ami replied “One who wishes to die should go die in his own house.”
Rabbi Ami had both scientific and halachic cause for concern, and considered his wine forbidden to drink.  Rav Bibi was not concerned, and considered the small benefit of drinking the wine worth the risk that it had been poisoned.  The flow of the sugya indicated that the halacha was with Rabbi Ami; the dangers were serious enough and likely enough to outweigh the benefit.
Significantly, Rabbi Ami allows Rav Bibi the right to take inappropriate risks, just not under his roof.  This too is illustrated throughout the sugya.  Chazal outline the boundaries of Halacha in these areas, but do not impose societal restrictions or limit people’s right to take chances — even inappropriate chances.  People are left with the right to decide for themselves what risks to take.  One’s freedom and independence to make such decisions must remain sacred.  (For those who wish to split hairs, according to the Torah we are allowed to leave our homes without a mask even if there is an infinitesimal chance that we might be carrying an infectious illness.)
An even more remarkable source appears on page 43B. The Gemara relates as follows: “Rabbi Yanai was extremely afraid of snakes, and he would raise his bed atop four buckets of water (to prevent snakes from climbing onto his bed).  One time he stretched out his hand and found a snake by him.  He said ‘remove them from me, שומר פתאים השם.'”
The Penei Moshe explains that Rabbi Yanai cried out for someone to remove the snake, and that God had watched over him.  (This is in fact cited in one of the shiurim linked above.)
The other commentaries, including Rav Eliyahu from Polda, Rabbi Shimon Sirilio, and Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky all explain as follows: “Remove the buckets of water, for I might as well just trust in God.”
Rabbi Yanai had taken extreme measures to protect himself from snakes, measures that were considered by others to be over-the-top.  Despite these measures, he could not completely eliminate the danger, and Hashem showed him that the benefits of taking extreme measures do not justify the effort, expense, and other costs.  One should use normal measures to mitigate the risk — measures that do not upend his life and mental condition — then focus on living his life and rely on God.
This is what we should all be doing, and this is what we should be demanding our elected officials allow us to do.  We should not be taking experimental drugs to lower our risk of catching a serious case of coronavirus from 0.0001 percent to 0.00001 percent.  We should not be plunging one third of society into poverty.  We should not be restricting people’s basic rights to leave their homes, see their loved ones, socialize, pray, learn, and live their lives.
It is immoral — it is downright cruel and a violation of human rights — and it is completely against the Torah and our tradition.
We must take reasonable, proven precautions whose benefits are fully justified, then we must live our lives like normal people and rely on God to protect us.
If you believe this is correct, please share these words as widely as possible, organize, stand up, speak out, avoid unnecessary experimental drugs, and take back your life.
Chananya
___________________

HYEHUDI: What’s the Jewish Connection?

Ever see an article that doesn’t seem related to Judaism on Hyehudi.org – “Aggregated Articles About Judaism”?

Here’s a general rule for reading Hyehudi:

Ask yourself if many of the most famous and scholarly rabbis today would agree with a certain message. If they wouldn’t, well then that’s what I mean to wonder about. And if the said rabbis haven’t expressed an opinion either way, then I mean they really ought to do so.

Rabbi Pruzansky Looks At the REAL America

Third World

      I have been fortunate to visit dozens of countries on almost every continent on this planet, and the standard advisory when visiting any country that is part of the third world is: “don’t drink the water.” Too often the water is contaminated, unclean, unfiltered or insufficiently so, or just doesn’t rest well in a first world stomach. Tourists live off bottled water and hotels routinely provide bottled water (the good ones, for free) in every room. It is the price of visiting these countries and enjoying their other, non-potable, attractions.

Then I realized that for many years most people I know do not drink the water in New Jersey or many other places in the United States. That is why the bottled water business is a $7,000,000,000 (that’s billion) industry in America. It might not be a lot compared to other industries –it is half of what was spent on the 2020 presidential election and a third of what Americans spend on chocolate – but it means that people would rather pay good money, billions of dollars, for something that they can get for free right from the tap. There are very few, if any, similar choices made by a consumer.

What about infrastructure? It is not uncommon in the Third World to travel on potholed roads, rundown highways, and transit systems that are crowded and inefficient (although European trains are a marvel of efficiency and exactitude). Bridges and tunnels are often in disrepair and collapses are not unknown. Railroad tracks always seem to be on their last legs.

Is the United States really that different? The subways in many cities compare unfavorably with the third world. Highways, bridges and tunnels are in such need of upgrade and modernization that it is a perennial promise by the politicians to spend hundreds of billions to do it, and never do. That little seems to be done is not only because politicians need something to promise in the future and the union demands grossly inflate the cost of any project but mainly because until anything breaks down completely, why fix it? That money can be spent elsewhere on something new and shiny.

Likewise, the urban areas in third world countries are teeming with slums, old buildings and neighborhoods, and, too often, garbage and rubbish in the streets. These areas abound with dysfunctional families, aimless children, and poor educational frameworks. While the American poor have standards of living that far exceed that of the third world poor, the rest of the description is far too accurate. A slum is a slum wherever it is, and some slums seem to exist permanently. The inner cities wherever they are located remain places of high crime (and misdemeanors), homelessness, social maladies and disorders that seem to defy resolution. In the US as in the third world, there are areas of great opulence that are a short ride from places of great poverty and deprivation. The only difference is that the US has many more places of great opulence than one would find in the third world.

What else characterizes a third world country? Typically, one finds debilitated social and political systems and even the latter is often tenuously held together by a strong man. In the third world, one expect to see lawlessness, mobs and riots in the streets, with the homes and businesses of the successful looted by the unsuccessful and embittered. One would expect the commission of crimes that will or won’t be prosecuted based on the personal whims of the prosecutor. One expects the judiciary to be so corrupt that it places its political predilections over the rule of law. Justice itself is not just illusory but it is altogether capricious, a veritable gamble as to who wins and who loses. The mob drives disfavored politicians from office and places its favorites into office. The government just prints money and distributes it in order to placate the people, oblivious to the fact that soon that money will be worth less and less.

In the third world, it is quite common that the wealthy people are those who cozy up to government power brokers. Cronyism is rampant, sweetheart deals, contracts and monopolies are the norm, and politicians, oligarchs and their media acolytes are often interchangeable. There is a revolving door in which jobs and perks are exchanged regularly. The media, controlled by the elites, suppresses dissent, breaks and cancels its enemies, and sets the agenda for the society. Cabals in the establishment, usually military or intelligence, plot from within and attempt to overthrow any leader who does not conform to their wishes. Dissidents are cast out of civil society unless they do penance, often embracing views they previously found repugnant in order to regain entry into the world of the elites, and having to pay a premium price to do so. The crimes of the disfavored lead to their excision and incarceration while the crimes of the elites are overlooked, minimized or covered up. The rich and powerful get away with it.

Well, how well does that describe modern America? Almost perfectly. The mobs and rioters intimidated and continue to intimidate decent people. A good percentage of Biden voters did so out of fear that the streets would explode and burn (again) if Biden lost. These threats were not subtle in the least. Cities across America deployed their security agents in force on Election Day lest the mob find the results distasteful. (As a general rule, Republicans don’t burn down buildings or businesses. Why would they? They own the buildings and businesses.) In many cities, property crimes, assaults and trespassing committed by the mobsters were not prosecuted. Literally, people committed crimes by the thousands and got away with it only because their politics of the rioters and the prosecutors corresponded. Some rioters were arrested, released without bail, and then arrested again for more crimes, and released again. Black supremacists are disgracefully hailed even as white supremacists are justifiably castigated.

In New York City, police solve crimes at a rate below 30%, which is actually astounding. Criminals just get away with it, and the average citizen does not realize the extent to which they get away with it. Dissidents on moral issues have their religious liberties threatened and curtailed, even as the margin of victory in the Supreme Court (their last protection) is extremely narrow. Congress is as dysfunctional as any third world parliament, with the only saving grace is that Congressmen have not yet come to blows on the floor of the House or Senate, something quite common in the third world. Elements within the CIA and FBI plotted against a sitting president, and few if any will be brought to justice. Money is printed and distributed by the trillions, which is not to say it is fairly or equitably distributed, or distributed to those who need it most rather than to the oligarchs and political cronies of the powerful.

And what better characterizes a third world country than election fraud? It is almost synonymous with the third world, as is the weaselly, politician/media cliché repeatedly uttered of “no evidence of widespread fraud.” Left open is why there should be any fraud at all, as well as a precise definition of “widespread.” Note this well: if 99 ballots out of 100 are legitimate, and 1 out of 100 is bogus, then most people would not construe that as “widespread” fraud. After all, it is only 1% of the vote. Yet, in the three key states of Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan, Biden defeated Trump by less than 1% of the vote. Widespread? Hardly. Determinative? Absolutely. And if we expand the definition of “no evidence of widespread fraud” to 3% of the vote (meaning that the election was 97% honest) then crunch the numbers and Trump won a smashing victory. I accept the outcome, but please do not insult our intelligence with the vapid banality of “no widespread fraud.” And at least acknowledge as well the oddity that all accusations of fraud went in one direction, not both.

It is sad that the United States, to too great an extent, is becoming a third world country in all the aspects that define a third world country. The great irony is that, notwithstanding this political and moral collapse, only the United States could have produced the Coronavirus vaccine in such record time, and only the United States has the material and constitutional heft to lead the world, to be an example for other nations, and to fight the evil that persists in the world especially in countries antagonized by the American ethos. The United States has many places of astonishing beauty and prosperity, and successful people have long segregated themselves into communities that are gated, literally or figuratively. But Americans can also easily be fooled by the glitz, the glamour, the trappings of modernity and technology, and the soothing sounds of social media that indulge the worst facets of our nature and few of the positive ones. America is filled with soporific distractions, the bread and circuses of the Romans that lulled people into thinking that all is good and getting better even as every feature of civil society was breaking down.

As Romans could tell you, nothing lasts forever. It is easy to get complacent, and easier, and worse, to deny what is happening in front of us because the consequences are too unpleasant to consider. “All are considered blind until G-d opens their eyes,” especially diehard partisans. Those who notice this should take it to heart, ignore the mindless cheerleading and empty platitudes, and draw the appropriate conclusions.

From Rabbi Pruzansky, here.