When Rabbi Zeira finally realized his dream of reaching Eretz Yisrael, only a river separated him from his goal. Rather than wait for the next ferry to take him across, he decided to use a primitive bridge consisting of a log spanning the river, which he walked upon while holding on to an overhead rope to ensure that he wouldn’t fall.
A heathen observer of this rickety crossing cried out to him: “Impulsive people that you are, who put your mouths before your ears (when they said “we will do” before they said “we will hear” in accepting the Torah without knowing what it required of them), you are still acting impulsively. Why don’t you wait for the ferry in order to make a safer and more comfortable crossing.”
To this Rabbi Zeira sighed: “A land which Moshe and Aharon did not merit to enter – who knows if I wait any longer that I will have the privilege of entering it!”
(Kesuvos 112a)
Excerpted from “The Love of the Land – Selections from classical Torah sources which express the special relationship between the People of Israel and Eretz Yisrael“, by Rabbi Mendel Weinbach, Dean, Ohr Somayach Institution.
נכתב ע”י צוות תלמידי חכמים לאחר בירור יסודי ומעמיק של פרטי ההלכה, המציאות והשתלשלות העניינים בבית הדין המיוחד בעניין מנהיג שובו בנים • מהדורה ראשונה תמוז תש”פ birur1000@gmail.com
תוכן הענינים
פרק א’ – מטרת הקמת בית הדין המיוחד……………………………………………………………………………………………. 3
פרק ב’ – “חזקת הכשרות” של מנהיג שובו בנים ………………………………………………………………………………….. 4
פרק ג’ – ראיות ואומדנות לנכונות השמועות הקשות………………………………………………………………………………. 6
פרק ד’ – דין קבלת עדויות שלא בפני בעל דין בנידון דנן …………………………………………………………………………. 8
פרק ה’ – כמות ותוכן וטיב העדויות שהגיעו לביה”ד……………………………………………………………………………….. 11
פרק ו’ – תחבולות שקרים וזיופים מול עדויות וראיות אמת……………………………………………………………………….. 12
פרק ז’ – תוקף עדותו של עד אחד בנידון דנן ………………………………………………………………………………………. 15
פרק ח’ – עידי הודאה ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 17
פרק ט’ – תוקף עדותן של שאר העדויות בנידון דנן ……………………………………………………………………………….. 20
פרק י’ – צורך השעה וגדירת גדר……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 21
Make no mistake about it: the rot eating away at Western society from within has nothing to do with rectifying any problems in society. It is a war led by Amalekites, powered by an army of empty people and useful idiots, against God and everything sacred.
This war will not be won by exposing their endless hypocrisies and mocking their twisted logic. Were that the case it would have been won generations ago – yet the good guys have continuously lost ground. Like any war, this war can only be won when a critical mass of people follows these essential steps
1) Recognize that this is in fact a war
2) Achieve the motivation and determination to fight the war
3) Understand the nature of the war and the tactics of the enemy
4) Unify and organize
5) Prepare a response that neutralizes the tactics of the enemy and takes advantage of their vulnerabilities
6) Execute the response
Missing any of these steps renders defeat a near certainty, barring an unexpected and undeserved stroke of good fortune.
I have written extensively about the nature of Amalek and their tactics. In a nutshell, they wage war on God by sowing moral doubt and confusion, gradually eroding the convictions of even those who previously held strong beliefs, amassing an army of followers who lack moral convictions to carry out their evil designs, and overcoming a society that has surrendered its identity and purpose, having lost the will and manpower to fight before it is too late.
Amalek has successfully neutralized Europe, is in the advanced stages of conquering America without planes and tanks, and is using the same tactics to weaken Israel from within more than all its external enemies have collectively managed since the state was declared. It is the same playbook every single time. They erode the foundations of a moral society, using the system to destroy itself, until it is doomed.
The main weapon to defeat Amalek is loudly and proudly standing up for the moral truth, not compromising an iota in the face of their hollow condemnations. Those with strong moral convictions need to bolster themselves to resist their intimidation and bullying. Then they need to turn the tables on the aggressors posing as victims, challenging them and putting them on the defensive. Finally they need to rally the common folk, who are easy prey for Amalek, to stand with them for truth and God’s objective, unchanging morality as expressed in the Torah – the only religious code Amalek attacks, precisely for this reason.
There are many decent but uneducated people around us who are easily lured by Amalek’s incessant, insistent preaching, amplified by a compliant media that presents radical opinions as unquestionable moral truth. These decent people, the easy prey of Amalek, are the ones we need to engage and draw to our side with the light of God’s truth.
As part of our vital efforts to enlighten the masses and belatedly push back against Amalek’s moral erosion, I offer a comparison between the Torah’s morality and some of Amalek’s regressive platitudes in recent days.
Amalek: It is morally wrong to defend your property when someone seeks to take it from you or destroy it. Your possessions can be replaced, but his life cannot, and his life is more valuable than your possessions. Even calling the police is racist and immoral.
Torah: A person does not stand idly by while someone steals his possessions. A poor person is like a dead person; one should not remain passive in the face of those who seek to destroy his home and livelihood. An intruder expects that a man will defend his property, and therefore comes with the willingness to kill if necessary. Therefore, unless it is clear as day that the intruder does not come to kill if necessary, a homeowner may take the life of the intruder. If someone intends to kill you, get up early and kill him first. If the homeowner can disable the intruder without killing him, he must do so, but should not jeopardize his own life to protect the life of the intruder.
Amalek: Those born today must bear the sins of their predecessors, profess their own guilt, and make endless, arbitrary restitution to an amorphous group of proclaimed victims.
Torah: Children are not to be punished by society for the sins of their parents, nor parents for the sins of the children. Each person is held accountable for his own actions.
It was the practice of kings to put to death the entire families of those who rebelled against them, and even their political rivals. This practice continues to this day in many parts of the world to tighten the leader’s grip on power. Amalek preaches it as a moral virtue. The Torah repudiates it. Indeed, King David personally supported the descendants of those who had sought his own death.
Amalek: One who committed even the slightest moral crime decades ago – based on new definitions of morality today – shall be condemned and may have his life destroyed if it suits Amalek’s agenda. Penance may be demanded, but no degree of penance shall ever be sufficient. The slate can never be wiped fully clean. Guilt is permanent.
Torah: We judge a person strictly based on where they are today. Anyone can overcome their past, no matter how sordid, and is lovingly encouraged to do so with a helping hand for those who desire it. Complete reformation is possible. A repentant sinner is not to be reminded of his past. In fact, a repentant sinner is in some ways on a higher spiritual level than one who was always righteous, for he tasted the allure of sin and struggled to overcome it.
Furthermore, definitions of morality never change. One who lived what is considered to be a moral life can be confident that his past actions will never be reinterpreted and prosecuted years later.
Amalek: People who are “frustrated” or “angry” may express their emotions however they see fit, especially if they consider themselves victims of society in some way. Those who challenge such behavior are insensitive, hateful, and their mere speech can even be considered an act of aggression and violence. Hence, acts of actual violence against such people are self-defense, resistance against aggression, and entirely legitimate. Furthermore, those who belong to the same social class of “victims” who speak out against their behavior may be destroyed for being collaborators with the enemy.
Torah: Anger is the lowest of human traits, and one who acts through anger is akin to one who worships idols. The only acceptable form of anger is sincere objection toward the desecration of God’s name, and even that must be restrained. Anger is never a justification to harm a person or his property, and one who does so is equally liable for damages. Even lifting one’s hand to strike his fellow is a wicked person. A Godly person works on himself to eliminate anger. He also works to better his life through hard work and spiritual growth; he does not wallow in perpetual victimization and demand society to coddle him.
Amalek: You have to destroy society to rebuild it. The ends justify the means.
Torah: We never seek to destroy society. Avraham prayed desperately for the wicked city of Sodom to be spared from heavenly destruction, with the hope that they would improve. A Godly person seeks only to build and improve society, beginning with building and improving himself, then by contributing to society and helping others.
Amalek: If you think someone has too much money, it is your right to take it from him. He must have earned it in sin and prevented you from achieving. Even if not, it’s unfair for him to have more than you.
Torah: All money belongs to God, and wealth is a blessing from Him. God determines how much people earn. Stealing from the rich is a crime. Working responsibly is a virtue; those who plant the field will have what to eat, while those who sit idle will go hungry in the winter. It is a sin to be jealous of others and covet what they have. Those who attain their wealth dishonestly – both the rich and those who seek to rob them – will be cursed.
Amalek: Those who came before us were all morally inferior to us. Whatever is the moral standard of today will be considered primitive tomorrow. We show our moral superiority by denouncing those who came before us. Parents shall fear their children and children shall scorn their parents. This is the meaning of progress. Everyone must live in fear of evolving morals and fall into line with whatever is expected of them. Morality is determined by social groupthink.
Torah: Morality is determined only by God and never changes. Parents are to be honored even if they are severely flawed, because they are our direct link to our origins, which we cherish. Everyone must live in fear only of not living up to the moral standards of those who came before them, and for failing to transmit these moral standards to the next generation. The Torah’s commandments are to be clearly explained and learned by all, never to be added to or taken away from. We may only enact safeguards to protect the Torah’s commandments, and even those are to be limited and carefully considered by the greatest sages. We can live confidently that what is right and wrong today will remain right and wrong forever, and we will never have to fear retroactive shaming and punishment for ever-evolving mores.
This is but a small comparison between the ideology of the Torah compared to that of Amalek, who is waging war against it. No one with a good soul and an ounce of intelligence can compare the two and side with Amalek. Therefore, it is our responsibility to spread true enlightenment to the masses, with genuine pride, and light a spark in the souls of those who are lured by Amalek’s empty slogans and buzzwords.
Let us restore God’s complete throne and defeat the evil ideology of Amalek once and for all.
Legal Disclaimer: The word “Amalek” in no way hints at violent action.
Early on in the pandemic it became clear that older individuals were at disproportionate risk of severe COVID-19 infection and death.
According to an analysis1 conducted by the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, which included data reported by May 22, 2020, an average of 42% of all COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. had occurred in nursing homes, assisted living and other long-term care facilities. This is beyond extraordinary, considering this group accounts for just 0.62% of the population.
Avik Roy, president of the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, wrote an article2 about their findings in Forbes, pointing out that “42% could be an undercount,” since “states like New York exclude from their nursing home death tallies those who die in a hospital, even if they were originally infected in a long-term care facility.” Roy also testified before Congress June 17, 2020, about racial disparities in COVID-19 and the health care system.3
Why Do Some States Have Exaggerated Nursing Home Death Rates?
Disturbingly, some states have nursing home mortality rates that are significantly higher than the national average of 42%. Minnesota4 tops the list in this regard, with 81.4% of all COVID-19 deaths having occurred in nursing homes and assisted living facilities. Ohio comes in second, with a rate of 70%.
As reported by Roy:5
“Another way to cut the data is to look at nursing home and assisted living facility deaths as a share of the population that lives in those facilities. On that basis, three states stand out in the negative direction: New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Connecticut.
In Massachusetts and Connecticut, COVID deaths per 10,000 nursing home and assisted living facility residents were 703 and 827, respectively. In New Jersey, nearly 10 percent of all long-term care facility residents — 954 in 10,000 — have died from the novel coronavirus.”
Thousands Have Died Unnecessarily
By and large, nursing homes are ill equipped to care for COVID-19 infected patients.6 They’re set up to care for elderly patients, whether they are generally healthy or have chronic health problems, but they’re not typically equipped to quarantine and care for people with highly infectious disease.
It’s logical to assume that comingling infected patients with noninfected ones in a nursing home would result in exaggerated death rates, as the elderly are far more prone to die from any infection, including the common cold.
March 17, 2020, Stanford epidemiologist John Ioannidis wrote an op-ed in STAT news,7 stating that “even some so-called mild or common-cold-type coronaviruses have been known for decades [to] have case fatality rates as high as 8% when they infect people in nursing homes.”
In other words, we should not be surprised that COVID-19 disproportionally affects older people. Most elderly are frail and have underlying health problems that make them more prone to death from any infection whatsoever. Since this is common knowledge, why did some states decide to violate federal guidelines and send COVID-19 patients back into nursing homes?
New York Governor in the Hot Seat
Democratic governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, appears to have been among the most negligent in this regard. March 25, 2020, instructions from the New York Department of Health stated nursing homes were not allowed to deny admission or readmission of a COVID-19-positive patient.
Nursing homes were even “prohibited from requiring a hospitalized resident who is determined medically stable to be tested for COVID-19 prior to admission or readmission.” As reported by Roy:8
“As recently as April 23, Cuomo declared9 that nursing homes ‘don’t have a right to object’ to accepting elderly patients with active COVID infections. ‘That is the rule and that is the regulation and they have to comply with that.’
Only on May 10 — after the deaths of nearly 3,000 New York residents of nursing homes and assisted living facilities — did Cuomo stand down and partially rescind his order.”
Cuomo’s order seems particularly dubious considering the Navy hospital ship USNS Comfort was docked in New York City harbor. The ship, which had a 1,000-bed capacity, was barely used.10 It departed NYC on April 30, having treated just 182 patients.11
A temporary hospital facility at the Javits Convention Center was also erected to deal with predicted hospital overflow. It had a capacity of 2,500, and closed May 1, 2020, having treated just over 1,000 patients.12 With all that available surplus space equipped for infectious disease control, why were COVID-19 patients forced back into nursing homes where they would pose a clear infection risk to other high-risk patients?
Several Governors Violated Federal Guidelines
June 22, 2020, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services administrator Seema Verma condemned the actions of Cuomo and “other Democrat governors” — including Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and California Gov. Gavin Newsom — who contradicted federal guidelines for nursing homes in their own state guidance.
“Our guidance was absolutely crystal clear,” Verma said in an exclusive interview with Breitbart reporter Matthew Boyle, adding:13
“Any insinuation to the contrary is woefully mistaken at best and dishonest at worst. We put out our guidance on March 13 … It says … ‘When should a nursing home accept a resident who is diagnosed with COVID-19? …
A nursing home can accept a resident diagnosed with COVID-19 and still under transmission-based precautions,’ which means if this person is infectious you have to take precautions.
It says ‘as long as the facility can follow CDC guidance for transmission-based precautions.’ It says: ‘If a nursing home cannot, it must wait until these precautions are discontinued,’ meaning if you are not able to care for this patient — somebody is still positive and you’re not equipped to care for the patient, then you shouldn’t accept the patient into your care.
That’s really important because longstanding discharge — when you’re discharging a patient from the hospital, longstanding guidelines require when you transfer them somewhere you transfer them to a place that can take care of their needs whether they’re going home or they’re going to a nursing home or some other facility …
I just don’t think we should ever put a nursing home in a situation or a patient where we force them to take a patient they are not prepared to care for. That not only jeopardizes the patient but it jeopardizes the health and safety of every single resident in that nursing home.”
Stark Differences Between Nursing Homes
While Cuomo has tried to deflect criticism for his devastating nursing home directive, the facts seem to speak for themselves. ProPublica published an investigation14 June 16, 2020, comparing a New York nursing home that followed Cuomo’s order with one that refused, opting to follow the federal guidelines instead. The difference is stark.
According to ProPublica,15 by June 18, the Diamond Hill nursing home — which followed Cuomo’s directive — had lost 18 residents to COVID-19, thanks to lack of isolation and inadequate infection control. Half of the staff (about 50 people) and 58 patients were also sickened.
In comparison, Van Rensselaer Manor, a 320-bed nursing home located in the same county as Diamond Hill, which refused to follow the state’s directive and did not admit any patient suspected of having COVID-19, did not have a single COVID-19 death. A similar trend has been observed in other areas. As reported by ProPublica:16
“New York was the only state in the nation that barred testing of those being placed or returning to nursing homes. In the weeks that followed the March 25 order, COVID-19 tore through New York state’s nursing facilities, killing more than 6,000 people — about 6% of its more than 100,000 nursing home residents …
In Florida, where such transfers were barred, just 1.6% of 73,000 nursing home residents died of the virus. California, after initially moving toward a policy like New York’s, quickly revised it. So far, it has lost 2% of its 103,000 nursing home residents.”
Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis actually took the opposite position with regard to nursing homes. Not only were hospitals not permitted to discharge COVID-19 patients into nursing homes, but all nursing home workers were also required to be screened for symptoms before entering facilities each day, and ensuring availability of personal protective equipment was prioritized.
In California, Los Angeles County nursing homes are such a hotspot, and local leaders describe the situation as a “pandemic within a pandemic.”17 There, the fact that many of the facilities are unusually large appears to be part of the problem.
They also have a higher percentage of people of color — another high-risk group — both working and residing in these facilities. Low pay, poor quality of care and inferior infection control add to the problem.
COVID-19 Primarily Spread in Health Care Settings
Overall, COVID-19 transmission appears to be rampant within our health care system in general, not just in nursing homes. As noted in “20% of COVID Patients Caught Disease at Hospital,” British data suggests 1 in 5 COVID-19 patients actually contracted the disease at the hospital, while being treated for something else.
SARS-CoV-2 is being transmitted not only between patients but also from health care workers to patients. When you add it all together, nursing homes and nosocomial infections (i.e., infections originating in or acquired from a hospital18), plus the spread from workers to family members, likely account for a vast majority of all COVID-19 deaths.
Without doubt, if nursing homes don’t start getting this right, they eventually won’t have enough patients to stay in business. Unfortunately, rather than tackle the problem head-on and implement sensible safety measures across the board, the nursing home industry is instead seeking immunity from COVID-19 related lawsuits. I discussed this in “COVID-19 and Nursing Homes: The No. 1 Place Not to Be.” According to NBC News:19
“So far at least six states have provided explicit immunity from coronavirus lawsuits for nursing homes, and six more have granted some form of immunity to health care providers, which legal experts say could likely be interpreted to include nursing homes …
Of the states that have addressed nursing home liability as a response to the outbreak, two — Massachusetts and New York — have passed laws that explicitly immunize the facilities. Governors in Connecticut, Georgia, Michigan and New Jersey have issued executive orders that immunize facilities.”
In other words, New York not only issued rules requiring COVID-19 infected patients to be admitted into nursing homes, and barred them from testing, it also granted nursing homes immunity against lawsuits.
Talk about triple injury. Clearly, New York nursing home patients have gotten ill and died due to willfully negligent directives. On top of that, families have been deprived of due process and any legal recourse for these beyond-reprehensible criminal actions.
Congressional Members Demand Answers
While several states have failed to protect their most vulnerable, New York’s actions stand out as being particularly egregious and, so far, no sound justifications have been forthcoming.
June 15, 2020, House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., and four Republican members of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus sent letters20 to the governors of New York, Michigan, California, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, demanding answers:21
“Why did they give those orders? Why did they go against the safety guidelines that were issued from CMS? And why won’t they give us all the disclosure of the patient information that they were giving and then all of a sudden when we started discovering this they clammed up and they’re not letting the public see what these numbers really are?” Scalise said.
Curiously, Select Subcommittee Democrats not only declined to join Republicans in the proposed nursing home oversight effort, they also refused Scalise’s call to “get to the bottom of what motivated these decisions” in New York, Michigan, California, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and they did not sign the letters to the governors of those states.22
In a press release by Scalise, Select Subcommittee member Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.) is quoted saying:23
“Just about the worst possible thing to do is knowingly introduce coronavirus to the most vulnerable populations, yet that’s exactly what several states did by mandating nursing homes accept infected patients.
These misguided policies deserve close scrutiny, and the leaders who put them in place have a lot of tough questions to answer. Now is not the time to look the other way while placing blame for this crisis on states that are taking a measured, responsible approach to reopening our economy and protecting our communities.”
