A Master Key to Understanding the Bane of Brisk
Brisk is always “adding” (in their classically angry, supercilious way) in order to subtract.
Briskers revel in Jewish lack of power, are forever quoting the din of “קשר רשעים אינו מן המנין”, focus on supposed “internal logic”, enjoy mocking emotions (Why do mitzvos? Easy. Because there is a din to do mitzvos!), idealize poverty, and so on.
Quoting Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch’s parsha sheet, Parshas Vaera 5782:
“Someone once told the Brisker Rov excitedly about the possibility of making long-distance telephone conversations to distant places all over the world. The rov responded that he himself was amazed at the fact that this person was standing in front of him, and he could hear him.”
End.
Well now, do you think the interlocutor walked away more moved by the Almighty’s might than before or less?!
Upon the Balfour Declaration or Partition Plan or something similar, the Brisker Rav notoriously mocked Jews’ thanks and thoughts of Teshuvah, saying, “What do we need the Goyim’s admission for? We already know Eretz Yisrael belongs to us!”
“We” suffice? Why, then, does the Zohar glorify the Teshuvah of Yisro?!
רבי אלעזר פתח ואמר, (תהלים סז ד) “יודוך עמים אלהי”ם יודוך עמים כלם“. תא חזי דוד מלכא קם ושבח ואודי למלכא קדישא, והוה משתדל באורייתא בההיא שעתא, כד רוח צפון אתער והוה בטש באינון נימין דכנורא, וכנורא הוה מנגן ואמר שירה וכו’. ומה שירה הוה קאמר, תא חזי בשעתא דקודשא בריך הוא אתער לגבי כל אינון רתיכין למיהב לון טרפא כמה דאוקימנא, דכתיב (משלי לא טו) “ותקם בעוד לילה ותתן טרף לביתה וחק לנערותיה“, כדין כלהו בחדו פתחי ואמרי, (תהלים סז ב) “אלהי”ם יחננו ויברכנו יאר פניו אתנו סלה“, כד רוח צפון אתער ונחית לעלמא, נשיב ואמר לדעת בארץ דרכך בכל גוים ישועתך, כנור בשעתא דאיהו מנגנא ביה בההוא רוחא, פתח ואמר יודוך עמים כלם (חסר). דוד כד הוה קם ואתער עליה רוח קודשא, פתח ואמר ארץ נתנה יבולה יברכנו אלהי”ם אלהינ”ו, יברכנו אלהי”ם וייראו אותו כל אפסי ארץ, בגין לאמשכא טיבו דקודשא בריך הוא מעילא לתתא, לבתר אתא דוד ברוח קודשא וסדר לון כחדא, ואסתכל בכלא בהאי קרא דכנורא, (בגין) דשלימו דיקרא דקודשא בריך הוא עילא ותתא, בשעתא דשאר עמין אתכפיין ואתיין ואודאן ליה לקודשא בריך הוא, כיון דאינון אתכפיין ואודן ליה, כדין אשתלים יקרא דקודשא בריך הוא עילא ותתא.
בשעתא דאתא משה לפרעה ואמר ליה יהו”ה אלה”י העברים נקרא עלינו וגו’, פתח איהו ואמר לא ידעתי את יהו”ה, ובעא קודשא בריך הוא דיתייקר שמיה בארעא כמה דאיהו יקירא לעילא, כיון דאלקי ליה ולעמיה, אתא ואודי ליה לקודשא בריך הוא, דכתיב (שמות ט כז) יהו”ה הצדיק, איהו דהוה מלכא קרופינוס דכל עלמא, כיון דאיהו אודי כל שאר מלכין אודון, דכתיב (שם טו טו) אז נבהלו אלופי אדום. אתא יתרו כומרא עלאה ורברבא, רב ממנא (דכל ממנא) דכל טעוון אחרנין, ואודי ליה לקודשא בריך הוא, ואמר עתה ידעתי כי גדול יהו”ה מכל האלהי”ם, כדין אסתלק ואתייקר קודשא בריך הוא ביקריה עילא ותתא, ולבתר יהב אורייתא בשלימו דשלטנו על כלא.
Rambam-thumping Brisk bears the same disregard for the unintellectual masses shared by devotees of Rambam’s rarified philosophy. (Not to mention, imagining intellectuals gain nothing religiously from this-worldly change is just a lack of self-awareness. )
In the same line, Rabbi Shach, a follower of the Brisker Rav, continually torpedoed Israeli declarations of state sovereignty over various geographic areas (never bothering to notice the destruction he caused) and the amendment of the “Mihu Yehudi” law.
But according to this “logic”:
- Why did Hashem “need” to create the world or Mankind? He already had “מחשבתן של ישראל”.
- What was the purpose of many Biblical miracles, such as the Ten Plagues or the splitting of the sea?
- What do we need the Beis Hamikdash for, if we study Kodshim (אמר ריש לקיש מאי דכתיב זאת התורה לעולה למנחה ולחטאת ולאשם כל העוסק בתורה כאילו הקריב עולה מנחה חטאת ואשם)?
- What do we need Mashiach for?
- And so on…
I’m sure Brisk accounts for all this nicely, however.
- There was a “din” to create the world, etcetera.
- The primordial Torah was missing the din Kesivah and Lishma (as explained in the Beis Halevi)…
- And all the dinim are, of course, a Gezeiras Hakasuv…
- Din “Mashiach” is, of course, nothing but a rarified halachic category.
Trying To Survive Corona? You’re on Your Own – Government Busy Studying Why Minorities Hardest Hit…
Dr. Marty Makary: NIH Funded 257 Grants on Social Disparities with COVID, Only 4 on How It Spreads
Dr. Marty Makary, a medical doctor and researcher at Johns Hopkins, said the NIH funded “257 grants on social disparities” related to COVID-19 “but only four” on the coronavirus’s spread.
Makary joined Drs. Peter Attia and Zubin Damania on the former’s podcast, The Drive, published on Monday, in which he said:
We just did this study of NIH research funding last year. Less than five percent went to COVID research. Three months into the pandemic, 0.05 percent of the NIH’s budget went to COVID research. The average time for them to give a grant was five months to fund a research team to then start the research.
He added, “Two-fifty-seven grants on social disparities with COVID — an important topic — but only four on how it spreads, and one on masks which hasn’t even read out yet. So the most basic questions doctors needed evidence for, that was not being conducted.”
[YouTube:]
The Biden administration regularly frame “equity” between demographic groups along ethnic and racial lines as a political priority.
Makary said the NIH failed to promptly investigate basic questions about COVID-19. He said:
We were all getting the questions — How does it spread? Do masks work? How long are you contagious for? Can you spread it pre-symptomatic? – All the basic questions of COVID, we did not have answers, because our gigantic $4.2 trillion dollar healthcare system could not do the basic bedside clinical research. I remember Peter [Attia] was even doing a quick video about, ‘Somebody please do this study.’ We were all saying the same thing. Labs were mostly closed because there was no PPE.
The NIH was unable to pivot their $42 billion dollars to answer these questions quickly. … We had a vacuum of scientific research, and all the doctors were on the front lines without any data to really answer these questions, and that’s when the groupthink began, and guess what ended up filling that vacuum? Political opinions.
The NIH is not investigating natural immunity to COVID-19 as part of its broader strategy, Makary held:
Why has the NIH not done a study on natural immunity? It keeps saying, ‘We don’t know.’ They’re ignoring the 141 studies that have been documented by the Brownstone Institute. It’s not that hard. Go to New York, where people had the infection, interview them, test their blood. Why is my research team doing this without NIH funding? Because the NIH is not only not funding it, they’re not doing it, and they’re relying on two really flawed studies that the CDC put out. This is the distortion of science itself, shutting down scientific discussion and that should be our greatest lesson.”
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and chief medical adviser to the president, said in September of 2020 that he had no “firm answer” when asked by CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta about advocacy for vaccination among those who recovered from COVID-19.
Makary stated, “The data on natural immunity being 27 times more protective [than vaccination is] not mentioned once – ever — by public health officials.” He urged:
Martin Kuldorff — who has the Harvard professor, now he’s at Brownstone Institute — has summarized the 141 studies on natural immunity, and so, when Fauci gets on the TV and says, ‘We just don’t know about natural immunity,’ well, do the study. How hard is it? This is not the riddle of the sphinx. You can figure out how many people have been reinfected from the original days of New York and had severe illness.
The “greatest lesson” of the COVID-19 spread, he concluded, is how a “corruption of science” and “distortion of science” leads to “shutting down scientific discussion.”
קול החינוך גליון 149#
יו”ל ע”י ‘ועד הורים’ – בהכוונת גדולי התורה שליט”א
[קול החינוך עוסק במלחמת מדינת ישראל בחינוך יהודי עצמאי.]
* למסירת מידע ומשלוח מסמכים בס”ד 03-691-5752, טלפקס: 6915752@okmail.co.il
Reprinted with permission.