Volume 64 Number 65
Produced: Tue, 02 Jun 20 12:20:58 -0400
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Bible criticism
[Martin Stern]
Minyanim not in accordance with government rules (3)
[Ben Katz, M.D. Keith Bierman]
Some more incongruous choices of words?
[Martin Stern]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, May 31,2020 at 06:01 AM
Subject: Bible criticism
In Mussaf on Yamim Tovim, we say "Umipnei chata'einu galinu mei'artzeinu
venitrachaknu mei'al admateinu ... [Because of our sins we are exiled from our
country and distanced from our homeland ...]". This year, with shuls closed to
avoid the spread of the coronavirus, we can feel even more vividly Rabbi
Yochanan's observation (Ber 8a) that the Batei Kenessiot and Batei Midrashot
outside Eretz Yisrael are considered as an extension of the Holy Land.
Having more time to think about Matan Torah on Shavuot, and the recent
publication of Professor Joshua Berman's "Ani Maamin: Biblical Criticism,
Historical Truth, and the Thirteen Principles of Faith" made me think again
about the challenge to our belief system posed by Bible Criticism.
In the first chapter of my book, A Time to Speak (Devora Publishing, '10), I
suggested that the whole dispute between Torah min Hashmayim and Bible
Criticism is based on a logical fallacy.
To summarise my argument, I posited that the Bible Critics were applying
literary techniques designed for analysing the authorship of texts composed
by humans. Torah min Hashmayim claims that the Torah was composed by HKBH so
such techniques are inappropriate - i.e. the former's 'reconstructions' are
based on a paradigm fallacy.
While there is no objection to studying Bible Criticism as a 'hava amina
[hypothesis]', as was done, for example, by Harav David Hoffman, this must
always be born in mind. IMHO my approach immediately neutralises the claim that
Bible Criticism undermines Torah min Hashmayim by pointing out its use of the
rhetorical device called "poisoning the well" where a 'hidden' assumption is
made which undermines one's opponent's position in the hope that it will not be
noticed.
As I have not seen this argument being put forward, I suspect that it may be
fallacious but I cannot see my error. Can anyone point it out or, alternatively,
if they have seen it elsewhere, provide a reference?
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Katz, M.D.<BKatz@...>
Date: Wed, May 27,2020 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Minyanim not in accordance with government rules
Bill Bernstein wrote (MJ 64#64):
> Joel Rich asks (MJ 64#63) about the rationale for people holding minyanim not
> in accordance with government edicts.
>
> I am not certain about his question. In most places in the U.S. under lockdown
> any minyan is not in accordance with government edict, as religious services
> have been banned. If he means other places where minyanim are allowed but with
> certain stipulations that are not followed I cannot speak to that as I am not
> aware of any.
>
> His question rests on certain assumptions:
>
> 1. Contact with the virus is so likely to be fatal that it constitutes a
> sakanas nefashos [danger to life]
>
> 2. Government rules are effective at keeping people from such contact
>
> 3. Jews are obligated to follow government edicts
>
> I find each one of these assumptions to be suspect. As more antibody testing
> is done we discover that the rate of infection is far higher than anyone had
> thought. Yet many testing positive have experienced either no symptoms
> whatsoever or very mild ones which they often mistook for other things.
>
> The two major factors for the disease being fatal seem to be age and
> underlying health issues. Yet even in New York City, the hardest hit city in
> the U.S.by far, the rate of death for people under 44 with no underlying
> conditions is quite low, about 3% or less than the flu in some years. The rate
> rises considerably for those over 75.
>
> Social distancing rules are not effective in preventing contamination. The
> evidence of widespread contact, i.e. antibody testing, shows lockdowns were
> not terribly effective. A piece by TJ Rodgers that appeared in the Wall St
> Journal on April 26 showed a statistical analysis that suggested this.
>
> Additionally the government has issued contradictory guidance over time --
> first recommending against the use of face masks, and then recommending using
> them.
>
> The six foot distance rule as well has been questioned.
>
> Finally the idea that Jews are obligated to follow government edict is itself
> difficult. Attending a minyan is a definite obligation so an edict against
> doing so should not fall under the principle of Dina d'Malchusa dina, as it
> runs contrary to halakha. Such edicts additionally run contrary to the United
> States Constitution's Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment on
> religious freedom, and courts are beginning to strike them down.
>
> So to me the onus is not on those conducting minyanim but on those who want to
> nullify this obligation. A popular story involves Reb Yisroel Salanter z'l
> wanting to demonstrate that fasting during an epidemic is prohibited. To do
> so, he produced a cup of wine in shul on Kol Nidre and made kiddush. But they
> didn't suspend the minyan.
I will mainly address the medical aspects of Mr Bernstein's comments above.
These statements should not go unchallenged.
First of all his claim that a death rate of "only 3%" is "quite low" is
completely mistaken! In a regular flu year, where we lose 20-60,000, the
mortality is "only" 0.2%. While the mortality from COVID-19 will likely not
remain at 3%, even at 0.5% that would mean 1.5 million deaths in the US. The
total US military mortality in WW2 was about 0.5 million. The total mortality
from the 1918 "Spanish" flu was about 600,000.
Social distancing has been shown to be effective for over 100 years, since the
so-called Spanish flu epidemic. It was effective again in the last flu pandemic
and is effective now.
The change in government regulations re masks reflect changing circumstances.
Science is not static - it moves forward as the situation changes and as data
are accumulated. Originally masks were NOT recommended mainly because there
were shortages in hospitals where they are needed more, and because they are not
effective In community settings in protecting the wearer. Once enough masks
were available AND it became evident that asymptomatic individuals were
infectious the recommendation was changed to prevent an asymptomatic wearer from
infecting others.
The 6 foot rule is based on how far large droplets are expressed when one
sneezes or coughs.
To give just one example of why minyanim were cancelled, there was a case in
Chicago of a single individuals (in Feb before we knew much about coronavirus
and before it became widespread in the US) attending a funeral one day and a
birthday party the next day. He infected about 30 people, 3 of whom died. This
is what we are trying to avoid.
And I don't understand the point of the story about R Salanter. (This will be
my 1 non-medical comment). Last time I checked fasting on YK was a Torah law.
Minyan is not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Keith Bierman <khbkhb@...>
Date: Wed, May 27,2020 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Minyanim not in accordance with government rules
David Tzohar wrote (MJ 64#64):
> First let's take America. It is without a doubt "malchut" since it has power
> of levying taxes and at least on the federal level (IIAC also in NY state} it
> has capital punishment. Therefore if Trump (or DiBlasio or Cuomo) says "No
> public Minyans", this is a halachic obligation...
An interesting analysis! A few quibbles:
1. If Capital Punishment is part of the definition, then Federal and State
levels are covered, but not city level (AFAIK no US city has capital punishment
of its own). If it is a requirement, many US States would not qualify, would the
halachic status of each State vary, or because even a single State has such
punishment, would they all for consistency?
2. Given the historical interpretation of the Bill of Rights, I'd argue that any
law against public minyanim per se are unconstitutional and therefore not dina
demalchuta dina. If the regulation is against any public gathering, or any
gathering of more than 9 people, that would seem potentially valid.
Obviously, some Governors seem to have taken a different US civics class than I
did back in high school. But assuming one holds that the specific regulation is
unconstitutional, and one also holds that civil disobedience is an American
(secular) obligation in such cases, what is the halachic status of participating
in such a minyan?
As public gatherings of, say up to 20 (but at least 10) resume being legal, are
there any minyanim that have / intend to adopt some sort of mishmar
[supervision] so that different subsets of the former regulars rotate through?
With respect to "social distancing" what are the optimal rules for torah
reading. Can the gabbai correct from a distance? If not, do we skip the formal
public torah reading to minimize the danger?
My local minyan hasn't restarted, and I regret that they are unlikely be
creative in this area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Thu, May 28,2020 at 02:01 AM
Subject: Minyanim not in accordance with government rules
Bill Bernstein wrote (MJ 64#64):
> Joel Rich asks (MJ 64#63) about the rationale for people holding minyanim not
> in accordance with government edicts.
>
> I am not certain about his question. In most places in the U.S. under lockdown
> any minyan is not in accordance with government edict, as religious services
> have been banned. If he means other places where minyanim are allowed but with
> certain stipulations that are not followed I cannot speak to that as I am not
> aware of any.
>
> His question rests on certain assumptions:
>
> 1. Contact with the virus is so likely to be fatal that it constitutes a
> sakanas nefashos [danger to life]
>
> 2. Government rules are effective at keeping people from such contact
>
> 3. Jews are obligated to follow government edicts
>
> I find each one of these assumptions to be suspect.
Actually my argument does not require the first two as assumptions in terms of
what I personally believe. It only requires that the government authorities
believe those conditions exist and institute regulations that they believe are
in the best interest of the community.
The third point is really the key. Dina Dmalchuta Dina (DMD - the law of the
land is the law) is stated by Samuel in a number of places in the gemara without
giving a source. The early authorities provide a number of reasons for its
force. While there is a minority opinion that DMD only applies to monetary
matters, most authorities believe that it applies to government or community
regulation deemed necessary by the community and not specifically aimed against
Jewish interests.
I think there's a more basic issue at play here which is the community's ability
to enforce its will on the entire community. Thus we see the community can
halachically force its members to pay for a synagogue. While no specific form of
government is required by the codes, there is a presumption that communal
governance does exist and can be enforced. Western liberal societies' focus on
individual rights is not fully consistent with the general halachic view of
responsibilities to the community. One had the right to leave a community but as
long as they are members of the community they are required to abide by his
rules as I understand it
Bottom line - communities and governments have the right to make regulations in
the best interest of the community. Halacha generally requires that these rules
be obeyed whether or not there's enforcement power.
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, May 31,2020 at 06:01 AM
Subject: Some more incongruous choices of words?
Haim Snyder wrote (MJ 64#64):
>
> In response to Martin Stern's second observation (MJ 64#63):
>
>> 2. In Ps. 136, surely verses 17 and 18 should come after verses 19 and 20.
>> AFAIK there were no 'kings' defeated, apart from the king of Arad (Num.
>> 21:1-3), before the defeat of Sichon and Og, let alone any whose lands became
>> part of the heritage of the Jewish people.
>
> I think the answer is given in Ps. 125 which we say immediately before Ps.
> 126. Verses 10 to 12 are similar in intent, but there, in verse 11, is an
> addition "and all the kingdoms of Canaan."
Also Harav Elazar Teitz noted (MJ 64#64):
> What [Martin] means is that historically, Og and Sichon were killed, and then
> 31 Canaanite kings were killed. His assumption is that it was these
> thirty-one who are referred as the "strong" and "mighty" kings who were
> killed, and "whose land He gave as a heritage, a heritage to His nation
> Israel. However (aside from the fact that if verse 19 became verse 17 it
> would be meaningless -- "Sichon, king of the Emori" : what about him?), verse
> 19 and 20 are not independent of 17 and 18, but are an elaboration of them ...
On considering Harav Teitz's last point, I agree that verses 19 and 20 would be
left "hanging in the air" if not preceded by verses 17 and 18, or something
similar, but that still leaves a problem that the bulk of the heritage was the
lands of the 31 Canaanite kings and they are not mentioned.
Haim's observation may solve this by positing an implied "copy and paste
[gezeirah shavah?]" from the Ps. 125 but that raises a further question. If Ps.
125 has this extra phrase, why is there not a similar verse in Ps. 126 after
verse 20 such as "and all the kingdoms of Canaan, for His mercy is eternal",
which would remove any possible misunderstanding?
The only explanation that I can think of for this glaring omission is that,
for some reason, this psalm had to have 26 verses and none of the other
verses could be omitted to make way for it.
The number 26 is, of course, the gematria of the four-letter name of G-d.
However, the verses do not seem to split thematically into groups of 10, 5,
6 and 5 as on might have expected if there were such a connection so any
explanation of this 'coincidence' eludes me.
Can anyone else throw light on this matter?
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 64 Issue 65
