 |
| Are we ready for this yet? |
That is the reason I have defended both Barack Obama and
Donald Trump – 2 people that could not be further apart in almost any way one
could think of - other than the fact that they were both elected to the same high
office. (This always gets me into trouble with the opposing side. With claims
that the person I am defending is so bad and undeserving - they can’t
understand how I can defend them.)
But this post is not about American politics. It is about defending Rav Chaim Kanievsky a
man of high caliber that I have tremendous respect for even though I occasionally disagree with
him in certain matters. Relying instead on the Hashkfos I learned from my own
teachers of high caliber.
As is the case with politicians so, too, is the case with
rabbis. When Rabbi Natan Slifkin was so viciously and unfairly attacked – accused several
years ago by certain Charedi Rabbonim of promoting heretical ideas in his books, I defended
him. And I defended those ideas. For the most part agree I with him. I do
not consider them heretical. Nor do other Rabbonim. Some of whom are also Charedim of high caliber.
This time I am defending a Charedi Rav whose words were
questioned by Rabbi Slifkin. This is not to criticize Rabbi Slifkin. It is
just to disagree with him in this instance.
Rabbi Slifkin reports about a news item where Rav Kanievsky’s
grandson claims in his name that every effort must be made to reopen the
Yeshivos. Reiterating something he had said in the past. Which is that Torah
study protects the Jewish people. He was also quoted as saying that he realized
the ongoing mortal danger of the COVID pandemic. But that not reopening Yeshivos
presented a greater danger.
He apparently bases it on a Germara (Sotah – 21a) that says,
Torah Magina U’Matzla – the Torah protects us and saves us.
Rabbi Slifkin questions the rationale of that assertion
since the cities where there was the most Torah study - is where the most
people got infected. Rabbi Slifkin’s assumption is a reasonable one. And at the same time he defends Rav Kanievsky
surmising that - by the way he appears in videos he is no longer in full possession
of all his faculties.
I’m not exactly sure how much of a defense it is to imply
that Rav Kanievsky is demented. Even though dementia is a common malady of the elderly, not all elderly people suffer from it. Most do not.
I cannot say what Rav Kanievsky’s state of mind is. I am not
a mind reader. But I doubt that one can really tell from any of those videos whether
or not he suffers from it.
Just to be clear, Rabbi Slifkin mentions earlier in his
post that Rav Kanievsky has not demanded or asked that safety guidelines be
ignored. He said the exact opposite. Whatever is done in that vein, must be in
coordination with the State of Israel’s Health Ministry. Rabbi Slifkin’s point is only about
the claim of protection of Torah study in the face of massive evidence to the contrary.
Although on the surface is seems like a valid point, I do
not see that as evidence that Torah study does not protect. There are other
reasons that more people died in places like Bnei Brak than other places.
I have mentioned some of them before.
The most obvious reason is the nature of the physical
circumstances that exist there. Bnei Brak is very crowded. Making it almost
impossible to practice social distancing. Gatherings are part and parcel of daily
life among Orthodox Jews – most of whom attend a Minyan in a Shul 3 times a
day. Bnei Brak has a huge student population that studies
in Yeshivos in close contact with hundreds of other students. By the time the
city officials and rabbis realized how dangerous and contagious this disease
was, a lot of people had already become infected. And had spread the disease to
a lot more people - unaware they were doing so.
There is also a spiritual dimension. Just because the Torah
protects, doesn’t mean that all who study it are immune. There may be some
spiritual matter (or matters) that many of Bnei Brak’s residents are insufficiently living up to. Which
makes them more vulnerable to Divine intervention. (Not saying there is. Just saying
it’s possible.) None of which proves that the Torah didn’t protect them. One can
easily explain that if not for the fact that so many were studying Torah, even
more people would have succumbed to the virus.
Does that mean that I think Yeshivos should open up? Not
necessarily. In my view, people everywhere; in every situation; observant or
not - should be Machmir in Pikuach Nefesh. Which to me means that even if students can technically go
back to Yeshiva while not violating health guidelines, it is far more prudent
to not take any chances at all. And just stay home.
What about Torah study? That has never stopped. Even after the
Yeshivos closed. Yeshiva students are still studying Torah in their homes. The idea
that Torah study protects us need not mean doing it only in a Yeshiva. Sure – a
Yeshiva is a much better place to do it. But it is not the only place.
Now is not yet the time to go back to them – even if social
distancing and the other guidelines are adhered to. Things happen. There are
always unintended consequences. People in setting like this can easily meander
into circumstances where there will be not be sufficient distance to prevent
infection.
At the same time I can understand why Rav Kanievsky has
urged Yeshivas to reopen. I’m sure he reasoned that since the government of Israel is beginning
to allow the reopening of non essential businesses, why not do the same for
Yeshivos - using the same safety guidelines? Even though I don’t agree with him,
I don’t think that is an unreasonable ask.
Just sayin’…
