'Teaching Jews that principles are absolute until principles become inconvenient'
Anyone Can Get A Photo With Trump - Photo Credit: Stormy Daniels
Credit: Molly Riley/Official White House Photo
There is something deeply disturbing about watching rabbis rush to demonstrate reverence before a president whose conduct they would condemn in almost anyone else. The problem is not that they meet with the President of the United States. Of course they should. The Jewish community has every right to advocate for itself, cultivate relationships with government, and thank a president for policies that protect Jewish lives and Jewish interests. The problem begins when political access becomes moral surrender, when kavod ha-malchut, respect for government, is transformed into kavod ha-rasha, reverence for the powerful regardless of character. At that point the rabbi is no longer representing Torah to power. He is representing power to the Jews.
The same distinction appears in the principle of dina de-malkhuta dina, the law of the kingdom is law. Jewish law recognizes the legitimacy of civil authority and, within its proper boundaries, requires Jews to respect the laws of the country in which they live. But notice what the doctrine actually does. It recognizes the government's legal authority. It does not certify the ruler's righteousness. It does not declare his every word wise. It does not transform political expediency into Torah morality. It certainly does not instruct rabbis to become public-relations agents for the occupant of the White House.
This is where some contemporary rabbis appear to have forgotten the difference between kavod and chanifah. Respect is one thing. Flattery is another. Jewish tradition has a word for excessive deference to powerful people when truth is sacrificed for personal or communal advantage: chanifah, the corruption that occurs when moral truth is compromised in order to please the powerful. A rabbi's job is not to make the powerful feel holy. His job is to tell the truth, especially when telling the truth is uncomfortable.
That is why the image of rabbis surrounding a president deserves more scrutiny than another round of ceremonial photographs. If the president is a decent man, treat him with dignity. If he is a flawed man, treat him with dignity. If he has done something admirable, acknowledge it. If he has done something destructive, say so. If he protects Jewish interests, thank him. If he harms the interests of the country, Israel, minorities, immigrants, the poor, or the principles of democratic government, a rabbi does not receive a dispensation from truth merely because the offending politician happens to be useful to the Jewish community.
And there is an even deeper problem. When rabbis publicly lavish praise on a political leader whose conduct they would condemn in almost any other human being, they teach their followers a terrible lesson: morality is negotiable when power is useful.
The Torah did not create a religion in which Jews ask, "Is he good for us?" and then determine whether he is good. Judaism asks a prior question: "Is what he is doing right?" Those are not the same question. A ruler can be politically beneficial and morally reprehensible. He can employ Jews and still behave disgracefully toward other human beings. He can appoint judges favorable to Jewish interests and still possess serious character defects. He can give speeches containing language Jews appreciate while simultaneously displaying qualities that Judaism itself teaches us to despise.
A Jewish leader must have the intellectual courage to hold both truths simultaneously.
Ben Zoma asks in Pirkei Avot, "Who is honored?" and answers with a principle centered on honoring others. The Jewish conception of honor is therefore not simply about receiving honor from powerful people. It is about possessing the character that makes honor meaningful. A president does not become morally elevated because rabbis honor him. If anything, the rabbi risks lowering the meaning of honor by distributing it without moral discrimination.
There is also a fundamental Jewish principle that must never be forgotten: kavod ha-briyot, human dignity. The dignity of another human being does not disappear because that person is politically inconvenient. Nor does the dignity of the vulnerable become less important because the person violating it happens to be powerful. Jewish ethics cannot be reduced to the proposition that whatever helps Jews politically is therefore morally acceptable. The president enters and, mysteriously, ordinary standards of judgment begin disappearing. Suddenly arrogance becomes strength. Cruelty becomes toughness. Recklessness becomes courage. Vanity becomes charisma. Insults become authenticity. Lies become strategy.
When rabbis publicly sanctify a politician's character because they want something from his administration, they are teaching their congregants that morality has a price. They are teaching young Jews that principles are absolute until principles become inconvenient. They are teaching that power deserves more courtesy than truth. They are teaching that if a man can help Jews, then his treatment of other people is somehow none of our business.
A rabbi may meet with a president. He may advise him. He may thank him. He may advocate for American Jews. He may participate in a public ceremony. There is nothing inherently improper about any of this. In fact, Jewish history provides ample precedent for Jewish leaders dealing pragmatically with rulers. The principle of dina de-malkhuta dina itself emerged in a world where Jews had to navigate powerful governments while preserving Jewish life and communal autonomy.
The most disturbing possibility is not that rabbis show respect to a president. The disturbing possibility is that they might allow proximity to power to influence their definition of right and wrong. Once that happens, the rabbi ceases to function as a moral counterweight to political authority and becomes another ornament of political authority.
A Jew should never be so impressed by the man sitting in the White House that he forgets Who sits above it.
This past Thursday, several leading Chassidic Rebbes, along with R. Malkiel Kotler of BMG Lakewood, met with President Trump.
The chassidic rebbes included the Satmar Rebbes of both Kiryas Yoel,
Aaron Teitelbaum, and that of Williamsburg, his brother Zalman
Teitelbaum. They have been estranged and have fought bitterly for
decades, but they put their differences aside for this occasion. Achdus!
The meeting opened with the Kiryas Yoel Rebbe reciting the Hanosein Teshuah prayer
for Trump. This of course the traditional weekly Jewish prayer for the
ruling powers of whatever country the Jews happen to be in. However,
note that charedi rabbis, including these chassidic rabbis, generally do
not recite it anymore on Shabbos, neither for the USA nor for Israel.
What
was so important about this meeting with Trump that it brought these
Chassidic rebbes for their first face-to-face meeting in two decades,
along with the Rosh Yeshiva of Lakewood? Well, they discussed several
things, including increasing welfare assistance for the undereducated
and impoverished US charedi communities that they seek to keep
undereducated and impoverished, and improving conditions for charedim in
US prisons (consistent with the prevalent charedi approach of treating
criminals as martyrs and heroes).
But the main topic of discussion was apparently something else, which does not quite tie in to the achdus theme
(unless you define Klal Yisrael as referring strictly to charedim,
which of course they effectively do). Here is a letter that was
delivered to Trump:
“On
behalf of tens of thousands of Jews currently living in Israel, we are
writing to you to request your assistance regarding a matter of the
utmost importance to us.
“Long
before you first ran for public office, you demonstrated great kindness
toward the Jews whom you encountered. After you assumed the presidency,
you extended that kindness to the Jewish people throughout the world.
We will be forever grateful.
“In
light of this longstanding relationship, we implore your intervention
on behalf of the 100,000 students studying in Haredi yeshivas and
seminaries in Israel. There is no need for us to explain to you the
unique way of life of Haredi Judaism, generally known here in the United
States as the ultra-Orthodox community.
“For
nearly two hundred years, students attending recognized religious
schools and training themselves to become ordained clergy have been
exempt from conscription into the United States military. For more than
seventy-five years, a similar exemption existed in Israel. Recently, it
was abolished, a step that has had a devastating impact on the Haredi
community.
“For
many reasons, it is not practical for the IDF to accommodate the
religious and cultural needs of the Haredi community. It would be almost
impossible for Haredim to serve in a secular Israeli army without
sacrificing their unique identity and relinquishing essential religious
freedoms. Here in the United States, we enjoy the protections afforded
by the First Amendment to the Constitution, protections that do not
exist in Israel.
“It
seems inconceivable that in the Land of Israel Jews are being deprived
of their religious freedoms. Yet, tragically, this is the situation.
Tens of thousands of God-fearing students, whose only desire is to
continue living according to the tradition of their forefathers—a
tradition reaching all the way back to the patriarchs of the nation—are
living in genuine fear.
“As
we write these words, dozens of students are imprisoned in military
prisons because of their refusal to enlist. Every Haredi Jew of draft
age walks the streets in fear and goes to sleep at night knowing that he
may be arrested at any time, solely because of his religious faith.
“They
are unable to leave the country for any reason, including in order to
seek refuge elsewhere. As we understand it, thousands of American
citizens who hold dual citizenship are unable to return to their homes.
“Mr.
President: Since the days of the Founding Fathers, the world has not
seen a leader so determined to defend religious freedom. You will be
recorded in history alongside Thomas Jefferson and George Washington
because of your courageous efforts to assist Jews throughout the world
in practicing their faith in peace.
“We
respectfully ask you to instruct your administration to raise this
matter at the highest levels of the Israeli government, and to urge its
leaders to follow your example by protecting the religious freedoms of
ultra-Orthodox Jews instead of persecuting them.”
So finishes the letter.
Now,
the most obvious horror with this letter is charedi Jews trying to
recruit the US administration’s help to harm Israel. We saw this
previously with Rabbi Dovid Hofstedter
of Toronto (Dirshu), and now we’re seeing it with American charedi
rabbis. Historically, it’s reminiscent of when Jews asked Rome to
intervene in Jerusalem.
But
it’s not just the effort that is a terrible thing. The lies in this
letter are numerous. There was no seventy-five year exemption from the
IDF for students in religious schools. Rather, there was an initial
exemption for 400 students, to rebuild the losses of the Holocaust,
which was gradually increased until Begin removed the cap, and
successive charedi religious and political leaders then extended it to
include even charedim who are not in yeshiva.
Likewise, it is a sheker on
numerous levels to state that the only desire of charedim is to
continue living according to a tradition, reaching all the way back to
the patriarchs. First of all, there was no ancient tradition
not to help with a defensive war! Second, there was not even a recent
tradition to refuse to be economically self-sufficient. Charedim do not
only desire an army exemption, they also demand a multitude of tax exemptions, welfare benefits, and additional funding.
But
I also want to point out an additional distortion in this letter - the
appeal to there being a similar exemption from the military in US
history. This is something often voiced by charedim arguing for a draft
exemption. But it is an utterly fraudulent comparison, for two reasons.
First is
that the primary (and single most frequently cited legal) reason for
the US exemption is that removing ministers from communities would
damage civilian morale during a time of crisis. In a 1944 ruling against
Isaac Trainin, an Orthodox Jew who was denied an exemption as being a
rabbi, a U.S. Federal Appeals Court explained that ministers are exempt “not
so much for their personal religious training and beliefs, but for the
disruption of public worship and religious solace to the people at large
which would be caused by their induction,” which accordingly did not
apply to Trainin since he was only a part-time rabbi. Congress believed
that keeping the home front spiritually stable was vital to national
well-being. If the government drafted practicing clergy and stopped the
training of future religious leaders (divinity students), entire
communities would be left without spiritual guidance, funeral
officiants, or counseling when they needed it most.
The
exact opposite is the case with the vast majority of the 100,000
charedim seeking exemptions today. They are neither clergy nor divinity
students training to be clergy - indeed, the goals of charedi yeshivos
today are not at all for their students to enter the rabbinate, and are
often specifically for them not to enter it. And unlike the situation with Christian clergy in the 1940s, it is their refusal to enlist which harms national morale and disrupts religious solace! (Dati-leumi rabbis and yeshiva students who enlist, in contrast, help national morale and inspire people with religious solace.)
The second critical difference between
the US military exemption and the Israeli charedi desire for exemption
is that the United States is a gigantic powerful country that has never
suffered an existential threat. It is surrounded by oceans, Mexicans and
Canadians. It has always had far more manpower available than it
requires, and has accordingly historically been extremely generous with
its exemptions. And, of course, it’s also important to keep the economy
strong and society healthy during a war, as much as possible. Thus, the
US historically gave broad exemptions to people merely on the basis of
such things as their being in higher education and/or being married
breadwinners.
Again,
the exact opposite is the case with Israel. It is a tiny country facing
constant immense threats. It needs to have a strict mandatory universal
draft policy in order to survive. It cannot repeatedly deploy all its
older reservists in a long conflict without suffering enormous domestic
damage in all kinds of ways - which is what has been happening. Careers
have crashed, emotional health problems have exploded, family lives have
collapsed, marriages have broken, suicides have soared. The very broad
exemptions that are possible and helpful for the US are devastating for
Israel. And charedi isolation neither helps with the economy or society
healthy - in fact it dramatically harms both.
The
charedi claim of being as entitled to exemptions as US clergy is a
double fraud that needs to be exposed. Please share this post with others.
SLABODKA SELICHOT - KIPA SRUGOTS & BTs WILL BE EJECTED
SOME GEDOLIM AVAILABLE FOR YESHIVESHE SELICHOT IN THE USA - TZITZIS WEARING CHECKERS WILL BE AT THE DOOR BEFORE ALLOWED ENTRY - YOUNG ISRAEL JEWS "fuggetaboutit"
On Aug. 25, the Pennsylvania Department of Health reported 393measles cases and two associated deaths
from an outbreak that centered on Lancaster County. One death was in a
newborn infant. Within a couple of days, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy
Jr. said the deaths may have been fabricated.
This wasn't surprising. Just a year ago, when two little girls in West
Texas died from measles, anti-vaccine activists -- who don't want us
to believe that their anti-vaccine advocacy is killing children -- also claimed that poor medical care, not measles, had caused the deaths.
This time it's different. Anti-vaccine activists' claims were
supported by a Lancaster County coroner named Stephen Diamantoni, MD, a
board-certified family medicine practitioner, who said that measles was not the cause of the newborn's death. Diamantoni said
that he had detected "measles virus in the infant's lung tissue," and
that the baby had died from an internal hemorrhage and "traumatic
rupture" of the spleen. Because measles virus can cause enlargement of
the spleen and thinning of the splenic capsule, it is plausible that the
child's splenic rupture occurred during the birth process, which can be
traumatic. Nonetheless, the coroner stated
that because "there was no swelling or enlargement [of the spleen]
whatsoever," that he does not consider measles to be the cause of death.
Diamantoni is in a tough spot. Splenic ruptures are extremely rare in neonates.
He is dealing with an unusual case. So, it's easy to understand his
caution in assigning a cause. However, it's hard to make sense of what
he is saying.
First, Diamantoni put a lot of emphasis on his finding of a
normal-sized spleen, emphasizing it with the word "whatsoever." To him,
this meant that measles virus didn't affect the spleen so it couldn't be
the cause of death. However, once a spleen is ruptured, it's difficult
to tell whether it was enlarged. For example, if you find a balloon on
the ground that has burst, it's hard to know how big it was before it
burst.
Second, Diamantoni might have found that the spleen was vulnerable because the child had suffered from something other than measles
that had caused splenic fragility before birth; specifically,
infections like congenital cytomegalovirus and rubella, hemolytic
disorders, or certain inborn errors of metabolism. If Diamantoni had
found any of these other problems, then he could confidently say that
measles wasn't the cause. But if he hasn't, the only obvious cause left
would be measles.
Third, Diamantoni is wrong to believe that a spleen must be quite
enlarged to be fragile and at risk for rupture. Even mild or moderate
enlargement of the spleen due to measles can still make the organ
vulnerable to rupture. Also, a fragile splenic capsule can be difficult
to determine post-mortem. It would have been of value here to look at
the remaining splenic tissue to determine the presence of cells typically found
during measles infection, such as multi-nucleated lymphocytes. This
would have further solidified the case for measles virus as the cause of
the splenic fragility. Perhaps this was done; if so, it should be
reported to the public.
A few days later, in response to several days of reporters trying to
get a straight story from the coroner, Diamantoni acknowledged that
measles was documented as a contributing factor in the death. Diamantoni
further explained that measles was listed under Part II of the infant's
death certificate, which reports "other contributing conditions
contributing to death but not resulting in the underlying cause." He
said that this was listed on the death certificate to offer "a broader
view of the general health of the child."
Diamantoni's clarification only caused more confusion. The critical
question is clear: Would this infant have died if he hadn't been
infected with measles? Although the press and public have grown
increasingly frustrated with Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) and the
state's department of health for failing to make the cause of this
child's death clear, the confusion lies with Diamantoni.
What do we know? We know that this infant was infected with measles
while in the womb; we know that the infant died of splenic rupture; we
know that measles infections can increase splenic fragility leading to
rupture; and we know that splenic rupture is extraordinarily rare in
newborns. It's understandable that Diamantoni is cautious about
determining why this child died of splenic rupture given its rarity.
Nonetheless, if Diamantoni is going to claim that measles wasn't the
precipitating cause of this child's death, he is going to have to do a
much better job of explaining why it wasn't.
A version of this post originally appeared in the Beyond the NoiseSubstack.
C.D.C. Director Challenges Pennsylvania’s Report of Two Measles Deaths
Questioning
a state’s investigation is highly unusual for the public health agency,
but reflects tensions between the Trump administration and many states
over health issues.
Dr.
Erica Schwartz, who has expressed strong support of childhood vaccines,
was confirmed as C.D.C. director this month, despite persistent
questions during her confirmation hearing about her willingness and
ability to push back against Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s
actions.
The new director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ordered agency officials to challenge two measles deaths
reported by Pennsylvania, shunning the agency’s normal procedure of
accepting data shared by states and amplifying comments made by her
boss, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
The incident draws the C.D.C. into a highly political disagreement about whether the deaths were a result of measles or merely coincided with the infection, echoing similar disputes over causes of death during the coronavirus pandemic.
It
also pits the agency against a state health department, an
extraordinary move for the C.D.C. But the episode is emblematic of the
Trump administration’s continuing tussle with states, particularly those
led by Democrats, over health policies and priorities.
“This
week’s measles outbreaks update will not include the two
measles-associated deaths reported by the Pennsylvania Department of
Health on Aug. 25,” the C.D.C. posted on its website, after Mr. Kennedy,
in a social media post, accused the state’s Democratic governor of
“manipulating” the truth.
One
of the two deaths involved a newborn with a ruptured spleen. Details of
the second case have not been disclosed, but both people were
unvaccinated and both tested positive for the measles virus, according
to the Pennsylvania Health Department.
Dr. Erica Schwartz, who has expressed strong, public support of childhood vaccines, was confirmed as C.D.C. director
this month, despite persistent questions during her confirmation
hearing about her willingness and ability to push back against Mr.
Kennedy’s actions. She has repeatedly promised to “follow the science”
and promised the agency’s staff that she was prepared to disagree with
her superiors when needed, and that she would work to build trust with
state partners.
But the current incident threatens to do the opposite, some public health experts cautioned.
“Having
the C.D.C. question what the state is sharing will only lead to a
further erosion of what is a really critical partnership between states
and the federal government,” said Dr. Anne Zink, a public health expert
at Yale University and a former chief medical officer for Alaska.
Dr. Schwartz did not respond to a request for comment.
The
Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the C.D.C.,
said the agency “has a responsibility to ensure its reporting accurately
and transparently reflects what is known and what remains unconfirmed.”
“The
two measles-associated deaths announced by Pennsylvania have not been
confirmed based on the information currently available to C.D.C.,” the
department said in a statement. “The information currently posted
reflects the best available information and our commitment to
transparency and telling the American people the truth — a foundational
principle of the Trump administration.”
Pennsylvania
is in the midst of a rapidly expanding measles outbreak that had
sickened 497 people and hospitalized 87 as of Monday. Following the standard process for reporting cases of notifiable diseases
like measles, the state’s Health Department reported two deaths to the
C.D.C. last week, saying two people had tested positive for measles.
At
a news conference last Tuesday, Gov. Josh Shapiro said the federal
government was partly to blame for the hesitancy surrounding measles
vaccinations.
“When the information
we see coming from the federal government in some cases isn’t driven by
facts and by science,” he said, “it makes it even more confusing for
parents, and that has a serious impact.”
In a social media post
on Wednesday, Mr. Kennedy accused the governor of taking “giddy delight
in announcing two measles deaths” and suggested the deaths may have
been “fabricated by one of the Governor’s hopeful staffers.” He added,
“The Lancaster County Coroner says that it has no record of any measles
deaths.” Contrary to Mr. Kennedy’s assertion, however, the state is not
required to inform the county coroner of all deaths.
The
state’s Health Department characterized the deaths as
“measles-associated.” It uses that term “when laboratory or
epidemiologic evidence of measles is present, but the disease may not be
assessed by the medical certifier or coroner to be the immediate cause
of death,” the department clarified in a social media post.
The
disagreement involves in part the report of a newborn, whose mother was
sick with measles, and who died shortly after birth. Although the
newborn tested positive for the virus as well, the immediate cause of
death was a ruptured spleen, Dr. Stephen Diamantoni, the Lancaster
County coroner, said in an interview. Measles is more typically
associated with complications such as pneumonia and encephalitis, but
infection can lead to an enlarged spleen, which may make the organ more
vulnerable to rupture.
On Friday, the
C.D.C. did not update its weekly tally for measles cases and deaths as
it was expected to, saying only that the update had been “delayed.”
Staff members then updated the site on Sunday, appending an asterisked explanation
about the Pennsylvania deaths that the “available information does not
establish whether measles caused or contributed to the deaths or whether
the individuals died from other causes while infected with measles.”
Dr.
Schwartz ordered that highly unusual statement be added to the website,
according to officials with knowledge of the events, who spoke on the
condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk about
the matter.
“C.D.C. has historically
relied on expertise of state and local health departments,” said Dr.
Debra Houry, who served as the agency’s chief medical officer until she
resigned a year ago.
“This is a
moment for the C.D.C. director to speak publicly about the outbreak,”
Dr. Houry said. “Delays in reporting of data further erode trust and
create confusion.”
Neil
Ruhland, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania Department of Health, said
the state had meticulously investigated the deaths. “Every reported
measles case is thoroughly reviewed to confirm it meets the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention’s (C.D.C.) case definition for a measles case. To date, D.O.H. has provided all required epidemiological data to the C.D.C.”
Dr.
Zink said she could not remember a time when the C.D.C. publicly
questioned a state’s determination of cause of death. State officials
are increasingly “choosing not to share data with the C.D.C. because of
mistrust how it might be used,” she said.
“It’s
definitely unusual, tragic and frustrating to see publicly this sort of
back-and-forth disagreement with counties, states and the federal
government over the cause of death,” she added.
Having
a lacerated spleen may not be a well-known complication in part because
experts know little about how measles affects a fetus, said Dr. William
Moss, a measles expert at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
Health. Congenital measles has been exceptionally rare since the virus
was declared eliminated in 2000, and measles infection in pregnancy
significantly increases the risk of miscarriage or stillbirth.
It
is possible that the C.D.C. is hesitating to document the deaths in
order to further investigate the exact cause, Dr. Moss said. But that
does not explain why the agency failed to log the second death reported
by Pennsylvania health officials as related to measles, he said.
SACRAMENTO — The
California state Legislature voted Sunday to amend a 2019 law that
extended the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse claims
but was blamed for draining the coffers of municipalities and school
districts.
Since
the law was enacted, L.A. County has agreed to pay nearly $5 billion
to settle more than 12,000 claims stemming from alleged sexual abuse
committed by government employees in foster homes and juvenile halls.
The bill passed by the Legislature on
Sunday requires victims older than 40 to provide evidence that the
public entity was aware of the misconduct that resulted in the assault
and failed to take reasonable steps to avoid it.
It also states
that attorneys who file fraudulent sex abuse lawsuits can be fined
$25,000 per violation. The Times reported last year on nine plaintiffs
who said they were paid to sue the county over sex abuse, some of whom
said they were told to fabricate their claims.
Consumer attorneys, counties and victims rights groups jostled over the elements of the proposed bill over the last few months.
Lawmakers stopped short of capping payouts in the bill, a change sought by some local governments and school districts.
The
legislation follows multiple attempts to change the law in recent
years. Sen. Benjamin Allen (D-Santa Monica) tried last year to increase
the burden of proof for sex abuse cases, but pulled the bill after
outrage from victims rights groups.
Some of the groups blasted the bill this week, arguing it would shield rapists and deny justice to survivors.
Speaking on the floor of the state Senate on Sunday, Laird said that he tried to balance the needs of all parties.
The bill now goes to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his consideration.
