Everybody wants spirituality. To be a good person means to walk in G-d's ways. How does that translate to reality? The only guidebook to spirituality that has stood the test of time is the Hebrew Bible. The Bible says that the Jews will be a light onto the nations. But if you are not a born Jew, you have to convert, which is not so easy!! If you do convert, it is a lot of work to be a Jew (three times a day prayer, keeping kosher, observing the Sabbath).
This blog will show you how to be Jewish without the work!!
Yehuda Lave is an author, journalist, psychologist, rabbi, spiritual teacher, and coach, with degrees in business, psychology and Jewish Law. He works with people from all walks of life and helps them in their search for greater happiness, meaning, business advice on saving money, and spiritual engagement.
Israel's hottest 2021 status symbol: A Pfizer vaccine
Israel leads the world in its rate of vaccination so far, with 7.44% of the population already vaccinated.
The hottest status symbol in Israel these days is not the latest gadget, but the coronavirus vaccine, and the brand everyone wants is Pfizer.
The rumors going viral on social media are about how you can get the vaccine, and only some of them are fake news.
While a month ago, large numbers of Israelis – close to half the population – expressed doubt whether they wanted to get the vaccine, due to the speed with which it was developed and sensationalized stories about its hazards, now, many are in a frantic race to get vaccinated as quickly as possible.
Israel leads the world in vaccination rate so far, with 15% of the population already getting their jab. Unlike some countries, where the criteria for receiving the vaccine are murky, in Israel, it has been clear that this early rollout is strictly for medical staff, people over 60, and those with serious health conditions that put them at high risk if they are infected by the virus.
All anyone in these categories has to do to get vaccinated is to call one's health fund for an appointment (or in the case of medical professionals, to set an appointment to be vaccinated at work).
While in the first days that the system was open for appointments, there were crashes of the health funds' phones, apps, and websites, just about everyone who is eligible has either been vaccinated or has an appointment.
Health officials have promised repeatedly that teachers and school staff will be the next group to be vaccinated since schools are still open during the third lockdown, which began last Sunday, and is scheduled to end this Sunday unless it is extended.
Traveling to US from Israel during COVID-19 Pandemic
This is what it's like to fly from Israel to the United States during the global pandemic. Today you will see how much has changed since the coronavirus has completely transformed the way we do travel.
Coronavirus lockdown to begin Thursday at midnight and last two weeks
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: "We are in a state of emergency."
The country is once again completely locking down amid a surge in coronavirus cases.
The government approved lockdown will begin Thursday at midnight and include the shuttering of the entire education system, except special education.
When the government convened on Tuesday afternoon to discuss new restrictions there was already almost total consensus among the ministers. That's because the Health Ministry reported 8,368 new cases the day before, including 828 in serious condition, among them more than 200 who were intubated. Of those screened for the virus, 7.4% tested positive.
Moreover, Coronavirus Commissioner Nachman Ash reported that some 30 cases of the British mutation were already discovered in Israel and that those individuals infected 189 others - an average of six people for every infected person.
"We are in the midst of a global pandemic that is spreading at top speed with the British mutation," Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said during the meeting. "It has reached Israel and is claiming many lives."
He said that the country needed to "impose a full lockdown immediately" and that "every hour that we delay, the disease spreads even quicker and it is exacting a heavy price."
Earlier Netanyahu said, "Hospitals are warning us that we are entering the most dangerous wave since the outbreak of the pandemic. The Health Ministry and the experts warn us that we are in a state of emergency and that if we do not act immediately, we will lose many hundreds of Israelis who will die - and even more."
The lockdown means that all schools will be shut, except for special education. Gatherings will be reduced from 10 to five people inside and from 20 to 10 people outside. All businesses will be closed, except for those that sell essential products or offer essential services.
The ministers of health and finance will determine a list of what is considered essential.
Travel abroad will be allowed only for essential purposes. People who purchased tickets before the lockdown will still be able to get out of the country, but no new tickets will be honored.
Restrictions already in place will likewise continue, including that no one will be able to travel more than 1,000 meters from home. There will be no retail open and restaurants will be limited to delivery only. People will not be allowed to congregate in each other's homes.
Individual sporting activities will still be allowed.
The ministers understood that there was little choice but to pass a closure, after hearing from a variety of health experts and officials that many lives were at stake.
According to Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis, head of Public Health Services, the reproduction rate (R) stands at 1.27 and is higher than one in 95% of cities across Israel. She said 65% of the country is "red" and that "even if we shut down today, the numbers will continue to rise."
The reproduction rate is the number of people that one sick person infects.
Alroy-Preis said that the real numbers are outpacing even the worst predictions made by the Health Ministry.
The medical professionals at the meeting, too, expressed an equally grim picture.
According to Ash, an average of 30 people are dying a day from the virus.
"It is better to make the difficult decision now and if there is a dramatic change we will make a change," said Ran Balicer, chief innovation officer for Clalit Health Services and chairman of the National Expert Advisory Panel to the Government on COVID-19 at the meeting. He said that it would be impractical at this stage to put in place a differentiated model with most of the country marked orange or red.
"When we say closure, we mean the most dramatic lockdown that Israel can handle," stressed Prof. Eran Segal of the Weizmann Institute of Science. "Without sharp measures, there is no chance of stopping all this illness."
"Friends, you need to understand well what the price is of doing nothing today: hundreds of dead, thousands in serious condition and tens of thousands sick," Edelstgein said earlier at a press briefing.
At the meeting he noted that for the first time the heads of the local authorities want to lockdown. He said that the same mayors and heads of trade and industry that used to attack him and his policies are not demanding the country lockdown.
Even the finance and education ministers, who just days before were opposed to such moves, voted in favor of the lockdown.
Even Finance Minister Israel Katz and Education Minister Yoav Gallant seemed to have decided a closure is the best thing for Israel.
"Everyone shows that the situation today is worse than ever, when you see the light at the end of the tunnel, vaccinations are a great thing, but it makes it difficult to motivate closure and enforcement," said Finance Minister Israel Katz.
Regarding keeping preschools open, he said that "the finance ministry will not be more difficult than the Education Ministry."
Katz was referring to a statement made by Education Minister Yoav Gallant, who said that, "The education system is the largest system in the State of Israel and encompasses almost 30% of the citizens of the State of Israel, most of them young people.
"I understand my responsibility to navigate the education system I am in charge of so that it will assist in the national effort to create a full, inclusive and complete closure," Gallant said. "In the presentation I presented to you and in what I said, I made it clear that schools and educational institutions are not a source of infection, but a curbing cause of illness.
"Despite this, if Israeli students study extensively, a general closure will not be possible," he continued. "This is what we have witnessed in recent weeks."
As such, he said that he would agree to "harness the entire education system for the national need of curbing the spread of the pandemic." He also asked that the lockdown be used to vaccinate educational staff so they will be on the road to immunity when the closure is lifted.
The Three Musketeers at the Kotel
How can I tell if I've gotten old?
You prefer to stay home rather than go out,
2. You perfer life lived on a schedule for life being spontaneous.
3. You find that you prefer sleep to sex.
4. You discover that getting older is physically painful. Your joints hurt as do your bones.
5. You digestive system goes to hell. You cannot eat pizza or drink wine or eat Mexican food or drink tequila. Tums are your new best friends.
6. Despite the fact that life is considerably more difficult that it used to be, you love it more than ever
7. You realize that you are really concerned about the future of the world.
8. You begin to work out a religious moral compass, or a cosmology, or a philosophy of life.
9, You begin to worry about what your legacy will be.
10. You are grateful for every day you are granted. You remember your friends who have passed over already. You miss them immeasurably, but you are so happy it was NOT you. Things you used to take for granted, you now look at with joy and wonder: birds, flowers, sunrises, sunsets, the orderly passage of seasons, the phases of the moon…
Poor advocacy: Kosher Slaughter Badly Defended
By Nathan Lewin - 7 Tevet 5781 – December 22, 2020
The European Court of Justice is being slammed by Jewish organizations around the world for its decision approving a Flemish law that effectively prohibits kosher and Muslim slaughter of animals. The law upheld by the court concerns the "protection and welfare of animals." It permits the slaughter of animals "according to special methods required for religious rites" only if the animal is stunned before slaughter. Since stunning before slaughter renders an animal non-kosher (treif), the court's decision effectively permits the prohibition of kosher slaughter (shechita).
Critics of the decision call it a "frontal assault" on the basic rights of Jews and Muslims. They claim correctly that freedom of religion should prevail even if it conflicts with protecting animals. But the advocates of kosher slaughter did a poor job in the European court. Rather than defending shechita as entirely humane—no less so because it is performed on a conscious animal—they conceded in court that stunning an animal meaningfully reduces the cruelty of slaughter.
One must read the full decision of the court to know the issues presented to it. It is apparent from the court's decision that no one called the court's attention to a similar controversy in the United States Congress in 1957, when animal-rights groups pressed for the enactment of a federal Humane Slaughter law. The legislation promoted by those concerned with animal welfare directed that before being slaughtered all "cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine and other livestock" must be "rendered insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot or an electrical, chemical or other means that is rapid and effective."
Intending to preserve kosher slaughter in the United States, the initial draft provided that the law should not apply "to any individual who is duly authorized by an ordained rabbi of the Jewish religious faith to serve as a shector." Recognizing that Muslim slaughter also prohibited stunning, a later draft exempted "any individual slaughtering in accordance with the requirements of any established religious faith."
But Jewish advocates with foresight (including my late father, Dr. Isaac Lewin) saw that such provisions would not give permanent effective protection for kosher slaughter. They demanded that the legislation explicitly declare that kosher slaughter of conscious animals is as humane as slaughter after stunning because the effect of the shechita cut is that the animal immediately loses consciousness. They provided the congressional committees the scientific conclusions of 74 named experts of veterinary science, including the detailed opinion of a Nobel Prize winner in physiology or medicine who had personally witnessed the kosher slaughter and declared that it fulfills "every requirement demanded by the dictates of mercy." They said that there were "more than 800 notable authorities in the field of physiology" who had approved of shechita as humane.
Intensive lobbying included testimony before congressional committees by my father. The deputy administrator of the Agricultural Department's Research Service also testified before a House committee. While affirming the humaneness of shechita, he raised serious doubts about stunning prior to slaughter. He said that electrical stunning could result in "undesirable hemorrhaging" and in "such tremendous spasms as to actually break the animal's back."
The result was the current federal law. It recognizes explicitly that "a method of slaughter whereby the animal suffers the loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain caused by the simultaneous and instantaneous severance of the carotid arteries with a sharp instrument" is an equally humane alternative. The law describes this as "in accordance with the ritual requirements of the Jewish faith or any other religious faith that prescribes" this method of slaughter.
In 1974, the fears of defenders of shechita were realized. A federal lawsuit was initiated against the Secretary of Agriculture on behalf of "friends and guardians for all livestock animals now and hereafter awaiting slaughter in the United States," the Society for Animal Rights, and the Committee for a Wall of Separation Between Church and State in America. It claimed that the provision permitting slaughter without stunning violated the First Amendment's prohibition against the establishment of religion.
Under then-applicable federal law, the case had to be heard by three judges. One of those selected at random was Henry J. Friendly, an icon of the federal judiciary. Another was Judge Edmund Palmieri, a federal trial-level judge who is remembered today mainly because he had the initiative and courage to hire a female named Ruth Bader Ginsburg as his law clerk.
The National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs ("COLPA") was permitted to intervene as a representative of kosher consumers. On its behalf, I presented the legislative history of the law to the three judges. Judge Palmieri's opinion for the court said that "the intervenors have made a persuasive showing that Congress was fully and competently advised with respect to Jewish ritual practices." He concluded that the provision authorizing slaughter without stunning by the Jewish ritual method was a "justifiable legislative determination that the stated method of slaughter is indeed humane." The three judges agreed that stunning and Jewish ritual slaughter "are alternative methods," and that each "is supported by legislative history as a justifiable legislative determination that the stated method of slaughter is indeed humane." On this ground, the lawsuit ended with a summary judgment in favor of kosher slaughter.
The animal-rights group took that decision, as they had a right to do, directly to the Supreme Court. On Oct. 15, 1974, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the three-judge court. Jones v. Butz, 374 F. Supp. 1284 (S.D.N.Y. 1974), aff'd, 419 U.S. 806 (1974).
Neither this history nor the scientifically supported proposition that shechita's "simultaneous and instantaneous severance of the carotid arteries with a sharp instrument" is as effective as stunning was presented to the European court. It is clear from the reasoning articulated in the opinion that no one gave the European court the evidence that was heard by the American congressional committees. The European court assumed that animal welfare, which it recognized as a permissible legislative goal, required stunning before slaughter. It held that stunning only affected "one aspect of the specific ritual act of slaughter and that act of slaughter is not, by contrast, prohibited as such." This limited restriction, it said, "is appropriate for achieving the objective of promoting animal welfare."
Jewish law was sensitive to animal welfare long before Western civilization—typified by the European Court of Justice—ever recognized it as a concern worthy of human attention. Torah commands against muzzling an ox while it threshes (Devarim 25:4) and against plowing with an ox and a donkey together (Devarim 22:10) are illustrative. Rabbinic directives prohibiting the torture of living creatures (tza'ar ba'alei chayim) are well-recognized. Jewish religious slaughter should have been defended in the European Court of Justice because, by its very nature, it has always imposed a high standard of animal welfare, and not because respect for religious ritual requires that animal welfare be compromised.
Can You Stun and Shecht? How EU Commission Puts Kosher Lipstick on a Pig
Is there a way for European Jewish communities to practice kosher shechitah despite the new ban? Apparently, the notion that the continent that gave us Auschwitz is once again trying to eradicate Jewish life there has brought up feelings of deep hurt and rage among Jews. But now, a week later, we should explore the new reality.
Let's start with the facts: the Luxembourg-based EU Court last week supported a regulation issued by the Flemish and Walloon regions of Belgium which effectively ban the kosher slaughter of livestock by requiring that the animals be "reversibly" stunned before being slaughtered (Kosher Meat Shortages Ahead as EU Court Permits Shechitah Ban).
This created a backlash in the Jewish communities of Europe and elsewhere, which accused the court of anti-Semitism. Few Jews took comfort in the suggestion that it was the Muslims the Belgians were targeting, since the result was the same for Jews as well, a kind of two birds with one stun gun.
Many in the EU were taken aback by the fierce reactions: Eric Mamer, head of the EU Commission spokesperson service, said he doesn't "believe that the Court ruling has to do with a ban." He believes the decision was merely an opinion given to the Belgian Constitutional Court regarding the decree.
Christian Wigand, another EU commission spokesperson, argued that while the "respects the judgment of the European Court of Justice… Let me make one thing very clear as you put this in the context of religious freedom for the Jewish communities. Jewish communities are and always will be welcome in Europe."
Yes, but can they slaughter their cows and chickens?
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said a while back: "We are all part of the same community. There would be no European culture without the Jewish culture. There would be no Europe without Jewish people. Fostering Jewish life is something which I have always taken very seriously."
Fine, we understand, you want Jews to stay, but what if these Jews want to eat a kosher burger?
To which Wigand responded that the European Commission "has a full understanding of the concerns of the Jewish and Muslim communities brought by the judgment and we remain as always open to discuss such concerns with them."
In other words, no one in the EU is prepared to permit Belgian Jews to slaughter animals without first stunning them "reversibly," whatever that means, but at the same time, they're only too happy to inform the same Jews just how much they love them.
That's, more or less, the political reality: pre-stunning is going to become the law of the land in the EU, sooner or later. To illustrate just how fast these things happen, here is a list of European states where kosher shechitah is already banned: Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Belgium, Slovenia, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.
Poland banned kosher slaughter in 2012, but the ban was lifted by the courts in 2014.
In Upper Austria, kosher slaughtering was banned in 1958, based on a 1953 law requiring animal protection from cruelty. The Jewish community made great efforts to repeal the ban in the country's Constitutional Court, claiming it violates the federal law guaranteeing freedom of religion. But these efforts have failed, and the ban still exists there.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, major European rabbis debated whether stunning disqualified the animal from being properly shechted. Dr. Shlomo Menachem Liban from Prague in the 1860s devoted great efforts to finding a way to topple the animal with an electric shock that would not cause it lethal damage. The definition of a treifa is a living being, including humans, that sustained an injury from which they are expected to die within a year. If an animal sustained such an injury, then the kosher slaughter by the knife did not cause it's death, since it was already dying. It's like shooting a man who jumped off a tall building – the bullet killed him, but he would have died anyway.
After many experiments, Dr. Liban concluded that it was not possible to use an electric shocker on an animal without causing its death, which meant that the requirement to pre-stun the animal was tantamount to a ban on kosher shechitah. An experiment conducted in some European countries to test the possibility of anesthetizing the animal by chemical means was also unsuccessful.
A statement issued by rabbis and representatives of the Orthodox German Jewish communities in 1887 and a declaration of 250 rabbis in 1894 decreed that under no circumstances can a stunned animal be considered kosher. The Chief Rabbi of Israel, Rabbi Yitzchak Herzog, issued a similar statement on August 7, 1944. The US Rabbinical Association followed suit on December 20, 1944. The Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, Rabbi J. Hertz, banned stunning on March 27, 1945.
In Finland and Sweden, some Jewish communities allow stunning with the long-refuted argument that the animal would not die as a result of the electric shock. This was also practiced in Switzerland until the local rabbis protested the practice.
And now for something completely different:
A paper titled "A Review of Legal Regulation of Religious Slaughter in Australia: Failure to Regulate or a Regulatory Fail?" published in Europe PubMed Central, an open-access repository which contains millions of biomedical research works, reported that "since the 1980s, a range of Islamic authorities globally have accepted pre-slaughter stunning, provided it meets pre-requisite conditions based on the interpretation of Islamic law.
These prerequisites include:
Stunning equipment must be under the control of a Muslim supervisor and should be monitored by a halal certification authority or Islamic authority
The stunning must be reversible or temporary so as not to kill or cause permanent injury to the animals
Stunning equipment has not been in contact with pigs or other haram (forbidden) ingredients, such as alcohol.
Still, based on the need for the stun to be reversible, only a few recognized stun methods are likely to be halal compliant.
According to the paper, "non-penetrative stunners used in mechanical stunning produce a blow to the animal's skull and result in a reversible stun, and are acceptable to Islamic authorities, provided the skull is confirmed to be intact following skinning. Electrical stunning leads to an unconscious state by generating an epileptiform seizure, which renders the animal insensible to pain."
The same paper also reported that "different electrode placement results in varied stun outcomes: placement on the body (rather than the head) will induce cardiac fibrillation and immediate cardiac arrest, which means that this stunning method does not meet the halal criteria of a reversible stun. However, the alternate placement of electrodes for a head-only stun, resulting in seizure activity, may be acceptable."
The paper added that "gaseous stunning methods are mainly used for pigs and poultry, and are controversial. In spite of the potentially reversible nature of these methods, they are not permitted for the halal slaughter of poultry (pork, of course, being declared haram as part of Islamic law). The World Halal Council cites gaseous methods as cruel, with the aim being only to kill the animal. Consequently, since Islam forbids the eating of carrion, the method is regarded as non-Islamic."
As to the original Jewish assertion, that this entire brouhaha is not about preventing cruelty to animals but instead about the prevention of Jews – the jury is no longer out on that one.
Euro Hypocrisy Made Clear in Kosher-slaughter Judgement
Last time I checked, the French were still preparing their famed foie gras delicacy using the method of "gavage." This involves force-feeding a duck or a goose with grain passed through a tube over a period of several days so that its liver swells to approximately 600 percent of its normal size. The point is, if you don't put the bird through this plainly ghastly experience, you cannot produce the rich flavor and buttery texture that makes foie gras so prized among gastronomes.
Many people refuse to eat foie gras precisely because of the cruelty involved in its production, but equally, many more people clearly aren't bothered by it at all, as revenues internationally run into the hundreds of millions of dollars every year. Its sale has been banned by local officials in a handful of places, including New York from 2022, but that isn't going to stop French, as well as Spanish, Hungarian, Belgian and Bulgarian farmers from producing foie gras with the only method available to them. Indeed, any initiative to shut down the industry would need to come from the European Union, and there is precious little sign of that happening.
To be clear, I'm not advocating a renewed European Union legal crackdown on foie gras; frankly, it's not an issue on which I have strong feelings either way. I raise the issue in order to illustrate a glaring double standard that has, in the last week, left both Jewish and Muslim communities in Europe feeling like rank and unwanted outsiders.
Last Thursday, the Luxembourg-based European Union Court of Justice (ECJ), which is the final arbiter of E.U. law, drew a line between the "civilized" and the "uncivilized" in terms of how farm animals that are slaughtered for human consumption are treated by different religious groups in Europe.
On the "civilized" side of the line are those carnivores whose meat is stunned before it is slaughtered, which the ECJ deems to be humane. On the "uncivilized" side are those—overwhelmingly Muslims and Jews—whose religious commandments strictly forbid the stunning of animals before they are slaughtered, which the ECJ deems to be inhumane.
Of course, that doesn't change the fact that meat that has been slaughtered with a pre-stunning process is not considered kosher or halal, nor can it be.
The ECJ's determination was part of a ruling that rejected an appeal brought by the Belgian Federation of Jewish Communities against a ban on kosher and halal slaughter in the Wallonia region imposed by the local authorities in 2017. By upholding the ban, the ECJ has effectively licensed other states and regions within the E.U. to outlaw ritual slaughter—or the sale of kosher and halal products—without the threat of mass discrimination lawsuits.
Unusually, the court's decision eschewed the opinion of one of its 11 Advocate Generals, Gerard Hogan, who stated last September that the member states of the E.U. "are obliged to respect the deeply held religious beliefs of adherents to the Muslim and Jewish faiths by allowing for the ritual slaughter of animals."
For the judges of the ECJ, evidently, there were no such fundamental stakes involved. From their perspective, the ruling did not outlaw ritual slaughter itself, but merely "one aspect of the specific ritual act of slaughter." It added that the law allowed for a "fair balance" between animal welfare and the "freedom of Jewish and Muslim believers to manifest their religion."
No such "fair balance" between animal welfare and human traditions is on display when it comes to the annual production of 17,000 tons of foie gras. The stench of hypocrisy, the nagging sense that the high-minded secular humanists who run European institutions are just bullying observant Jewish and Muslim communities with this latest edict, is unmistakable. Chief Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt of the Conference of European Rabbis elegantly summarized both the insult and the absurdity of the ECJ's ruling thus. "We are told by European leaders that they want Jewish communities to live and be successful in Europe," he said, "but they provide no safeguards for our way of life."
While there are many more Muslims than there are Jews in Europe these days, the roots of this enmity towards ritual slaughter lie in the anti-Judaic and anti-Semitic traditions that have persisted and so often flourished throughout the continent's history. Europe, after all, is the continent of the so-called "Judensau"—grotesque carvings on medieval churches that mocked the Jewish prohibition on pork by showing Jews in obscene acts with pigs. The method of shechita (kosher slaughter) has been twisted and distorted by anti-Semites for various tales of blood libel and theologically mandated cruelty allegedly practiced by Jews down the ages. And lest we forget, one of the first legislative actions undertaken by the Nazi regime in Germany was a ban on kosher slaughter, which was depicted in official propaganda as an ugly, alien and thoroughly un-German practice.
The ECJ is making much the same declaration in 2020, albeit in language that avoids the demonic ravings of Nazi official rhetoric. Its judges are surely aware that the rules of shechita are not flexible; therefore, any part of Europe that prevents the sale of meat that has not been pre-stunned is effectively telling observant Jews that they are unwelcome as residents.
Not only that. If kosher slaughter is a legitimate target for the ECJ, then why not add male infant circumcision as well—another requirement of the Jewish and Muslim faiths that has been faced with legal and political challenges across Europe in yet one more demonstration of how centuries of anti-Semitism have reappeared dressed in humanist concerns.
Instructively, the ECJ's ruling came just weeks after the EU Council, the bloc's main coordinating body, issued a solemn six-page declaration against anti-Semitism.
The declaration stated that anti-Semitism "in any form, is and must remain unacceptable and all steps must be taken to counteract it, including, where necessary, through legal measures at European level." It went on to underline that "the member states of the European Union support policy initiatives at European level that aim to combat incitement to anti-Semitic hatred and acts of violence, as well as the dissemination of anti-Semitic conspiracy myths online."
I beg your pardon? By telling European publics, as the ECJ is doing, that Jewish methods for slaughtering kosher meat are inherently suspect? By stoking fears among Jews that their core religious beliefs and rituals are under legal attack? No matter how many words the E.U. expends on the evils of anti-Semitism, no matter how many definitions of anti-Semitism it adopts, any restrictions on the supply or sale of kosher products will render all of those efforts meaningless.
News For The Jews. The EU now permits member states to ban shechitah,
in the name of animal welfare. Incredibly, I have seen some traditional
Jews express sympathy for this ruling, saying that they can understand
it from non-religious perspective. I'd like to explain why this is
gravely mistaken.
Some Jewish groups defend shechitah by arguing that it is painless. I don't know if that is true or not. (Some of the "scientific" defense of shechitah seems rather dated and biased. On the other hand, I have seen various quotes from Temple Grandin saying that shechitah can be done without undue pain, and that the main issue is how the animal is treated immediately beforehand.)
But what I do feel is that an alternative strategy should be considered. Because I know of no theological reason why shechitah should necessarily be entirely painless. Furthermore, if you defend shechitah on the grounds that it has "scientifically" been proven painless, then you are effectively conceding that if science proves otherwise, then shechitah should not be done.
Instead, shechitah can be robustly defended on the following grounds: that the small degree of animal suffering is fully justified for religious benefits.
No
country in the world rules that no pain may be caused to animals. When
there is substantial benefit to humans, all legal systems permit
causing pain to animals. Medical experimentation is one example.
Farming animals for food usually involves a considerable level of
distress to the animals. Modern broiler chickens have been selectively
bred to grow as fat and as fast as possible on as little food as
possible, but such extreme growth causes skeletal malformation and
dysfunction, skin and eye lesions, and congestive heart conditions.
chickens, selectively bred to maximize growth and meat yield, endure
serious hardship for their entire lives. Egg-laying chickens have their
beaks cut off so that they do not attack each other in the crowded
conditions under which they are raised, a surgery which is likely to
cause acute and chronic pain. The possible suffering of animals in how
they die pales into insignificance compared to the suffering of animals
in how they live. Yet all this is legal in every country, for human
benefit. Belgium - the country at the forefront of the opposition to
shechitah - even permits sport hunting!
Given the amount of animal suffering which is perfectly legal in every country in the world, one can only conclude that the targeting of shechitah has less to do with compassion for animals and more to do with hostility to religion.
Shechitah is the only means by which Jews can eat meat. Eating meat is a legitimate activity (animals also eat animals!), and Judaism is an ancient way of life which deserves respect. Even if shechitah does cause some brief pain to animals, it is justified - especially since the suffering is not of long duration. I think that this is ultimately the correct defense (although I will admit that I am not certain if, strategically speaking, it is the best defense to use).
At the same time, this means that the kosher meat industry certainly could improve a lot in terms of how the animals are treated before shechitah. I'm always amazed at how people who are makpid about every minutiae of rabbinic chumra are often entirely unconcerned with the d'Oraisa of tzaar baalei chaim. As Rabbi Aryeh Carmell ztz"l wrote:
It seems doubtful… whether the Torah would sanction "factory farming," which treats animals as machines, with apparent insensitivity to their natural needs and instincts. ( Masterplan, p. 69)
Many halachic authorities are of the opinion that minor benefits and financial benefits, such as those obtained via factory farming, do not warrant causing pain to animals. It is true that the majority opinion is in the other direction. Still, considering that many people are fastidious to meticulously fulfill the laws of kashrus according to all opinions, such punctiliousness should surely also apply to the laws of tzaar baalei chayim. That is to say, since there are opinions which state that financial benefits (such as those enabled through factory farming) do not justify the suffering thereby caused to animals, those who are meticulous to follow all opinions should surely be consistent and refrain from consuming animals farmed in such a manner.
Rav Eliezer Melamed discusses the topic of hens that are starved in order to then make them enter a new cycle of laying eggs. He quotes none other than Rav Yitzchak Weiss - of Manchester and then of the Edah Charedis - who says that even though there is no technical problem of tzaar baalei chaim here, someone who wants to conduct himself via middas chassidus will refrain from this.
There should be a "glatt" push for heritage chickens rather than factory chickens. Additionally, they should be working to ensure that farmed animals suffer as little as possible, whether they are farmed for food or fur. Aside from the innate importance and value of that, I'm sure it would assist in the general campaign to defend shechitah. If the Jewish community demonstrated greater sensitivity for animal welfare than the general population, it would be a tremendous kiddush Hashem and a powerful shield against attacks on shechitah.
Yehuda Lave is an author, journalist, psychologist, rabbi, spiritual teacher, and coach, with degrees in business, psychology and Jewish Law. He works with people from all walks of life and helps them in their search for greater happiness, meaning, business advice on saving money, and spiritual engagement.
Vaccinated in Israel, I feel incredibly appreciative, and I'm daring to hope
A chain of wise and wonderful people, abroad and here, inside a year, managed to find a counter to COVID and have now started to deliver it. May the rest of the planet follow suit
By DAVID HOROVITZ
I have a tiny, blessed ache in my right arm. May it signal the beginning of the end of our common nightmare.
I've just sat down at my desk having been vaccinated against COVID-19, a few minutes ago, by the staff of the Maccabi health fund at Jerusalem's Arena stadium — an indoor sports and concert facility newly pressed into pandemic battle service.
I'm close to, but not yet over 60, but Maccabi is now vaccinating over 55s with medical issues, and my very mild asthma apparently counts, since I was texted by Maccabi to make an appointment along with my wife. And we were then permitted to schedule that appointment together with the one already set for my parents, who are both in their late 80s.
So, off we went to the Arena, in two cars — the four of us, that is, along with my mother's unflappable and resourceful full-time carer, together with my sister and brother-in-law (both over 60, both already vaccinated by the Meuhedet HMO).
We were half-dreading the very complex process of transitioning our two wheelchair-bound parents from home to car to vaccination center and back, so my wife had done an advance run, working out the logistics of where we'd be able to stop on the narrowish street leading to the stadium.
I anticipated traffic jams outside, and then long lines of inevitably impatient, worried and frazzled folks, in far too close proximity, awaiting the protective injection.
Traffic there certainly was, but it moved along fairly smoothly. We were not even honked at as we carefully transferred our parents from passenger seats to wheelchairs. A parking attendant stepped in to direct me and my brother-in-law to a vacant parking area, while the rest of our little group took the elevator to the Arena entrance area.
A country notorious for bureaucratic red tape has set up an unprecedented nationwide vaccination operation in an instant — computer databases whirring into logistical operation, vaccination centers fitted out, staff hired and trained, millions of precious vaccine doses purchased, imported and distributed
By the time I rejoined them they had been given a number, and my wife was filling out a brief form for each of us — half a dozen yes/no questions about allergies, temperatures and other basics. A big screen showed 50 people ahead of us, but the numbers were ticking over fast. The waiting time was plainly going to be short.
Except we didn't wait at all. A staffer, seeing the wheelchairs, ushered us straight to one of the booths where the vaccinating was in full flow. Itai, a paramedic, and Dror, his colleague, doublechecked our forms, switching easily from Hebrew to English to make sure my folks understood everything, and unfussily administered the shots, taking the greatest of care with my rather fragile mom. Then they sent us on our way, with the injunction to wait 15 minutes in the entrance area as a safety precaution.
The process was so spectacularly smooth that I know others' experiences cannot and will not all be so untroubled. But I also know that Israel will have vaccinated something like a tenth of the populace before the end of the week if current rates are maintained, and we only started the drive, with an initial limited focus on healthcare workers, 10 days ago.
A country notorious for bureaucratic red tape has set up an unprecedented nationwide vaccination operation in an instant — computer databases whirring into logistical operation, vaccination centers fitted out, staff hired and trained, millions of precious vaccine doses purchased, imported and distributed.
It's an operation working so effectively that the most minor of snafus, in which a total of a few hundred of the refrigerated Pfizer doses went to waste because they passed their expiration date, has made headlines.
Incidentally, we must have just missed President Reuven Rivlin, who called in at the Arena at around the same time as we were there. "I must say that it is very exciting to be here," he said. "It is less than two weeks since the vaccination program began, and here we are in your buzzing beehive of activity, where 2,000 people are vaccinated every hour – more than 100,000 Israelis so far." Absolutely, Mr. President.
The Times of Israel has reported concerns that the current remarkable nationwide 150,000-shots-a-day pace may slow early next month, as stocks run low, before accelerating again in February. I've also seen suggestions that the vaccine manufacturers are eager to ensure Israel can maintain its world-leading process, so that the entire nation can serve as a model and a statistical test case for the rest of the planet.
Naturally, in a nation heading into its fourth election in two years, the race between virus and vaccine — as new cases of contagion spike amid the current lockdown — is being widely viewed through a political filter, too: Will Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's starring role as both vaccine-supply negotiator-in-chief and role model First Vaccinee immunize him from election defeat in March?
But those are issues for another moment, and doubtless for other columns.
For now, I'd simply like to say a thank you — to the whole chain of wise and wonderful people abroad and at home who, inside a year, managed to find a counter to COVID-19 and have now started to deliver it. I'd like to recognize my privilege in being an early recipient, and appreciate how Israel's core get-it-done capacity has triumphed over all obstacles thus far. I'd like to hope the rest of humanity can follow suit as quickly and safely as possible. I'd like to wish that world leaders henceforth prioritize treatment and, crucially, R&D and preventative measures to safeguard humanity and our planet — massively reallocating resources, now that science has demonstrated its awesome capabilities when properly funded and supported.
My mother had not been out of the house except for medical appointments since March. Her journey today, and her second trip, three weeks from now, I pray, will be her liberation. We haven't hugged her since March either. But today, when we brought her home, I allowed myself to kiss her gently, briefly on her head, through my mask and her hat.
The whole vaccination expedition took about as long as it's taken me to write this column. And, in case you were wondering, that little ache in my arm has gone.
From birth, this guy was completely normal and nothing on the physical indicators was radically different from peers. As a teenager, Carlos contacted a bad company and started using alcohol and drugs. The tragedy that changed his life occurred when he was 14 years old. Being in a state of alcohol and drug intoxication, Carlos stole a car and got into an accident. During the collision, the teenager flew through the windshield and hit his head on the asphalt. The doctors managed to save his life, but a significant fragment of the skull and brain had to be removed.
Brain Injuries Are Not Always Deadly
A noteworthy fact is that after all operations and period of rehabilitation, the patient, who had lost much of the brain, did not change at all. He retained all the memories and mental abilities. Despite the fact that Carlos Rodriguez is a "man without a brain" (he clearly demonstrates the photo in the article), he continues to smile, is able to support conversation on various topics, quickly and appropriately answers the questions posed. Scientists today do not have a precise explanation of how one can live without the brain and retain most of the mental functions. A popular hypothesis in the scientific community is that the nerve endings in the abdominal part are partially replaced by the traditional organ of thinking.
It's Official: Products from Judea and Samaria Sold in US Now Labeled 'Made in Israel'
The US Customs and Border Protection agency on Wednesday issued a "Statement on Country of Origin Markings for Israeli and Palestinian Goods" that reads:
Today, US Customs and Border Protection published a Federal Register Notice to ensure that country of origin markings for Israeli and Palestinian goods are consistent with the United States' foreign policy approach. The notice establishes that producers within certain areas designated in the Oslo Accords and the Hebron Protocol must mark their goods as "Israel," "Product of Israel," or "Made in Israel" when exporting those goods to the United States. Parties that import these goods into the United States are responsible for ensuring compliance with the marking requirements.
At a time when several EU countries are compelling their stores to label products from the Jewish settlements in ways that distinguish them from Israeli products from the pre-1967 border, the Trump administration has gone out of its way to remove this distinction.
Advertisement
The US Customs and Border Protection is the unified border agency within the Department of Homeland Security charged with the management, control and protection of the country's borders at and between official ports of entry. CBP is charged with securing the borders of the United States while enforcing hundreds of laws and facilitating lawful trade and travel.
Prior to the recent Trump decision, products from the settlements could not be sold as made in Israel in the US on the grounds that this violated the principle of truth in advertising – since the settlements are not legally part of Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had a chance to change this after his most recent reelection, but was ordered not to do it by… the Trump administration.
The CBP clarified that the Federal Register Notice was "based upon guidance from the US Department of State that the country of origin marking requirements for goods produced in certain areas of the West Bank be updated to reflect the fact that producers in these areas operate within the economic and administrative framework of Israel."
Last November, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared that products made in the Jewish settlements of Judea and Samaria would be labeled "Made in Israel," revoking the US policy of labeling them "Made in West Bank."
PA Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Riyad al-Malki said at the time that Secretary Pompeo's announcement represented a "de facto US recognition of Israel's annexation of the illegal settlements to its sovereignty." He added that the announcement necessitated immediate rejection at the international level, declaring: "It is a crime and those responsible for it must be punished, whoever and wherever they are."
Meanwhile, according to the CBP, "goods produced in areas of the West Bank where the Palestinian Authority maintains relevant authorities shall be marked as products of 'West Bank' and goods produced in Gaza shall be marked as products of 'Gaza.'"
CBP authorized a transition period of 90 days for importers to implement markings consistent with this notice.
Finally: as with a long list of pro-Israel moves on the part of President Donald Trump, since, for the most part, they were created by an executive order, the incoming Biden administration will have the power to change them with its own executive order. But every such change would come at some political cost, especially in the sensitive area of settlements' products, considering the large number of states that have passed anti-BDS laws. The Biden folks might decide to let the CBP new rules stand, at least for the time being.
What Do Poskim Say About The Covid-19 Vaccine?
By Rabbi Dr. Aaron E. Glatt - 9 Tevet 5781 – December 24, 2020 0
The development of two mRNA Covid-19 vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna – both of which have received FDA emergency-use authorization – is a most generous gift from Hashem. Despite the many unanswered questions, these vaccines (and potentially others) have the potential to save millions of lives worldwide.
But only if we take them. It is therefore critical that we know the opinion of halachic experts on these vaccines. Their opinion, the opinion of gedolim representing all sectors of Orthodoxy, is based on two large prospective, double-blind trials – conducted separately and independently – that conclusively demonstrated that the new vaccines are both very safe and highly efficacious.
Even well-designed trials can't guarantee that unexpected or rare complications will never occur, but halacha demands that we evaluate medications and treatments in the context of both known and unknown risks and benefits. So keeping in mind the large number of deaths and serious complications associated with Covid-19, the relatively limited and meager medications available to treat this illness, and the statistically significant value of these vaccines, what do poskim say about taking these vaccines?
Rav Hershel Schachter, shlita, and Rav Mordechai Willig, shlita – with the support of Rav Dovid Cohen, shlita – have said the following in a combined Orthodox Union/Rabbinical Council of America statement:
"Pursuant to the advice of your personal health care provider, the Torah obligation to preserve our lives and the lives of others requires us to vaccinate for COVID-19 as soon as a vaccine becomes available" (emphasis added).
Rav Asher Weiss, shlita – in a detailed teshuvah available in Hebrew, as well as in an on-line English shiur – stated that he strongly recommends taking the vaccine.
Rav Chaim Kanievsky, shlita; Rav Gershon Edelstein, shlita; and Rav Shalom Cohen, shlita – three of the most prominent Israeli chareidi rabbanim – have all stated that anyone who can get the vaccine should take it. (Rav Chaim, shlita, can be seen saying this on video.)
Finally, Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky, shlita, in a handwritten teshuvah, states that he has no personal opinion on the matter but recommends that each individual ask his or her doctor and follow the doctor's advice.
Thus, the essentially unanimous psak of these contemporary gedolim from across the Orthodox spectrum is that taking these vaccines if your physician advises it is highly recommended.
I would add that a person who saves a single life is considered as to have saved the entire world. We are a nation of gomlei chassadim; think of how many lives we will save if we all get vaccinated as soon as possible.
We are about to be given the privilege and opportunity to do this great mitzvah. Let us all look forward in anticipation of getting vaccinated and say when we receive the shot:
"May it be Your will, dear G-d, that our getting vaccinated will help save the lives of many people we love and people we have never even met – people of all colors and religions – and may we make a huge Kiddush Hashem in doing so. Amen."
I'm writing this column having just returned home to California after five days in Florida. For the first time since my first trip to Los Angeles in 1974 and moving there two years later, I dreaded going to California.
That first trip, as a 25-year-old New Yorker, I experienced the palpable excitement looking at the American Airlines flight board at JFK airport and seeing "Los Angeles." For most Americans, the very name "California" elicited excitement, wonder, even envy, and most of all… freedom. While America always represented freedom, within America, California exemplified freedom most of all.
Yet, here I am, sitting in a state where corruption reigns (one of the leading Democrats of the last half-century told me years ago that politicians in California are window dressing; the real power in California is wielded by unions) and where, for nine months, normal life has been shut down, schools have been closed, and small businesses have been destroyed in unprecedented numbers.
For five days in Florida, a state governed by the pro-freedom party, I went anywhere I wanted. First and foremost, I could eat both inside and outside restaurants. At one of them, when I stood up to take photos of people dining, a patron who recognized me walked over and said, "I assume you're just taking pictures of people eating in a restaurant." That's exactly what I was doing. I even took my two grandchildren to a bowling alley, which was filled with people enjoying themselves playing myriad arcade games as well as bowling.
None of that is allowed almost anywhere in California. It is becoming a police state, rooted in deception and irrationality.
Restaurants have been shut down (except for takeout orders), even for outdoor dining, for no scientific reason. After ordering Los Angeles county restaurants closed, the health authorities of Los Angeles county acknowledged in court that they had no evidence that outdoor dining was dangerous; they ordered restaurants closed, even to outdoor dining, solely in order to keep people home.
The left's claim to "follow the science" is a lie. The left does not follow science; it follows scientists it agrees with and dismisses all other scientists as "anti-science."
Science does not say that eating inside a restaurant at least six feet from other diners, let alone outside a restaurant, is potentially fatal, but eating inside an airplane inches from strangers is safe.
Science does not say mass protests during a pandemic (when people are constantly told to social distance) are a health benefit, but left-wing scientists say they are – when directed against racism. In June, Jennifer Nuzzo, a Johns Hopkins epidemiologist, tweeted: "In this moment the public health risks of not protesting to demand an end to systemic racism greatly exceed the harms of the virus."
She cited the former head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Tom Frieden: "The threat to Covid control from protesting outside is tiny compared to the threat to Covid control created when governments act in ways that lose community trust. People can protest peacefully AND work together to stop Covid. Violence harms public health."
Even The New York Times, in July, acknowledged the double standard: "Public health experts decried the anti-lockdown protests as dangerous gatherings in a pandemic. Health experts seem less comfortable doing so now that the marches are against racism."
Science does not say, "Men give birth." But the left routinely argues that "science says" they do and that "science says" there are more than two sexes – many more, in fact.
The last time I felt I was leaving a free society and entering an unfree one was when I visited the communist countries of Eastern Europe. As a graduate student majoring in communism during the Cold War, I would travel through the countries known as Soviet satellites: Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria. In the middle of my trips, I would stop in Austria to breathe free air.
Never did I imagine I would ever experience anything analogous in America, the land of the free, the land of the Statue of Liberty and the Liberty Bell. But I did this week when leaving Florida and returning to California.
There is no question that America is becoming, if it hasn't already become, two countries: one that values liberty – from small businesses being allowed to operate to people being allowed to say what they believe – and one that has contempt for liberty.
I am asked almost daily by friends around the country and by callers to my radio show whether I intend to stay in California. Were it not for all the close friends who live here and the synagogue a few friends and I founded, the answer would be no. But at a given point, I'm sure I will leave this Soviet satellite for a free state. The bigger and far more important question is: How long will the Soviet states of America and the free states of America remain the United States of America?
See you tomorrow bli neder as we try to survive this latest knockdown
