Breaking news-Lockdown restrictions revealed and it isn't good and Yehuda Lave Zoom Lecture Link on Wednesday, Oct 14 at 7:30 Jerusalem time and When Ben-Gurion Met The Chazon Ish By Saul Jay Singer and Why I am Suing CNN By Alan M. Dershowitz and Dakuwaqa's Garden - Underwater footage from Fiji & Tonga and does a surgical mask filter out the virus? and Florida Doctors claim near 100% virus cure and Brooklyn Diocese Loses Lawsuit over Corona Restrictions Blamed on Chasidim
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.
Many of us are disappointed in ourselves for not having "healed" yet, as evidence by the fact that we are not as confident, calm, and cheerful as we would like to be. No matter hard we push to get to the finish line, the line always seems to move further away, leaving us feeling like failures, wondering what we're doing wrong and why our traumas have not been erased or why negative patterns still emerge in our relationships. The truth is that there is no finish line, no "there" that we have to get to. We heal to the extent that we love and accept ourselves as we are right now. The best thing we can do for ourselves is to get out of the race and embrace who we are at this moment.
Brooklyn Diocese Loses Lawsuit over Corona Restrictions Blamed on Chasidim
By David Israel - 23 Tishri 5781 – October 11, 2020
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio vs. Governor Andrew Cuomo
Nicholas DiMarzio, the seventh Bishop of Brooklyn, and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, on Thursday filed a lawsuit in federal court against the state of New York, for violating their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. The lawsuit is in response to the state's executive order that curtails the attendance at Catholic Churches in Brooklyn and Queens in locations where there has been a rise in coronavirus positive testing.
On Friday night, responding to the Catholic Church's appeal, US District Judge Eric Komitee upheld the governor's suppression of religious services in churches located in "red" Brooklyn and Queens neighborhoods, even though the churches have been obeying the rules and the pandemic has been rising there because of folks who adhere to a different, older faith.
Judge Komitee admitted that the governor had put him in a tight spot, making this a "difficult decision," after Cuomo had gone on CNN and pointed his finger at Brooklyn Chasidim.
"The governor of New York made it remarkably clear that this order was intended to target a different set of religious institutions," Komitee wrote in his decision. "Plaintiff appears to have been swept up in that effort despite having been mostly spared, so far at least, from the problem at hand. Nevertheless, the government is afforded wide latitude in managing the spread of deadly diseases," the judge ruled.
Bishop DiMarzio complained bitterly that "our churches have the capacity to accommodate many worshipers," saying it was unfair "to reset our attendance capacity to 10 people maximum in the red zone, and 25 people in the orange zone, when we have had no significant cases, impedes our right to worship and cannot stand."
"The State has completely disregarded the fact that our safety protocols have worked and it is an insult to once again penalize all those who have made the safe return to Church work," the Bishop said.
Agudath Israel of America also filed a lawsuit in federal court requesting an injunction against Governor Andrew Cuomo's attendance limits on houses of worship in red zones.
Agudah's Rabbi David Zwiebel told WABC: "This is something which is very devastating to communities of faith. Why in the world would a large shul with large capacity be treated the same as a small shul?"
A spokesperson for Governor Cuomo did not sound particularly worried, telling WABC: "We get sued virtually every day for virtually every action. We're focused on reducing the spread in these clusters and saving lives, period." And, indeed, on Thursday, a federal judge rejected Agudah's petition and upheld the governor's decision to shut down Jewish houses of worship in zones where the numbers showed the locals were disregarding the law.
Bishop DiMarzio reiterated his complaint, saying: "We vehemently disagree with the capacity limits being placed on us. They are disrespectful to Catholics who have only been abiding by the rules. We do not agree with such limitations because they completely disregard the fact that our safety protocols have worked."
In other words, why should the Catholics suffer because the Jews are breaking the law? Welcome to the topsie turvie world of coronavirus America, or, if you've kept a grudge since 1492, Auto-da-fé this…
Dakuwaqa's Garden - Underwater footage from Fiji & Tonga
Underwater footage shot whilst scuba diving in the Fiji islands and Tonga. Featuring colorful coral reefs, huge schools of tropical fish, sharks, humpback whales, underwater caves, scuba divers and much more marine life from the south Pacific.
I love the First Amendment, I support the First Amendment, I have litigated cases defending the First Amendment. I have written and taught about the First Amendment. And I was a law clerk for the Supreme Court when it rendered its landmark 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, which "protects media even when they print false statements about public figures, as long as the media did not act with 'actual malice.'"
But I also understand the limitations of the First Amendment. Freedom of speech is designed to promote the marketplace of ideas. It is not a license for giant media companies to deliberately and maliciously defame citizens, even public figures. So when CNN made a decision to doctor a recording so as to deceive its viewers into believing that I said exactly the opposite of what I actually said, that action was not protected by the First Amendment. Here is what CNN did.
I was asked to present the Constitutional argument against President Trump's impeachment and removal to the United States Senate this past January. For an hour and seven minutes, I argued that if a president does anything illegal, unlawful, or criminal-like — if he commits treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors — he satisfies the criteria for impeachment under the Constitution. But if a president engages in entirely lawful conduct motivated in part by the desire to be reelected, which he believes is in the public interest, that would not constitute grounds for impeachment. Everybody seemed to understand the distinction I was drawing. Some agreed, others disagreed. But the distinction was clear between illegal conduct on the one hand, and lawful conduct on the other hand.
Two days later I returned to the Senate to answer questions put to the lawyers by the senators. The first question to me came from Senator Ted Cruz. He asked whether a quid pro quo constituted an impeachable offense. My response was consistent with my argument two days earlier: I said that what "would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were in some way illegal." If it was, it could constitute an impeachable offense. But if it wasn't illegal or unlawful, the president's political motives could not turn it into an impeachable offense. That was quite clear. Indeed, the next question from the senators was directed to the Democratic House Manager who was asked to respond to my answer. Congressman Adam Schiff, disagreed with my answer, but understood the distinction between lawful and unlawful. So did CNN. When they first showed my answer, they showed it in full, including my statement that a quid pro quo would not be impeachable so long as it was not "in some way illegal." I then went on to say that if a president was motivated in part by his desire to be reelected, which he believes was in the public interest, that motive would not turn a lawful act into an impeachable offense.
But then CNN made a decision to doctor and edit my recorded remarks so as to eliminate all references to "unlawful" or "illegal" conduct. They wanted their viewers to believe that I had told the Senate that a president could do anything — even commit such crimes as "bribery" and "extortion" — as long as he was motivated by a desire to be reelected. That, of course, was precisely the opposite of what I said. And that is precisely the reason by CNN edited and doctored the tape the way they did: namely to deliberately create the false impression that I had said the president could commit any crimes in order to be reelected, without fear of impeachment.
CNN then got its paid commentators to go on the air, broadcast the doctored recording and rail against me for saying that a president could commit crimes with impunity. Joe Lockhart, former White House Press Secretary under President Clinton, said that I had given the president "license to commit crimes" and that:
"This is what you hear from Stalin. This is what you hear from Mussolini, what you hear from authoritarians, from Hitler, from all the authoritarian people who rationalize, in some cases genocide, based what was in the public interest."
No one corrected him by pointing out that I said exactly the opposite in the sentence that CNN had edited out. Nor did anyone correct Paul Begala when he wrote:
"The Dershowitz Doctrine would make presidents immune from every criminal act, so long as they could plausibly claim they did it to boost their re-election effort. Campaign finance laws: out the window. Bribery statutes: gone. Extortion: no more. This is Donald Trump's fondest figurative dream: to be able to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it." (Emphasis added)
CNN is, of course, responsible for the decision to edit and doctor the recording to reverse its meaning and they are also responsible for how their paid commentators mischaracterized what I said.
So I am suing them for a lot of money, not in order to enrich myself, but to deter CNN and other media from maliciously misinforming their viewers at the expense of innocent people. I intend to donate funds I receive from CNN to worthy charities, including those that defend the First Amendment. Every American will benefit from a judicial decision that holds giant media accountable for turning truth on its head and for placing partisanship above the public interest. So I will continue to defend the First Amendment as I have for the last 55 years (I am now consulting with Julian Assange's legal team). But I will insist that giant media not abuse their First Amendment rights in the way that CNN did.
That's an excellent question. No, the two sides don't have different sized holes.
COVID-19 is spread by droplets that come out of an infected person's nose when they cough, sneeze, laugh or talk.
This is the most useful graphic on the potential spread of the disease that I could find. I say "potential" because we are not exactly sure all of the ways coronavirus spreads yet.
Let's assume the person on the left is sick with COVID-19. She's not wearing a mask, and she's coughing and/or sneezing. Droplets of mucus and/or saliva are flying out of her mouth and nose at a high rate of speed. The big drops travel at most three feet before they hit the ground. The smaller drops go as far as six feet. The "infectious droplet nuclei" (basically just the virus without the snot around it) that you see in the drawing are particularly dangerous because they are lighter than air and can float around for great distances.
Now, if our sick person on the left was wearing a surgical mask, it would act as a handkerchief and keep all of that infectious material close to her face. It may get coated with mucus or whatnot when she sneezes, but it can quickly be taken off and replaced.
Let's turn our attention to our uninfected person on the right. She's maintaining proper social distancing and keeping at least six feet between her and everyone else. Therefore, she's not going to get any droplets on her even if someone were to cough or sneeze.
What about those "airborne droplet nuclei", the particles of the virus itself out there floating around in the air? Surgical masks won't help much, if at all, with those. Viruses are microscopically small. Depending on the size of the virus, you can fit about 20,000,000 of them on the head of a pin. Yep, twenty million.
Surgical masks can't filter out particles that small. Imagine the pores in the mask being about the size of a hula hoop and the virus being about the size of a tennis ball. The tennis ball is going to pass right through the hula hoop and into your lungs.
And that is why a mask protects everyone around you if you are sick, but doesn't protect well people from breathing in dangerous viruses.
Florida doctors claim corona cure with near 100% success rate
Doctors at a hospital in Ocala, Florida say they've come up with a treatment for the coronavirus that has a nearly perfect success rate, Fox 35 Orlando reports on Saturday.
AdventHealth Ocala is using existing drugs in combination in a treatment called ICAM.
ICAM is an acronym that stands for the various medications used in the treatment: 1) "I" – Immunosupport (Vitamin C and Zinc) 2) "C" – Corticosteroids to control inflammation 3) "A" – Anticoagulants to prevent blood clots, and 4) "M" – Macrolides to fight infection.
The hospital says that it's seen a 96.4% survival rate since April.
"The ICAM protocol has the potential to trigger the reopening of the country," said Dr. Carlette Norwood-Williams, Director of Pharmacy at AdventHealth Ocala told Fox35.
She said ICAM strengthens the immune system and fights inflammation.
Ironically, it's the response of the patient's immune system, specifically inflammation, which determines how sick the individual will become. The serious lung damage seen in some corona patients is caused by an out-of-control immune system reacting to the virus. It's not caused by the virus itself.
"What we found out was that ICAM works as a strategy for super defense for the body," Norwood-Williams said. "It doesn't kill coronavirus, but it doesn't need to. Viruses are self-limiting anyway. They have a very short life cycle. What kills people are the consequences of coronavirus in multiple ways."
"We had no need for mechanical ventilation, and the patients all survived the discharge regardless of age and regardless of past medical history," Norwood-Williams said.
"We will know the next step after our out-patient study," she said.
Rarely in Jewish history has there been a sage such as R. Avrohom Yeshaya Karelitz, known as the Chazon Ish (1878-1953), who held no official position, shunned the limelight, and maintained no academy, yet was regarded by so many as the gadol hador (the greatest rabbinic authority of his generation).
A frail man who craved learning, writing, and anonymity, R. Karelitz became known as the Chazon Ish (literally, "Man of Vision/Prophecy") for his magnum opus of the same name, a work on Orach Chayim and other parts of Shulchan Aruch which he published in Vilna in 1911.
He subsequently wrote over 40 books – all considered models of lucidity and brilliance – in beautiful, clear Hebrew and with his characteristic polished and precise style. His legacy remains the promotion of clarity in Talmud study, devotion in the worship of G-d, and loving-kindness in human interaction.
The Chazon Ish was particularly recognized for his novel and incisive interpretations of the mitzvah of shemittah and the creative application of shemittah law to modern agriculture, such as the cultivation of hydroponics. He thought that knowledge of Torah also required knowledge of the physical world, and believed in a synthesis of the two that made secular knowledge virtually inseparable from Torah study. As such, he became recognized also for his great knowledge of the sciences, particularly medicine, which astounded neurosurgeons and saved numerous lives.
Perhaps most of all, he was known for his modesty, kindness, and saintliness, as people from all walks of life frequented his home to seek advice on religious, business, or personal problems, or to simply be in his presence and receive his blessing. After making aliyah (1933), he became the recognized leader of charedim in Israel, virtually single-handedly created the Orthodox community of Bnei Brak, and never again set foot out of Eretz Yisrael. He was also respected by Israeli heads of state and secular leaders, many of whom traveled to his modest home in Bnei Brak to seek his counsel.
In the extremely rare handwritten note exhibited below, the Chazon Ish extends his Rosh Hashanah greetings:
May you be inscribed and sealed for life in the book of the totally righteous, from he who seeks the peace of Torah, Avraham Yishayahu.
Unlike many of the leading charedi rabbis of the time, the Chazon Ish accepted the legitimacy of Israel. Regarding Israel as neither the epitome of darkness in a 2,000-year exile nor as the long awaited Jewish redemption, he refused to either accept Zionist nationalism or to actively fight against it, instead adopting a pragmatic approach and concentrating his efforts on strengthening charedi institutions and promoting Jewish practice in Eretz Yisrael.
Thus, though many anti-Zionist rabbinical leaders refused Ben-Gurion's overtures to meet – including notably R. Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik, the Brisker Rav, who was adamant about never meeting with the prime minister – the Chazon Ish surprised many of his followers by graciously accepting Ben Gurion's invitation.
Their historical meeting at the home of the Chazon Ish on Monday, October 20, 1952 is considered one of the greatest 20th-century encounters between a high-ranking secular Jewish leader and a prominent rav, and the conference received intense media attention throughout the Jewish world. The charedi press, evidencing its contempt for Ben-Gurion, described the meeting as a confrontation between holiness and impurity, between "the prophets of G-d and sinful kings."
After the 50-minute meeting, which Ben-Gurion viewed as a "summit," both participants refused to discuss the subject of their conversation. Ben-Gurion remained uncharacteristically silent, and Rav Aryeh Levin could not get any details from the Chazon Ish, except the following: "[I]mmediately upon his arrival, he [Ben-Gurion] announced that he believed in G-d, and I replied simply 'Amen, let it be so.'"
At the time of the meeting, there was great friction between the political and rabbinic communities regarding the recruitment of religious girls for national service, and most commentators claim that this topic was the primary focus of their talk. The only other person allowed into the room at the time of the meeting was Yitzchak Navon, later Israel's president and then Ben-Gurion's personal secretary, who noted:
In the debates over the question of women recruitment and other religion and state questions, the Knesset members of Agudat Israel used to say to Ben-Gurion that they must ask the Chazon Ish's opinion. Ben-Gurion's curiosity increased every time and he expressed his desire to get to know that person who has no formal degree but holds such a high level of admiration and respect by his followers.
However, neither Ben-Gurion's diary nor his notes of the meeting reflect this topic ever coming up; rather, Ben-Gurion's focus during the meeting was seeking a way for the secular and religious communities to co-exist with mutual respect. Years later, Ben-Gurion confirmed that co-existence had, in fact, been the subject of the historical meeting:
[I told the Chazon Ish that] I came to talk to [him] about one topic: How will religious and non-religious Jews live together within this country without us exploding from the inside? Jews come here from many countries, in the hundreds and thousands, with different traditions, cultures, and hashkafot [philosophical orientations]. The state faces extended danger, the Arabs still want to destroy us, and we have to make the most of everything that is common to all parts of the people. How can they live in peace and unity?… I did not get an answer to this question.
In a 2013 radio interview, Navon said ruefully: "[W]e did not get an answer to how we are going to have a modus vivendi in this land. It is now more important than the external enemy." Ben-Gurion later recounted that he asked the Chazon Ish: Since, according to halacha, the preservation of Jewish life is paramount, shouldn't the love of the people of Israel trump every other consideration? The great sage responded, "There is no Torah without Israel, and there is no Israel without Torah."
Navon wrote that Ben-Gurion – who was extremely well-versed in Talmud and halachic sources – cited a Talmudic passage (Sanhedrin 32b) in which the Sages discuss the case of two camels seeking to ascend on a narrow and steep path at Beit Horon and note that if both beasts of burden attempt to ascend simultaneously, both will fall. As such, reasoned Ben-Gurion, the non-weight-bearing camel – i.e., the charedi community – must yield the right of way to the load-bearing camel: Israel's secular Jews, who bear the burden of supporting and defending the state.
The brilliant rav countered that the load-bearing camel in this parable is actually "we, the religious Jews, who carry a burden of hundreds of mitzvot, to which secular Israel must give way." Virtually none of the published accounts of the meeting include Ben-Gurion's response to the rav; as per Navon, however – who was there – Ben-Gurion answered: "All the Torah studied by the thousands of students in the European yeshivot did not succeed in saving the Jews from the Holocaust."
According to Navon, the prime minister and the rav also discussed public Shabbat desecration in Eretz Yisrael, which the Chazon Ish explained was a source of great personal torment. Ben-Gurion responded that while he himself seeks to avoid public Shabbat violations, the state cannot coerce secular Israelis to learn Torah or to observe Shabbat and that hard-working Israelis, who would not be attending synagogue in any event, should be permitted to engage in secular pursuits on Shabbat, their one day off. The rav expressed his heartfelt belief that the time will soon come when all Jews in Israel will keep Shabbat and study Torah.
On several occasions after the meeting, Ben-Gurion expressed his enchantment with the Chazon Ish. Upon leaving the room after the meeting, he told Rabbi Gershon Greschenkorn, then mayor of Bnei Brak, "He [the Chazon Ish] is a smart Jew, a ladder to the ground and his head comes to heaven" (a Biblical reference to Genesis 28:10-19 concerning Jacob's dream of a ladder ascending to heaven).
He characterized the rav as "in good spirits and with much laughter, lacking a zealot's anger." A few days after the historic meeting, he began a cabinet conference by discussing how impressed he was by the Chazon Ish's gentleness and kindliness and how awed he was by the great sage's radiance and angelic holiness.
Moreover, he expressed incredible reverence for the rav even when taking a position adverse to him. For example, when the Chazon Ish in a December 7, 1952 letter took issue with Ben-Gurion's "decree" on national service for women — a two-year mandatory civic service law for women had been passed at the time (the law was ultimately never implemented) – Ben Gurion responded as follows:
In honor of the genius Chazon Ish, Zichron Meir Bnei Brak.
I was pleased to receive your letter, and I am very sorry that I cannot do your will. Regarding the women recruiting, there is a double conscience problem: There is a charedi community whose conscience is hurt by the recruitment, and there is a large part of Israel whose conscience affected by the lack of recruitment…. I know that among the halachic scholars the opinions differ; I am not prepared to put my head between those, and certainly I will not dare to stand up against you because I know that you are gadol hador. However, I know the security needs of the people of Israel, and pikuach nefesh of the nation trumps everything, and I am sorry that you characterize recruiting women for national service as a "decree."…
Allow me to add that the meeting and talking with you was an important experience for me. And I will never forget it.
With high regard and respect: D. Ben-Gurion
The respect went both ways. The Chazon Ish characterized Ben-Gurion as a man with a "neshamah gedolah" (an "expansive soul.") Rav Moshe Tennenbaum, the director of Vaad Hayeshivot and a confidant of the Chazon Ish who arranged the historic meeting, reports that the Chazon Ish told him, "When Ben-Gurion comes to the World of Truth, he won't understand why they're honoring him. It will be because the Torah in Eretz Yisrael stands upon the breath of his mouth."
In the truly amazing and historic April 16, 1954 letter exhibited here – his only known written discussion of the Chazon Ish – Ben-Gurion writes:
You may judge me for responding briefly where an extended response may be required, but you should know that silence and a brief description is appropriate for that meeting. Although we came to the subject casually, it was evident in your response that you expect me to elaborate. I do not want to elaborate on the details of the minutes-long meeting that left me with many impressions, [but] to you, I can say briefly that I was amazed by the personality of Chazon Ish, a slender and deferential man whose considerable virtues were clear.
Throughout the meeting, he exhibited a remarkable relaxation which I lack the proper words to express. His apartment is very modest; we sat at an empty table in a small room with a book closet and bed. His manner of speaking is tender, his face of a spiritual man, his eyes are smart.
The meeting was in good spirits but, as to content, I was disappointed. He answered in his own way to my questions about establishing our relationship with the devout, but his answers did not satisfy me, mainly because he completely ignored the blessed results of our Zionist enterprise and that interdependence and responsibility are [vital].
To you, my friends, I can tell as I know that you understand me correctly, that the impression I had left is in the form of a reverse wishful heart – I wish that our adhesion to our way was at least as strong as the devout in their way.
For your interest in my health, I look forward to better days.
D. Ben Gurion
Note that nowhere in this letter does Ben-Gurion make any suggestion that national service for religious women was ever discussed during the meeting.
The recipient of the letter is author Shlomo Zemach (1886-1974), a friend and confident of Ben-Gurion's from his childhood in Plonsk and one of the first to come to Eretz Yisrael during the Second Aliyah.
See you tomorrow bli neder
We need Moshiach now!
Love Yehuda Lave
Remember my zoom lecture tomorrow night at 7:30 Israel time
Do the Pandemic and American Presidential Election mean we in the Messianic Age and secondly Lockdowns do not work, so why does the government keep making us "Prisoners of Zion"?
Yehuda Lave, Spirtiual Advisor and Counselor
Jerusalem, Jerusalem Israel
You received this email because you signed up on our website or made a purchase from us.