2021/5781
2. Does the Concept of Ein Ma’avirin Al HaMitzvot Apply to the Order of Saving?
Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvos Igros Moshe 2:75:2) writes that a physician is obligated to treat the patient he encounters first. Similarly, Rav Moshe Feinstein is quoted (Kevod HaRav page 169) as instructing Israeli Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi Yitzchak Herzog that doctors with a limited supply of penicillin should provide the medicine to the first patients he encounters in the hospital.
Rav Aharon Lichtenstein explains Rav Moshe’s ruling based on the principle of “Ein Ma’avirin Al HaMitzvot” (Yoma 43a). This oft-cited Halachic principle is that one does not bypass Mitzvot. In one well known example, a man places his Tallit before donning Tefillin, but if by mistake he encounters the Tefillin first, he may not leave the Tefillin in favor of his Tallit. In light of this rule, Rav Moshe Feinstein told Israeli Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi Yitzchak Herzog that doctors with a limited supply of penicillin should provide the medicine to the first patients he encounters in the hospital.
TABC Talmid Boaz Kapitanker suggests that Rav Moshe’s ruling stems from the principle of Mai Chazit.
However, Rav Asher Weiss (Teshuvos Minchas Asher 2:126) strongly disagrees. He argues that only the criteria set forth by the aforementioned Pri Megadim (greater need) and Mishnah Berurah (greater effectiveness) apply in this case. Indeed, these two authorities make no mention of priority accorded to the patient to whom the health care provider reaches first.
Rav Weiss adds that the principle of Ein Ma’avarin Al HaMitzvot does not apply to this situation. Rav Weiss explains this is a concept intended to avoid degrading Mitzvot bypassing a Mitzvah such as the aforementioned Tefillin. However, Rav Weiss argues that this principle applies only to Mitzvot that are in their very essence Avodat Hashem (again, such as Tefillin) and not result based matters such as saving lives.
Rav Weiss concludes that the only factors determining order of saving are those that help achieve the goal of restoring a normal life expectancy to as many patients as possible.
3. The priority accorded in the United States to Health Care Workers
Rav Yair Hoffman[12] strongly argues against the United States government policy of administering the Covid-19 vaccine first to health care workers. Instead, he believes that priority should be accorded to the elderly who he argues are far more at risk. Rav Hoffman marshals statistics which he claims prove that this policy might contribute to a staggering five hundred deaths a day by delaying the administration of vaccines to those most in need.
Rav Hoffman cites the Pri Megadim we have mentioned as those most at risk enjoying priority to receive scarce medical resources. He calls for an outpouring of outcries to the government to change this policy.
However, other Rabbanim, such as Rav Yonah Reiss[13] and Rav Michael Taubes[14] who have addressed the issue of vaccine distribution have not raised a similar concern with this policy.
We may argue against Rav Hoffman by setting forth a number of points: 1) Statistics are often open to interpretation and the statistics Rav Hoffman presents might be open to debate. Thus it could be that healthcare workers are at greater risk. 2) The elderly have the option, most often, to remain at home and avoid danger[15], which health care workers do not. 3) The competition between the elderly and health care workers might be reminiscent of the Gemara (Sanhedrin 32b) of the Te’unah and Einah Te’unah, in which the Te’unah enjoys priority. In other words, the health care workers have assumed the great responsibility of placing their lives at risk to care for patients, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic, they enjoy priority[16]. 4) Health care workers are arguably more needed by society. 5) The elderly have an acute need for a full complement of healthy health care workers to care for them.
TABC’s Nachi Scheiner notes that the situation is analogous to the commonly accepted wisdom for the mother to put on her oxygen mask before placing it on her child. The mother cannot help the child if her needs are not addressed. Similarly, the elderly cannot be properly helped unless health care workers are taken care of.
Finally, Chazal take steps to motivate health care workers to remain in their positions. For example, the Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 23b) teaches that a midwife who comes to aid an expectant mother and someone who comes to rescue people from an invading army or a disaster may walk 2000 Amot from the town of their immediate destination. Chazal were concerned that the early stages of these tasks meet important communal needs and forbidding their completion would inhibit people from ever beginning them. On this basis, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, Orach Chaim 4:80) famously permitted members of Hatzalah (New York’s Jewish volunteer ambulance corps) to drive home completing a rescue mission on Shabbat[17].
Another example is the lenient approach Chazal taking to malpractice committed by health care workers, if it was not done deliberately. The Tosefta in Bava Kama (6:6) states that an expert doctor authorized by Beit Din to practice medicine is exempt from punishment by human law but held accountable in heaven if he damages someone.
The Tosefta in Gittin (3:13) distinguishes between accidental and intentional damages on the doctor’s account. It states that if an expert doctor receives permission from Beit Din to practice, and damages someone mistakenly, he is exempt because of Tikkun Olam (prudent public policy). If he and others of his ilk could be sued, other potential doctors might be scared to enter the medical profession for fear of facing the same fate. On the other hand, if he damages the person purposely, he is liable for the injury incurred.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 336:1) codifies this Tosefta as normative Halachah.
In harmony with this approach of Chazal, we argue that health care workers deserve priority in vaccine distribution. They have been serving in extremely stressful situations since March 2020 and the danger of burnout is considerable. We dare not send our health care workers to the front lines without proper protection. TABC Talmid Tzvi Meister adds that Rav Hoffman’s argument has been criticized for its being based on weak data.
TABC Talmidim Aidan Samet and Tzvi Meister note that the Mishnah (Bava Metzia 33a) accords priority to one for whom one owes a greater gratitude. Society similarly owes a debt of gratitude for healthcare workers’ extraordinary dedication during the Covid-19 crisis.
The temptation for many health care workers to abandon helping patients in favor of a career in finance is considerable. Giving high priority to health care workers in vaccine distribution helps motivate physicians to remain on the job[18]. All would agree that older health care workers should receive the vaccine before younger health care workers.
One cautionary note: Those in nursing homes and senior residencies are at extremely high risk and it seems they enjoy priority in vaccine administration even before health care workers.
4. Priority Accorded to Smokers
In some jurisdictions, smokers are given higher priority to receive the Covid-19 vaccine. One might object that this is a situation of a “Chotei Niskar”, rewarding a sinner[19].
The Mishna Challah (2:7) is a prime example of the application of this principle:
Shi’ur Challah, Echad Mei’Esrim Ve’Arba’ah. Ha’Oseh Isah Le’Atzmo, VeHa’Oseh LeMishteh Veno, Echad Mei’Esrim Ve’Arba’ah. Nachtom SheHu Oseh Limkor BaShuk, VeChein Ha’Ishah SheHi Osah Limkor BaShuk, Ehad Mei’Arba’im UShmonah. Nitmeit Mezidah, Echad Mei’Esrim Ve’Arba’ah, Kedei SheLo Yehei Chotei Niskar.
The [minimum] measure of hallah is one twenty-fourth [part of the dough]. If he makes dough for himself, or if he makes it for his son’s [wedding] banquet, it is one twenty-fourth. If a baker makes to sell in the market, and so [also] if a woman makes to sell in the market, it is one forty-eighth. If dough is made unclean either unwittingly or by an unforeseeable circumstance, it is one forty-eighth. If it was made unclean intentionally, it is one twenty-fourth, in order that a sinner should not profit.
Accordingly, although we follow the Pri Megadim and accord priority to those in greater danger, this should not apply to those who have made poor choices that bring them into a situation of danger.
However, Rav Michael Taubes questions this line of reasoning. He notes that it is a slippery slope as following this logic, obese individuals should also be denied priority as very often their being overweight are less than excellent choices made regarding the food they ingest. Moreover, as noted by Lander College graduate Yisroel Meir Perton, the goal of vaccination is to reduce the number of people needing to be admitted to hospitals for treatment for Covid-19. Thus, even if vaccine recipients are at fault for their being at high-risk, their being vaccinated serves the broader goal of protecting society.
TABC’s Nachi Scheiner notes after how many cigarettes do we consider him no longer a sinner and more of an addict? Does Halachah penalize someone for not being able to do teshuvah on an addiction? Who knows maybe the smoker wants to stop but struggles to keep away? In addition, at what point is it their fault? Can we really blame the Israeli soldier who is forced to join the army and gets addicted to smoking? (In no way is this anti-army rather just a sad but frequent occurrence). Tzvi Meister adds nicotine is extremely addictive and we may perhaps have more reason to blame the addiction at some point than the person. In addition, Hillel Jachter notes that some begin smoking as children (!) and become addicted at an age when they were incapable of proper judgment. Finally, the pandemic inhibits many from visiting rehabilitation centers.
Thus, the decision to prioritize smokers does not run counter to Halachah.
5. Prioritizing Prisoners and Those Suffering from Depression
Although it seems grossly unfair, early administration of the Covid-19 vaccine to prisoners does not necessarily run counter to Torah values. The goal is to reduce the risk to society and reducing the spread of Covid-19 in prisons where residents live in very close quarters, is a high priority. It protects prison workers who guard the prisoners and reduces the pressure to release dangerous prisoners due to widespread prison infection. In addition, those who are imprisoned for a very short term are at great risk from contracting Covid-19 in jail and then spreading their illness upon their subsequent release.
TABC’s Yossi Sherman adds that by this logic, people in ghettos and close communities should also be vaccinated before others.
Hillel Jachter adds that those who are medically certified as suffering from depression due to the prolonged isolation caused by the pandemic, should enjoy priority due to their acute need for interaction.
6. Prioritizing the Young
Some have suggested giving to the younger population as early as possible since they are the most social and most likely to be the leading super spreaders. However, this truly seems to be rewarding the sinners. Therefore the elderly certainly enjoy priority over the youth in terms of receiving the vaccine.
TABC Talmidim Tzvi Meister and Nachi Scheiner comment that a common occurrence is that after receiving one's first dose people stop exercising caution regarding Covid and end up infected with Covid-19. Thus, if we give the younger population first, we can not trust them to wait till they are ready for their second dose. Prioritizing the young has the potential to create a large increase in covid cases.
7. Do Those who Have been Infected Covid-19 Have Lower Priority?
In his presentation, Rav Yonah Reiss cites an unnamed epidemiologist who advises those who have Covid-19 to allow others to vaccinate before them for a period of one year. This expert felt that these individuals retain antibodies for this period of time and are less at risk and enjoy lower priority in terms of vaccine distribution.
However, this assertion is subject to significant dispute. Other authorities report that the antibodies may be relied upon to last only ninety days from the time of illness. Thus, those who were infected with Covid-19 are not necessarily on a lower level of priority to receive the vaccine.
8. Priority Accorded to Those Who Pay?
Rav Asher Weiss (Teshuvot Minchat Asher 1:126) rejects in the strongest terms prioritizing those who can pay in triage situations. He condemns such practice as “ugly” and undermining the integrity of the medical system. It also brings to mind the riots caused by the United States policy during its Civil War when those who could pay a large amount of money were excused from serving in the military.
Similarly, lying or even “stretching the truth” to receive the vaccine earlier is ugly and anti-Halachic behavior and cannot be countenanced. In addition, very often those in the greatest need, such as the elderly and infirm, have the least ability to pay for their inoculation.
TABC Talmid Yakov Halstuch observes: What if a person donates money so they can develop/distribute more vaccines? Shouldn't they deserve to be rewarded because it's a net gain and will help more people?
While Yakov certainly has a point, nonetheless it still smacks of bribery and appears to accord greater value to the lives of those with disposable income.
9. Dina D’Malchuta Dina
A most fundamental Halachah which describes how Jews should relate to the surrounding society is “Dina DeMalchuta Dina” (Bava Batra 54b). Literally translated, this means, “The law of the land is the law.” A fuller explanation is that Halachah demands obedience to the laws promulgated by the civil authorities.
The Rama (C.M. 369:11) rules that Beit Din applies the principle of Dina DeMalchuta Dina when the law is issued “LeTakanat Bnei HaMedinah,” “For the betterment of society.” For example, the Rama (Choshen Mishpat 73:14) rules that Beit Din must honor a civil law forbidding a lender from selling an item he holds as collateral until one year has passed, even though Halachah permits a lender to sell the collateral after thirty days in case of default on payment of the loan. Such a law serves to better society, as the government perceives a need to stimulate the economy by easing the terms of repaying a loan.
The Shach (Choshen Mishpat 73:39) strongly disagrees with the Rama. He writes: “Since according to Halacha the lender may sell the collateral after thirty days of default, how can we follow the Nochri laws and ignore the Torah law? God forbid - such a matter should not happen in the Jewish community!”
Nonetheless, many Poskim rule in accordance with the view of the Rama. These authorities include the Chatam Sofer (Teshuvot Chatam Sofer C.M. 44), Teshuvot Imrei Yosher (2:252:2), Teshuvot Doveiv Meisharim (number 77), Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe C.M. 2:62), and Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin (Kitvei HaGaon Rav Y.E. Henkin 2:96).
Thus, the government vaccine distribution policies in the United States are designed “LeTakanah Bnei HaMedinah and must be followed. Even the Shach would agree as the vaccine system distribution does not necessarily run counter to Halachah.
Rav Hershel Schachter (Nefesh Harav p. 269) records the following about Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik:
Our master was very scrupulous about paying government taxes, and I heard in Rav Soloveitchik’s name that if one has specific knowledge that a particular store does not pay sales taxes to the government, it is forbidden to make purchases there, as it violates Lifnei Iveir (the prohibition to cause others to sin).
I have similarly heard that an organization devoted to reaching out to less observant youngsters once asked Rav Soloveitchik if it was permitted to retain staff and not pay them “on the books” (i.e., pay them in cash to avoid taxes). Rav Soloveitchik replied that it is forbidden. The organization told Rav Soloveitchik that it would not have sufficient funds to operate the office if it were to pay its staff “on the books.” Rav Soloveitchik responded that if that was the case, it should close the office, despite its noble work. TABC Talmid Yakov Halstuch adds that this situation smacks of a Mitzvah HaBa’ah Ba’Aveirah.
Rav Moshe Feinstein also rules that Dina DeMalchuta Dina applies in the United States, as is evident from many of his Teshuvot (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe C.M. 1:88, in which he specifically rules that one must pay taxes, as well as C.M. 2:29, 2:30 and 2:55). He writes the following in a responsum in which he forbids defrauding the United States government (which he calls a “government of kindness”) to receive more student aid than one deserves (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe C.M. 2:29):
There exists no manner in which to proclaim such behavior as permissible. Just as Hashem hates sacrifices offered from theft, Hashem hates support of Torah and those who study Torah by means of theft.…The Rashei Yeshivah and directors, who are God-fearing individuals, are not, God forbid, suspected of violating the prohibitions of theft, lying, deception and violation of Dina DeMalchuta Dina by any possible proclamation of permissibility because they are aware that this severe sin brings heavenly punishments, in this world and in the next, and contravenes the very purpose of the establishment of Yeshivot – for the students to develop into authentic God-fearing individuals who are exceptionally careful to refrain from any prohibitions regarding financial matters.
Some argue that Dina DeMalchuta Dina does not apply in the United States because of some corrupt politicians and some laws which one might regard as unjust. I have heard Rav Hershel Schachter respond to this argument by noting that Shmuel declared this principle to apply to the Babylonian government of his time, which was hardly perfect. Similarly, Dina DeMalchuta Dina applies to the United States and other decent governments, despite the fact that these governments are less than perfect. Shmuel’s application of this rule to the government of his time proves that this rule applies to any reasonably decent government, even if these governments are imperfect. TABC Talmid Yakov Halstuch adds how indebted we are to the United States government for its tremendous kindness to the Jewish People including donating tens of billions of dollars to support the State of Israel during the past four decades.
Yirmiyahu HaNavi (29:5-7) prepares us for exile by teaching us to build homes, to marry and to pray and act for the benefit of the city in which we reside. The principle of Dina DeMalchuta Dina certainly is in harmony with Yirmiyahu HaNavi’s teaching. It also fits with the teaching of Chazal (cited in Rashi to BeMidbar 20:17) that a guest must benefit his host. Strict adherence to Dina DeMalchuta Dina helps ensure that we benefit the country in which we reside.
It is shameful and disgraceful to disregard the Halachah of Dina DeMalchuta Dina both in Israel and in the United States (and in any other just jurisdiction) especially in regard to the distribution of the Covid-19 vaccine. In the words of Rav Moshe Feinstein (ibid.), “Besides the prohibitions of theft, there are other terrible sins involved, including lying, deceiving, creating Chillul Hashem (desecration of God’s name) and disgracing Torah and those who study it…and this sin also causes great harm to the great Torah scholars and their students who scrupulously avoid any trace of concern for theft and the like (by ruining their reputations).” In recent decades, many Jews have become exceptionally meticulous about Halachos such as Kashrut and Shabbat, even beyond what the letter of the law requires. We also be fastidiously observant of Dina DeMalchuta Dina, which constitutes a Torah-level obligation according to the Chatam Sofer (Teshuvot Yoreh De’ah 314) and Rav Ovadia Yosef (Teshuvot Yechave Da’at 5:64).
TABC Talmid Tzvi Meister adds: In conclusion: The overall consensus of Halachic opinions would say that Dina DeMalchuta Dina, when enacted or set up for the betterment of public health and society, should be followed at all costs. Thus, from a Halachic standpoint, we should absolutely follow the vaccine distribution approach of the United States government.
10. Decrying the Reported Shameful Waste of Covid-19 Vaccines
While we wholeheartedly endorse following government regulations regarding the roll out of the Covid-19 vaccine, we must vehemently decry the reported shameful waste of Covid-19 vaccines.
The situation brings to mind the comments of Tosafos (Kiddushin 20a d”h Kol HaKoneh Eved). The Gemara teaches that if there is one pillow in a slave holder’s household, the slave receives the pillow and not the master. Tosafos ask, though, we understand that the slave should be treated no worse than his master but why should he be entitled to better accommodations than his master?
Tosafos answer, following the Talmud Yerushalmi, that equal treatment in this case would means that neither the master nor the slave enjoys the pillow. The result of neither benefitting from the pillow is a horrid result. Tosafos goes as far as to refer to this result as “Midas Sedom”, Sedom like behavior.
The Mishnah (Avos 5:10) condemns individuals who act in the manner of Sedom and claim, “What is mine is mine and what's yours is yours.” Thus, one should not demand payment for gas and tolls from someone who has asked you to ride home in your automobile if he did not take you out of your way. Despite the fact that the rider has saved money from having to pay transportation costs, it is nonetheless Sodomite behavior to demand payment when the driver has lost nothing. Indeed, the Ri (presented in Tosafos Bava Basra 12b d”h Kegon) implies that the rule of Kofin Al Middas Sedom is a Torah-level law and not merely a rabbinic enactment.
A classic case of Kofin Al Middas Sedom is the Gemara (Bava Batra 12b), which discusses a case in which brothers divide fields they inherited, and one of them owns a field adjacent to an inheritance field. Rabbah rules that we apply the rule of Kofin Al Middas Sedom, and we accommodate the brother in a case in which the objectors have no good reason not to.
In a modern application of this principle, an Israeli Beis Din (Shuras HaDin, volume two, pages 323-333) adjudicated a case during which Reuven awaited a refrigerator delivery, which could be done only through Shimon’s balcony. Shimon objected, without providing a good reason, and demanded that Reuven pay. The Beit Din ruled that Shimon should be forced to do the favor for free.
We understand the need for orderly distribution of the Covid-19 vaccine. However, the senseless destruction of unused vaccines smacks of Middas Sedom. Wasting scarce life-saving medicine is downright evil Sedom like behavior. The protocols and systems must be improved to rectify these most deplorable occurrences. We suggest that opportunities be given to enroll for vaccines in tiers, so that if the top tiers fill, then the next tier can enroll. This should avoid issues of waste.
In our option, the firing and prosecution of the Houston doctor who shared the soon to expire vaccine with his vulnerable wife, is an example of Sedom like behavior. The Gemara (Sanhedrin 109b) tells of the judiciary in Sedom which reeked of corruption. We think the same opprobrium applies to the horrifying prosecution of this Houston doctor, whose case is described in the article referred to below.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/10/us/houston-doctor-fired-covid-vaccine.html .
TABC Talmid Boaz Kapitanker points out that based on Rav Moshe, in order to avoid wasted vaccines one should distribute the vaccine on a first come first serve basis, exactly as done by the Houston doctor. Alternatively, TABC Talmid Yossi Sherman advocates distributing on the basis of greatest need, following the Pri Megadim. According to both the Pri Megadim and Rav Moshe, the Houston doctor acted properly.
11. Mad Dashes to the Computer to Enroll
Similarly, we must decry the systems in many areas where in order to receive the vaccine one must pounce on the computer to enroll just in time to get the scarce vaccine. It is reminiscent of the mad dashes in which in the Beit HaMikdash, referred to earlier, where the Kohanim engaged in a furious rush to perform the early morning Avoda of Terumat HaDeshen. Chazal eliminated this system in favor of an ordered system due to a horrid incident where one Koehn shoved another off the Mizbei’ach’s ramp, to receive the honor of performing the Terumas HaDeshen. While physical injuries are unlikely to occur when trying to enroll for the vaccine, many of the most vulnerable do not receive the vaccine since they do not have the ability to “outrun” younger counterparts to the computer to enroll when the opportunity to vaccinate arises. A better system must be put in place. We suggest implementing many more tiers than currently in place. This ensures the most needy receive their vaccine in accordance with their level of priority without having to beat out those in a lower category of risk.
12. Giving Up One’s Spot for Rabbinic Leaders
Protocols in the United States do not grant special preference for rabbis. However, as TABC Talmid Yakov Abraham notes, the Mishnah (Bava Metzia 33a) grants priority to Torah scholars.
TABC Talmid Nachi Scheiner suggests, based on Yoma (84b ) and Rambam (Hilchos Shabbos 2:3) that just as threat Rav is the one chosen to violate Shabbos should the need arise to save a life (to model the need to violate Shabbos for Piku’ach Nefesh), so too rabbis should be offered to be among the first take the vaccine to set an example of the importance of taking the Covid-19 vaccine.
This is debatable since it is not clear that the Gemara and Rambam refer to a leading rabbi. Rather the term “Gadol” in this interest may simply refer to an adult[20]. In addition, younger rabbis should model patience and compliance with government regulations and wait until their proper time to receive the vaccine.
TABC Talmid Elan Agus observes that Chazal accord priority to Talmidei Chachamim out of respect to Torah. However, in the current situation, granting priority to Talmidei Chachamim might generate the opposite result, creating resentment and enmity.
Hillel Jachter notes that if in Israel rabbis would be granted priority there would have to be a hierarchy within the group of rabbis of who is at greater risk and benefit most from the vaccine.
On the other hand, TABC Talmid Nachi Scheiner notes that since many people, especially within certain portions of the Orthodox community, are refusing to vaccinate, there is a need for Talmidei Chachamim to vaccinate first, so as to set an example for those who refuse to vaccinate.
May one who is at risk and eligible for an early vaccination sacrifice his vaccine for a rabbinic leader? Perhaps there is a basis in the Sefer Chassidim (798) who writes that if enemies demanded to kill one of two Jews, and one is a Talmid Chacham and the other is an ordinary Jew, it is a Mitzvah for the ordinary Jew to sacrifice his life to save the Talmid Chacham. The Sefer Chassidim compares this to Rav Reuven ben Itztarobli who offered his life to spare Rabi Akiva from death.
Rav Waldenburg (Teshuvos Tzitz Eliezer 18:1) clarifies that there is no obligation for the ordinary Jew to do so and he does not violate the Torah if he does not make this offer. Moreover, the ordinary Jew may not be pressured or cajoled into making this sacrifice. At most we may inform him that it is a Mitzvah to offer himself.
Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvos Igros Moshe Yoreh De’ah 2:174:4) limits the permission to sacrifice oneself to save others only when by doing so one is saving many Jewish lives by doing so. Dr. Abraham S. Abraham (Nishmat Avraham 2:Yoreh De’ah 252:2) suggests that sacrificing oneself to save Rabi Akiva is acceptable due to Rabi Akiva being equivalent to masses of Jews.
TABC Talmid Sariel Rotblat adds that based on Rav Moshe, perhaps one may or even should sacrifice his vaccine for even a young person who lives with immunocompromised or elderly (or otherwise vulnerable) family members. In this way, the person who is sacrificing his vaccine to save many others.
While one is not sacrificing his life by offering his vaccine opportunity to a great rabbi, he nonetheless is taking a risk by doing so especially if he is in a risky category. Thus, it does not seem appropriate to sacrifice one’s spot even so a great rabbi should receive his vaccine. Moreover, the option to provide one’s spot to another is not an option granted by governmental authorities. This is a very reasonable policy likely intended to avoid abuse. An example of abuse is an impoverished individual unwisely relinquishing his opportunity to take the vaccine in exchange for much needed cash. Thus, one should not offer his vaccine spot even to a great rabbi.
Conclusion
In light of this discussion we suggest the following eighteen (K’Minyan Chai!) order of priorities for distributing the Covid-19 vaccine:
1. Residents of nursing homes or senior citizens residencies.
2. Health care workers aged 65 or above.
3. Health care workers age 50 and above
4. The rest of health care workers.
5. Those 95 and above.
6. Those 85 and above.
7. Those 75 and above as well as immunocompromised individuals.
8. Those sixty five and above.
9. Prisoners in jail.
10. Those who are at high risk as defined by the CDC.
11. Those who are certified as suffering from depression due to isolation.
12. Front line workers as defined by the CDC ages fifty five and above.
13. Smokers
14. Front line workers ages forty five and above.
15. Those fifty five and above.
16. Those forty five and above.
17. Everyone else not infected within the past 90 days.
18. Everyone else