Jewish court rules: COVID shots for children not obligatory, while one who vaccinates a child and causes death is responsible 'as a murderer'

A rabbinical court handed down a ruling on the controversial issue of injecting children with the new COVID vaccine. The court (Beit Din) consisted of a three-member panel located in Ma'ale Adumim just outside of Jerusalem and headed by Rabbi Avraham Yechiel Deutsch. The court was assembled to investigate the question of COVID vaccinations for children and listened to hours of expert testimony, some of which can be viewed in English here. In its 33-page ruling, the rabbis explore some of the key issues and bring sources from centuries-old Jewish legal precedents. Starting with the question of medical expertise, the ruling investigates if the opinions of experts are binding when it comes to vaccinating children against COVID. According to Jewish law, an expert is one who knows the disease; this would exclude most doctors and health officials since they have not treated such patients. Even those who are familiar with the disease in adults acknowledge that what they know changes and is being contradicted over time. In addition, since there are differences of opinion amongst the “experts”, there is no “opinion of the experts” according to Jewish legal principles. As opposed to the smallpox vaccine when most experts recommended taking the vaccine, here, there are heads of children's hospitals and many others who admit they have no expertise or experience with COVID vaccination in children; so according to Jewish law, they cannot be considered experts. On the other hand, the court also heard testimony from top professionals who produced vaccines [possibly Dr. Robert Malone and Dr. Michael Yeadon] and claimed that they “have not encountered something that could be so potentially dangerous to kids as this vaccine.” The question of the benefits of vaccinating a child is not sufficiently conclusive since it is new and still being studied, and serious risks from COVID in children is very minimal. The ruling addressed the ethical question of vaccinating children to protect other, more vulnerable people. “We have not found a source that permits this; to cause a risk of danger in one, to possibly save someone else from a questionable danger.” However, one needs to be clear and cautious with this principle, for example, one is permitted to donate a kidney so someone who needs one, since this is a direct life-saving need, and not a remote possibility. It appears that if there is no benefit to the child, taking the vaccine would be prohibited. Assuming there is some benefit to the child, the court wrote that “It was already stated explicitly in Jewish law that a person is not obligated to put himself in possible danger in order to save another from certain danger.” With COVID the danger is not certain, so there is no obligation to put one's self in a possible danger. The issue of whether this vaccine actually reduces the risk to others was not specifically addressed, though the assumption was that it would, and even then, it would not obligate one to get vaccinated - how much more so if it does not reduce the risk to others. The court acknowledged that there are significant adverse reactions from those who have already had the shot and heard testimony saying that many reactions are not being reported, including three instances witnessed firsthand at a local emergency room, with the doctors acknowledging the vaccine as the cause but were left unreported. In its summary statement, also translated into English, the court emphasized that: As a bottom line, the ruling avoided giving one recommendation for everyone, instead, each person must weigh the various expert opinions for oneself. However, the court warned that one who vaccinates a child and causes death is responsible for that injury as a murderer. He cannot say “I went with the opinion of experts who say it is a life preserving substance, and not a deadly poison.” En español aquí