Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Logically, it can’t be kefira to say a rishon is incorrect about something. The rishonim disagreed among themselves anyway, so someone has to be wrong.
Neither it is kefira to say Chazal weren’t 100% correct about everything. If that were true, then the dozens of rishonim who held that Chazal erred in scientific matters were kofrim, c”v’s.
Similarly, it’s not true that every drash on a pasuk in the Gemara is necessarily authoritative. See these two sources:
“Rav Hai Gaon was asked what is the difference between those Agada and medrashim which are written in the Talmud and those that are not? He replied that whatever is found in the Talmud is
more valid that what is not found in the Talmud. Nevertheless, even those Agada and Medrash which are found in the Talmud if they make no sense or are erroneous are not to be relied upon. That is because in general we dont treat Agada as being authoritative. However that which is found in the Talmud, we should correct their errors if possible. That is because if they didn’t have validity they would not have been included in the Talmud. Those that we cannot figure out how to correct should be viewed like that which is not the Halacha. In contrast that which is not in the Talmud, we have no need to attempt to correct them and make sense out of them. We merely should examine them as to whether they are correct and nice. If they are, we teach them. If they are not, we pay no attention to them.” (Sefer HaEshkol)
I’ve heard good things about My Prayer by R’ Nissan Mindel, which has recently been reprinted, but I haven’t read it myself.
Here’s one quote from a chassidic sefer about kavanah:
“You must really force yourself to concentrate on your prayers. I disagree with the people who say one should not try to force it. It is very hard to pray, and people are usually not able to pray more than a portion of the prayers. But even if you sometimes cannot pray at all, the effort you put into forcing yourself to pray is also very precious to God, even if you don’t actually succeed in praying as you should. These efforts are accounted as sacrifices, and this is the meaning of the verse: `But for Your sake we are killed all the day; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter’ (Psalms 44:23). This refers to the effort we put into our prayers even if we find it impossible to pray. This is a general principle in serving God. Even if we do not manage to serve Him in a way that is fitting, the effort we put in is still very precious, and in the worlds above it is accounted as a sacrifice” (Sichos HaRan 12).
In the Laws of Brachos, by R’ Binyomin Forst (p. 235-236), it is explained that pizza used to be eaten as a snack — apparently there were no sit-down pizza shops when the food was first introduced, and people ate it walking down the street. For that reason, the accepted halacha at that time was to recite mezanos. However, because now pizza is generally eaten as a meal, and after all has meal-like ingredients like cheese on it, then we say hamotzi on pizza, even if we are eating it only for a snack. Indeed, the author says that even if we only eat one crumb of a crust of pizza, hamotzi is the correct bracha.
Benignuman: On the question of women who know how to learn, a few Rebbetzins known as Torah scholars in their own right have been included in the leadership of Beit Hillel, a new dati leumi coalition meant to promote a moderate approach to counter the extremism of Israeli charedim. While they aren’t called rabbis, they do participate in the halachic discussions of the organization.
I don’t see anything wrong with him having his own personal drash on the shelo asani isha bracha. And accusing some other Orthodox Jews of sexism for throwing chairs at women or whatever, well you can quibble with that but I wouldn’t say it’s beyond the pale.
I do find it odd that he didn’t mention the original non-sexist interpretation, found in the tosefta (written before the Gemara!) — that we thank G-d for making us men because we have more mitzvos we are obligated in and we should be thankful for that. Even if a woman could easily accomplish more mitzvos and maasim tovim than a man despite being obligated in fewer mitzvos — think, for example, of all the countless acts of chesed involved in raising children, not to mention the caring-oriented professions women tend to gravitate towards — the fact is men are obligated in a larger number of mitzvos. Instead of seeing this is a burden we should see it as something to be thankful for.
This is a very ancient, non-sexist and convincing rationale for the bracha (as well as for the other shelo asani brachas). Not mentioning it is misleading because it suggests some kind of crude sexism motivated the bracha.
“For many sephardim who’s grandparents and great grandparents lived in the Middle East- a little arak and hashish on a celebratory evening was considered quite normal.”
Evidence please? I’ve never seen evidence that cannabis use was historically customary among any Jews.
Opposition to cannabis use is not some kind of irrational prejudice. There are reams of scientific studies supporting its dangerousness. Of course, the same goes for alcohol, but in contrast to cannabis, there is a long history of safe and sanctioned use of alcohol among Jews.
Haifagirl: Right. Thanks! Though I’ll note your post was a sentence fragment. As was that. And that. 🙂
Squeak: It’s simply not true that all Orthodox rabbis who don’t wear a charedi uniform or veer toward stringency went to YU. It’s certainly not true outside of the US, and it’s not even true here. Even if the MO congregants rely to a significant extent on YU-ordained rabbis, that doesn’t mean they have exposure to the philosophy of TuM, or that they identify with this philosophy specifically. Why would pulpit rabbis give sermons or shiurim about such abstruse topics as slight differences between theoretical models of the ideal relationship between secular and Torah knowledge?
E.O.M.: I get my information from scientific studies, not from pro-criminalization organizations (which I want nothing to do with.) Search for cannabis or marijuana on Google Scholar and you’ll find tons of evidence for harmful effects, including the ones I mentioned.
The funny thing is, I disagree with everybody. Unlike EOM or Health, I support legalization, because the drug war is just so harmful and wasteful and doesn’t really seem be reducing usage anyway.
But Heath is right that pot is bad. No one should use the stuff, not even once!
EOM: “How is it worse for us to smoke than to drink?”
There are many reasons:
1) It causes health problems including potentially lung cancer.
2) Harms memory and brainpower.
3) Causes anxiety (“paranoia”), including long-term repeated panic attacks in many people. This is common knowledge and has been documented scientifically ad nauseum.
4) Especially in younger people, triggers major psychiatric problems such as schitzophrenia and psychosis (according to several recent studies).
5) Encourages hedonism because of its sensual effects (munchies, etc.)
6) In Yiddishkeit we have so many ways to get higher — prayer, meditation, Torah, dancing, fasting, alcohol, etc. We should rely on the tried and true and safe.
I think Charlie’s right about the major hashkafic difference between YCT and JTS — JTS faculty held clearly non-Orthodox beliefs (such as Biblical criticism and the rejection of Oral-Torah-from-Mount-Sinai) by early in the 20th century, and by the 50s they were doing such things as issuing statements annulling all kohanim marriage restrictions. In contrast, neither YCT nor its faculty hold any clearly non-Orthodox beliefs. Its students are required to daven at a shul with a mechitza, which hopefully should keep out the Conservadox.
However, I did notice on their alumni page that a few of the YCT alumni have gotten master’s degrees at or otherwise studied at JTS. I’m not sure whether it was before or after they went to YCT — I guess that makes a big difference.
Some of the anti-MO posters in this thread (assuming they’re not all the same person, i.e., Joseph) are making a mistake by definiting Modern Orthodoxy in terms of Torah uMaddah. I’d guess that if you asked a bunch of self-described Modern Orthodox Jews (from the US as well as various other countries) what being MO means to them, most of them wouldn’t say anything about YU or TuM or “the Rav.” After all, it’s not as if all MO go to YU and define their religious identity in terms of the Rav’s philosophy.
I believe that most MO Jews would say the following: being MO means being Orthodox but not wearing a uniform associated with those farther right (black and white, velvet kippas, etc.), not having a bias in favor of more machmir interpretations of everything, and holding by rabbis who dress and think like them.
If this is indeed what MO means in practice, then at least according to these variables, DaMoshe may be right that MO is most consistent with pre-haskalah Yiddishkeit. Jews didn’t have a conformist uniform before the haskalah (aside from das yehudis); that probably started with the second or third generation of chassidim and spread to other groups after that. The present drive toward increasing stringency among the right-wing of Orthodoxy today didn’t exist yet, because that came about as a reaction to haskalah and reform.
However, there may be other ways in which charedi Judaism today is more consistent with what people believed and practiced pre-haskalah (such as people’s attitudes toward mysticism and Torah-science conflicts). It just depends on what variables you’re looking at.
Benignuman: As for the greater need for women’s Torah study in our times, the Lubavitcher Rebbe had similar thoughts. Here are selections from his statements on the subject:
“For Torah to be perpetuated among the Jewish people, precedence must be given to Jewish women. Giving such prominence to women may appear questionable in view of several traditional attitudes. Those attitudes, however, are narrow and restrictive when judged by the objective standard of Torah law and certainly may be considered so within the context of the application of these standards to contemporary society.
Torah law requires a woman to study all the laws and concepts necessary to observe the mitzvos which she is obligated to fulfill. This encompasses a vast scope of knowledge, including the laws of Shabbos, Kashrus, Taharas Hamishpachah, and many other areas of Jewish law. Indeed, many men would be happy if their Torah knowledge would be as complete.
A similar concept applies regarding the subject matter studied by women. Initially, on the whole, women were not exposed to those aspects of Torah study which were not related to their actual performance of the mitzvos. At present, however, the sphere of subjects women study has been expanded and includes even abstract concepts that have no immediate application.
This is also a result of sociological influences. Within the context of our society, women are required to function on a more sophisticated level than ever before, occupying professional positions that require higher knowledge. To prepare themselves for such activities, they should develop their thinking processes in Torah, training themselves to think on an advanced level within the framework of Torah. This will set the tone for their behavior in the world at large.
The Rabbis explain that just as it is a mitzvah to taste the food to be served on Shabbos on Friday, at present, in the era directly before the coming of the Mashiach, it is a mitzvah to enjoy a foretaste of the revelations of that age. The Messianic age will be characterized by an abundance of knowledge, ‘The occupation of the entire world will be solely to know G-d. The Jews will be great sages and know hidden matters.’ Therefore, the present age should also be characterized by increased knowledge.
You have a point, but you’re assuming that everyone at YCT is the same. Perhaps, like in most places, there is a range there, a right and a left. Presumably he sees himself as on the right of the intra-YCT spectrum.
I can only try: Well done! Very nice. 🙂
DaMoshe: Since the only response to your MO argument so far is a “LOL,” maybe that’s a sign you should (perhaps on a new thread) present evidence (citations from historical accounts or whatever) for your argument? Sometimes I think this site’s discussions would be more fruitful if it were organized like Mi Yodea (Stack Exchange), where they require or strongly encourage people to cite sources in support of whatever they say.
In any event, I think the answer to the question of which Orthodox stream is more in line with historical practice is more complex than many people assume, since it may be necessary to consider various aspects of hashkafa and halachic individually, and document the prevalence of antecedents of each approach with objective evidence. You also have to distinguish between different versions of MO (LWMO, RWMO, Centrist) and of charedi Judaism. It’s not as simple as saying, “All Jews before the year X were MO (or charedi).” Each side has been innovative in its own way.
Writersoul: Yes, I see what you’re saying. But you know some non-Jews are genuinely curious about other religions and want to know detail. Some of them might even be married to Jews, or Jewish themselves (through a maternal grandmother, for example — and they think they’re just “a quarter Jewish.”). In some workplaces people sit and talk about whatever for half the time they’re supposed to be working, so there’s often plenty of time to get into specifics. (Whether it’s permitted to chat during work hours is another question…) But I think you’re right in general that a one or two sentence explanation should be good enough in most cases.
If the non-Jews are interested, I don’t see any problem with describing Yiddishkeit in some detail, since if they like what they hear perhaps they will become Noahides. Even if according to some opinions non-Jews are permitted to practice their religions, I’m sure it’s better to be a Noahide. I’m not saying we should necessarily try to convince everyone to be Noahides — perhaps that’s a task better left for Moshiach — but if that’s a side effect of some conversations that seems like a good thing.
Popa, you really think YCT people think religion is all silliness but it’s nice to do the parts you like? I doubt many YCT rabbis would agree with your statement. Even the vegan activist one says he still uses leather tefillin because it’s a mitzvah that’s required to be done in a certain way.
However, I will say I was disturbed to hear that the new Rosh Yeshivah of YCT envisions a unified campus in which YCT is on the same grounds as the major heterodox yeshivas. A minimal amount of cross-denominational dialogue or cooperation is one thing, but creating one campus for all “progressive” yeshivas? Yikes.
Analogies with Xian sects aren’t a good idea — they just don’t work because the religions are so different. I would just say, Judaism has always been a religion of laws, the Orthodox believe the law is eternally binding and follow the laws as set forth in the written and oral Torah (while explaining what that is), while non-Orthodox believe it’s not binding (Reform) or that they can change it or disregard it if they don’t like it (Conservative). On the other hand, if you don’t want to say anything negative about other groups (to avoid seeming preachy or judgmental), you could just tell them about what Orthodox Judaism believes and practices.
If you really, really had to make an analogy with Xian sects, it would be something like this:
Reform — Unitarian
Conservative — very liberal Protestant
Modern Orthodox — Traditionalist Catholic
Charedi — More traditionalist Catholics, or maybe Mennonites
There are many problems with this. One is that there are hardly any traditionalist Catholics left; most are “unobservant,” for lack of a better term. Baptists and other conservative Protestants are too hard to match up with any group, because they’re conservative theologically but made a radical break with tradition after the Reformation. I only mention Mennonites (Amish being the most conservative group) because they try to keep out all outside influences and live separately from other people. Unitarian is a fairly good analogy for Reform, because like them they’ve stripped away all the major beliefs associated a traditional religion and replaced it with basic “universal” morality and liberal politics.
I’m sympathetic to the sentiment that making peace with Arabs is impossible (at least for the foreseeable future). I just wanted to point out that Chechens, while Muslims, are not Arab. Of course, similar ideologies are spread through the Muslim world. But we shouldn’t necessarily assume all Muslim ethnic groups are representative of Arabs.
The bombers’ mother lived through Soviet times, when the government was not to be trusted and the justice system was a farce, and Russia is not much better now. Add to that the paranoid thinking associated with radical Muslims, and it’s not hard to understand why she may be spouting these conspiracy theories.
More broadly, conspiracy thinking may be quite common in the region. After “Borat” made fun of Kazakhstan, the president of that country claimed it was some plot from Western governments to harm his country. Right after the older Boston bomber died, the president of Chechnya (republics in the Russian federation have presidents) suggested that the government killed him on purpose in order to calm society “at any cost.” He may not have read the news very closely, because it’s hard to survive when you’re shooting at police, lobbing explosives at them, and getting run over by your brother!
To answer the original question, it’s possible this will help some people see how absurd Holocaust denial is — hopefully that will happen. But the people who deny the Shoah are also the same kind of people who may believe that the bombers really were set up, and that there was some kind of government conspiracy. There is apparently a very serious Facebook page with 1000 or more members claiming that at least the younger brother is innocent.
Kohanim are, in a sense, a symbol of absolute purity in divine service. All of the aspects of this purity — marriage restrictions, being around dead people, blemishes — revolve around physicality. This is because spirituality and physicality are fundamentally connected.
The service was designed to promote maximum awe and love of Hashem. Letting blemished kohanim participate would have lessened the awe that people felt in witnessing the holy service. Letting kohanim sacrifice blemished animals would have also lessened people’s awe.
In truth, there is nothing “wrong” with any person or animal that has any blemish or other problem, because Hashem designed everything for a good purpose. But there are very special and exacting requirements for the holy service, to allow it to fulfill its spiritual function. So not everyone can participate.
We can’t say Hashem discriminates, because he is the one who caused certain kohanim to have blemishes. To achieve their soul correction, their tikkun, these individuals must not have needed to participate in the temple service. This gave them time and opportunity to achieve what they were meant to achieve in this gilgul.
Wolfman, see the recent threads on Jonathan Swift and Atlas Shrugged.
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/ayn-rand-and-the-torah
It takes a lot of discipline to do it, but I would recommend checking your email (and the CR and the news sites) just once or twice a day. There’s usually no need to be checking these things constantly — even your email. You could easily get by with checking news once a week.
I’m trying to implement this advice myself (though my at-times frequent posting demonstrates that I’m not always successful.)
There are so many things that would be better to do. Do you get regular exercise, especially aerobic exercise? Try going for a brisk walk in nature for an hour each day, and if you’re up to it do an hour of hisbodedus at the same time.
Make a fixed time to study Torah (whether hashkafa, halacha, spirituality, etc.) every day, and learn things you haven’t learned before.
Consider spending an hour or two each day on a new hobby, like learning a musical instrument or developing a marketable skill. Volunteer with a chesed organization.
Anyway, just some thoughts! Hatzlacha!
Although I think it’s better not to buy name brands (much less prestige brands), it isn’t necessarily wasteful to spend a bit more on brand-name products. I’m not sure if it’s always true, but this quote attributed to John Ruskin is worth considering:
In some states you can’t register with a party — you just register to vote and that’s it.
It’s unfortunate that in the US, there is no party that is left-leaning on economic issues but right-leaning on social or moral issues. All the religious parties in Israel are like that.
Regardless, I think Jews make a big mistake by identifying too much with a single political party, both because (given our political climate) this leads to arrogance and looking down on people who believe differently, and because it causes people to absorb anti-Torah ideologies such as those of Ayn Rand or secular humanism.
Good suggestions, rationalfrummie!
Moi aussi: Your point about emuna is a good one. This is one of the main points of the books and CDs by R’ Lazer Brody and R’ Shalom Arush, which have helped a lot of people.
You mentioned love for Hashem. As I understand it, one of the main aspects of the spiritual derech of Chabad is to meditate on the greatness of G-d, which leads you to feel love and awe of Him, and to therefore be happy and enthusiastic in your avodas Hashem. You might look for Chabad meditation resources, whether through their main website or people like R’ Dovber Pinson.
Newcommer, I’m sorry to hear about that, and I hope you feel completely better very soon!
Emunah could be the solution, depending on what the problem is. But overall Popa is right.
Have you tried to figure out what the problem is? Sometimes it’s not immediately obvious.
For example, are you getting plenty of sleep and exercise and social interaction? Today’s isolated, sleep-deprived, sedentary lifestyle is not natural. It causes many physical and psychological problems.
Do you take time to help others and thank G-d for all the good in your life? Focusing on the positive and on others makes people feel good, and takes people’s minds away from themselves and their problems.
I’ll point you to a couple seforim I enjoy in case they are of help to you.
Google the following sentence and you will find a chapter of a chassidic sefer (Likutei Eitzos) about happiness: “Search for your good points in order to make yourself happy.”
Search for this phrase and you will find another, briefer chapter on the same topic: “It is hard for him to calm and settle his mind.”
Anyway, hatzlacha!
You’re welcome! This is not related to the topic of the post, but I highly recommend the Bilvavi sefer itself, which can be read for free on the website. It’s a very interesting and engaging approach to one’s individual avodas Hashem. As far as I recall, the sefer doesn’t really deal with issues of wealth and consumption, as does the essay I mentioned.
Daniel, you might enjoy reading the essay “Our Generation” by R’ Itamar Schwartz, the author of Bilvavi Mishkan Evneh. It’s on the Bilvavi website.
Rationalfrummie, I think checking for bugs has always been the halacha. What is new is detailed regulations about each vegetable — soak for 15 minutes in warm soapy water, etc — and bans on certain vegetables unless they’re frozen or hydroponic or whatever. As mentioned recently on Torah Musings, even today some halachic authorities (such as R’ Shlomo Amar) will say that the requirement is simply “wash produce and check for bugs” — not to do it in some specific manner.
Here’s an interesting quote from one of Rav Moshe’s last teshuvos:
[such food]
Pre-haskala, there was not a drive to make everything more stringent with time. So to that extent, I agree with Bizbody. Where is it written that halachic interpretations should become more machmir with time, or that restrictive minhagim should multiply with time? It has only happened in reaction to haskala.
ZD, as well as the civil rights movement, multiculturalism, which made it OK to stress one’s cultural differences, and the shift toward greater interest in traditional religions in the 80s, both probably contributed to the rise of charedim in the US (the MO benefited too).
Okay, are you making this all up or not?
CharlieBrown, you may well be on to something!
Perhaps Popa is trying to sharpen our wits by playing these mind games on us.
But at this point I think we’re all just confused.
As for myself, I don’t believe Popa ever started or attended any kiddush club. But maybe I’m wrong.
Gavra, I’m curious too, and I hope Popa will oblige.
You can read a few pages of R’ Lichtenstein’s essay if you google “if asked to define centrism.”
From my brief skim of what is readable on Google books, I could only make out #4 — which has to do with greater opportunities for women regarding Torah study and other matters.
Is Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 3:8 in the original Shulchan Aruch? There are lots of things in the Kitzur that are not in the Shulchan Aruch, and not normative halacha or minhag today.
There is a thread about “ask a rabbi” websites on Stack Exchange (Mi Yodea), which lists various sites. The only well-known posek I know of who will quickly answer a question on any topic (through text or email) is the chardali (charedi-dati-leumi) posek Rav Shlomo Aviner. But like Charlie says, you should ideally find a good rabbi from your local community.
From a chassidic sefer about 200 years ago:
“People are always saying that things are not as good today as they were in the past.
They say that in the ‘good old days’ everything was much less expensive than today, even though people did not have as much money as they have now. Even ordinary people, even those who live off charity, spend more today than wealthy people did in the past.
But the truth is the opposite of what people say. God now runs the world better than ever!”
Sichos Haran #307
Thanks again, Avi!
Yes, this kind of thing sometimes happens! One possible explanation for why:
“All the barriers and obstacles which confront a person have only one purpose: to heighten his yearning for the holy deed which he needs to accomplish…. When you achieve the necessary desire and yearning for the holy act you need to accomplish, you will surely succeed in transforming the idea which is in your mind into an actual reality. The barrier itself can bring you to succeed by strengthening your desire to do so…. The greater the goal for which you yearn, the bigger the obstacles and barriers which are sent in order to strengthen your desire.” (Likutei Eitzos, Obstacles 1-2.)
AviK, thanks for the sources — that’s interesting.
Popa, that’s a good way of putting it. In other words, you’re arguing for a morality based on a priori principles, while I’m arguing a utilitarian or consequentialist ethic that looks at the effects of policies. (However, I think principles are important too, and part of it is that we don’t agree on the principle — we don’t agree on what constitutes stealing and whether government income redistribution is immoral.)
We don’t have to get into this now, but the question is, which view is more compatible with Torah? I guess one place to start would be to read R’ Aharon Levine.
One more thing: Millions of children die of preventable diseases every year, mainly in Africa but also in many other places.
Let’s say that 1% of American tax revenues started being spent directly to stop this — not our current system of foreign aid, but giving people anti-diarrhea medicines and vaccines and such and directly preventing thousands of deaths.
What would your reaction be? To seethe in self-righteous anger at having been “robbed”? If so, I think there’s a good chance Ayn Rand may have brainwashed you from the grave.
Personally, I would jump for joy, and thank Hashem for allowing these children to be saved, whether or not my hard-earned income was taxed to pay for it.
4. Whether anti-poverty spending is in the overall public interest is complex issue depending on empirical questions (does it foster dependency or independence? would the lack of such programs cause instability?) and values questions (do we value helping the most vulnerable, whether or not it will be of direct benefit to ourselves? is it ethical to allow people to starve or live in miserable poverty when we could prevent it?).
I’d like to see these programs administered in much different ways, especially in the US, but still overall I think they work in the public interest, and are thus worthwhile even if they superficially look as though they work against the private interests of the wealthy and for the private interests of the poor. The more poverty and inequality you have in a society, the worse it tends to be for everyone (in terms of all sorts of economic and non-economic variables). Recent research has provided a lot of evidence for this.
It’s also important to point out that the wealthiest have overwhelming political influence in this country. It’s not as if the poor masses are voting in the populists to soak the rich. It hasn’t been anywhere near that, at least since the FDR administration.
5&6. Here’s an example of how it might depend on context. Let’s say there’s a general agreement in that society that dramatically progressive taxation is in the public interest, because it brings society together or increases consumption and thus economic growth or whatever. If the vast majority believe that, I wouldn’t have a problem with it even if a few of the people within the top quartile do object to it. So in your terms, the underlying theory would not be extracting money from others, but rather providing for a decent society in which we’re all in this together and we all do our share. I believe this is how most people think about things in Northern Europe (which by the way is unlike this example empirically, because they have mainly universal benefits).
On a policy level, however, I think it’s best to have a system that’s far different than what you proposed — that is, that’s either slightly progressive tax-wise or not progressive at all — but that provides significant benefits to pretty much everybody at some time in their lives, whether that’s job training, subsidized low-cost university tuition, high-quality universal health care, paid parental leave, etc. The well-off tend to resent social spending if it doesn’t benefit them very much.
7. You haven’t paid for all those things yourself — you have, together with all the rest of the society (since everyone pays taxes.) It’s not that rich people “owe” that portion of their taxes to poor people. But they do have the obligation of paying the taxes that the government has decided to raise.
The fact that a small proportion of those taxes is going to temporary emergency relief to prevent great suffering and death of the most vulnerable people should not prompt selfish anger at having one’s “wealth distributed,” but rather an appreciation of the need for society to help those who can’t help themselves by spending some general tax revenue money.
After all, the money isn’t really yours — everything on this earth belongs to G-d. Money is not what’s important. Torah, mitzvos, chesed, maasim tovim — this is what is important. Why is it so critical to hold on to all your money and have none of it go to other people? Rabbis have referred to this country as Medinas Shel Chesed, perhaps because of the relative lack of anti-Semitism here. Should we be so aggrieved that the country also engages in the bestowal of kindness in other ways?
4. It’s not a very important difference. I’d rather differentiate between government actions based on whether they advance the common good. If you’d ask me, do I see a difference between the U.S. spending hundreds of millions overthrowing foreign governments for speculative and questionable reasons (insert your favorite examples here), and spending the same amount filling some poor American’s bellies and giving them a chance to escape poverty for the long-term, I’d say sure, the first is objectionable and the second is unobjectionable.
5&6. In general, yes, I would find that unfair, but it really depends on the context. Is there a good reason to do what they’re doing in the context of their society? What percentage of the rich quartile’s income does $1000 represent? Do the top 25% have some representation in government? How do they feel about the decision?
What about this. Would you find it objectionable if the lowest quartile of income paid 20% in taxes (mainly sales taxes), the second quartile paid 23% (in sales, property and income taxes), the third quartile paid 27% (ditto), and the richest quartile paid 30% (in mainly property and income taxes), and the government does all kinds of things with the money, and spends a small proportion of it helping the poorest when they need it? If the majority (composed of people of all groups, but weighted somewhat toward the lower end) had approved it? What if the majority were composed mainly of the upper two or three quartiles, because upper quartiles vote more often than people in lower quartiles?
7. They’re not amassing a fortune by taking your money. They’re getting it just to survive. And I’m not sure I agree it’s all “yours.” If it weren’t for police and courts and a stable society and government (all made possible by taxes) you probably wouldn’t have been able to manage to grow the wheat, because you’d be too busy dealing with the chaos of living in an uncivilized and corrupt society. We’re all in this together. This is a cliche by now, but you didn’t build that — not all on your own. The myth of rugged individualism is just that — a myth.
4. Government provides all kinds of necessary or desirable social services that benefit some people more than others — prisons, road-building, financial regulations, and yes, preventing destitute people from starving by giving them a little income. I don’t see how the latter is really different than all the rest.
5&6. “When the majority decides to take stuff from the minority, that is just plain tyranny and stealing.” But that’s not what is happening. The majority is taking from the majority. It’s not as if only the richest people pay taxes. Virtually everyone pays taxes.
7. The distinction is between wealth and income. Wealth includes assets that are relatively stable — one’s net worth. Retirement accounts, houses, valuable personal belongings, etc. Income is what’s coming in — the money you receive. I agree it’s undesirable, and even akin to stealing, to talk somebody’s house and give it to somebody else. That’s the kind of thing Mao or Pol Pot did. But taking a small proportion of general tax revenues to give needy people a little income, which they more or less immediately spend on necessities, is neither redistribution of wealth or stealing. It’s just giving the needy some temporary help.
Regardless, it’s not feasible or desirable to take people’s voting rights away whenever they’re receiving any kind of government benefit, or to get rid of democracy in general. When you can’t vote, you can’t protect your rights — and I’m not talking about a “right” to welfare, but basic civil rights.
Moreover, what would really be in poor people’s interest is to pass legislation that would provide them with job training and job placement services, and probably an increased minimum wage, so that they could be self-sufficient rather than relying on benefits (Rambam’s highest level of charity!). Ratcheting down the drug war and reducing incarceration to reasonable levels would probably help too (since imprisonment devastates people’s job prospects and impoverishes those left in the community). But how are they supposed to achieve such things without being able to vote?
If I understand correctly, some of the Xian miracle stories involve someone who prayed to a deceased “saint,” or at least asked the “saint” to pray on their behalf, who then claims to be miraculously healed.
Could G-d miraculously heal someone, even if that person never prayed to anyone, or even if that person did something they shouldn’t do (like praying to a dead person)? Of course — G-d can do anything. So it’s possible some of the miraculous recoveries really did happen. But we have no reason to believe that praying to that “saint” was the cause of the miracle.
It’s also quite possible they weren’t miracles at all. People are diagnosed with deadly diseases, which then inexplicably go away, all the time. Misdiagnosis could be the culprit. But the human body is also a mysterious thing. Some medical researchers believe, for example, that cancer is more common that we think, and that many, perhaps most people get cancer here and there, which then goes away on its own without causing any harm.
Thanks for addressing my points, Popa.
1. There is usually no sales tax on food. They’re paying sales taxes when they do their non-food spending, which is most of their spending — gas, clothes, diapers, household items, etc. EITC increases their income, but it is only a small proportion of their overall income.
2. The rhetoric may go against the 1%, but in fact the top 1% pay the least taxes. Some of the richest people in the country pay hardly any taxes at all. The top 80%-98% or so of earners, though, at least those who earn salaries, do pay a proportionally larger share. But they are also benefiting in all kinds of ways from government spending — subsidies of the universities they went to (or are employed by), subsidized student loans, mortgage tax deductions, government contracts and payments, government support for medical research, high-paying government jobs, highway infrastructure so they can commute from suburbs, needlessly complex tax and other regulations that provide livelihood for many wealthy lawyers, etc.
4. It’s not stealing because it’s from general tax revenues, which everybody pays to some extent. Governments have been raising money through taxes and spending on various things (including sometimes poor relief) for hundreds, probably thousands, of years. It’s inherent to what government does.
5. Both parties have agreed on the need for at least a minimal safety net for nearly 100 years. You can’t say this is all because the dole-drunk masses have voted in the populists. It’s normal for majorities of non-dependent people to want some safety net. Nobody wants to see huge shantytowns everywhere (as they have in Latin America.)
6. Individuals don’t get to decide — that’s decided by the majoritarian political process, as limited by constitutional and legislative constraints on what the government can do. We don’t really have an alternative. There’s no reason to think we can have a functional government without taxation, or to think that a non-democratic system would better protect individual rights to property. It would be interesting if charity and welfare were purely non-state and voluntary, but that’s a pipe dream at this point.
7. Our tax system does not redistribute wealth. Wealth is assets. Instead, we give some poor people in-kind benefits (such as food and medical care) and modest amounts of cash income (such as time-limited TANFF benefits), which they immediately spend on necessities (or in the case of EITC tax “refund,” spend over the next few months on necessities). If they were amassing large bank accounts and buying houses with their government payments, maybe you could call that redistributing wealth, but that’s not happening.
“Taxes are the price we pay for civilization.” Oliver Wendel Holmes.