Mixed Messengers And Messages

                                                                         

It was stated in the review of Jewish Law begun last week that although its primary source was the Torah, there were sometimes disagreements over what the words meant and what the law was in particular cases. Complicating this was the fact that there were different communities whose practices often did not coincide. These resulted from different opinions and rulings that occurred in communities cut off from each other. The experience didn't always parallel that of the translation of the Torah into Greek.ⁱ

And that's fine, because the control over the meaning of the Law was given by G-d to man.ⁱⁱ Man's word is law and to be accepted even if it seems to conflict with G-d's.ⁱⁱⁱ In addition, diametrically opposite conclusions are necessary for our understanding as long as the intent of the disputants is virtuous and meant to glorify the Law.^iv The same principle applies when a definitive ruling hasn't been made.^v

Yet not all those who fashioned themselves Jews accepted these interpretations. Several groups, including the Sadducees, Essenes, Samaritans, and Karaites rejected interpretations by the Rabbis. They were, to different degrees, literalists or, to use current terminology, “fundamentalists,” for whom only strict observance of the words of the Torah was acceptable – not the ideas of interpreters. But there also were groups completely unaware of the oral law, having separated from Israel before it was fully formulated. They could never have rejected Rabbinic teachings because they never learned them. If they have not followed the Law as we know it, the cause is ignorance not arrogance, and they cannot violate what they never learned. (There is a somewhat similar situation in regard to those who were never taught Judaism's laws. Those raised without Jewish training – even if they are adults – are viewed as uneducated children rather than as sinners.)

Even those who accepted both the written and the oral law were sometimes forced to alter their view or practices. Anti-Semitic groups pressured the Jews to change portions of the Talmud that were viewed as heretical or insulting. Scrolls, books, and the wisdom and interpretations in them, were often destroyed, or sections deleted, with that portion of G-d's word often irretrievably lost. And forced conversions played a major role in leading Jews to accept teachings foreign to them, or at least to mouth, and sometimes eventually accept them, even if they tried to remain observant in secret. In those situations (and even moreso with voluntary assimilation) both G-d's words and man's interpretations of those words, were changed forever.

But for the most part, and for the majority, the word of the Rabbis was (the) law. The commonly held view was that everyone should study the Law, but the final word belonged to a select group. That wasn't always the case however. The Rabbis were cautioned not to enact ordinances that would not be followed. They had the right to do so because the prerogative of interpretation was theirs, but even though they “spoke” “the word of G-d,” they were careful not to decree what wouldn't be observed, for by doing so they would turn their fellow Jews into sinners. (From time to time it was necessary to rescind a Rabbinic ordinance^vi when it became clear that there were many who were not able to follow it.)

The current expression of this problem is the dispute between those who favor chumras^vii and those who favor kulas.^viii The latter fear that a strict interpretation will not be followed and the Law permits leniency, while the former are more concerned about, in addition to the specific law, the “slippery slope” which will lead to a lack of observance of the Law in general. In fact, they are convinced that a large number of Jews – indeed, the majority – have already lapsed into apostasy.^ix Certainly there are different streams in Judaism – even among the minority who consider themselves observant – and they are quick to question each other's opinions and practices. And they always view those who are less strict than themselves as moving away from the religion into which they were born.^x

But that's not all. There's also hero worship. Not literal worship – certainly not among observant Jews – but in terms of following the examples of those whom you admire. Often the goal is just to be in style or to be “in,”^xi but not always. Those who do so are usually seeking to improve their position vis-a-vis the others around them. They want to conform, even if it's to “the lowest common denominator.” It's not a practice to be followed.

A more “Torah true” version of this phenomenon, however, is based on the goal of improving themselves rather than their position. And it does not always require speech. According to some rabbinic legends, a talmid (student) can learn the will of Hashem merely by imitating his Rebbe. He is learning G-d's words and wishes by imitating the acts of the pious. It's a silent form of interpretation and teaching, but it's as valid an act of interpretation as one spoken or written. Even if “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery” though, flattery is not the goal, and the imitation is seen as pursuit of the holy. Whether or not the legends have any substantial basis, they attest to the view that the one who is wise “learns from all men.”^xii In the words of Rabbi Hirsch, “it is primarily the knowledge of the Torah that stamps a person as wise.” And from whom is it better to learn Torah than your Rebbe? Whether by his words or his deeds.

Finally there is the anomaly that, as strange as it may seem, “Jewish Law” may be written by non-Jews. Certainly that is the case in terms of forced changes in the Jewish holy books, but it doesn't always require pressure. Dina d'malchuta dina – “the law of the land is the law” – has long been the doctrine we follow.^xiii And the laws of non-Jews can, according to Halakhah, sometimes even supersede what the Rabbis have taught – they can be dispositive over Jewish Law, which is understood to be the teaching of Hashem.^xiv

It's clear that the law, if not an ass, is certainly convoluted. And Jewish Law, believed to be the word of G-d – a law that has been interpreted by our predecessors, altered by the pressure of those who ruled us, and, on occasion, written by non-Jews – is especially complicated. At least the law we follow: the law decreed by our Rabbis. The Torah tells us that these rulings should govern our practice and, at least in part, it results from the principle that we honor conflicting opinions and consider them all the words of G-d. So that's what we do. Yet it makes many people uncomfortable and is for them an argument for rejection of the law or for fundamentalism. But those choices are even more asinine.

For that's the beauty of the Talmud. It preserves minority views, and considers all perspectives that have the goal of honoring  Hashem to be in conformity with His words and with His Law. So if your intent is righteous, your actions will be as well.

Next episode: “Silly Season” – This, too, will pass.

i      See endnote number xii in last week's essay.

ii     There are several statements of this principle, for example the Torah, in D'varim (Deuteronomy) 17.9, teaches us that we should obey the authorities of our own times and Bava Metzia 59b makes it clear that a majority of authorities is more important in deciding the law than a voice from heaven or miracles.

iii     That's not to say that anyone is free to make up the rules as he goes along. But when recognized authorities on Halakhah accept an interpretation or tradition at variance with prior teachings, the new ruling has to be taken very seriously.

iv     See Avot 5.20 (Babylonian Talmud). Only one side of the argument, of course, is correct but, as Rabbi Samson Hirsch pointed out: “ ... both views will have permanent value because ... both parties will have served to shed new light on the issue under debate ...” The actual decision, moreover, will result from the views of a majority of mortals, not on any divine perspective.

v      For example, in Berakhot 27a (Babylonian Talmud).

vi     In view of the idea that Hashem's laws are eternal, it does not seem in keeping with them that the Rabbis, who had the right, by their interpretations and rulings, to decide G-d's laws, could change or withdraw those rulings. Nonetheless, it is sometimes necessary.

vii    Stringencies

viii    Lenient interpretations.

ix     One of the problems with this approach is that it means that previous generations, those who preceded the new strict ruling and, thus, didn't observe it, violated was now considered to be “the word of G-d.”

x      And those who are stricter as fanatics, more interested in the letter of the law than its spirit.

xi     Some wear the sneakers of a sports hero, some mimic the political views of a favorite move star, some use the slang of their gang leader.

xii     Avot 4.1

xiii    According to Graff in Dina de-Malkhuta Dina in Jewish Law, the principle was first stated in the third century (CE) by Samuel, although it is likely that earlier statements by Jeremiah (29.7) and Nehemiah (9.37) played a part in it, as did Rabbi Hanina's declaration in Avot 3.2, “Pray for the welfare of the government, for were it not for the fear of it, men would swallow each other alive.” Although these statements were supportive of the government in general – and we still offer a prayer for the government as part of our Shabbat service – this support probably eventuated in a doctrine supporting individual laws of that government.

xiv    See, for example, Bava Batra 54b-55a (Babylonian Talmud) in which the validity of Persian law is affirmed even if in is in disagreement with Jewish law.

You Do – 2

                                                                                    
Picking up where I left off yesterday, here are a few more questions. As I told you then, the answer is easy enough to figure out if you read the title, but leave off the “– 2.”

11. “WASHINGTON – Summer is upon us and that means only one thing in the nation's capital: time for Congress to take a holiday at government expense.” The article from the Huffington Post tells of some House members, wives, staff and members of the military (“including an Army doctor in case anyone gets sick along the way”) who will be visiting Rome, Tblisi (Georgia), Vilnius (Lithuania), Moscow, and Lisbon.ⁱ I'm sure you've visited and enjoyed all those places. Clearly the purpose of the visit is official and for legislative purposes (as you can tell from the presence of the wives). The Congressmen don't pay for trips like this. Can you guess who does?ⁱⁱ

12. Congress has its chaplains and, the “wall of separation between church and state” notwithstanding, religious institutions get tax breaks. But someone has to support this holy offering. Who do you think does?

13. Among our finest citizens are those who spend time in minimum security prisons – so-called “Country Club Prisons.”ⁱⁱⁱ Here's a description of Allenwood from Forbes Magazine: Amenities: Dorms house up to 80 men in two-man cubicles. Softball, basketball, soccer, flag football, universal weight machine, free weights, pool and pingpong tables. Vocational training offered in horticulture. One program is 150 hours, another is 500 hours. Graduates of both receive certificates of completion.Prisoner perks: Its musical program not only provides instruments but also offers inmate-led instruction. Allenwood is also known for having a particularly diverse inmate population--which, according to experts, makes it a little easier for white-collar convicts to fit in.

Of course the prisoners don't have to wear prison garb or eat prison food. Both can come from outside. We're showing them how seriously we view the violation of our laws. The cost of justice, however, is high. Who picks up the tab?

14. Some of our prisoners spend their entire lives in prison. Even if it's not at one of the “Club Feds,” it will still be a huge expense. Who helps us keep these bad people off the streets?

15. Perhaps you don't approve of the death penalty. Or “targeted killings.”^iv Perhaps you don't believe a government has the right to take a life. Well, we do it anyway. And the best things in death ain't free. But we're lucky that there are angels who support these activities. Who pays for us to kill?

16. It's important to keep up with the world – in fact we should be ahead of them. And that takes education. But that education should be public so we can be sure “no child [is] left behind.” So that's what we're doing. At least we're supporting public education. Nonetheless, other countries are doing better in terms of results, though our bills for education are high. Who pays them?^v

17. There are probably programs with which you disagree, whether for religious, ethical, or fiscal reasons. Perhaps you don't like the idea of farm subsidies or the subsidization of high salaries for the executives of failing companies, or maybe you oppose medical and educational programs for illegal aliens.^vi That's not the issue. You don't get a chance to choose what you're willing to pay for. Who supplies the funding for all governmental programs?

18. Sex education, contraception, and abortifacients (“morning after” pills – they're not really contraceptives since conception has already occurred by that time) are now provided by many schools, often without parental knowledge or consent. It's a right teenagers have isn't it, and the government should honor all our rights. So it costs money. But so what? There are people who'll shell it out. They're happy to. They're good Americans. Who pays the cost?

19. The United Nations is a noble idea. But in practice there are problems. The main one is that it's been taken over by countries that view governmental rule as license for oppression of citizens. It doesn't matter how a government was established. We're privileged to help out. Now those who are the oppressors – and who also have the oil – control the actions of an organization that was established to end oppression. But that's what we have, and it has to be supported. The United States, even if most of the world views our country as evil,^vii considers itself to have the responsibility of providing for it.^viii And that means that a certain group of people will be taxed to do so. Do you know what people pay the bills?

20. Among the leaders of the world's nations – honored members of the United^ix Nations – are tyrants who threaten other members and peace in general. They'll willingly take money from their enemies. And that means that some poor individuals will pay for the arms that threaten them. Can you identify what saps pay for the privilege of strengthening the world's tyrants – their enemies?

It all comes out of your taxes. You can avoid these costs by the simple expedient of not paying taxes – by cheating, losing your job, or dying. Great choices, huh? Of course you can do (actually you will do) what we all do – in addition to paying current costs. Leave the ever-increasing bill to your children and grandchildren. We're doing that already, and they'll do the same. Just kick the can down the road. But sooner or later someone will have to pay, and the debt is getting bigger very rapidly.^x You'll be dead, though, so it's not your problem. They'll have to deal with it.

i      These important trips are also taken to many of the world's other important political sites – like Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and South America. They're taken by military and bureaucratic groups as well as Congress. Nothing is too good for our servants.

ii     In all honesty, some of these junkets are provided by political supporters. As the saying goes, we have the best government money can buy. But the costs supposedly paid by those companies are usually passed on to the public, so they really pay.

iii   In the interests of accuracy it should be noted that this information is several years old. Conditions may have improved since then or gotten worse. But you get the point. Even prisoners have rights. Not having telephones, television and a law library is cruel and unusual punishment.

iv    Including our own citizens.

v     By the way, you should be aware that it usually doesn't matter if you pay separately for a religious or other private school or if you don't even have children. The same answer applies.

vi     Hard cheese.

vii    And that includes the dictatorships seeking aid.

viii   Additional costs and inconveniences result from the traffic jams, additional police, and closed-off areas, but the same people will pay for it. Incidentally, the inconveniences of no-drive areas, traffic jams, extra security will also be enjoyed by citizens whenever the President is in town.

ix      Benighted?

x      See http://www.usdebtclock.org – unless you have a weak stomach.

You Do

                                                                             

There used to be a program on the radio called “Twenty Questions” on which the panelists tried to identify someone or something by asking up to twenty yes or no questions. It had been a parlor game prior to this and engaged the interest of all those who participated. Because the answer could be one of two, there was some suspense. I have my twenty questions as well, however they're about activities rather than things, and you won't have to choose between possibilities. There's only one answer to all the questions; it will always be the same. I'll let you figure out what it is. (Hint: look at the title of this essay.)

1. Members of the Senate and House of Representatives are paid $174,000 annually but may earn more. In fact, in 2009 there were 291 millionaires in Congress and the richest ten (7 Democrats and 3 Republicans) at the moment are worth between $36.7 million and $290.5 million. Although they are are supposed to be your representatives, typical of their constituents, that's probably more than you have. Who pays their salaries?ⁱ
2. The President's annual paycheck (not counting a separate fund for expenses and other benefits he receives) is $400,000. President Obama is worth about $5 million. Who has the honor of paying him?
3. Apart from funds for offices, staff, and other expenses, Congressmen get various benefits common to all Federal employees. Those benefits are probably worth a lot more than those you get. Who supplies the funds for them?
4. One of the important jobs of our representatives is to keep us informed about what is happening in the government. For that they can have printings and mailings done, with copies frankedⁱⁱ and sent to their constituents. Interestingly the information they send typically praises actions they, themselves, take, and arrives shortly before an election. Who foots the bill for this important information?ⁱⁱⁱ
5. At the time of this writing (September 24, 2012) the National Debt was a little over $16,054,000,000,000.^iv That amounts to $140,337 per taxpayer. Fortunately we don't have to pay it all off at once, just the interest.^v (Our children and then theirs will pick up the payments from us, but sooner or later the bill will come due, if we don't default.) However that comes to a pretty penny. Who coughs up that “penny?”
6. Congress, when it isn't in gridlock, passes long and opaque bills which are often lacking in detail. We're lucky to have about 2,840,000 unelected^vi and anonymous Federal employees^vii to write regulations “clarifying” them and to enforce these laws. (They also do other things of equal or greater value.) They don't do it for the public good. They're paid. Who gets the bill?
7. Congress also includes other things in it's laws – items that are intentionally opaque and usually not noticed by the voters. They're called earmarks, and they have the value of providing benefits to a Congressman's district or a particular contributor.^viii Who pays for this largesse?
8. In response to an inquiry about the cost of “entitlements,” WikiAnswers listed the following as the best answer: “From the data that I have seen, the cost of entitlements (i.e. Social Security, Medicare, Medicade [sic]) make up about 50% of the annual budget of $3 Trillion.” The responder didn't note that some – though not all – of the cost of these programs came from the participants. But he or she probably didn't allow for all the costs, and didn't specify that among entitlements are food stamps, welfare, housing, insurance for flooding and other disasters, bailouts, and other governmental programs which are ours as a matter of “right.” That even includes the costs of “search and rescue” for those who are lost on their yachts or out mountain climbing. Notwithstanding the importance of such services, they cost money. Fortunately there's always someone to pay. Who gets that privilege?
9. With all the programs and their administrators, billions are lost annually due to poor management and to fraud. Medicare fraud is a well reported component, but it is only one of many. Still, we have to decide who pics up the tab for all of this. Can you guess who does it?
10. Another fascinating feature of the various entitlement programs is the mandate that certain items be covered. Among them are therapies for erectile dysfunction, contraception and unwanted pregnancies. Although not all our citizens are sympathetic to the desirability or need for these we still do them, and they cost. Who turns his pocket inside out to provide these services?

That's really all I have time for today but there'll be ten^ix more tomorrow. I did invoke “Twenty Questions,” so I have a quota to meet. But, apart from your time, there's no cost to you.

i      By the way, though the numbers may be different, the general situation enjoyed by members of Congress and the President listed here, and below, also apply to those who serve are paid by State and local governments.

ii     Franking, according to the Library of Congress, is a “privilege, which dates from 1775, allows Members of Congress to transmit mail matter under their signature without postage.”

iii    By the way, you shouldn't forget to recycle the waste paper properly.

iv     And growing at a rate of a million dollars every fifty seconds or so.

v      Obviously we don't pay that ourselves each year. In the interest of fairness, much of it comes from corporation taxes, inheritance taxes, capital gains taxes, taxes on imports, and increases in the debt.

vi     And often with tenured civil service positions making them accountable to nobody.

vii     Not including the military.

viii   There are also larger projects to bring jobs and money into particular districts, though these projects may not have any real value to the country. The most famous of these in recent American history was the “Bridge To Nowhere” in Alaska, although numerous such “pork-barrel” allocations annually. No one really wants to talk about them.

ix     At least I'll try to limit it to ten. It won't be easy.

Mixed Messengers

    
                                                                                 

“... the law is a [sic] ass ...”ⁱ That was Mr. Bumble's assessmentⁱⁱ in a particular case involving marital law, but, according to many observers, it is an accepted principle with far wider application. Nonetheless, it's binding on us, even if we are ignorant of it. Even the legal text we laymen see is usually in small print or too long and complex (by design) for us to understand.

Far be it from me to cast the first stone.ⁱⁱⁱ I won't judge, lest I be judged.^iv But the observance of the law can be very difficult for a number of reasons. Most important is that there are so many types of laws^v that we have to observe. We have local, state, and national laws of course, and even international laws.^vi And in addition there are religious laws (which I'll discuss shortly) and “Natural Law,” which was cited in the Declaration of Independence as one of the bases on which our society was founded,^vii since it was required for our “separate and equal station,” and had been denied us.

But I'd like to discuss religious law today. Specifically Jewish law, with which I'm most familiar.^viii First of all, it's important to establish its nature. According to the Christian Bible, “In the Beginning was the Word.”^ix Conceptually that may be similar to Jewish teaching in the meaning familiar to the Christian reader,^x but it is very different in terms of the meaning of the text itself. According to the Jewish understanding, the first being in human form (Adam) wasn't created until long after the first word, or more accurately words, existed. That was the Torah, which preceded the formation of the earth. The Torah, and some additional teachings (the “Oral Law”), were given to Moses and the Jewish People at Mount Sinai, and together what was given then are Hashem's^xi words and the basis of Jewish law.

Every time we read the Torah we say: “Not in any man do I trust.  Not on any angel do I rely,  only on the G-d of heaven Who is the G-d of truth, Whose Torah is truth and Whose prophets are true, in Him do I trust.” Clearly our obligation is to follow G-d's words and His Law.

That's straightforward enough, but there are many layers of the law that complicate the issue. One layer is based on the fact that following the Torah and related teachings wasn't always possible because some of the words needed definition, and some of the ideas required explanation.^xii For centuries there was an oral tradition that was used to clarify these points, but eventually it was reduced to writing – the Mishna – which was an interpretation^xiii of the original teachings. The Mishna itself, however, was opaque to many of the people and there developed an interpretation (the Gemora, and together they constitute the Talmud, which is usually printed with additional commentaries) for which a given was that all of it was the word of G-d. Thus the Rabbis whose thoughts appear in the Gemora focused on providing scenarios and explanations that justified all that had come before. And since the Talmud contained many apparent contradictions, some of the “explanations,” including the ideas that many of the words were missing or miscopied or inadvertently misattributed, were recorded along with the description^xiv of imaginative scenarios and distinctions that justified^xv what had been written before. Indeed, new interpretations continue to this day, all the while meant to be understood as clarifications of G-d's words.

Unfortunately, there are problems with this approach. The interpretations weren't always uniform. Some of the text and its application can be understood in different ways. For example, there is a story in the Talmud that illustrates this situation: A voice from Heaven declares, in response to an argument between the Houses of Hillel and Shammai, “These and these are the words of the living God, and the law is according to the House of Hillel.”^xvi But having read that the House of Hillel was “right” and the House of Shammai “wrong,” we learn that that decision had nothing to do with their arguments but only their personal attributes.^xvii Thus, we learn, that the words of both sides were equally true and Hashem's words, themselves, can be understood in a multiplicity of ways, and different understandings may be acceptable even now, with varying opinions and rulings about the law issued by different authorities.^xviii

Even more confusing, with dispersion of the Jews all over the world, the different interpretations and approaches have led to the development of different traditions, customs, and practices – even different prayers and prayer books. This may be the case on a “macro” level,^xix or in a small community or synagogue, or somewhere in between. They may all be different, but that doesn't mean that they aren't all valid.

But there are more problems – some which might be more confusing than the ones raised already. For example, a rabbi can teach the law without saying a word. If he does, though, Man's word may take precedence over G-d's. But although G-d's laws are eternal, a ruling made by a man can be withdrawn or changed. And the laws of non-Jews can, according to Halakhah, sometimes supersede what the Rabbis have taught – be dispositive over Jewish Law, which is understood to be the teaching of Hashem. Fundamentalism and literalism are easy, but they don't represent the views of a majority of those who consider themselves Jews.

But I'll deal with those issues, and maybe some others, next week.

Next episode: “Mixed Messengers And Messages” – Don't believe everything you read.

i     There are those who see the problem as one caused by those who write, interpret, and enforce the law. And especially by the misuse created by those who glory in its distortion for their own benefit: the lawyers – those who practice the law. As Shakespeare put it in Henry VI, Part II, “The first thing we do, let's kill all the Lawyers.”

ii     In Charles Dickens's “Oliver Twist.”

iii    John 8.7

iv    Matthew 7.1– sort of.

v    I'm not referring to physical laws like gravity, nor economic laws like the law of diminishing returns. They're not laws that we can violate very easily.

vi    Even though such regulations are usually reserved for nations, an individual may be held accountable for, among other things, crimes against humanity.

vii    The Declaration uses the term “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's G-d” when referring to Natural Law. It refers to some form of universal law that governs our morality. In theory we all know what it is and what rights it guarantees us. In theory.

viii   Though I'm hardly an expert in the field and, no doubt, there are many who will disagree with my take.

ix     It's all Greek to me, but the “Word” John used was Logos (λόγος), which seems to have indicated that it actually represents Jesus. At least that's the way some of the Church Fathers understood it. See John 1.1.

x     Since most Christians understand G-d and Jesus to be identical.

xi     G-d's

xii    There is a tradition that seventy learned Rabbis in Greece were instructed to translate the Hebrew text into Greek. They were put in separate rooms, yet the translations were identical. The idea, in addition to a miracle having occurred, was that there was a single agreed and universal understanding of what the Torah – the word and the law of G-d – said, an understanding common to all.

xiii   It was considered to be merely a literal statement rather than an interpretation, and accurately reflected G-d's words and intent.

xiv   Creation?

xv    And some of what they considered wrong but could not explain away they simply declared erroneous.

xvi    Eruvin 13b in the Babylonian Talmud.

xvii   We're told that members of the House of Hillel were gentle and humble – not that their interpretation was any more correct and in keeping with the words of G-d than that of the House of Shammai.  In fact, we're not even told what the dispute was about.  It seems the views of the two sides were irrelevant.

xviii   This has led to “shopping” for a rabbi who will make the ruling which the questioner had decided he want, and will allow him to ignore other rulings which he may not want. It is not an acceptable practice.

xix    For example Israeli vs. Ashkenazic vs. Sephardic vs Oriental.

Next episode: “Mixed Messengers And Messages” – Don't believe everything you read.

i       There are those who see the problem as one caused by those who write, interpret, and enforce the law. And especially by the misuse created by those who glory in its distortion for their own benefit: the lawyers – those who practice the law. As Shakespeare put it in Henry VI, Part II, “The first thing we do, let's kill all the Lawyers.”

ii       In Charles Dickens's “Oliver Twist.”

iii     John 8.7

iv     Matthew 7.1– sort of.

v      I'm not referring to physical laws like gravity, nor economic laws like the law of diminishing returns. They're not laws that we can violate very easily.

vi    Even though such regulations are usually reserved for nations, an individual may be held accountable for, among other things, crimes against humanity.

vii    The Declaration uses the term “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's G-d” when referring to Natural Law. It refers to some form of universal law that governs our morality. In theory we all know what it is and what rights it guarantees us. In theory.

viii   Though I'm hardly an expert in the field and, no doubt, there are many who will disagree with my take.

ix     It's all Greek to me, but the “Word” John used was Logos (λόγος), which seems to have indicated that it actually represents Jesus. At least that's the way some of the Church Fathers understood it. See John 1.1.

x      Since Christians understand G-d and Jesus to be identical.

xi     G-d's

xii    There is a tradition that seventy learned Rabbis in Greece were instructed to translate the Hebrew text into Greek. They were put in separate rooms, yet the translations were identical. The idea, in addition to a miracle having occurred, was that there was a single agreed and universal understanding of what the Torah – the word and the law of G-d – said, an understanding common to all.

xiii    It was considered to be merely a literal statement rather than an interpretation, and accurately reflected G-d's words and intent.

xiv    Creation?

xv    And some of what they considered wrong but could not explain away they simply declared erroneous.

xvi    Eruvin 13b in the Babylonian Talmud.

xvii   We're told that members of the House of Hillel were gentle and humble – not that their interpretation was any more correct and in keeping with the words of G-d than that of the House of Shammai.

xviii   This has led to “shopping” for a rabbi who will make the ruling which the questioner had decided he want, and will allow him to ignore other rulings which he may not want. It is not an acceptable practice.

xix     For example Israeli vs. Ashkenazic vs. Sephardic vs Oriental.

Fairness

                                                                                  

The past week has provided two reasons for introspection: the first anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement, and the Jewish New Year. Both deal with the weakness of the individual, and the power to which he is answerable and upon whom he depends. But they couldn't be more different.

The New Year is actually part of a longer period of repentance in which we acknowledge our many failures and seek forgiveness for them. We also express our dismay at the success of foreign nations that oppress us and mock us. We're demoralized by their success and by our own weakness and subjugation by them. That failure to comprehend the victory of the attackers is universal. It's the theodicy yielding so much religious philosophy, and it's the basis for many longer essays and books, of which “When Bad Things Happen To Good People” is probably the most famous. That's not to say that we consider ourselves “good.” Quite the opposite. We lament our own faults, which we consider the cause of our condition, and the justification for our punishment. But we ask that similar retribution be visited on those who are G-d's agents in delivering the penalty we deserve. We resent their triumphalism and mocking when we know that they, too, are far from perfect. Indeed, we consider them worse than ourselves.

But primarily it's a time of self-examination. It's a period when we think about the mistakes we've made and how we can better ourselves. We ask for G-d's forgiveness and His help in our efforts to change. And we seek condign punishment for the outside nations that would destroy us. We pray we'll be successful in achieving these goals, but we focus on seeking forgiveness for our errors and help in the difficult, but necessary, effort to improve ourselves. As Pogo Possum said, “We have met the enemy and it is us.”

The goals of OWS are less clear, so assessment of their success is more difficult. Along with additional protests about how participants were treated by the authorities, there have been increased costs to the public for police and sanitation workers, as well as disruption of the lives of those who live near demonstration sites. And as the protests spread, so did the costs and disruptions. I don't think that any meaningful legislation resulted from the complaints, despite the loud demands. But there was one major outcome – the popularization of the word “fairness.” That word seems to be shorthand for whatever will improve the condition of the middle class and the poor, with the costs borne by the rich. After all, as everyone knows, the rich (those parasites who make more than I) don't pay their fair share of taxes. And we're too rich a nation to let the poor suffer.

What's fair? According to the IRS, in 2009 – the last year for which I could locate data – the top 1% of taxpayers, with an adjusted gross income of $393,927 or higher (by the way, I don't qualify), paid 36.73% of all Federal personal income taxes, and the top 10% (income over $112,124) paid 70.47%. The lowest 50% (income less than $32,396) paid 2.25%. That doesn't include state and local taxes and payroll taxes, nor are inheritance, corporation, and capital gains taxes included, so it's difficult to determine how much of the total tax is paid by each group. It's clear, though, that those who earn more pay considerably more than those who earn less, and if the 70% paid by the top 10% in any way reflects government tax income and what it purchases, then those with incomes in excess of $112,124 (and that, of course, includes Oprah Winfrey, Derek Jeter, George Clooney, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and all your favorite television, sports, movie, and political heroes – and maybe you) paid more than 70% of the cost of entitlements. And they also pay most of the tax costs for defense against nations which would attack us. What would be a fairer tax burden?

And there are other criteria of fairness. However much we may resent the rich, we long to be among them. So we buy lottery tickets or gamble in other ways. And we sometimes forget to report all our earnings to the IRS. And of course fairness depends on whom it hits. When the Alternative Minimum Tax was originated, it was aimed at the “rich,” and established a minimum for them although there was no similar minimum tax for those who earned less. It was fair. At least until the rising salaries of those who had earned less now put them in the affected bracket. When they were taxed it was unfair.

Like the period of repentance, OWS also inspires self-examination. The conclusion, however, is the opposite – it's that any mistakes are those of the “rich,” who don't pay their fair share of support for everyone else. It's not my fault. I don't have to change, I don't have to improve myself – they do. I have no responsibility. When bad things happen to good people – to us – it's THEIR fault.