Ashamnu: Confronting Sin and Forgiving Ourselves on Yom Kippur

Yom Kippur is the holiest day on the Jewish calendar, during which one fasts and intensely prays. According to Jewish tradition, Yom Kippur, also known as the Day of Atonement, is the time which one appeals G-d to be sealed in the Book of Life. During this appeal, one of the repeated facets of the Yom Kippur service is the Ashamnu (אשמנו), which is an alphabetic acrostic prayer acting as a confession of one's sins. While going down the acrostic list of sins, one beats their chest while communally reciting one's sins, which includes verbalizing such confessions as "we have betrayed" (בגדנו), "we have stolen" (גזלנו), and "we have rebelled" (מרדנו).

[For a list of all 24 of the sins in Ashamnu, as well as interpretations on each sin, check out the insights from Aish HaTorah, Orthodox Union, and a translation of Chayei Adam (18 c.)]

What's so special about Ashamnu? What makes it such an important prayer?

Before answering that, a bit on the Jewish notion of sin. Judaism conceives sin differently than Christianity does. Jews do not believe that Jesus died for our sins or in Original Sin. To quote Genesis 4:7, "Sin crouches at the door, its urge towards you, but you can overcome it." In Hebrew, the word חטא is commonly mistranslated as "sin." When taking a closer look at its usage in the Tanach (Hebrew Scriptures), the word is better translated as "error" or "mistake." For a Jew, "sinning" is much more akin to the idea of an archer missing his target. Even righteous people still err (Ecclesiastes 7:20); it does not make them bad people. For Jews, humans are neither inherently evil nor inherently good. We are born with a strong inclination towards evil (Genesis 8:21), but nevertheless have the potential to become good by performing good deeds because we have free will.

With free will comes great responsibility. We do not live in isolation. Our actions affect others, which is one of the reasons why the confessions in the Ashamnu prayer are written in the first person plural. Although many of the sins in Ashamnu are actualized on an individual level, and while we need to view our spiritual selves on an individual level, we are still a community and as such, responsible for others in the community.

Let's briefly contrast Ashamnu with Al Chet, the longer confessional prayer that proceeds Ashamanu, to provide further insight. The reason that Al Chet is longer because it goes into further detail with more concrete examples. Concrete examples are what makes it easier to connect to something like Al Chet than Ashamnu. How so? When one reads Al Chet, one essentially recites symptoms of a given חטא. In contrast, Ashamnu is a list of root causes. Root causes might be more difficult to examine, but if we are to truly improve upon ourselves, we need to confront them at their source. This is the gift that Ashamnu provides, which is important because knowing is half the battle.

Every time we thump our chests during the recitation of Ashamnu, the thump acts as a heartbeat. We need to be reminded of our conscience, our good inclination (יצר הטוב) because if we don't, our confession would look something like this. However, the Ashamnu prayer is a reminder that we can only beat ourselves for so long, both literally and metaphorically. After reciting the Ashamnu and Al Chet, we ask that "for all these sins, G-d of forgiveness, forgive us, pardon us, and grant us atonement" (ועל כלם אלוה סליחות סלח לנו מחל לנו כפר לנו). If we keep beating ourselves up indefinitely, we get exhausted, disillusioned about life, and lose sight of what is important. Ashamnu tells us that yes, we need to remember the wrong we did and figure out what caused it. Even so, we need to stop beating ourselves up and realize that not only we need to ask G-d for forgiveness, and then we need to forgive ourselves. The text doesn't explicitly state to forgive yourself, but how do we know that we need to do so? Because if we don't, we cannot move forward.

Most of us are hardest on ourselves, which makes sense. We know ourselves better than anybody else does. We also have the greatest amount of control over our own actions.  But if we are to "love your neighbor as yourself" (ואהבת לרעך כמוך; Leviticus 19:18), we have to remember the "כמוך" bit and realize that we need to love ourselves first because that self-love and self-confidence is what helps us actualize our full potential. And at the same time, we have to come to terms with what it means to be human. Looking at the list of sins in Ashamnu, odds are that we did not break every single one. Nevertheless, we are supposed to examine the entirety to remind ourselves which ones we did not commit (i.e., our strengths) and which ones we committed (i.e., our weaknesses, the ones upon which we can improve). We cannot live a life of perfection, nor does Judaism expect us to.  Everyone screws up at some point. When we fall, we need to get back up. All we can do is our utmost to make sure that we personally confess to less sins next year than we do for this year. May this be a year in which we not only forgive others, but we forgive ourselves.

גמר חתימה טובה!

A Libertarian Argument in Favor of Smoking Bans in Public Places

Ever since the colonial days, smoking tobacco has been a part of American history. Until recent times, smoking was common practice amongst many Americans. Once we realized the side effects of smoking did social norms regarding smoking change for the better. One of the ways in which we see that societal shift is in smoking bans in public places, which ironically enough, include privately owned establishments (e.g., clubs, bars, restaurants). If it is a public domain, such as a government building or a public university, then I do not have a problem with a smoking ban. When we are talking about privately owned establishments, that is the moment I start to take issue with a smoking ban. Normally, I would simply say that a business owner should be able to self-regulate his own property because we are in a free society. However, I cannot treat this like any normal governmental intervention. How so? Unlike so many other policies, this one actually works. A smoking ban creates a cleaner environment, it reduces exposure to second-hand smoke both to customers and employees, has generally high compliance rates, and it does so without causing net economic damage. Plus, it is nice to go somewhere like a restaurant or bowling alley and not have deal with inhaling cigarette smoke or come home smelling like an ashtray. Regardless about how I personally feel about allowing smoking in privately owned establishments, from a philosophical and deontological standpoint, I feel uncomfortable using public policy to coerce business owners into certain business-related decisions, even if this one would be a particularly lousy decision. What I would like to explore is whether the wishes of the proprietor trump any other considerations or whether some other factor(s) can supersede the decision to allow for smoking in one's private establishment.

Economic effects on businesses: One of the arguments used against smoking bans is that it will impose extra costs and drive business away. There are certain businesses that are more adversely affected, such as casinos, taverns, and bingo halls. However, once revenue and employment data are aggregated, the vast majority of studies show that a smoking ban hardly has an effect, and could very well improve the establishment (Alamar and Glantz, 2004). As the St. Louis Federal Reserve points out, the effects both on employment rates and business' revenue are aggregately, at best, negligible. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) also found that there are no negative economic effects on employment or sales. (Also, see the MN House of Representative's Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], Bartolome and Irvine [2010]). The fact that a government ban can be implemented without negatively impacting a business is, in my humble opinion, quite impressive.

Health care costs: Those who are in favor of smoking bans argue that it will not only cut back on inhalation of second-hand smoke, but will also cut back on people who actually decide to smoke. Let's suppose that the partial ban succeeds in decreasing the amount of smokers, which they do (Evans et al, 1996). Much like I illustrated with the cigarette tax, decreasing the number of smokers would not automatically translate into less health care costs. For one, if an individual dies earlier due to smoking-related illnesses, that individual could have very well avoided huge bills caused by elderly care and living. Also, there is more than one way to contract an illness, or to put it another way, there can be another way to get sick that can just as easily cost as much, if not more, than a smoking-related illness. As such, one cannot definitively determine net health benefits due to a smoking ban in public places.

The negative externality of second-hand smoke: A negative externality is economic parlance for saying that a firm or business makes a decision that creates an impact in which an individual or group of individuals did not [fully] consent to the decision [and its effects] voluntarily. Eliminating or decreasing a negative externality is the most legitimate use of any government intervention because it mitigates a market failure that the market cannot solve. In this case, the negative externality in question is second-hand smoke, which is the primary issue that smoking bans address. Let's face it: second-hand smoke is a real health risk that causes an increased risk of all sorts of diseases.

To what extent does the externality of second-hand smoke actually effect other people? Air and water pollution, for example, affect public goods. Smoking bans, on the other hand, primarily target the private sector. If a consumer does not like the fact that smoking is allowed in a given restaurant or bar, they can go to one where it is not allowed. Considering that 55% of Americans are in favor of a smoking ban, and this number does not even include other people who like smoke-free areas but are not as gung-ho to call for government intervention, I am willing to make an educated guess that most Americans want smoke-free establishments. If a customer is so opposed the fact that smoking is allowed in a given establishment, that customer will switch over to a competing business. So, if the demand for smoke-free establishments is climbing and climbing, then there might not even be a need for smoking bans in the long-run. Why? Businesses will realize that customers do not want to enter a smoke-filled establishment with ashtrays and cigarette butts everywhere. Unless a business wants to cater specifically to smokers, the proprietor will most likely prohibit smoking on the premises because bringing in the larger constituency of non-smokers translates into more profit. Either way, a business owner will either adjust accordingly to customer needs or go out of business.

Customers usually have the luxury of choosing an alternative provider for a given good or service so they can avoid the second-hand smoke. The same cannot be said for an employee, especially when the employer is making these decisions. A lot of the employees affected by the second-hand smoke are in the hospitality and entertainment sectors, and odds are that these jobs do not pay well. In a world with strictly competitive labor markets and no unemployment beyond the natural unemployment rate, I would argue that if the employee didn't like that they worked in a working environment with cigarette smoke, much like the customer, they could go elsewhere and simply find another job. It sounds like nice economic theory. The problem is that we do not live in that kind of world. We live in a world with real unemployment problems that affect people. The less education, experience, and skills one has, the more difficult it is to find a job. Since a great majority of these jobs are low-skilled, it is not that easy to "bounce back" or ask one's boss for a raise to financially compensate the additional risk taken for being exposed to second-hand smoke. The labor markets have labor rigidities, which is to say that it is not that simple to quit a job and find a new job if second-hand smoke is deemed to be that bothersome and detrimental to one's health. To paraphrase the Surgeon General (see Ch. 10), there is a legitimate negative externality on employees with regards to one's health (also see Meyers et al, 2009, which shows that smoking bans mean decreased rate of heart attacks), which is a clear violation of the non-agression axiom.

Conclusion: As can be seen throughout my blogging history, I would normally consider telling a proprietor what to do with their private property to practically be anathema. However, I have to remind myself that I am a consequentialist libertarian who believes in limited government. Aside from being a logical fallacy, I do not want to entertain a rebuttal based on the slippery slope argument because a partial smoking ban does not, in practice, translate to the government intervening in every facet of one's health.

When asking myself whether the government should intervene, I'm certainly not as simple-minded as "Of course the government should intervene! It can solve all of our problems." I first ask myself whether there is an actual market failure. If there is, I ask if there is a market solution to said market failure. If I realize that there is no market solution, I ask if there is a government solution that works. Typically, I find that such a solution does not work in practice. The point to make here is that in this case, a partial smoking ban works. 

I can think of alternative policies that can be implemented to potentially address the same issues. If an establishment decides to have both a smoking and non-smoking section, the government can mandate that there is a high surcharge or tax for sitting in the smoking section. That tax revenue can be collected to somehow compensate those who are exposed to second-hand smoke. The government can also provide an alluring enough of a tax credit to voluntarily ban smoking in an establishment, although where are we going to get the money? I could suggest that there is a licensing scheme in which an establishment would have to pay an exorbitant amount to allow for smoking, but that would be more difficult to regulate. Establishments could put up a sign for second-hand smokers warning them about the dangers of second-hand smoke, but effectiveness would be minimal. These alternatives might somewhat work, and could be used in concert with a partial smoking ban, but it would not be as effective as the partial ban (Hoffman and Nell, 2012). In summation, there are certain situations that merit reasonable, limited regulation, and given the nature of the negative externality, a partial smoking ban is one of those situations.

Unetaneh Tokef: Coming to Terms with Reality on Rosh Hashanah

Rosh Hashanah (רוש השנה), also known as the Jewish New Year, commemorates the creation of the universe. Although Rosh Hashanah is a time of great celebration, it is also a time of unease because Rosh Hashanah begins the Ten Days of Repentance (עשרת ימי תשובה). During Rosh Hashanah services, the liturgy is based on the motifs of G-d's sovereignty and judgement. One of the most controversial and powerful liturgical pieces during Rosh Hashanah is a poem (פיוט) known as Unetaneh Tokef (ונתנה תוקף).

The structure of the piece goes as follows: The heavenly court is assembled and G-d sits at the head of the court as the Judge. What is G-d judging? He is judging our actions. In front of Him sit the Book of Life [and the Book of Death]. On Rosh Hashanah, it is written, and on Yom Kippur, the Book of Life is sealed, which determines who lives and who dies. We are then reminded that no fate is set in stone, which is why Unetaneh Tokef states that tefilah, tzedakah, and teshuvah can avert the severity of the decree (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 44:12). G-d wants us to repent and return to His ways, hence why He gives us second chance. Finally, the poem calls attention to the fact that our origin is dust and our end is dust, and that G-d's existence is eternal.

After reading this piece, I can see why many Jews, myself included, have a problem with reading this piece. At first glance, Unetaneh Tokef illustrates a Deuteronomic view of G-d gathering the names of everyone, figuring out who has been naughty and who has been nice, and adjudicating a simplistic version of punishment and reward that makes me wonder about the role of free will in Jewish thought, especially since the poem states that G-d determines "who will enjoy tranquility and who will suffer," "who will be impoverished and who will be rich," and "who will be degraded and who will be exalted."

A literal reading of the poem forces me to question some things in the poem. G-d is infinite and incorporeal, so at the very least, G-d is literally not writing in a book. Additionally, if we are to read the poem literally, does this mean that G-d actually predetermines who lives and who dies within a given year? I cannot imagine G-d would grant us the gift of free will, the very thing that makes us human, only to take it away. I also find it troublesome that tefilah, tzedakah, and teshuvah during these ten days would merit another year of life, although the Talmudic precept (Rosh Hashanah 16a) applies year-round. How is that tefilah, tzedakah, and teshuvah can prevent earthquakes, cancer, or airplane accidents? But let's say that performing tefilah, tzedakah, and teshuvah can actually avert the decree [of evil]. What about good people who do these three actions and die? Did people who died in the Holocaust, in a hurricane, or in a car accident "get what they deserved?"  And what about evil people who completely ignore all of this: is it G-d's way of saying that evil people deserve another year of life?

How can one accept the poem literally? Poems aren't meant to be taken literally. That is why they are poems. Poetic license undoubtedly means usage of figurative language. Furthermore, given G-d's infinite nature, I feel compelled to read Unetaneh Tokef figuratively, much like I would with any other prayer. On some level, we have to read Unetaneh Tokef as if it were literal. However, we ultimately have to realize that Unetaneh Tokef has to be understood figuratively. So what is Unetaneh Tokef trying to convey here?  

When the poem says G-d determines "who lives and who dies," this is not literal. G-d is omniscient. G-d's omniscience is not the same thing as saying that He is micro-managing, e.g., G-d is not literally determining judgment on Rosh Hashanah. What G-d is writing in the Book of Life [or Death] are not His rulings. Especially considering the line of "who [will die] in his due time and who before" (מי בקצו ומי לא בקוצו), G-d is metaphorically exerting His omniscience and merely describing what will happen in the upcoming year.

The imagery of the Books of Life and Death, as well as Unetaneh Tokef as a whole, are to convey a sobering message: "We are not in control of everything. Life is ephemeral. You do not have forever. Repair that which is broken in your life and return to a sense of wholeness." Unetaneh Tokef reminds us that there are certain things that are within our control and certain things outside our control. We cannot change when or how we will die. We read this poem realizing our own mortality and how frail life can be. The strong language and literary devices that Unetaneh Tokef utilizes make us cognizant of this message.

Even with this frightening imagery of G-d determining who will live and die, the poem proceeds on an upside, mainly that our fate is not determined. We can do something to counter whatever wrong we have committed. Unetaneh Tokef shows us three paths for spiritual transformation: tefilah, tzedakah, and teshuvah. Tefilah, commonly translated as "prayer," is our attempt to communicate with G-d. Since G-d is omnsicient, and G-d is not a vending machine, our role in prayer is that we are vessels for blessing. When we realize G-d's existence and the blessings He bestows upon us, prayer has the powerful effect of changing that which is around us because prayer changes us. Tzedakah, which is mistranslated as "charity," is an externality involving material wealth and shows how we relate towards others through humility and generosity. Teshuvah, which comes from the Hebrew verb "to return" (לשוב), is much more of a repentant process than saying "I'm sorry." It is a process of truly changing oneself for the better and returning to our true essence.  

Performing the actions of tefilah, tzedakah, and teshuvah do not literally change whether we live or die in the upcoming year. G-d is constantly judging us (Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 16a). What changes is the effect of one's current spiritual condition. There is a personal transformation within us by performing these deeds: the blessing we receive, the forgiveness, the drive to become better human beings. The free will that we exert is a response within the confines of the events that are outside of one's control. G-d is a loving G-d, which is why shortly after the line about "tefilah, tzedakah, and teshuvah averting the decree", the poet reminds us that G-d does not desire death, but rather that one comes back to His ways and lives a full life.

The poem then continues on a more lowly note. "He [Man] is like a broken shard, like grass dried up, like a faded flower..."G-d exists and He is eternal. In comparison to G-d, we are "like whirling dust." Compared to G-d's existence, human existence is but a blip on the radar. Even in spite of human transience, the poem ends on a positive note: "[But] You are King, the Living and Everlasting." G-d makes it possible to connect with Him. G-d wants us to connect with Him, which is why He gives us the opportunity to do so.

This poem is not meant to cheat death or try to beg G-d for another year of life. Given the somber time of the year, it is also not meant to make us feel as if everything were hunky-dory and that the world is made of sunshine and rainbows. Unetaneh Tokef  is supposed to scare us and make us think in a profound manner. The poet wants us to recognize our humanity, as well as our vulnerabilities and frailties, at that given moment. Upon grappling, dealing with, and accepting our mortality, we are reminded that living a spiritual life means positively interacting with ourselves, with G-d, and with other human beings. Ultimately, the message behind Unetaneh Tokef is to come to terms with what it means to be human and to have that realization awaken our souls.

The Burning Question of Whether Judaism Can Permit Cremation

Death is not something I think about all that often. After all, Judaism is a life-affirming religion (Deuteronomy 30:19). When something such as the death of the mother of one of my Jewish friends lamentably occurs, it made me stop and think about mortality. Eventually, it got me thinking about cremation within the context of Jewish law. Traditionally speaking, Judaism has very much been anti-cremation, even in spite of the fact that neither the Torah nor the Tanach explicitly prohibit such a practice. Nevertheless, the prophet Amos (2:1) speaks of how the nation of Moab is punished for, amongst other things, cremation. The practice of burial is an a fortiori inference (קל וחומר) from Deuteronomy 21:22-23, i.e., if an executed criminal is to be buried a day after the execution, all the more so with those who do not commit capital offenses. Also, Abraham bought a plot of land for him and his wife (Genesis 23:7-9). The practice of burial was later codified into Jewish law (Yoreh De'ah 362:1), which is why cremation is prohibited in Orthodoxy. Conservative Judaism prohibits cremation, too. However, if a co-religionist does not take heed to the prohibition, the Conservative rabbi can officiate the funeral before the cremation. Reform Judaism permits cremation, although the movement states a preference for burial.

Those who are pro-cremation in a Jewish context usually cite environmental concerns or issues of a burial being prohibitively expensive. I almost felt compelled to ask myself about the issues surrounding this prohibition because I felt ignorant regarding its origin. That ignorance was twofold: a) I haven't had to deal with death in a Jewish context, and b) I didn't want to think about it. That worked until very recently, which is why I had to wonder the following: is there a justification for permitting cremation, or has Jewish law been right in prohibiting it for all these years?

One of the eschatological arguments used against cremation is that after the Messianic era, there will be a resurrection of the dead. This eschatological belief is strong enough where Maimonides included it as part of his Thirteen Principles. At least theoretically speaking, cremation disrupts that resurrection process, which supposedly creates problems. I have problem with using this as an argument against cremation. One is that ironically enough, Maimonides did not view the concept of resurrection literally. Maimonides viewed the soul as "pure intellect," and said intellect would "bask in His glory for all eternity." Essentially, Maimonides viewed "resurrection" to be synonymous with an eternal spiritual life (Commentary on Mishna, Sanhedrin 138; Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Teshuva, Ch. 8; also see "The Limits of Orthodox Theology" [p. 148-156]). Second, if G-d is omniscient and omnipotent (well, nearly omnipotent), how could this human act frustrate G-d's will? If G-d really wanted to, couldn't He just reproduce the body? Third, Judaism is not nearly as dogmatic about the afterlife as other religions are. Even if resurrection of the dead is considered "a central belief in Orthodoxy," there is still enough reason for skepticism about what the afterlife entails, or even if there is an afterlife. As such, I don't find this eschatological belief, especially unto itself, to have merit to be a reason to prohibit cremation, which is why I would assume there is something else acting as the basis for the prohibition.

There is the idea that one should permit cremation because it is environmentally friendly. Judaism does take environmental concerns into account, so how does that work here? Let's be honest. There are environmental costs both to burial and cremation. A burial takes up land, this is true. However, Jewish practice prohibits embalming fluid (which is very toxic and causes ground and water pollution) and burial is done in a casket made of soft wood to speed up the decomposition process, both of which make for eco-conscious burials. Considering what's emitted in the air at crematoria, I have to wonder about the environmental impact of cremation. Let's say for argument's sake that cremation is better for the environment (I'm not convinced of that point, but this is for argument's sake). When looking at environmental policy, one looks at broader effects, typically on a global level. Jews make up 0.2% of the world population. Even if cremation were better for the environment, how much of a net impact do you think that would have on the environmental footprint if 0.2% of the world's population changed their approach to dealing with corpses? In the grand scheme of things, this argument is, at best, negligible.

One of the strongest arguments in favor of cremation is convenience. With a cremation, one does not have to worry about visiting the gravesite, especially if it is far away. However, what you have to worry about is where to put the remains. It is hard to find an appropriate spot to put the remains. Having remains of a loved one in your house can be downright awkward, assuming that you are not fighting with other family members about who gets to keep the remains. Even if that works out, how long will that last? There will be a point down the road in which the remains will either be ignored or neglected. Cremated ashes were never meant to be stored with families in the long-run. And if one were to scatter the ashes to avoid this headache, then future generations that desire to visit the gravesite could not do so. Even so, it almost does not matter if the gravesite is visited often because Moses never received any visitors, but he was nevertheless buried (Deuteronomy 34:6).

One also argues for convenience in terms of coping. In this day in age, we are have become accustomed to everything being instantaneous. We live in a society in which people go to fast food restaurants to get food right away and want an instant Internet connection because waiting longer than two seconds for a website to upload is too annoying. Cremation is no exception to this desire for instant gratification and satisfaction. Cremation is essentially pushing a button and moving on. The problem with applying instantaneity to this situation is that some things are not meant to be rushed, and Jewish tradition has enough insight to realize that reality. That would explain why the shiva process lasts for seven days, thirty days for loved ones who were even closer, and eleven months for parents. It takes time to grieve and process the loss of a loved one. Burial provides greater welfare to the mourner than cremation does because one goes through the motions (read: externalities) that one does not go through during a cremation process. When cremation takes place, very few, if any, individuals view the cremation because it is so violent. It is an action that lacks closure. When a burial of a loved one takes place, the ground is open, the casket goes into the ground, and something profound happens. At that moment, one recognizes that death is a natural part of life, thus helping realize our own mortality. When the coffin hits the ground, there is initial pain because the death is made real, but after that initial moment, it is easier to move on. Even after the funeral, it helps to have a proper place to visit so that the grieving process can go by more smoothly.

The other convenience argument used is the financial one, and it's a halachic argument I have used in the past. In a sizable amount of instances, cremations are cheaper. However, cremations often end up being comparable in cost because of additional costs (e.g., a viewing before the cremation [which entails renting a casket], a fancy urn, an urn burial, keeping the urn at a columbarium). Even if cremation ended up being cheaper, which is easiest to do through a direct cremation with none of the trimmings, there are some things for which price should not be an objection, and burial of a loved one is one of those things. But why should this not be treated like any other financial transaction in which money is the only factor?

The reason is to show honor for [the dignity of] the dead (כבוד המת), which is by far the most compelling reason in favor of burial. In Judaism, a human being is considered to be created in G-d's Image, and thusly should be treated with respect, even in death. If we are to dispose of inanimate objects such as tefillin, the mezuzah, and or a sefer Torah with such respect, קל וחומר, we should treat human beings all the more so with such postmortem respect. In the Talmud (Sotah 14a), it states that the Torah begins with an act of kindness and ends with an act of kindness. The act of kindness with which the Torah ends is the burial of Moses. The burial process is called חשד של אמת, literally meaning "true act of kindness," because the dead cannot [directly] return the favor, and is an act for which one does not expect any payback. Choosing to bury an individual is a manifestation of imitatio Dei, and that sentiment is shown throughout the process. There is always a person who stays with the body (שומר) from the death to the funeral to make sure nothing happens to the body. The chevra kadisha (חברא קדישא) washes the body with the utmost care, which is followed by a ritualistic washing called the taharah (טהרה), followed by the dressing of the body in simple white garments. During this time, one cannot engage in activities which the dead cannot do, e.g., eat, drink, wear tefillin, because it would be considered a mockery of the dead because, amongst other reasons, the dead cannot perform mitzvahs. Even the expediency with which the body is buried (Deuteronomy 21:22-23), i.e., usually within 24 hours of the death, shows respect for the deceased because exposure of the body for that long leads to putrefaction, which disdains [the memory of] the deceased.

All of this ceremony reinforces the Jewish idea that the body is the receptacle of the soul. Unlike other world religions, Jewish thought does not view the body at odds with the soul. Jewish spirituality means that the body works in conjunction with the spirit, not against it. The body is the vessel through which one performs mitzvahs. As such, Judaism expects us to express gratitude to that vessel by treating the body with care postmortem. Our actions speak louder than our words. Burial and cremation are a reflection of two different attitudes. In the former, the intrinsic elements do not change; they are given back to the ground (Genesis 3:19) and help rejuvenate the earth. Burial is a non-destructive and organic process (Talmud, Chullin 11a). Cremation represents something different. Burning something in a Jewish context, whether it is an idol (Deuteronomy 7:25) or chametz right before Passover, symbolizes abandonment and nullification. Cremation is a distorted grieving process that only results in ashes because a departed one's memory should not be abandoned or nullified.

In summation, cremation is decidedly not a Jewish practice. Cremation lacks the כבוד המת that is a part of Jewish burial. Cremation does not even provide what it advertises. When an individual is buried, it not only shows respect and dignity towards the deceased, but it also takes the mourners into account. Burial of the deceased is undoubtedly the option that is most congruent with Jewish values.

Parsha Ki Tavo: Modern-Day, Spiritual Fruitfulness

This week's Torah portion, Ki Tavo (Deuteronomy 26:1-29:8) commences with the practice of tithing one's first fruits (Deuteronomy 26:1-15). Based on Rashi's commentary, we know that the tithing was limited to the Seven Species (26:2), as well as the fact that they were confined to the Temple in Jerusalem during the season of rejoicing, i.e., between Shavuot and Sukkot (26:11). The first fruits from a tree that is less than three years old were sacrificed to G-d (26:2), whereas the first fruits from trees from fruit three years or older were donated to "the Levite, stranger, orphan, and widow" (26:12).  What we are observing is a form of sacrifice that has not been practiced since the fall of the Second Temple. Much like with the other forms of sacrifice, that's nearly 2,000 years of what seems to be total irrelevance to Jewish practice. Do we gloss over or dismiss the passage regarding fruit tithing because there currently is no Temple and sacrifices have since then ceased, or should we analyze the text to pull out more eternal and essential messages given within the passage? This would be a pretty short blog entry if I went for the former, so let's go with the latter here, shall we?

The first thing we should ask ourselves is why this practice existed in the first place. Fruit has a special place in Judaism. Aside from the separate blessing for [many] fruits (borei pri ha'etz; and borei pri hagafen for grapes), fruits are commonplace throughout Jewish holidays (e.g., apples on Rosh Hashanah, etrog for Sukkot, the Tu BeShevat seder, charoset at the Passover seder), so I'd say that fruit has plenty of symbolism in Judaism. Furthermore, when Judaism began, Jewish society was predominantly agrarian in nature. Since many Jews were farmers, fruit was a representation of a Jew's livelihood.

When we acquire the fruit of our labors, whether that is in the form of a paycheck or in actual agricultural produce, it becomes so easy to say "I worked for it. Everything I have earned is mine. Why should I have to part with anything that I have done through drudgery and labor?" Yes, we should make sure that we have are needs provided for, because "If I'm not for myself, who will be (Pirke Avot 1:14)?" However, when life is based on greed, we create instability and volatility in our interpersonal relations and institutions. What we need here is a spiritual view of economics that is well-balanced. When we think solely about ourselves, we lull ourselves into being greedy. The problem is that we don't live in isolation from others. We have G-d, family, friends, community, and society to worry about. To go back to that wonderful Jewish saying (ibid), "if I'm only for myself, then what am I?" One of the friendly reminders that G-d gives us in this tithing practice is that everything is not ours. We are not put on Earth simply to accrue material wealth. We are meant to use that material wealth as a positive force in society, to bring about a sense of responsibility to others, not to mention righteousness in this world. That is why the first fruits [that come from trees that a three-plus years old] are to be given to those who are less fortunate (Deuteronomy 26:12-13), which also is a reminder that we are to treat individuals with dignity because they are "created in His Image." The fruits of one's labor has purpose that transcends ourselves.

Aside from teaching the importance of generosity, G-d is reminding us that what we need in life is a well-grounded sense of gratitude. The fruit tithing is a tithing of thanksgiving. The passage that is recited during the tithing (Deuteronomy 26:5-10), and one that also happens to be in the Passover Haggadah,  reminds us of the tough times and how events in life can and do get better. While the Jews were reduced to a state of destitution (Abraham ben Izra, commentary on Deuteronomy 26:7) while being slaves in Egypt, they could not even acquire their own possessions (Sforno, commentary on Deuteronomy 26:6). Once out of slavery, they were free and thus able to acquire the fruits of their own labor.

What is interesting is that other sacrifices were offered in silence, but in this case, the passage in Deuteronomy 26:5-10 had to be verbalized (ibid, 26:5). Gratitude is so important that it required the externality of verbalization of the gratitude. The Talmudic rabbis bring up that happiness is being satisfied with one's lot (Pirke Avot 4:1). With that, R. Mordechai Gifter, zt"l, went as far as saying that being joyful for having one's lot is a commandment (Deuteronomy 26:11). The Israelities in the Torah, even after being slaves in Egypt and wandering in the desert for forty years, were still meant to feel gratitude and joy. We are meant to reflect on what it is to have ups and downs in life, but nevertheless ultimately be joyful for what we have (ibid), which is to say that Judaism likes to end on a positive note.

Although we no longer have a sacrificial system, we are taught a great deal from fruit tithing about how to live our lives. Give what you can and be thankful for what you have. When we act generously and show gratitude, those actions bear fruit in our lives in ways we could not imagine possible.

Why Legalizing Prostitution Wouldn't Be Horrifying

Commonly referred to as "the world's oldest profession," prostitution, which is the voluntary trade of sexual services in exchange for financial compensation, has such stigma attached to it that it has become illegal in many countries. Why is there such stigma in the first place? Does the prostitute do something so outrageous that there should be no legal market? While assessing the arguments for and against prostitution, I would like to state what I am trying not to do here. This is not me expressing my personal opinions on prostitution, this is not me trying to present a discussion on prostitution from the lens of Jewish law, and this is not a blog post about the wrongs of human trafficking because trading human beings and forcing them into sexual slavery is a different topic than the one presented here. What I am attempting to do is determine whether a voluntary economic transaction involving sexual favors should be legalized.

To understand why prostitution is illegal in many places, one has to understand the arguments behind its illegality because its current legal status expresses moral outrage towards prostitution. What I find interesting is that amongst the naysayers, you neither find the prostitute nor the client as clamoring to prohibit prostitution. The naysayers are not even involved within the transaction, and are those who don't have a stake or standing in the result of said transaction. In spite of all that, prostitution is illegal in many parts of the world. So what are the arguments used to prohibit prostitution?

Sex should not be commoditized: I agree that there is a qualitative difference between mechanical, emotionless sex and making love with someone whom you know and care about. In the latter, there are emotional bonds, commitment, and loyalty that elevate the value of having a sexual rapport with a spouse or partner. However, this does not mean that there is zero value in paying for sex. Otherwise, why would history teach us that there has always been a high demand for such services? Also, sex has multiple functions, including stress relief, sensual pleasure, or dealing with boredom or loneliness. Considering the declining marriage rate and the number of single people, sex for pay can become an acceptable substitute for those who cannot or do not want to have a [long-term] relationship.

One can claim that a good has infinite value and that it shouldn't be commoditized, whether that is art and music or selling human organs. Even so, the truth is we commoditize goods and services all the time. Even if listening to music at a concert can be considered "priceless," there are still ticket prices one has to pay in order to see a concert. The teacher or the fireman does altruistic work, but they are nevertheless provided a salary to compensate for the work done. More to the point, one pays for sex in some way or another, whether it's taking someone to dinner and a movie, listening to the other partner's woes, or dealing with the ups and downs of marriage. Every voluntary transaction has tradeoffs, and guess what? Sex is no different.

"Sex for money" is degrading: A voluntary action between two consenting adults should not be prohibited simply because it violates somebody else's sense of morality or personal preferences. Aside from using something as  subjective as "it's degrading" for the basis of determining policy, I find it amusing that if you film two individuals having sex, pay them for their services, and call it pornography, it's covered under the First Amendment, but if two consenting adults have sex for pay and it's not filmed, it's somehow so much worse that it is rendered illegal. Furthermore, a prostitute works few hours for good pay. Especially given the higher relative wages, how is it any less degrading than something mundane like being a housekeeper or flipping burgers at McDonald's?

Addressing other negative factors: One can argue that I am glorifying sex for pay and that I am ignoring other negative features associated with prostitution, whether that is harassment by policemen, exploitation by the pimp, or degrading work conditions. Harassment by policemen exists because prostitution is illegal. With an estimated average of approximately 79,000 arrests per annum from 2001-2009, you'd think that law enforcement would be able to better utilize their time and resources on something else, such as fighting human trafficking or sex abuse, rather than pursuing legal action for adults having consensual sex. The pimp is not inherently an unscrupulous career choice. Functionally speaking, the pimp is a broker between the prostitute and the client.  A broker brings two parties to a transaction in a way that would be cheaper than without the broker's services. In this case, the prostitute saves time and money looking for clients, and the clients have better assurances regarding the quality of the prostitute. Every career field has perfidious and corrupt individuals. If you judged a career choice based on a few bad apples, then you would have to legally prohibit most professions. The reason why the pimp is disproportionately able to get away with worker abuse is because the market has been driven to the underground market. If a pimp abuses a prostitute, the prostitute does not go to the police and have the crime reported not only because the prostitute would be arrested for prostitution, but also because of the societal stigma attached to prostitution. If the markets were made legal, prostitutes would have legal recourse and pimps would have greater incentive to not abuse prostitutes because they would be subject to implementing workers' rights. As for the appalling working conditions, they are made more appalling due to the fact that prostitutes are being forced into the underground market, which is categorically unsavory. Legalizing prostitution would mean overall better working conditions and a safer working environment.

Health factors: An important aspect of the working conditions is with regards to health issues. The argument used by those who are against prostitution is that legalizing prostitution will lead to more prostitution. I agree with that much. Regardless of whether legalized prostitution causes an increased demand or supply [or both], there will be an increased quantity in the services consumed. This is a problem for those who are anti-prostitution because it means the further spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). When the market is underground, prostitutes are much more likely to be threatened to perform their services without any safeguards to their personal health (e.g., lack of condom usage; Nevada study with Albert and Warner, 1998). When the markets are made legal, the prostitute can demand health care benefits. There are regulations that can be enacted to require prostitutes to undergo STD testing on a regular basis, as can be observed with the state of Nevada. Additionally, with the power of societal pressures and market forces, customers are going to have higher standards for the transaction, e.g., nicer facilities, prostitutes without STDs, all of which is to say that the transmission of STDs is less likely to occur when prostitution is legalized. As an additional point, much like any other health care decision, sexually active individuals need to be informed about the decisions that they make regarding their health. That is why sexual education, condom and birth control usage, and regular STD testing are all important.

Economic factors: If people are going to engage in commercial sex, there might as well be some economic benefit. Legalizing prostitution would mean a larger GDP, and it would translate into more government revenue from licensing fees and taxes, as is illustrated with the Netherlands and Germany. Since the prohibition would be lifted, it also would translate into more jobs.

Conclusion: In this country, we are supposed to have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and when put into practice, that means, amongst other things, the right to pay for sex. Even with an underground market, 15-20% of American men have engaged in commercial sex at least once in their lives (NCJRS, p. 10). Why prohibit such a voluntary transaction between two consenting adults? When prostitution is prohibited by the law, not only does the government compound the issues already involved with prostitution, but prohibition couples the headache by throwing on the unintended consequences involved. Instead of punishing consenting adults for a victimless crime, we should follow the examples of Italy, Canada, Nevada, and the Netherlands and create a regulatory system for prostitution. The World Health Organization recently released a publication illustrating the benefits of decriminalization to sex workers. If we are to "think of the children," the government can create red light districts to confine the business to a certain area that families can avoid. The government can also enact licensing fees and sin taxes (much to my dismay), force brothels to undergo inspections, or require prostitutes to undergo regular STD testing. While legalized prostitution has its risks, if it's between better working conditions for prostitutes, economic stimulus, and more freedom versus the status quo, I'll take the former any day.

8-13-2015 Addendum: The Institute of Economic Affairs released its report on the benefits of decriminalizing the sex industry. I was particularly intrigued by the argument that the economic independence of women and the subsequent withdrawal from the sex market will only increase demand for the sex industry.

8-21-2015 Addendum: Vox just put out a good article examining the merits of the studies of banning prostitution, and it looks like heading towards liberalization of the sex workers market is the way to go.

The Detriment of Keeping Interest Rates Artificially Low on Federal Student Loans

Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed the Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act of 2013 (H.R. 1911), which is supposed to keep interest rates for federal student loans at a more affordable rate. What the bill enacts is tying the interest rate for student loans to the yield on ten-year Treasury notes (See §2(a).3, which approximately works out to be 3.86% for undergraduate students and 5.42% for graduate students). The bill had overwhelming support from Congress, not to mention most Americans, which makes it seem like a good idea. Aside from the fact that these rates don't apply to my own college loans, what could possibly be wrong with maintaining artificially low interest rates for student loans?

Before answering that question, it would be prudent to answer some more important questions: What is the function of an interest rate? Why do lenders need to charge interest rates in the first place? Why not just have Congress mandate that the interest rate be 0% on all loans? Essentially, an interest rate is the cost of borrowing money. The interest rate not only compensates the lender for risk of potential loss on the principal, but it also compensates the lender for having foregone other investments that could have made with those assets. Like any other price, the interest rate relays information to the creditor, which is why the interest rate also takes into account such factors as inflation, length of time of the loan, the consumer's past credit history, as well as the price of the consumer wanting to hasten consumption [as opposed to deferring it]. This is how it is supposed to work, at least when the government doesn't intervene and crowd out the private sector.

The problem is that the government does interfere and does keep the interest rates artificially low, which means that any information that the interest rates were transmitting have been garbled, if not simply lost. With specific regards to the bill, proponents laud the fact that the interest rates on federal student loans are tied to yields on Treasury notes. It might sound nice to have interest rates tied to Treasury notes because "they're attached to 'stable' market forces." In reality, it's no less distortionary to have it tied to Treasury notes than have the government pick some arbitrary interest because guess who's distorting the interest rates on Treasury notes? The Federal Reserve. Using this interest rate as a metric of credit risk is no more informative than what a thirty-day weather forecast would tell me about the weather thirty days from now.

Since the interest is the way a financial institution makes profit, lending at a rate below what an undistorted market would have allowed translates into profit loss. The differential in interest rates means that somebody has to pay for the loss. Our government doesn't have any money of its own and has no concept of making profit, which is why it's in debt (Take a look at a dollar bill. On it, you'll see it says "This note is legal tender for all debts, private and public"). From where does the government accrue its money? The private sector. To pay for the price differential, the federal government either needs to increase tax rates to cover the costs, or it will kick the can down the road by acquiring more debt, thereby increasing the debt-to-GDP ratio. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the overall student loan program is going to cost the government $90B over the next ten years (Table 2, p. 5).

The average student debt for an individual with an undergraduate education is about $26,000. If you lower the interest from 6.8% to 3.4%, that translates into monthly difference of $44.32 for the individual. While I believe that $44.32 saved is $44.32 earned, this policy distracts people from the more worrisome aspect of financing college education, i.e., college is too expensive to begin with.

When the government sets interest rates below those of the private sector, the government artificially increases demand for a college education because students are now more willing to borrow more money than they would have otherwise. The end result is like any other government subsidy towards education. When demand increases, price also increases. Since colleges now have more consumers [of education], the colleges raise their tuition prices, which cause an upward price spiral in which college costs have increased beyond overall inflation. This only causes more and more student debt, which is exacerbated for those who don't even complete their Bachelor's degree. Even for those who complete their Bachelor's degree, it's hardly a rosy picture. Both the Center for College Affordability (also see here) and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York show that nearly half of college graduates have taken on jobs that do not require a Bachelor's degree (i.e., underemployment). And all of this without getting into credential inflation, which is the idea of the declining value of a Bachelor's degree caused by a decrease in the advantage that a degree holder has [in this case, because of artificially high demand for a college education].

The first step is for the government to stop subsidizing college education because there is evidently an overconsumption of college education. Young adults need to know there are alternatives to the traditional four-year education, whether that is through online/distance learning, technical college, two-year college, apprenticeships, acquiring certifications, starting a business, or directly entering the workforce. Once the postsecondary education marketplace is compelled to compete with alternatives, then we can begin to see a decrease in four-year college tuition prices.

7-7-2015 Addendum: I found another reason for the government to stop subsidizing student loans. For every dollar spent on student loans, the student experiences an average hike of 65 cents on tuition, according to the latest study from the New York Federal Reserve Bank.