Can a government force people to provide health care for others?

This goes to an argument between Richard Epstein and Dr. Michael Huemer. There is a legitimate argument for limited government. You have to see that debate. But the basic idea is the need for government is not the same as need for private institutions.
Can a government force people to provide health care for others?
My notes on
http://www.breitbart.com/  have mainly been along the lines of Reb Nachman who said to avoid doctors.
There is a lot to go into about this, but the main idea I wanted to say today was simply without any elaboration, that government is not a social contract. That is, there is something different about the need for a government that is not the same as an extension of social contract theory either of the Rashbam in Bava Metzia, nor John Locke nor Rousseau. 

I have to say that Richard Epstein wins the debate here. But that means that since government is a ding an sich a thing in itself its rights of contract are not unlimited. That is more or less what Epstein would say and does say I think. But he is looking at Roman Law and the Constitution of the USA. I am looking into the very essence of government in itself that I think is limited. 

people can be idols and idiots. Sometimes the smartest are the worst.

The religious world seems to have a problem concerning idolatry. And it does not help that the concept itself is fuzzy. And even worse is when people try to define it in such a way that leaves out their particular version of idolatry. 
One particular problem is the accepted belief that is something is authentically Jewish, it  can not be idolatry. And if some is not Jewish, then it automatically comes under the suspicion of being idolatrous. 
But, in fact, an idol of a gentile can be nullified. That is if the gentile himself abandons its worship. Not  Jewish idol.
The basic problems with idolatry are three things. One is the idol itself, another is things offered to the idol and the last is things that are vessels or ornaments  made to serve the idol. People can be things offered to idols, and they do not have to agree to it. As in fact in the days when people were, in fact, offered to idols it was never the case that they agreed. Rather by the time they realized what was happening it was too late to turn around. By joining their cult, one  becomes a thing offered to their idol.

And people can be idols themselves as we see in Sanhedrin pg 63  האומר עבדוני ואמר כן חייב. (A person says, "Serve me" is killed for seducing to idol worship. A person that agrees and says "yes" is also killed for worshiping an idol.) That is not only is the person that says "Serve me" is an idol and is killed for being a מסית ומדיח, but also the person that agrees and says, "yes" is also killed for serving an idol.

Idols an the vessels that serve them and food and vessels offered to them are forbidden to derive benefit from. They are also unclean [טמא]. What happens to the טומאה uncleanliness if the people that served it nullify it? In all the above cases the uncleanliness disappears except for food offered to the idol. That obviously remains forbidden, but the uncleanliness is a doubt if it goes off.

An idol that is worshiped by gentiles can be nullified and an idol that is worshiped by Jews can not.  What happens to the טומאה uncleanliness? This all starts in Tractate Avoda Zara 52a. R. Yochanan asked  R. Yanai what happens to the uncleanliness of food offered to an idol. The question is asked why did he ask about food? Why not ask about vessels? Vessels are not a question since they can be made pure by dipping them in a river or fresh spring thus the "Tumah" uncleanliness also goes off. Why then did he not ask about the idol itself? The idol itself is not question for since its status as an idol can go off of it when people no longer worship it, then its uncleanliness also goes off. But food is a doubt because it has no way of getting clean by dipping it in a river or ocean or spring.

There the Rambam and Tosphot and the Raavad all hold vessels that were offered to the idol and vessels used to serve the idol can have their uncleanliness taken off. But Rashi explains in that Gemara that vessels can be made pure just like their use for idolatry can be nullified. So Rashi obviously is explains our gemara here as referring on to vessels that are used to serve the idol, not to vessels that were offered to the idol since their prohibition for use never comes off.

Thus it is important not to serve a Jewish idol since the uncleanliness and the prohibition can never come off. We also see this in Sanhedrin circa 65. When a Jew leaves serving  a Jewish idol he dies (because his source of life is cut off.)  We actually since this in gentiles also. Even a gentile when he leaves a cult that he was involved with, he looses his life source and dies spiritually--and sometimes physically. This you always see in people that break away from cults. They never get back on  track no matter how hard they try. Or they just go and join some worse cult.

Each of the different schools of Musar

Each of the different schools of Musar {Ethics} of Reb Israel Salanter emphasized a different facet or face of Musar.  And this tendency I have traced to different aspects of Musar in itself.
This can be confusing. And outside of that there were great people like Reb Chaim Solveitchik that simply did not let Musar into their yeshivas. To Reb Chaim, Yeshiva was for Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot. Full Stop. [This opinion, as far as I know, was shared by the Chazon Ish].

None of them liked the השכלה (Haskalah) which was the Jewish version of the Enlightenment.

The arguments against the Enlightenment itself seem to me to be appropriate the the Jewish version.
That is, starting from Jonathan Swift  up to and including Johann  Georg Hamann and Joseph de Maistre. I think you could include Allen Bloom, because in the long run his book is a critique on the Enlightenment from the aspects of seeings its bad effects (Closing of the American Mind.)

The most powerful critique is of course The Closing of the American Mind . Every sentence in that book contains a whole university education all in itself.

It is for this reason that I see the Rambam as giving a solution to this problem with his balanced approach (1) The Oral and Written Law of Moses (2) Physics (3) Metaphysics. That is he saw each of these as an important component of every persons's education. That is as universal and necessary. Sine qua non. Without which nothing else can happen.

My own approach to Musar is that it is like water. You need it but you do not want to drink so much as to overload your kidneys.
To me is is an essential vitamin, but I can not see how doing it hours every day [as the Musar movement intended] would help anything. There also seems to be no evidence that more that 30 minutes per day helps anything. 
While Reb Israel Salanter was certainly right about the need for character development, learning tons of Musar does not seem to help. If anything, it hurts. 
Instead, I suggest a Jewish version of the Boy Scouts, or like they have in Israel the "Tzofim" [Scouts].

That is to put it all together-- my idea of  a proper education is the Law of Moses [Oral and Written Law] Physics, Metaphysics, Survival Skills, Music.

There are problems with religion that the counter Enlightenment does not deal with very well. But the experience of living in the religious world has convinced me the truth of Reb Nachman who said most teachers of Torah were demonic.  תלמידי חכמים שדיין יהודאיים. Rav Israel Oddessar the founder of the Na Nach group certainly stressed this point and from what I have seen he was right on the money. So to my view this balanced approach of the Rambam make the most sense.

The problem is this. There are good arguments for the importance of keeping the Law of Moses, the oral and written Law. But as soon as one wants to do that, right away the Satan sends his messengers to mess the whole thing up. Most often the very desire to keep the holy Torah causes people more sin than if they had just remained secular. The way the messengers of Satan get into the door is by  a kind of scam in which they try present themselves as Torah teachers. My impression is that the best thing to do with them is to shoot them on sight. [If not for the problem that that would mess up the drive way or side walk.] The enlightenment did not arrive in a vacuum. Nor did the Rambam decide to combine faith with Aristotle and Plato because of some whim. He saw faith a reason as being so connect that one could not exist without the other. Faith as we see in the religious world  without Plato and Aristotle becomes fanatic insanity --not just for individuals but for whole communities. This is clear to anyone who has lived in a religious community. On the other hand Reason without the Revelation from Sinai is like a iron oven of ice.

Rambam: law of using an object dedicated to the Temple (7:9,10). Bava Metzia page 99, 43 a, tractate Meila page 20.

In terms of the law of Moses I wanted to mention that there is a sacrifice mentioned there for using something that was dedicated to the Temple in Jerusalem. It is one of the five guilt offerings. That is not the same as a sin offering.
The prohibition in the Torah come from the verse "You shall not eat in your gates.. and your vows."
So let us say you have money you have dedicated to the Temple. And you give it to a money changer or shop keeper to safeguard it. If it was wrapped in a way to show it should not be used and the money changer used it, he transgresses the prohibition. If it was not wrapped, and you said nothing to him about it, then no one transgresses the prohibition--to the Rambam. A teaching in pg. 43a the end of chapter המפקיד says you yourself did transgress. Why does the Rambam disagree? Because of a Mishna in Tracate Meila 20 that says simply the money changer does not transgress and stops at that. So we have no problem in understanding the Rambam. His opinion was that the Mishna in מעילה דף כ simply disagrees with the ברייתא. But what is the reasoning of the Rambam?
Rav Shach says the argument between the Mishna and the braita is this. The Braita holds if one gave money to a money-changer that was not wrapped up, it is meant as a loan, and thus when the changer gave it out, he meant it as a change in ownership. But since he had permission to exchange it, the prohibition goes back to the original owner who did not warn him that the money belongs to the Temple.  The Rambam holds however, based on that Mishna, that the money can be used by the changer, but not as a loan to the money changer. The money is not a loan. So at no point was there intention to take the money out of the possession of the Temple.

I should mention there are two types of מעילה. One is taking out of the possession of the Temple, and the other is deriving physical benefit from the object. In our case, there is no physical benefit, so the only question is that of taking the object of the the possession of the Temple.

This I think helps explain the Gemara in Bava Metzia 99 שואל One who borrows an ax of the Temple, if he chopped wood with it he transgress the prohibition, and if he did not chop, then he does not transgress. בקע בו מעל לא בקע בו לא מעל.The idea would be the same as in the case of the חלפן. When one borrows something there is no intention to take it out of the possession of the owner. So only when one uses the ax is does he transgress the prohibition of מעילה

______________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

In terms of the תורת משה I wanted to mention that there is a קרבן mentioned there for using something that was dedicated to the Temple in Jerusalem. It is one of the five קרבן אשם. That is not the same as a קרבן חטאת.
The prohibition in the Torah come from the verse "לא תוכל לאכל בשעריך מעשר דגנך .. ונדריך."
So let us say you have money you have dedicated to the Temple. And you give it to a money חלפן or shop keeper to safeguard it. If it was wrapped in a way to show it should not be used and the חלפן used it, he transgresses the prohibition. If it was not wrapped, and you said nothing to him about it then no one transgresses the prohibition to the רמב''ם. A teaching in בבא מציעא מ''ג ע''א the end of chapter המפקיד says גיזבר did transgress. Why does the רמב''ם disagree? Because of a משנה in מסכת מעילה that says simply the חלפן does not transgress stops at that. So we have no problem in understanding the רמב''ם. His opinion was that the משנה in מעילה דף כ simply disagrees with the ברייתא. But what is the reasoning of the רמב''ם?
רב שך says the argument between the משנה and the ברייתא is this. The ברייתא holds if one gave money to a  חלפן that was not wrapped up it is meant as a loan and thus when the חלפן gave it out, he meant it as a change in ownership. But since he had permission to exchange it the prohibition goes back to the original owner who did not warn him that the money belongs to the Temple.  The רמב''ם holds however based on that משנה that the money can be used by the חלפן but not as a loan to the חלפן. The money is not a loan. So at no point was there intention to take the money out of the possession of the Temple.

I should mention there are two types of מעילה. One is taking out of the possession of the Temple and the other is deriving physical benefit from the object. In out case there is no physical benefit so the only question is that of taking the object of the the possession of the Temple.
This I think helps explain the גמרא בבא מציעא צ''''ט ע''א that says השואל an ax of the Temple. בקע בו מעל לא בקע בו לא מעל.The idea would be the same as in the case of the חלפן. When one borrows something there is no intention to take it out of the possession of the owner. So only when one uses the ax is does he transgress the prohibition of מעילה

בתורת משה יש קרבן של המשתמש במשהו שהוקדש לבית המקדש בירושלים. זהו אחד מחמשת קרבן אשם. זה לא אותו הדבר כמו קרבן חטאת. האיסור בתורה בא מן הפסוק "לא תוכל לאכל בשעריך מעשר דגנך .. ונדריך." אז בואו נגיד שיש לך כסף שאתה הקדשת לבית המקדש ונתתו לגיזבר והוא נותן את הכסף לחלפן או בעל חנות כדי להגן עליו. אם זה היה עטוף דרך להראות שזה לא אמור לשמש בו והחלפן השתמש בו, הוא עובר איסור. אם זה לא היה עטוף, ואתה אמרת לו לא כלום, על זה אז אף אחד לא עובר את האיסור לדעת רמב''ם. אבל ההוראה בבבא מציעא מ''ג ע''א בסוף פרק המפקיד אומרת הגיזבר עשה עבירה ומעל. מדוע רמב''ם לא מסכים? בגלל משנה במסכת מעילה שאומרת פשוט החלפן לא מעל נקודה. אז אין לנו בעיה בהבנת רמב''ם. דעתו היתה כי המשנה במעילה דף כ' פשוט חולקת על הברייתא. אך מהו ההיגיון של רמב''ם? רב שך אומר הטיעון בין המשנה ואת ברייתא הוא זו. לברייתא אם אחד  נתן כסף לחלפן שלא היה עטוף היטב זה נועד כהלוואה ולכן כאשר החלפן החליף את זה, הוא התכוון ברצינות כשינוי בעלות. אבל מאז הוא קיבל רשות ללכת להחליף אותו האיסור חוזר לבעלים המקורים שלא הזהירו כי הכסף שייך לבית המקדש. רמב''ם מחזיק בשיטה מבוסתס אולם על כי המשנה שהכסף יכול לשמש את החלפן אבל לא כהלוואה אל החלפן. הכסף הוא לא הלוואה. אז בשום שלב לא היה כוונה לקחת את הכסף מתוך החזקה של בית המקדש. אני צריך להזכיר ישנם שני סוגים של מעילה. אחד הוא לוקח מתוך חזקת  המקדש והשני נובע מיתרון פיזי מהאובייקט. במקרה שלנו אין שום תועלת פיזית. אז השאלה היחידה היא לקחת את האובייקט מרשותו של בית המקדש. זה עוזר להסביר את הגמרא בבא מציעא צ'' ט ע''א שאומרת השואל גרזן של בית המקדש. בקע בו מעל, לא בקע בו לא מעל. הרעיון יהיה אותו הדבר כמו במקרה של החלפן. כאשר אחד ישאל משהו אין כוונה לקחת את זה מתוך החזקה של הבעלים. אז רק כאשר האדם משתמש בגרזן הוא עובר על איסור המעילה.

מה שאני עושה כאן הוא לעשות יותר מאשר ספקולציות. אני אומר כאן יש לנו הוכחה על מה שקורה ב''מ צ''ט ע''א. כל העניין הזה כאן של רב שך עולה בבירור  אשר השואל אינו נוטל מתוך החזקה של בית המקדש

The basic idea here was mentioned before in my blog. But what I am doing here is to do more than speculation. I am saying that here we have a proof about what is going on in the Gemara Bava Metzia page 99. This whole idea here of Rav Shach shows clearly that borrowing is not taking out of the possession of the Temple. In fact the relation between our Gemara on Page 99 and what Rav Shach says about the exchange of meila is so clear I am surprised he did not mention it himself!

T 28 A major  t28 in midi

The Rambam understands Physics and Metaphysics as the way to fulfill the mitzvas of Love and Fear of God.

Besides the Rambam my own parents saw something important about Physics.
[Though the Rambam's definition of this was a little different than the modern day one. The Rambam openly wrote he was referring to the Physics of the ancient Greeks which means basically Aristotelian Physics. Still the approach and subject matter is that which the Rambam was referring to. The Rambam did also add Metaphysics-which he did also say meant that of the Ancient Greeks. 
But in that case he would have been referring to the subject as it was developed later by Plotinus.

But in these cases, he was not just referring to the writings, but to the subject itself. Similarly in his approach to the Oral Law he divides it into two sections. One is the actual learning of the material which he meant in the sense of learning the Mishne Torah (of the Rambam himself) itself. The other is the  reasoning it out, which is the kind of process we see Reb Chaim Soloveitchik and Rav Shach engaging in. [This process had its beginnings with Rav Joseph Karo, but really came to its summit in the book of Ideas in the Rambam of Rav Soloveitchik and the Avi Ezri. ]

The Rambam understands Physics and Metaphysics as the way to fulfill the mitzvas of Love and Fear of God. This is hinted in the Mishne Torah, but stated openly in the Guide.
[The way that this makes sense to me is by means of Reb Nachman's ideas about the hidden Torah in the work of Creation. And the Hidden Statement of Creation. At least, that is how it makes sense to me.  And it seems to me the Rambam must have been looking at this in a similar fashion, but so far without a copy of the Guide I can't remember a specific place where he might have said this.]

In any case, with the Rambam we get a very elegant way of serving God, that make a lot of sense. It is a balanced approach: The Oral and Written Law of Moses, Physics, Metaphysics. To me this approach has a lot of charm and beauty to it. Besides the fact that it is כיבוד אב ואם honor of my father and mother which is one of the 613, and not a minor one either. 

[You can add this this basic structure to some degree but what ever you add has the danger of being bitul Torah. Bitul Torah the sin of not learning Torah when one has the time to do so.]

(note 1) In the original Musar movement there was the idea of spending as much time as possible learning Ethics {Medieval Musar}, but as you can see that idea was not really accepted in its entirety by the Musar Litvak yeshivas because of the law of limited returns. While important it is, adding to it beyond a half hour daily does not seem to add much.

(note 2) On the side of those that think Physics and Metaphysics are forbidden and also all secular subjects  would have to say that (1) those that supposedly only learn Torah are jerks. I saw enough of this in Israel. Torah without Derech Eretz is not Torah. סופה בטילה. But I have to agree a lot of secular subjects are in fact bitul Torah.

(note 3) Just for the record when I say Physics I am mainly referring to Quantum Field Theory and the later String Theory.  Metaphysics however I think best to confine to Aristotle, Plato, and Plotinus, though I see Hegel and Kant as being pretty important also.

(note 4) The Rambam is not referring to mysticism. Though at the time I was learning Musar and the Arizal, I thought he was. Now this is not to say there is no place for a mystic interpretation of the Guide. We know Rav Avraham Abulafia wrote a mystic commentary on the Guide. Still the Rambam in teh Guide itself says exactly what he meant by Physics and Metaphysics.

The attempt to crowd out and eliminate the white race does not stop at WASPs. It goes up to and includes white European Jews.

I tend to look at things in terms of religion just like economists tend to evaluate political issues base on economic considerations. But I feel my mode is more accurate because I believe that people's religious motivations are deeper and much more powerful than they even admit to themselves. 
Thus WASPs have had a hard time of it in the USA because their preachers have been giving them unrealistic messages. I am not saying this is the only problem. But you have to admit that it fits well with the  social justice problem. So if you put Sunday morning compassion for all mankind together with the weekday's social justice professors you get a lethal combination of idiocy.