While the law doesn’t have the right to censor people, we as consumers and as a community should respond to hateful and violent speech like it’s an infectious disease – we should identify it quickly, isolate it, and if we can, cure it before it kills somebody.
Parashat Tazria-Metzorah 5770
By now we’ve all heard the term “hypertext.” The term was actually coined in 1965 by Ted Nelson, a pioneer of information technology. The idea of hypertext is that computers and the internet allow us to instantly link words, pictures, and other media to one another in webs of association. Well, Ted Nelson may have coined the term, but our ancient Jewish sages invented hypertext 2000 years ago. If you read the Torah, you won’t find underlined words that appear in blue. But, our rabbis had a unique way of interpreting Torah. They read the Torah as one unified self-referential text in which any word or concept could refer to other references to that same word or concept.[1] One of the ways they would figure out the meaning of a word in the Torah was by reference to other instances of that word elsewhere in the Bible. When our rabbis read the Torah, they had in mind everything else in the Torah… and they did this without computers!
In this week’s double portion – Tazria-Metzorah – we encounter one of these very difficult Biblical concepts. The Torah describes a scaly rash called tzaraat. If someone suspected they had this condition, they would go to a Cohen (a priest) to be examined. If the Cohen determined that it was, indeed, tzaraat the person was declared ritually impure and sent out of the camp for some time until the condition cleared up. The Torah does not explain the causes of this ailment, so when our sages read about this bizarre scaly skin eruption, they tried to figure out what it was and why it was of such enormous concern to our ancestors.
Many English translations render the word tzara’at as leprosy. But what is described in the Torah bears no resemblance to what is referred to today as Hansen’s Disease. We don’t know what tzara’at was, but we know that it terrified our ancestors and was one of the causes of ritual impurity. So, when our sages of the 1st and 2nd century tried to figure out tzaarat, they used their hypertext skills to find other references to the disorder. The most salient example is from the Book of Numbers, in which Aaron and Miriam criticize Moses, because of the race of his wife.[2] As punishment for her slander, God strikes Miriam with tzaraat. From these and other sources, our sages concluded that tzaraat was an outer sign of a moral failing. They associated this punishment with a host of sins categorized as lashon ha’rah – literally: “the evil tongue.” Lashon Harah can be many things including gossip, slander, lying, tale-bearing, verbal attacks, swearing falsely, and vulgar language.
I don’t know whether our sages thought their diagnosis of tzaraat was science or not. It is clear, though, that they regarded lashon ha’rah as a disease that threatens society. There’s a great deal of wisdom in their assessment and volumes have been written on the evils of Lashon Ha’rah. The most famous is by the Chafetz Hayyim, a great rabbi of the late 19th century.[3] The Chafetz Hayyim – drawing on earlier sources – says that unethical speech can be akin to murder and theft in its gravity! It is true that gossip can spread like an infectious rash. It’s true that slander can destroy reputations. Lashon Ha’rah can destabilize communities, undermine leadership, and cause endless feuds among families and friends. But is it really so bad? After all, gossip and slander are ubiquitous. Our media culture practically revels in it. People Magazine and cable news wouldn’t exist without lashon ha’rah. Yes, it can be corrosive, but is it really as serious as murder? Is it really fair to compare lashon ha’rah to a disease that renders a person unfit to live among other people!?
You and I live in a country where speech is regarded as a sacred right. The freedom to express and exchange ideas is a foundational principle of our nation. And I happen to be an ardent believer in the 1st Amendment. To my mind, the Constitution of the United States is a sacred text. And I agree with the Founders of our Country that the free exchange of ideas – even when offensive or odious – is the cornerstone of a vibrant democracy. There are, of course, limits – even legal limits – that can be imposed on speech. We all know you can’t falsely yell “fire” in a crowded theater because the ensuing panic could be fatal. But, on freedom of expression, I tend be a libertarian – I believe that in all but a few cases of clear incitement the government has no business dictating what we say or how we say it.
However, as Jews, I think we are confronted with a question: How do we as American Jews reconcile the strong aversion our tradition has to lashon ha’rah with our commitment to the freedoms of our democracy? What can we, as Jews, add to the public discourse on freedom of expression?
I believe freedom of speech is indeed sacrosanct. I don’t think the government should restrict expression; but, that doesn’t mean that irresponsible and hateful speech is without consequences. Speech that encourages violence, that incites crimes; speech that calls for sedition, that dehumanizes, may be protected by the first amendment, but as citizens, we still have a duty to respond to its destructive potential.
Today we are hearing in our public discourse words that could – arguably – be considered incitement to violence. We are hearing of death threats against public officials and coded language calling for citizens to take up arms against legitimate institutions of our government. I realize I’m about to wander into a minefield. I usually try to be more subtle from the pulpit; but, frankly, I’m scared. I’m scared that a dangerous atmosphere is being created – and all it takes is one fanatic who takes it all seriously. I know some of you are going to holler about this. I sincerely hope I’m wrong. And, when the dust settles on this period in our history, I give you permission to tell me “I told you so.” (I pray to God I won’t be the one saying “I told you so.”)
As I said, I strongly believe that the government has no right to suppress speech. But, I also think that our society has a duty to respond and can gain some wisdom from the Jewish tradition’s views on lashon ha’rah. So let’s consider for a few minutes how the Cohanim responded to tzara’at. If, as our sages deduced, this skin affliction is an outer sign of unethical speech, than perhaps the metaphor can be extended to our communal response.
In Biblical times, if a person was suspected of having tzaraat, the Cohen would come to their house and closely examine their skin in order to clearly identify the nature of the disorder. Not every rash was tzara’at. It had to present very specific symptoms. Similarly, we need to be fair. Not every vitriolic outburst is hate speech; not every hyperbolic criticism is incitement. But let’s also get some clarity on what we’re talking about. Speech that calls on people to commit illegal acts of violence is probably criminal – certainly immoral. But then there are also more subtle forms of incitement. There’s coded language that acts like a dog whistle to anyone who’s prone to violence. If someone were to convince you that the government is tyrannical, wouldn’t you logically conclude that a good citizen is obligated to take up arms against tyranny? If someone convinces you that a leader is a traitor, wouldn’t it be logical to conclude that he or she should be eliminated? After all, treason is a capital offense!
If you don’t believe me, recall the rhetorical atmosphere that preceded the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin (“alav ha’shalom”). I lived in Israel in 1994 and 1995. I saw with my own eyes billboards depicting the Prime Minister wearing Yasir Arafat’s head scarf emblazed with blood red letters reading “traitor” and worse yet “rodef” – a legal term in halakha for someone who you are obligated to kill in self-defense. I remember posters depicting Rabin as Hitler; Rabin with a sniper’s crosshairs over his face. All it takes is one guy that decides that it’s a call to arms (tragically, one did.) Like the Cohen inspecting an oozing sore, we too have to be vigilant, and we have to identify incitements to violence when we see it.
Second, after the priest identified the nature of the rash, he would declare it pure or impure. He would announce it publically. As a society, we have to be prepared to call out those who incite violence; and when someone deliberately and repeatedly lies for political advantage, we need to call it what it is - lying. When truly appropriate, we need to call people out. The best response to bad speech is not censorship, but rather more speech – truthful speech.
The third step that the Cohen took was to isolate and confine the person with tzaraat. Again, I’m not suggesting we censor anyone. Censorship is what governments do. On the other hand, there are hate mongers operating today under the auspices of corporate media outlets and privately owned publishers. Freedom of speech is a right vis-à-vis government; it doesn’t mean that people who purvey lies and incite violence should be given a platform from which to speak to millions of people every day. As consumers of media we also have a right to isolate and marginalize hate mongers and the companies who sponsor them.
And finally, the Cohen in ancient times would help the person with tzaraat return to society. Banishment wasn’t forever. In Biblical times when the rash healed, the person was invited back into the camp. He brought a guilt offering to the tabernacle, cleansed himself in the mikvah, and was reintegrated into society with no stigma attached. I’m not talking about demonizing people or suppressing speech with which we disagree. I’m talking about rooting out bad behavior. If people who have in the past disseminated lashon ha’rah are repentant; if they acknowledge their transgression and change their behavior, there is no need to demonize them. Again, I’m not suggesting we silence people for their views or their politics. I’m suggesting that, as consumers and citizens, we treat those who spread hateful and dehumanizing speech like lepers ; and instead we should welcome into the camp those who engage in civil and vigorous substantive debate. When our Nation’s Founders talked about Freedom of Speech that is what they were hoping for: impassioned public discourse – not political violence.
Our sages were correct when they linked tzaraat to evil speech. And while the law doesn’t have the right to censor people, we as individuals and as a community should respond to hateful and violent speech like it’s MRSA or TB – we should identify it quickly, isolate it, and if we can, cure it before it kills somebody.
Shabbat Shalom.
No comments:
Post a Comment