"To be a teacher in the right sense is to be a learner.  I am not a teacher, only a fellow student."  (Soren Kierkegaard)

• Home
• Professional Staff
• Board of Directors
• Calendar
• Ritual Events
• Education
  • Religious School
  • Adult Education
• Auxiliary Organizations
  • Youth Groups
  • Old Enough To Know Better
  • 50 is the New 30
  • Sisterhood
  • Men's Club
• Tikkun Olam
• Cemetery
• Volunteer Opportunities
• Donations & Payments
• Beth Sholom News
• Contact Us

A FEW PRE-SHABBAT WORDS FROM RABBI AARON

Speech that Condemns the Speaker
Below is most of an article [most citations removed] from the Jewish Encyclopedia regarding the Jewish legal evolution of blasphemy as a crime against God [or the King]. Following the article, there is a short Wikipedia excerpt regarding blasphemy in Christianity and in Islam. After those treatments, the question I want to pose is: what modern applications of this text might speak to us?

Jewish Law
Jewish law is based on the case of the blasphemer, one of the mixed multitude that went out of Egypt with the children of Israel (Leviticus 24:10-23). He blasphemed the name of the Lord and cursed; was sentenced to be taken without the camp; and it was decreed that all who heard him should lay their hands upon his head, and that all the congregation should stone him. The judgment in his case was formulated in a general law in verses 15 and 16. 

The term "ve-no?ev shem YHWH," used in verse 16 ("And he that blasphemes the name of the Lord," ), does not seem to signify that the mere pronunciation of the Ineffable Name was considered blasphemy, but that it was blasphemous to curse or revile the same. The later law, however, took the word "no?ev" in the sense of "pronouncing," and declared that the Ineffable Name must have been pronounced before the offender could be subjected to the punishment provided by the Law.

Both the lawgiver and the prophets speak of the blasphemer of God and of the king. To revile the king, who was God's representative, was apparently considered a species of blasphemy (Exodus 22:27; Isaiah 7: 21). This is furthermore shown in the case of Navot, the indictment against him being: "You did blaspheme God and the king" (I Kings 21:10). Beyond the reference to cursing in the text of Leviticus, there is nothing in the Biblical laws to indicate what constitutes the crime, and nothing to show that, to prove blasphemy, it was required to prove that the blasphemer had uttered the name of God. The Mishnah, however, laying stress on the term "no?ev," declares that the blasphemer is not guilty unless he pronounce the name of God. The Gemara goes further and extends the crime to an impious use of any words which indicate the sacred attributes of God, such as "The Holy One" or "The Merciful One." As long as the Jewish courts exercised criminal jurisdiction, the death penalty was inflicted only upon the blasphemer who used the Ineffable Name; but the blasphemer of God's attributes was subjected to corporal punishment. According to Talmudic tradition, the Sacred Name was in early times known to all; but later its use was restricted.

Even in taking testimony during the trial of a blasphemer, the witnesses who heard the blasphemy were not permitted to repeat the very words, but an arbitrary phrase was adopted to indicate the blasphemy. Thus, Rabbi Joshua ben ?ar?ah said: "Throughout the examination of the witnesses, 'Yosé' should be used for YHWH, and they should say, 'Yosé shall strike Yosé,' to indicate the blasphemy. At the conclusion of the trial sentence of death could not be passed by such testimony only, and it thus became necessary for one of the witnesses to use once the very words which they had heard. The court directed all persons not immediately concerned in the trial to be removed, and the chief witness was then addressed thus: "State literally what you heard"; and when he repeated the blasphemous words the judges stood up and rent their garments, that being the common sign of mourning. And the rents were not sewed up again, indicating the profound degree of the mourning. After the first witness had thus testified, the second and the following witnesses were not called on to repeat the identical words; but were obliged to say, "I also heard it thus" .

The text of the law in Leviticus provides that the stranger, as well as the native born, is liable to punishment for blasphemy. Talmudic tradition states that blasphemy was one of the seven crimes prohibited to the Children of Noah [humanity] , i.e., according to natural law. Although, according to Jewish law, a Jew who blasphemed a heathen deity was not guilty of the crime of blasphemy, Josephus to the contrary notwithstanding, yet a heathen might be guilty if he blasphemed the name of the Lord. The crime of the heathen blasphemer, though subjecting him to the penalty of death, did not oblige the Jewish by-standers to rend their garments. The Talmud bases the custom of rending the garments in such cases upon the Biblical precedent (in II Kings xviii. 37), where Eliakim and others rent their garments when they heard the blasphemy of Rab-shakeh; and in order to bring this view into harmony with the practise requiring the rending of garments only on hearing a blasphemy by a Jew, the Talmud states that Rab-shakeh was an apostate Jew.

According to Rabbi ?iyya, the rending of garments was no longer required after the fall of the Temple ("He who hears blasphemy nowadays is not obliged to rend his garments, because otherwise his garments would be nothing but tatters," Sanh.ib.); for the criminal jurisdiction of the Jewish courts had ceased, and the fear of death no longer deterred the blasphemers. The later law, however, restored the practise of rending the garments. In an opinion rendered by Gaon Rav Amram  he says, "He who hears his neighbor blaspheme must excommunicate him in these days, no matter what language was used. This is the practise of the pious. It is not necessary that the blasphemy be in Hebrew, and it makes no difference whether the Ineffable Name or the attributes of God be mentioned, whether the offender be a Jew or a non-Jew, whether the language be Hebrew or any other. These distinctions were made to distinguish the capital crime from the lesser offense; but for purposes of excommunication, it makes no difference whether the blasphemer be a heathen or a Jew, whether heuse the Sacred Name or the attributes, nor what language he uses; he must be excommunicated." And this opinion is, with slight modification, repeated in the Yoreh De'ah as follows: "He who hears the Name blasphemed, or even an attribute of God, such as 'The Forgiving One,' 'The Merciful One,' etc., even if pronounced in a foreign language, must rend his garments, provided he hear it from an Israelite (and an apostate is in these days considered a heathen); and even if he hear it from the mouth of the witness stating how the blasphemer blasphemed. But the witnesses testifying in court need not rend their garments again, having once done so when they first heard the blasphemy. 

Christian Law

In addition to the citations in Exodus and Leviticus, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is described in Luke 12:10,  as unforgivable - the eternal sin. However, there is dispute over what form this blasphemy may take and whether it qualifies as blasphemy in the conventional sense. Blasphemy has been condemned as a serious, or even the most serious, sin by the major creeds and Church theologians.

Thomas Aquinas says that “it is clear that blasphemy, which is a sin committed directly against God, is more grave than murder, which is a sin against one's neighbor. … it is called the most grievous sin, for as much as it makes every sin more grievous.”
The Book of Concord calls blasphemy “the greatest sin that can be outwardly committed”.
The Baptist Confession of Faith says: “Therefore, to swear vainly or rashly by the glorious and awesome name of God…is sinful, and to be regarded with disgust and detestation. …For by rash, false, and vain oaths, the Lord is provoked and because of them this land mourns.”
The Heidelberg Catechism answers question 100 about blasphemy by stating that “no sin is greater or provokes God's wrath more than the blaspheming of His Name”.
The Westminster Larger Catechism explains that “The sins forbidden in the third commandment are, the abuse of it in an ignorant, vain, irreverent, profane...mentioning...by blasphemy...to profane jests, ...vain janglings, ...to charms or sinful lusts and practices.”
Calvin found it intolerable “when a person is accused of blasphemy, to lay the blame on the ebullition of passion, as if God were to endure the penalty whenever we are provoked.”

Muslim Law
Blasphemy in Islam is irreverent behavior toward holy personages, religious artifacts, customs, and beliefs that Muslims respect. The penalties for such behavior vary by jurisdiction, and can include fines, imprisonment, flogging, amputation or beheading.

Fast Forward
The encyclopedia entry for blasphemy in Islam feels very different. Why? Think about Salman Rushdie living under the threat of the fatwa issued by the Ayatollah Khomeini back in 1989, or think about the 2004 murder of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh by a Muslim extremist. Christians and Jews viewed blasphemy with intense severity, but several centuries have passed since Christians have spilled blood over this act. Jewish courts haven't carried out such sentences in many centuries. While we may regard blasphemous speech as alarming or off-putting, we don't consider physical violence to be an acceptable option.

Context
As Americans we hold freedom of speech [including speech that we found highly objectionable] to be the right of every citizen. We recoil from the notion that the speaker of blasphemous ideas should be stoned in the public square. Clearly, there must be limits [threats to the public safety]. It can certainly be argued that poisonous words will find their mark with deadly consequences. The old texts still exert a strong pull even in the modern world. 

Some Hard Questions
Are there new categories of blasphemy - hate speech, cyber-bullying? Must the secular state abandon the notion of sacrosanct in favor of free expression; shorthand - what about burning the flag as a protected form of political expression?

Shabbat Shalom,
Rabbi Aaron