Emor: Speech

The parsha is aptly named. We see that in the last story: the blasphemer who is stoned for his speech. The appropriateness of the title is exaggerated by translation. The word emor is not used in relation to the blasphemer. In the parsha, emor is used at the beginning to describe the manner in which Moses is to speak to a receptive audience: the anointed  sons of Aaron.  Emor is the exalted articulation of creation. The speech of the blasphemer is designated וַ֠יִּקֹּ֠ב, (vayikov); The root meaning is: "to pierce or puncture. The  instructions for the  disposition of the blasphemer  are stated with the word for speech that  usually precedes a command:  וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר ( vayidaber).

The idea of blasphemy is antithetical to free speech. I was  indoctrinated to believe that free speech is a core human value. It is an American value, enshrined in the first amendment (commandment?): 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The statement begins with an attempt to sever any possible relationship between religion and the state.  I have  no doubt that this was the 1789 understanding of  religion, meaning some type of Christianity.  Many of the  colonies that  this document was intended to unify were founded as havens for various Christian sects. But my modern understanding of religion has come to mean any set of  dogmatic beliefs that override reason. Thus, patriotism and the belief in fairness  are religious beliefs ( not to mention when life begins). Can  laws  really  avoid impacting these beliefs?

Connecting "abridging the freedom of speech " with religious freedom recognizes that people often see the ideas of others as irrational and dogmatic. It is acceptable to allow the free expression of crazy  ideas that can be dismissed. But we have seen times when  irrational and evil  statements  gain traction and become the governing principles. 

Free speech has been the basis of many revolutions: the American, (several) French, etc. Once the forces of Free Speech gained power, they have generally taken actions to abridge that powerful and unpredictable energy.  The  US Alien and Sedition act of 1798 essentially made it illegal to criticize the government ( until it expired in 1801).  Robepierre, whose ascent was based on free speech, silenced those who spoke against him with the guillotine. Much silencing has been based on Lev 24;14, which prescribes the penalty for blasphemy: 

 and let the community stone him.

I grew up with the ditty: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. " How many millions were hurt by the words of  Hitler?  How did the propaganda of Goebbels  make these outrages acceptable to the German nation and their sympathizers?  Would that they were stoned!

We, in the age of Twitter and Facebook, are more aware of the propaganda war that is called news. Every news story is framed by the author, at times with the "help" of professional influencers, to nudge  the viewer to a position.  Now we have scientific studies that attest to the power of social media to direct opinion an emotion. Now we can trust nothing.  

The story of the blasphemer purchases my trust through the details. He is confused, brought up in two worlds: Egyptian father, Hebrew mother. What was the penalty for preaching Israelite beliefs in Egypt?  Moshe says that the Hebrews would have been stoned had they done their sacrificial rite in Egypt. We do not know the Egyptian penalty for seditious speech, but I imagine it was severe. 

The blasphemer may have been unclear about the rules, he did not think his talk a crime. The word  וַ֠יִּקֹּ֠ב, (vayikov) used to describe his action implies an attack. Perhaps there was even some "truth", some element that felt plausible,  in his assault on Gd. Such appeal is common in propaganda and adds to its threat. 

When confronted with the act, having been admonished ( Lev 22;32)

וְלֹ֤א תְחַלְּלוּ֙ אֶת־שֵׁ֣ם קׇדְשִׁ֔י וְנִ֨קְדַּשְׁתִּ֔י בְּת֖וֹךְ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל

You shall not profane My holy name, that I may be sanctified in the midst of the Israelite people

Moshe and the people do not know what to do.  I think that is wonderful. The people have enough ambivalence to consider tolerating this challenge. The Divine instructions are not so forgiving. 

One of my strongest identifications with Jewishness is through the revolutionary beneficiaries of free speech: Albert Einstein, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, etc., etc. Whether they were right or wrong is less important than the frame they provided for the ensuing discussion. Orthodoxy is an older ,time tested frame. How do I know that my opinion is right? Does it stand up to relativity or dialectical materialism or the subconscious? Is it supported by Torah?

Let free speech enlighten. Stone the blasphemers before they perpetrate mass crimes.