RJ.org News and Views of Reform Jews
 
About | Submissions | Contact
topics

  • Torah
  • Defining Reform
  • Jewish History
  • Jewish Living
  • Community
  • Social Action
  • Israel/World
  • Holidays
  • Shabbat
  • Lifecycle
  • Youth & Family
  • College Life
  • Books
  • Ask The Rabbi

    Get Jewish World News in your inbox

    BOOKS & MUSIC

    Inside Intermarriage
    Inside Intermarriage:
    A Christian Partner's Perspective on Raising a Jewish Family

    by Jim Keen
    (URJ Press)

    The Torah
    The Torah: A Women's Commentary
    (URJ Press)

    Union for Reform Judaism

    D'var Torah: Parashat Emor - Tearing a Hole in Being
    May 4, 2009
    Torah (3 comments)

    by Rachel Adler
    (Originally published in Reform Voices of Torah and Ten Minutes of Torah)

    tmt-bug.jpgAt the end of Parashat Emor, a disturbing incident is related. In the heat of a fight, a man curses God and is stoned to death for blasphemy (Leviticus 24:10-23). It is understandable that readers may be repulsed by this narrative, and shocked and angry to find it in the Torah. I want to examine the incident more closely, however, to understand the meaning of what occurred in terms of the world of the story.

    The narrative does not give us the man's motive but presents him as socially marginal; the first fact we are given is that he is of mixed ancestry. His mother is an Israelite, while his father is an Egyptian. Significantly he is never called by name; his name has been erased by the text for his aggression against God's name. We learn only that a fight broke out in the camp between this man and an Israelite man, and during the fight, the man of mixed ancestry pronounced a curse on God using the Divine Name . He is brought to Moses and kept under guard while Moses consults God. We are even given the perpetrator's mother's name and lineage: She is Sh'lomit, daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan, the only woman named in the Book of Leviticus.

    The blasphemer is sentenced to be taken outside the camp. In a chilling ritual, all who heard him lay their hands upon his head, transferring their guilt for hearing the blasphemy onto the blasphemer himself (see Hilary Lipka on Emor in The Torah: A Women's Commentary , ed. Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Andrea L. Weiss [New York: URJ Press, 2008], p. 739). Then he is stoned to death. God further instructs that anyone, Israelite or stranger, who curses pronouncing the Name YHVH shall be put to death.

    A curious term is used for pronouncing the Name: nokeiv sheim YHVH . The Hebrew root nun-kuf-vet generally means "to pierce" or "to bore" a hole in something. Leviticus 24 is the only place in the Bible where this root is used to mean "to curse" (Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, Charles Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968], p. 666). In Leviticus 24:15, another phrase--with the Hebrew root kuf-lamed-lamed-- is used to mean cursing God : y'kaleil elohav , meaning "to treat [God] contemptuously" or "to despise" God. Cursing God is not the same as taking the name of God in vain, which some commentators interpret to mean swearing falsely by the Divine Name (see Ibn Ezra and Ramban on Exodus 20:7) and others explain that this means using God's name lightly or inappropriately (Rashi on Exodus 20:7).

    What did it mean in ancient Israel to blaspheme? The verb nun-kuf-vet suggests that cursing God is an act of violence. The name YHVH, derived from the verb "to be" may mean "The One Who Is" or "Was-Is-Will Be" or "Being" or "Becoming" (see Exodus 3:14). This is the name that is associated in Rabbinic texts with the attribute of mercy (see Sh'mot Rabbah 3:6). In ancient Israel, as in many cultures, the name partook of the reality it represented. Hence, the blasphemer who tears a hole in the Divine Name, tears a hole in the integrity of all that exists, all that the One Who Is Being called into being. Mary Douglas suggests that the blasphemer who hurled insults at God must be punished by having death hurled at him, in the form of stones. That is how she explains the repetition here of the law of "an eye for an eye" from its original location in Exodus 21:24 (Mary Douglas, Leviticus as Literature [London: Oxford University Press, 2000], pp. 206-207).

    The name of the parashah, Emor , means "Say." The entire section is about the divine sayings to Moses that establish an Israelite universe of meaning: regulations about fitness for the priesthood, fitness for sacrifice, sacred times of Sabbath and festivals, regulations about the sacred place, the Mishkan . The man who utters the blasphemy, it is hinted, is an "un-sayer." His mother is the daughter of Dibri, which can mean "the speaker." To blaspheme is to abuse language, the building blocks with which God created the universe. To blaspheme is to unspeak the world of meaning that one's community inhabits, hurtling it toward chaos and unmeaning.

    We are foggier than our ancestors on the concept of blasphemy but we still recognize that words are dangerous. An old adage declares, "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me," but anyone who has ever been verbally abused can attest that words can indeed hurt us and more lastingly than physical damage. Any history of propaganda or prejudice demonstrates how words can lead to bloodshed. A number of European countries have laws against hate speech. In Germany, Holocaust denial is a criminal offense. And even in the United States, free speech does not mean the freedom to say absolutely anything.

    We moderns have ideals we do not want to hear blasphemed but the name of God is not one of them. We no longer understand insulting God as insulting the wellspring of being itself nor do we understand how we tear holes in the world of meaning we inhabit, although we are constantly lamenting the drain of meaning and the proliferation of meaninglessness. Nevertheless, for millennia, Jews have preserved this name for God that we do not speak, a name whose inarticulable consonants overflow with meanings waiting to be revealed. In English as opposed to Hebrew, we use the name of God so lightly that it has become almost emptied of meaning. Go on Facebook, and you confront the ubiquitous OMG (oh my god) in entry after entry, a meaningless verbal tic analogous to "like" and "uh." Would any of us want our own names used this way?

    A return to executing blasphemers is obviously undesirable. Yet we live in a universe constituted by words. With lies, deceptions, threats, and curses we break and unmake the power of words to connect and sustain us. Names of God capture sustaining truths about the Divine. In a world of broken language, they are both infinitely powerful and infinitely fragile. How can we protect the name of God? I suggest two ways: first, by truly learning what God's names mean and growing within ourselves the human equivalents of divine attributes; second and paradoxically, by continuing to surround one unfathomable name with an eloquent silence.

    Rachel Adler is professor of Modern Jewish Thought and Judaism and Gender at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Los Angeles. She was one of the first theologians to integrate feminist perspectives and concerns into the interpretation of Jewish texts and the renewal of Jewish law and ethics. She is the author of Engendering Judaism, which won the National Jewish Book Award for Jewish Thought, and many articles.

    print Print     email Email     comment Comment    

     

    Comments

    M. B. said:

    Prof. Adler: The crime for which the God directed Moses to have the people execute the man was that during a fight he "pronounced the Name in blasphemy." Leviticus 24: 11. The King James translation is that he "blasphemed the name of the LORD."

    Merriam-Webster defines blaspheme as to

    1 : to speak of or address with irreverence
    2 : revile, abuse

    So what exactly did he do? Did he curse God, did he curse the man he was fighting, or did he misuse the name of God as, for instance in pronouncing a name which God did not allow to be pronounced? There is no doubt that whatever he did, God felt he should be executed for it. This was not a story of a human judge interpreting a statute or deciding what a just punishment would be, in which case we might debate whether the punishment was too harsh. This is the Lord Himself, the ultimate judge, ruling on the case.

    If the man was verbally insulting God, treating Him with disrespect, one can see the harm to the other people and the threat to interfere with God's plan. The foundation for all of Judaism is respect for the Lord, God of the Universe. That respect brings with it the willingness of the Jews to obey the commandments and to serve the Lord even in the direst of circumstances when it means the likely or certain suffering of emotional and/or physical injury or death as well as the willingness to place the Lord's interest above our own and that of our families. Loving God more than everything and everyone which precious to him, Job refused to curse God despite all the suffering he endured. Abraham, placing God first, was willing to sacrifice the son that he and Sarah had so longed for. For thousands of years, Jews have suffered under terrible conditions in order to follow God's directions as passed down to them in our Bible rather than convert to a favored, majority religion. All of this requires a deep reverence and love for the Lord.

    Thus blasphemy may have struck at the very heart of Judaism and threatened our religion as no other act could have.

    Martin Graffman said:

    I am concerned with the lack of Reform (modern liberal Jewish) growth, and the D'var Torah: Parashat Emor - Tearing a Hole in Being by Rachel Adler confirms my explanation for it. Reform Judaism has not grown (its numbers may be diminishing) because it is out of touch with modern Jews. The d'var is an Orthoox apology (defense of faith) and exemplifies the drift.
    According to the d'var, the unnamed man is exectuted because he "unsaid" the Divine "being," an act of violence. The modern Jew understands the need to destroy the insufficient so that he can create the sufficient, discard the old and no longer valid so that he he can produce the new and valid. Progress depends on admitting previously hopeful concepts are imperfect and we need to do better.
    The d'var is defense of religious concepts formed at least twenty-five hundtred years ago. Some of those concepts are wrong or incorrect or insufficient or invalid or imperfect. Perhaps "the man" was saying this. Perhaps, he had hoped to augment the prevailing concept of the Divine. He paid for it with his life. Most modern liberal Jews, Reform Jews, believe, the payment was unreasonable.
    A more productive question from a modern liberal Jewish perspective are the value and limits of religious/spiritual criticism. Many modern liberal Jews believe the Akedah indicates God's injustice and some believe Abraham was testing God. Are they blasphemers? No, they are courageous modern Jews who pursue religious/spiritual Truth by wrestling with God.

    Larry Kaufman said:

    Welcome to Dr. Graffman, who is, I believe, new to the RJ blogosphere, although he and I have been sparring partners in other forums. (For the language purists, fora.) Typically he shows us where the glass is empty that I am more inclined to see as half full.

    In particular, he expects the Reform movement to adapt itself to the needs of those on the outside, and scolds us for those whom we do not serve, ignoring the million and a half whom we do serve. I am reminded of my colleague who resigned from my former congregation over what he took as a personal slight, and suggested to his friend the regional director for the Union that the Union stimulate formation of a congregation for the unaffiliated.

    He also posits two interpretaions of the Akedah story as viewed by "many modern liberal Jews" -- an example of God's injustice or an example of Abraham testing God. How about the concept that would also be held by "many modern liberal Jews" that the Torah is a product of humans, that it sets forth a story that was a product of its time, but that as a totality has had the power to keep generations of Jews busy trying to extract values from the parts in which we find relevance and to explain away the parts that don't fit any kind of contemporary value system. (Which branch of Judaism still stones -- or ever stoned -- the disobedient son?

    Professor Adler states her aim explicitly -- to understand the meaning of what occurred in terms of the world of the story. That's a perfectly valid approach to any kind of literature, and in leeping with a Reform or Orthodox school of interpretation, even though an Orthodox interpreter might not accept a human origin for the text. The classic "pardes" way of looking at text still works for many of us -- the simple meaning of the words, the context, the rabbinic interpretations, and the hidden message.

    That differs from the Humpty-Dumpty school -- when I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.

    In any event, it's good to have a new voice in the discussion, one which is informed and concerned, and will bring us some different perspectives. Keep commenting, Marty.

    Post a comment