October 16th
THIS WEEK IN THE TORAH
Rabbi David E. Ostrich
The following is Rabbi Ostrich’s D’var Torah for Kol Nidre.
Many years ago, a clergy friend of mine was audited by the Internal Revenue Service. It was one of the years when they targeted those in the religious professions. My friend was not a savvy financial wizard, and he entrusted his taxes to one of those tax services, i.e., he really did not know much about his own return. So, when the auditor asked him for a log to document his business mileage deduction, he did not know anything about it. The agent explained to him the need to keep a log of every pastoral trip and then said, “So, when I come back next week, I’ll want to see that mileage log.”
My friend, a good and pious man, but not so quick on the financial uptake, said, “I said I do not have a mileage log.” “But,” the agent protested, “Next week, when I come back, you’ll have the log for me to inspect?” “But I don’t have the mileage log,” my friend protested back. The agent tried again, “I mean the log you’ll have to show me next week.” My friend finally got the point. “Oh, that log. I’ll have it for you Monday.”
This helpful I.R.S. auditor, trying to educate my friend about the specifics of the tax form, was engaging in a behavior described some 2000 years ago in Pirke Avot 1.9: “Shimon ben Shetah said: Examine the witnesses diligently and be cautious in your words lest from them they learn to swear falsely.” This perek is one of many in our Tradition reminding us of the great power of words—and of the great danger in using words un-carefully. As modern Rabbi Rami Shapiro explains Reb Shimon’s words: “When seeking Truth, question thoughtfully. Choose your words carefully: A shrewd listener can detect your bias and, through your words, learn to lie. The ‘truths’ we desire support what we already know. We become victims of our own opinions and rationalizations. The Truth we need frees us from the known, makes us simple, and plants us firmly in Reality.”
Another teaching from Avot goes further. “Avtalion said: Sages, give heed to your words lest you incur the penalty of exile and be exiled to to a place of evil waters, and the disciples that come after you drink of them and die, and the name of Heaven be profaned.” (Avot 1.11) Again, Rabbi Rami Shapiro’s commentary: “Be careful with words. C-O-W gives no milk. M-A-N-U-R-E has no stench. L-O-V-E knows no passion. Mistake words for Truth, and you exile yourself from Reality. Others may follow and drink the poison of your confusion. They will die, and Truth will be defiled.”
There are a lot of words used in our civilization, and in the current issues facing our country, many of these words are not as clear as they could/should be.
Just the other day, I heard on NPR a sociology professor explain what the phrase “Defund the Police” really means. In other words, while the words seem to have a meaning, the different people who support the words mean them differently. Does it mean “abolish the police,” or does it mean “divert some police funding to social services?” Or does it ask for additional funds to be allocated to social service purposes? Despite the lack of clarity, the chant goes on.
I am not the first person to discuss the limits of bumper sticker politics or sound bites or phrases being used to encapsulate large and complex issues, but I must say, we are being plagued by the problem today, and I yearn for clarity and clear-headed thinking—for phrases that mean what they say.
There are many of these phrases—on both sides of the political divide, and, as I review some of them, notice the way the words are susceptible to widely variant interpretations—and how confusing this is when we have serious issues to resolve.
We can begin with the slogan “Black Lives Matter.” Of course, Black lives matter, but what about this phrase seems to provoke a kind of hesitation or defensiveness? Could it be that the phrase is often used in regard to conflicts between police officers and African American civilians, and that many of us are also concerned about the lives of the officers? I do not know of any reasonable person who thinks that Black lives do not matter, and I wonder whether the slogan would have been so controversial if it had been stated, “Black Lives Matter, Too.”
We could also ask about the term “Systemic Racism,” an idea whose definition I have had a hard time pinning down. Does it suggest that the system of America is structurally racist, or does it mean that the system has too many racists in it—racists who are perverting it for their immoral purposes? If we are going to hold such a term as a belief requirement for public servants, then we really need a more specific definition.
Or, we could consider the chant once heard at President Trump’s campaign rallies, “Lock her up!” This seems to be a reference to Hillary Clinton’s alleged e-mail improprieties as Secretary of State—or the tragic missteps in the attack on our consulate in Benghazi. According to the President’s apologists, the chanters were not actually calling for Secretary Clinton to be imprisoned. They just did not want her to win the election. In other words, rather than using words with actual meanings, the phrase was a kind of euphemistic expletive—which is not good news about the state of our language or of our thinking.
It sort of reminds me of a similar chant during the 1844 Presidential election, where James K. Polk defeated Senator Henry Clay with the slogan and song, “54.40 or Fight!” Its ostensible meaning was that our country’s northwestern border should go about halfway into what is now the Canadian Province of British Columbia. Once elected, the demand was quickly shelved, but people screamed and sang themselves hoarse over these words which apparently did not really mean what they said.
We could also probably discuss the actual meaning of President Trump’s battle cry about “draining the swamp” or “building a wall” on the whole Texas/Mexico border. The many “explanations” on both sides telling us what the words “really mean” are not helpful in problem solving.
I am also consternated by the use/misuse of words like Nazis and Genocide. I remember back in the 1960s and 1970s when people who did not like President Richard M. Nixon would call him a Nazi. Though I was not a fan, I remember trying to figure out how his particular policies were equivalent to the National Socialist Democratic Workers Party in Germany in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s. (They were not.)
I was similarly bothered when the policies of Israeli General then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon were described as Nazism. There may be plenty to disparage about Mr. Sharon’s attitudes and policies, but the actual defined word Nazi is wholly inappropriate. It seems to be more an expletive indicating severe disapproval rather than a word with a definition.
The same can be said of the word Genocide. The word actually has a definition: “the deliberate killing of a large group of people with the intent of destroying the ethnic, religious, racial, or national group.” It is what the Nazis tried to do to us Jews. It is what the Turks tried to do to the Armenians. It is what the Rwandan Hutus tried to do to the Tutsis.
It is not, however, an appropriate word to describe the Trans-Atlantic African Slave Trade. There are plenty of words to describe the horrific and terrible and unspeakable tragedy in which thousands of West Africans were kidnapped and forcibly brought to the Western Hemisphere for cruel bondage. The trauma of this experience still reverberates in the minds and souls of the descendants of the victims. This was a horrible crime against humanity, but it was not a genocide. It was many terrible things, but it was not an attempt to eliminate these people from the earth.
Another place where the word Genocide is inaccurate is in regard to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and Gaza. We could have an extensive discussion about Israeli’s policies, and there are, no doubt, some people in our congregation who decry Israel’s policies. But, it is not in any way a genocide.
I remember hearing Morton Klein, President of the Zionist Organization of America, critiquing the misuse of the term. He explained that the Palestinian population in 1967 was around a million people. Over the next several decades of Israeli occupation, that population grew to several million—in part because of how much better Israel’s water and sanitation and health care are to Jordan’s. As Dr. Klein quipped, “If it started at one million, and it’s now at four million, whoever is in charge of the ‘genocide’ is not doing a very good job.”
It is not a funny subject, but the misuse of this and other terms is its own sort of intellectual violence—skewing and warping the serious conversations that modern complexities require. There are real issues facing us, and they deserve systematic and acute analysis.
I understand the motivations for summary slogans and generalizations. Getting down into the weeds on any issue can be exhausting. How many times do we get tired of a long editorial or essay and simply jump to the conclusion? How many times do we doze off or space out when hearing a long and complex policy discussion? Sometimes, stating positions in shorter form is both necessary and helpful. However, reducing important discussions to one phrase slogans inevitably obscures the real issues and hampers deliberation. It also makes it hard to know what potential leaders intend to do.
When a leader or social critic uses inexact words and phrases in an attempt to ramp up emotions—words which then have to be “explained” as meaning something other than what they appear to say, then we are doing just what the ancient sage Avtalion warned us not to do. When we are not careful with words, the ones who listen will “drink the poison of confusion, and Truth will be defiled.” The progress needed so sorely in our society will not be made, and solutions will be obscured.
Let us be careful with our words, and let us demand that our leaders be careful as well. The gravity of our civic responsibilities demands clear and deliberate thinking and speaking.