Franz Rosenzweig begins his book The Star of Redemption with the claim that “All cognition of the All originates in death, in the fear of death” (Franz Rosenzweig, The Star of Redemption, p. 3.).  These words were written by a man who fought in the First World War. In that terrible war, the fear of death was overwhelming. Rosenzweig saw many of his friends die, and came to understand that it is impossible to avoid confronting this difficult subject. Rosenzweig is critical of the philosophical approach that denies these mortal fears. He was one of Judaism’s leading existentialist thinkers, preferring to confront life’s real existential questions rather than conduct philosophical enquiries into theoretical issues divorced from real life.

The Bible does not ignore the fear of death. The Book of Leviticus treats extensively of impurity, sanctity, life and death. All of these concepts are inextricably related to term “blood”. The rituals and sacrifices of the Temple are all symbolically tied to the profound fear of death and to the miracle of life.

Parashat Tazri’a begins with the laws concerning the birth of a son or daughter (Leviticus 12:1-7). Reading these verses raises many questions, inasmuch as we would have expected that a woman who has given birth has achieved the highest level of holiness. After all, having created new life, she becomes like God. Yet, in these verses we read that giving birth renders her “impure.” This impurity is lifted only after she remains “in a state of blood purification” for a lengthy period of time: 33 days after the birth of a son, and 66 days after the birth of a daughter. This seems odd for several reasons. What is it about blood, before or after birth, that makes it impure? What is special about the “blood of purification”? Why does the birth of a daughter require a longer period of purification? Because purity and impurity in these verses is connected to blood – the pure and the impure – let us examine the Bible’s attitude toward blood in other contexts.

1. “Then He said, What have you done? Hark, your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground” (Genesis 4:10).

2. “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in His image did God make man” (Genesis 9:6).

3. “The priest shall put some of the blood on the horns of the altar of aromatic incense, which is in the Tent of Meeting, before the Lord; and the rest of the bull’s blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 4:7).

4. “For the life of all flesh – its blood is its life. Therefore I say to the Israelite people: You shall not partake of the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood. Anyone who partakes of it shall be cut off” (Leviticus 17:14).

The first references to blood, in the Book of Genesis, refer to instances of murder.  Leviticus introduces the prohibition upon eating blood because blood is life. It should be noted that in Genesis (2 above) we find that murder is portrayed as shofeh dam – “spills blood” – and the priest, too is instructed lishpoh – “to spill” - the blood of the sacrifice. It may reasonably be assumed that the use of the term “spill” is not unintended. In the first murder, that of Abel, the blood is “spilled” upon the ground and cries out from the ground. The priest “spills” the blood of the sacrifice at the base of the altar” that is “at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (the place where there is a constant, direct connection between God and Israel). Thus, the priest symbolically returns the soul of the life of the sacrifice – its blood - to God.

What connection is there between murder, sacrifice and the laws of birth? The miracle of birth involves great danger. It can end in death. “Impurity” signifies death, while “purity” is a symbol of life. A woman is described as “impure” upon giving birth because of the grave dangers inherent to her situation. She requires a longer period of purification after giving birth to a daughter because by that birth she has brought into being a new partner to the divine act of creation. This nearness to the divine requires a special level of purification. What we find here is not an attempt to deny the possibility of death, but rather an attempt to sanctify life with full awareness of the reality of death.

Metzorah  (leper) = Motzi lashon ra (slanderer)

In the course of the Knesset debate on the Defamation Law, 1965, we find the following statements:

• Dov Yosef (Minister of Justice):

Ancient Hebrew law, as well, did not countenance slander. In the Book of Leviticus, chapter 19, we find the following commandments one after the other: Do not deal basely with your countrymen (verse 16); Reprove your kinsman (verse 17). The first of these two commandments formed the basis of the prohibition of slander in Jewish law, while the second, the basis for free public debate. This house need not belabor the point that vigorous public debate is well known and permitted in Israel from its very earliest beginnings as a nation. The prohibition upon slander did not prevent free debate, inasmuch as the freedom of debate does not require the freedom to defame.

• Moshe Una (National Religious Party):

In discussing the reasons for the destruction of the Temple, the Talmud says: “But the Second Temple, when they kept the Torah and the commandments and practiced good deeds, why was it destroyed? Because of gratuitous hatred.” And the Talmud explains that gratuitous hatred refers to slander…
From this we can learn how Judaism’s great leaders viewed slander as a factor in public life that had a determining influence upon Jewish history. If we translate this into modern terms, we can say that for the Sages nothing poses a greater threat to the freedom and independence of the Jewish nation than the proliferation of this scourge among the people…
(Proceedings of the Knesset, vol. 37)

1. If you could join this debate, what would you add?

2. Do we need a Defamation Law? Does such a law pose a danger to freedom of speech?

3. Can we make a clear distinction between defamatory speech and freedom of speech?

4. Do the recent press reports of the sexual conduct of various public figures constitute defamation?

5. Did the press deviate from the permissible boundaries of fair criticism in a free society?

6. Was Moshe Una correct is his assessment that “nothing poses a greater threat to the freedom and independence of the Jewish nation than the proliferation of this scourge among the people”?