As a rabbi and professor who writes every day, I pay special attention to the line in my Yom Kippur confession that asks pardon for sins of dibbur peh, the damage done simply by “speaking.” Included in that rubric is everything from conversations that are simply a waste of time, to arguing, lying, and using language lightly without regard for its weightiness: its power to convince but also to hurt.[i] Jewish law best captures that hurting power under the category of lashon hara, “evil speech.”
America, these days, is awash in concerns for “evil speech,” especially as it butts up against our first-amendment right to freedom of speech. A lengthy history of free speech by Princeton professor Fara Dabhoiwala demonstrates how complex the topic really is, but the book’s subtitle alerts us in advance to his conclusion: not just What is Free Speech? But The History of a Dangerous Idea!
Is the very idea of free speech dangerous? Judaism’s many warnings about speech going wrong might lead us to think so. Lashon Hara, it turns out, is but one of three categories of hurtful speech that Judaism prohibits. The least serious is r’chilut, repeating ordinary “gossip,” that might seem relatively innocuous but is, by definition, negative. Lashon hara is worse, in that it designates purposely malicious speech that will likely damage others, even if it is true.[ii] Outright slander, making up lies about someone, thereby ruining someone’s reputation (motsi shem ra), is the worst of the three.
Given these grave concerns, we might wonder if Judaism even does advocate freedom of speech. Our classic sources are certainly more focused on its limits. Some organizational websites try to demonstrate that the right of free speech is, nonetheless, a Talmudic value.[iii] Their evidence is, at best, suggestive.
But we shouldn’t expect anything better. Dabhoiwala traces the whole idea of free speech only to the 17th-century and its dawning Enlightenment.[iv] The question ought not to be whether the Rabbis anticipated the Enlightenment (why would they?) but whether Enlightenment ideals are at least consistent with rabbinic values. The best evidence regarding freedom of speech is the very fact that the Rabbis prohibit some categories of speech in the first place; from which we can deduce that any speech other than the restricted categories is permitted! Hence also the supporting evidence from Talmudic arguments, which encourage differences of opinion, and do not censor out the side that loses the argument.
So freedom of speech is a modern idea. The Talmud had not foreseen it; but would have welcomed it, albeit with due regard for the damage that improper speech can inflict.
I make this argument for both liberals and conservatives, because both sides accuse one another of limiting free speech, to advance each other’s perspective in today’s culture wars. With conservatives now in the ascendancy, it is the liberals who denounce the administration’s forbidden (and perhaps even punishable) word-list : such “woke” language as “non-binary” and “gender diversity.”[v] But when liberals held power, conservatives had similar grievances: having to say “the global south” rather than “the third world,” for instance, or (closer to home) having to worry about using the right pronouns. I make no judgement here on either set of claims. I just point out that both sides of the American divide feel victimized by having their freedom of speech curtailed.
More serious is the category of hate speech that Jewish tradition has long warned against. But what counts as hate speech? And does the first-amendment guarantee of free speech have limits. Apparently it does: we cannot maliciously yell “fire” in a crowded theater. White racists cannot burn a cross on someone’s lawn.
But things get tricky. When he was charged by President Johnson to plan the “War on Poverty,” sociologist (and later, senator) Daniel Patrick Moynihan believed that the horrific conditions in our inner-city ghettos is partly the result of problems within black families. Can Moynihan say so? He did. And even write a treatise on it? He did that too.[vi]
Suppose someone believes that Israel is an aggressor, a colonial power. Can they say that? Yes. Write a treatise on it? Also yes.
What they cannot do is say the same thing outside a crowded synagogue, in such a way as to suggest violent action, to a crowd of people waving Palestinian flags.
Why not?
It helps to distinguish “word” from “message.” The same words can imply vastly different messages, depending on how and in what context they are said. Limits on free speech are protections not just against words, but against the messages inherent in them. Freedom of speech protects the flow of ideas expressed usually (although not only) through words; it does not permit any and all messages.
One more thing. The Jewish laws of damages are framed illustratively: mayhem caused a goring ox, for example. A particularly interesting case is “pebbles,” damage caused not directly by the animal, but by pebbles that it kicks up and that fly off and injure someone at a distance. It is not just the message of the moment that we worry about; our concern (especially in this age of social media) is damage at a distance, how messages get spread and magnified until they pollute the very way people think, causing damage over time.
A reviewer of Dabhoiwala’s book concludes, “Such freedom [of speech], the skeptics insist, is not an unalloyed good. They’re right. It is an alloyed good. But alloyed goods… are the only kind we ever get.”[vii] And we need them.
[i] Iyyun T’efilah, Siddur Otsar Tefillot (Vilna: 1914; reprint. 1938), d.h. b’dibbur peh, vol 2, p. 1122
[ii] Maimonides, Hilchot de’ot 7:2.
[iii] See, e.g, https://truah.org/resources/freedom-of-speech-in-jewish-tradition/; https://rac.org/jewish-values-and-civil-liberties.
[iv] To John Milton’s Areopagitica (1644) and John Locke’s Letter Concerning Toleration (1689).
[v] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/07/us/trump-federal-agencies-websites-words-dei.html
[vi] The Negro Family: The Case for National Action (Washington, DC: The Office of Policy Planning and Research, U.S. Department of Labor, March 1965).
[vii] Kwame Anthony Appiah, “Watch What You Say,” The New York Review of Books (September 25, 2025), p. 66.
Rabbi Lawrence A. Hoffman, Ph.D. 
Where was Jesus during the Holocaust? Dead God = Dead religion about a false messiah.
משנה תורה — קידושין.
The Talmud “Framers” organized this codification of Great Sanhedrin judicial rulings through use of a semicolons which separate and easily identify one sub-chapter from another sub-chapter.
In the English language, a semicolon, most commonly used to link two independent, yet closely related clauses holding similar ideas or thoughts viewed from the different fixed perspectives. This concept reflects how witnesses perceive and interpret key yet subtle distinctions in a דיני נפשות murder trial.
By contrast the סדר יסודי built around the distinction between either a פ – פרק או ס – סוגיא in the Chumash. Whereas the organization יסודי of T’NaCH literature employs an void empty space gap which separates one sugya from another. In this latter instance, the authors and their descendants of the New Testament Protocols of the Elders of Zionism counterfeit fraud, ((By their fruits you shall know them)), perverted their bible sophomoric mistranslations into an order of Chapters and verses. Changing the “order” of a communicated idea directly compares to tuma propaganda rhetoric blood-libel slanders.
The difference between the common law commentators on the Talmud: B’HaG, Rif, Rosh, Baali Tosafot – the Big Four – from the statute law corrupters of judicial common law unto religious ritual religious observances, the disgraceful “all others post the Rambam Civil War” Reshonim, Acharonim, and Modern scholars — all these ירידות הדורות post Rambam Civil War generations, they totally ignore the cold hard fact that ORDER serves as the הגיונות יסודי – change the “order” of an idea and you get a different idea: GOD vs. DOG. Just that simple, no fancy dance’n.
The perverted Rambam statute law radically changed the Order יסודי wherein the Gemara sugyot have an ordered, purposely edited direct connection to a specific Mishna. The halachot which the Gemara introduces serve as judicial witnesses which permits down stream generations to view the language of the Mishna viewed from a fixed sugya perspective as opposed to another, slightly different fixed sugya perspective.
The statute religious ritual halachic codifications shattered this ordered Talmudic “mirror” into thousands of sharp shards that the framers of this Tannaim vs. Amoraim Mishna/Gemara “mirror” never intended. The Talmud originally intended to serve as a model for common law judicial courtrooms based upon a Torah written Constitutional mandate to achieve the faith of צדק צדק תרדוף. The Reshonim and later g’lut numb-skulls confused religious ritualism of halachic observances as equal to or even superior than the Torah faith to pursue judicial justice within the borders of our oath sworn home land! The disgrace of converting Judaism to resemble orthodox Xtianity or Islam, g’lut religious fanatics travel to Israel and smugly inform Israelis that they live in g’lut just as do American or whatever – Jews.
King Shlomo triggered another ירידות הדורות domino ripple effect when instead of establishment of Federal Sanhedrin common law courtrooms within the borders of his kingdom, king Shlomo pulled the Rambam stunt, and built his copy duplication of Goyim Temple/Cathedral buildings. The Book of מלכים mocks the wealth and prosperity which thrived during the “Golden Age” of king Shlomo, the avoda zarah worshipping רשע. The foundation of Civil War among a people – injustice and bureaucratic corruption! Civil War pursued King David and all generations of his descendants who presumed the crown of kingship defined the k’vanna of Moshiach! Bat-shit crazy stupid. Equal only to the JeZeus false messiah Roman counterfeit propaganda. The mitzva of Moshiach stands on the בנין אב יסודי of Moshe anointing Aaron and his sons as the Moshiach. Korbanot dedications require the k’vanna of צדק צדק תרדוף. Remembering the redemption from Egyptian slavery emphasizes the judicial oppression exorcised by the court of Par’o.
Israel delivered from Egyptian judicial oppression not to become frumm and blindly follow ritual halachic cult of personality religious rulings made by either a Reshon or Aucharon or modern religious “authority”. Religion not dependent upon the brit oath sworn lands. An examination of Reform Judaism leaders who declared “Berlin as their New Jerusalem” conclusively proves this point beyond a shadow of a doubt. Only within the borders of an independent Jewish homeland can Jews righteously pursue righteous judicial legislative review of statute laws passed by a Knesset Parliament!
The people requested a king from the prophet Shmuel so that he could lead them out to war against our enemies. The anointing of David as Moshiach prioritizes his role in the government function of establishment of foreign policy strategic and tactical objectives. Contrast the Sanhedrin courts whose jurisdiction restricted only to & within the borders of the Jewish state. Understanding the k’vanna of Legislative review as the Torah Constitutional mandate of משנה תורה, requires making subtle distinctions. ביקורת חקיקתית vs. סקירה חקיקתית. The former preferrable over the latter concept, because it emphasizes the required need for evaluation and\or critique wherein judicial courtrooms committed to punish the wicked and fairly compensate the innocent for damages suffered.
Disputes, fights, arguments all these verbs define the spirit of the tuma Yatzir within our hearts. It began with Chava vs. the serpent and the children produced by Adam and Chava. This recurring central theme of the Torah best expressed through the metaphor of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil vs. the Tree of Life and the Gemara of קידושין. A blessing requires שם ומלכות, not as some frumm (Yiddish) religious ritual worship of words printed in a Siddur! But rather שם – the dedication of tohor middot within the Yatzir Ha’Tov and מלכות\מלאך, the dedication of tohor Oral Torah spirits first revealed to Moshe at Horev; by means of swearing a Torah oath through making a “blessing”. Herein separates blessings from saying praises as expressed through reading Tehillem prayers.
Tefillah vs prayer – the two not the same. Impossible for a surgeon to cut out a tumor within a diseased critical organ within the body while wearing boxing gloves! Statute halachic law codes, starting with the Rambam’s av tuma avoda zara, places boxing gloves on the hands of Talmudic surgeons of common law. The oath created מלאך concealed within the details that establish Life or Death/tohor or tuma\Blessing or Curse.
Rav Aaron Nemuraskii, my rav, repeatedly warned me that the subject of tohor & tuma – the most complex & difficult subject the Sha’s addresses. The prostitute whores, New Testament and Koran, make no reference whatsoever to the distinction between tohor tuma spirits in eternal conflicts within the heart. Avoda zara substitutes belief in theologically created Creed Gods for the dedication of dominant tohor spirits which cause the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the heart to prevail as the dominant set of spirits. This unique spirituality totally alien to av tuma avoda zara; specifically in this examined case … the religious puke of the Rambam’s statute law perversion of Talmudic judicial common law. Child rape does not qualify as קידושין.
Admitted that during the times of the T’NaCH, a father could sell his minor daughter without her consent. But the Rambam 2nd halacha quoted on this current sugya, failed to make this critical distinction. A lot of water has gone under the bridge. Today Jewish Ashkenazi custom does not permit a man to marry multiple wives. The grossly over-simplified Rambam halachic ruling which permits child rape, an utter abomination. The language of our sugya debates grammar gender debates as a means to validate that women share equal rights together with men. Clearly the current generations we live in today hold radically different values than did the generation of the Rambam. Statute law compares to a frozen ritual stamp. But seasons change and frozen ice eventually thaws and flows under the bridge. פרדס logic dynamic, syllogism logic static. The רשע Rambam statute law code blew out the Hanukkah lights of freedom. Jewish Independence within the borders of the oath sworn lands defines the miracle of Hanukkah celebrated by generations who dedicate to study the Torah limited only to reliance upon the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic inductive reasoning.
This theological flaw made by all religions which promote belief in av tuma avoda zara – they rely upon deductive Greek syllogism logic; their framers therefore substitute a wicked “Devil” as their replacement theology for tuma middot. The latter tuma spirits empowers the Yatzir Ha’Raw within the heart to prevail over the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the heart. The Divine tohor middah אל continuously rebukes the Yatzir Ha’Tov to remember the sin of the Golden Calf. Wherein the ערב רב שאין להם יראת שמים, these assimilated and intermarried Israelites, they exchanged אלהים for the רוח שם השם לשמה. Avoda zara, by definition worships words as God, like as stated in the opening verses of the gospel of John. The righteous who develop their Good Name reputations/יראת שמים\ they forever abhor the avoda zara of worshipping words as either Gods or prayers directed to God(s), by saying word Divine Names.
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
וביאה איקרי דרך. (משלי ל) ודרך דבר בעלמה.
This verse often understood as 1. “The way of an eagle in the sky.” – This is often interpreted as expressing the mystery and wonder of nature. 2. “The way of a serpent on a rock.” – This illustrates the cleverness and stealth of the serpent. 3. “The way of a ship in the middle of the sea.” – This highlights the vastness and complexity of navigation. 4. “The way of a man with a maiden.” – This reflects human relationships and the complexities involved in love.
Clearly in the larger contexts of our Gemara, the sages bring משלי ל:יט to express the forth interpretive option. But פרדס logic does not compare to syllogism deductive logic – not by a long shot. The Holy Writing of the NaCH, they serve as a similar Gemara commentary to its permanent Mishna. The Holy Writing make a different perspective depth analysis of a comparative sugya within the Books of the Prophets!
The discipline of Talmudic common law scholarship absolutely requires without exception no “over-simplifications” of deep complex tohor middot spirits wherein the opposing Yatzirot compete to prevail within the bnai brit hearts. Oral Torah always addresses the revelation of the 13 middot לשמה revealed to Moshe at Horev after the sin of the Golden Calf. The latter remembered as an arrogant attempt to create God out of the midst of Fire to duplicate the revelation of the Torah at Sinai just 40 days prior. Avoda zara an av tuma evil spirit within the Yatzir Ha’Raw within the heart precisely because it continually attempts to create Gods using theological creeds or in the case of the Koran abomination an imaginary rhetoric propaganda Angel.
Torah common law learn T’NaCH Primary Sources through פרט\כלל Oral Torah logic – just that simple. No fancy dance’n. The Hebrew T’NaCH retains, despite Xtianity’s revisionist bible translation attempts to remove and change the Order of sugyot. Sugya integrity defines the discipline of both T’NaCH and Talmudic honest and real scholarship as opposed to and contrasted by the false Dof Yomi fraud. Common law simply not read like some New Testament/Koran Harry Potter book of fiction. פרדס logic dictates that down stream generations make a דרוש search for at least one בנין אב precedent. The Rambam word translation tossed salad perversion of Talmudic common law which stands upon making a דרוש research for comparative precedent cases directly compares to the puke opinion that child rape qualifies as kosher קידושין.
The small sugya which contains משלי ל:יט resembles הושע ב: יח-כב. Greek deductive syllogism logic simply not capable of learning this inductive reasoning which defines פרדס logic which trains students of T’NaCH/Talmudic common law to make a דרוש research for similar precedents. This פרדס Torah wisdom, completely alien to Rambam’s replacement theology which organized Talmudic halachot into egg crate deductive reasoning static and fixed legal categories. Rabbinic Judaism fumbled the ball. They failed to catch the Rambam error and correct it. Consequently, following the victory of the Tzeddukim Rambam Civil War, Orthodox Judaism went completely of the דרך.
T’NaCH/Talmudic פרדס logic scholarship demands making a דרוש research, first for a דברים\משנה תורה בנין אב, followed up with (starting with בראשית) a second Torah precedent search. Herein defines the proper discipline of Talmudic scholarship which continuously learns both the Talmud and the T’NaCH through a sacred קידושין common law relationship. Post the Rambam civil war, the perverted Yeshiva world divorced Talmudic scholarship from T’NaCH scholarship just as did the Rambam’s puke code divorced Halacha from its Aggada; a loom has its opposing warp weft threads and the Talmud weaves the “garments” of the culture of the chosen Cohen people.
A דברים\משנה תורה דרוש בנין אב … דברים יז:א — לא תזבח לה’ אלהיך שור ושה אשר יהיה בו מום כל דבר רע כי תועבת ה’ אלהיך הוא. Child rape a Torah abomination! A ספר בראשית דרוש בנין אב: בראשית כא:כב-לד. The mitzva of קידושין compares to the brit which Avraham swore with Avi-Melech. Avraham set aside 7 sheep and קידושין celebrates שבעה ברכות.
ודרך גבר בעלמה כן דרך אישה מנאפת. This phrase smells like Rambam’s child rape qualifies as קידושין utter narishkeit. הא תינח ביאה כסף ושטר מאי איכא למימר משום ביאה The Gemara discusses different means through which marriage can be validly initiated. Our Gemara questions the act of intercourse as a legal form of קידושין. Where do the three ways of “acquisition” overlap?
What does a man “acquire” through קידושין? The woman neither a slave nor a whore as Yechuda perceived Tamar. Regardless of the method, there has to be mutual consent and intent to establish a marital relationship. In all cases, both parties must agree to the terms of the marriage. What “lasting union” established through any of these over lapping ways to “acquire”? Intercourse alone, especially today, not sufficient to sanctify the Torah mitzva of קידושין. This unique mitzva does not apply to Goyim who rejected the Torah revelation at Sinai. Solid proof that the mitzva of קידושין more than simply a rabbinic mitzva.
Under what conditions can intercourse alone create a binding agreement? The opening question raised, “What does a Man ‘acquire’ through the mitzva דאורייתא of קידושין? Answer: A man acquires title to the נפש עולם הבאה from this woman. Meaning, the Man acquires title to the name of the children born into the future world to come! The precedent for this oath brit acquisition which the mitzva of קידושין precisely duplicates … the oath sworn at the brit cut between the pieces. Tohor time oriented commandments possess the holiness to create יש מאין the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot. Goyim cannot reproduce the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot.
Therefore the mitzva of קידושין actively entails both two kosher witnesses and a minyan of 10 men. The latter required to swear a Torah oath. Therefore should a רשע divorce his wife and refuse to give her her required גט which returns her נפש עולם הבאה, and therein shatters the קידושין acquisition. If a רשע profanes his oath sworn to the woman, that woman can ask a בית דין to decree the din of נידוי upon that רשע which duplicates through a דיוק the ‘new creation’ of a Ger Tzeddick. This permits the בית דין to retro-actively annul the קידושין and free that “chained” woman to raise Cohen seed of the Avot from a more worthy man.
The Rambam’s shallow over simplified statute law code failed to grasp the fundamental basics which define the Torah time oriented commandment of קידושין. The groans of agunah women, chained to a fate worse than child rape, this eternal guilt condemns the arrogance of the Rambam false posok halacha.