Here’s an ethical issue and Jewish source response:
Case
A talk show host intentionally brings two groups onto his show in order to incite them. One is a neo-Nazi fringe group and the other is a militant black group. A fight naturally breaks out, and numerous people get injured. They sue the talk show host for inciting this “riot.” At the shabbat table, the Becker family discusses whether the host can be found guilty from a Jewish perspective. On one hand, Judaism believes in free will, and each person is therefore a “free agent” to commit or not to commit any act. Based on this argument, the talk show host is not guilty. On the other hand, he intentionally brought these groups together to incite them to fight and improve ratings.
Answer
Who is responsible for the violence that breaks out?
[a] It is true that from a Jewish perspective, each person above the age of bar or bat mitzvah is responsible for his or her own actions. Maimonides teaches (Hilchot Kelayim 10:31) about a person who dresses another person in clothing that violates Jewish law. (Torah forbids Jews from wearing any fabric that mixes wool and linen.) If the person being dressed is unaware of the nature of the sinful clothing and then the “clother” is guilty of the sin. However, if the person being clothed was aware of the sinful clothing and did nothing to stop if, then he or she is indeed guilty. Therefore, the rioters must indeed be responsible for their actions as well as any damage they caused. They knew that violence was wrong. But this does not necessarily exonerate the inciter (i.e. the “clother”) from being guilty as well. Is the person who incites the sin also guilty?
[b] One of the commandments in the Torah is “You shall not place a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14). All of the commentaries understand that this verse refers to more than an actual blind person or an actual stumbling block. It is expanded to refer to any person who knowingly causes another person to “stumble in any act or into any sin, while the sinner is “blind” to the sin as it is being committed.
[c] The Talmud (Avoda Zara 6b) refers to a case of a Nazarite who has taken an oath not to drink wine. If you offer him wine, and he drinks it, then you have violated the prohibition against placing a stumbling block before the blind. Here, the Nazarite certainly is aware of the sin, but is “blinded” by his desire to drink wine, which you facilitate.
[d] The precedent for determining guilt for both the inciter and the actual sinner can be found in the very first sin in the Torah. The serpent was severely punished for inciting the woman to violate God’s word by eating the fruit. Soon after, we learn that Eve’s claim “I was just following orders” (Genesis 3:13-16) was not a legitimate defense and Eve was also punished. So, too, the rioters may not claim that it is not their fault since they were goaded to sin.
Joel Grishaver, “You Be the Judge 2”, pgs. 49-50
Used with permission from Joel Grishaver
