Hypocrisy is the worst of all sins in the eyes of many. Anything else can be forgiven, other than advocating a standard that one personally does not live up to. There is, however, much to disagree with in this position, and in fact the very belief is the source of much moral harm.

To be fair, to a certain extent it is a question of semantics, how that word “hypocrisy” is being used. The above definition, failing to live up to one’s personal standards, is itself questionable. Nonetheless, it is the way the term is often used, and is a fair starting point.

Still, even that starting point itself is often unfairly assessed. Many accusations of hypocrisy are actually reflective only of arrogance and narrow-mindedness on the part of the accuser. That is to say, the allegation is sometimes that the accused opposes a specific action or attitude and yet is comfortable with his own indulgence in that attitude. Often, however, the claim of inconsistency is subjective; the accuser takes the two cases to be comparable, and thus it is hypocritical of the accused to treat his own beliefs differently than he does those of others; but the accused may simply disagree that the two indeed are comparable, and thus the allegation merely boils down to differing opinions as to what is or isn’t in the same category.

Still, there are occasions when the accused is genuinely guilty of subscribing to a double standard of one expectation from others and a different one of himself. Nonetheless, it is still unfair to paint him with the dreaded label of “hypocrite”, when, in truth, it is actually simple inconsistency.

True hypocrisy, if we are willing to define it differently, can be acknowledged as an egregious offense, actual fakery in the representation of one’s true beliefs and essence. The Rabbis condemned such behavior as not only false, but dangerous for society and demanded that such hypocrites (“chanafim”) be exposed and their harmful potential neutralized (Yoma 86b; see Resp. Mishpetei Uziel, II, YD, tinyana, 46).

But if inconsistency, or even blindness to one’s own double standard, is to be equated with hypocrisy, and termed the summum malum, the greatest evil, then humanity and morality are being severely undermined.

This is true because of both elements of the assertion: the labeling of “hypocritical” inconsistency as the worst of all crimes; and the downplaying of every other “non-hypocritical” offense: why should one be excused for egregious misbehavior simply because he has not taken a public stance against it? Limiting the condemnation of evil to only those who have expressed their own opposition to that behavior is the definition of subjective morality.

Inconsistency may be a flaw, but it is hardly evil; it is a deeply human attribute, and, in this regard, “There is no righteous man in the land who does good and does not sin.”

This is a point that has been asserted homiletically in a creative, multi-level play on words that is associated with this week’s Torah reading.

The portion this week deals with “negaim”, or blemishes on the body that are deemed ritually impure, and the rabbinic literature teaches that they are physical manifestations of spiritual failings. One who suspects he is carrying such an affliction is to be inspected by a Kohen, which is deemed “reiyah”, which literally translates as “seeing”. The mishnah (Negaim 2:5) teaches that the Kohen is authorized to inspect the blemish of any other person, but not one on his own body.

The Hebrew formulation of that rule is “Kol negaim adam roeh chutz mei-atzmo.” A Chasidic homiletic interpretation sees the application as more metaphorical, rendering the phrase as “one is able to recognize all (moral) blemishes, other than his own.”

Taking the interpretive license a step further, the founder of Chassidism, the Baal Shem Tov, is reported to have re-punctuated the phrase, putting a comma after the word “chutz”, and then rendering the message: “all blemishes that one sees in others are actually of his own.” (See Divrei Shalom, Korach, p. 56b). This is essentially a restatement of a more explicit Talmudic declaration: he who disqualifies others is doing so with his own disqualification (Yoma 70a).

Both of these interpretations, the first teaching of a tendency towards double standards, and the second describing the phenomenon psychologists call “projection”, speak to universally recognizable traits. In fact, among all the creative wordplay, one Hebrew word here may be the most significant: “kol”, all of the blemishes, all of the people, all of the time. What is being described here is a basic human tendency. To label this the worst of all sins is to indict all humanity.

Everyone has a natural bias towards themselves and their own self-image. Jewish law recognizes that “a person is a relative of himself” and no expectation of objectivity exists in one’s assessment of self.

This may be a flaw, and it certainly can be an impediment, but it is one that is natural and common to all. Not only is the hypocrisy label unfair when applied in this case; it creates a stigma and a........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)