פרשת אמור תשי"ב - פרשת המקלל

And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel; and the son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp.

I believe that this is what our sages alluded to in Tanchuma Emor 23 when Rabbi Levi is quoted on these words as saying that the blasphemer of whom the Torah spoke here יצא, “left עולמו,” “his world,” and that this is the reason the word ויצא here was preceded by the word עולם, “world” in the last word of the previous paragraph. Man is perceived of as being עולם קטן, “a small world, a microcosm.” We find a reference to the word יצא meaning leaving one’s country such as in Ezekiel 36,20 or as meaning “emerging,” originating, such as in Ezekiel 15,7 מהאש יצאו, “they emerged from fire,” meaning that these people had been born as a result of burning sexual passion of a man and a woman when they embraced in a sexual embrace.

And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel; and the son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp.

ויצא בן אשה ישראלית AND THE SON OF THE ISRAELITISH WOMAN WENT OUT — Whence did he go out? Surely not from the camp, since Scripture states “and they strove in the camp”! Rabbi Levi said, “He went out from (by his blasphemous utterance he lost) his eternal life (עולמו; R. Levi evidently connects ויצא with the last word of v. 8; “the everlasting covenant, ברית עולם”). R. Berachya said, “He set forth (יצא) (started his argument) from the above section. He said sneeringly: “Every Sabbath he shall set it in order!? Surely it is the way of a king to eat fresh (lit., warm) bread every day; is it perhaps his way to eat bread nine days old (lit., cold bread of nine days)?! (The Hebrew word בתמיה “Say this in the intonation of a question” means nothing other than our question mark) (Midrash Tanchuma 38 23). A Baraitha states that ויצא means, he came out of the judicial court of Moses where he had been pronounced to be in the wrong in the following matter: although his father was an Egyptian he had gone to pitch his tent in the camp of the tribe of Dan to whom his mother belonged (cf. v. 11). They (the men of Dan) said to him, “What have you to do here" (lit., what is your character that gives you the right to come here?). He replied. “I am one of the children of the tribe of Dan”. Thereupon they said to him, “Scripture states: (Numbers 2:2) “Every man [of the children of Israel shall encamp] by his own standard, that bears the signs of their father’s house”! He thereupon went in to the judicial court of Moses to have the matter decided and came forth (יצא) declared to be in the wrong. He then stood up and blasphemed (Sifra, Emor, Section 14 1; Leviticus Rabbah 32 3).

And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying: Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin.

And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying: Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin.

(1) After completing the legislation about the various offerings that have to be brought in the tabernacle at various times of the day or year, and a list of whose function it was to bring these sacrifices, the Torah concludes by giving details of a fundamental service, i.e. the preparation of the menorah mornings and evenings by the priest. In Parshat Tetzaveh the service of the menorah is mentioned only to account for the need of priestly garments. We are told there that one does not appear in the tabernacle without proper garments for the service. (2) Similarly, once the menorah service has been mentioned, the service of the shulchan, table, is mentioned also. This is in line with what our sages mention on frequent occasions, "the menorah is in the South, the Table in the North," i.e. these two furnishings of the tabernacle perform functions which are mutually complementary, on opposite sides of the sanctuary. They are like opposite sides of a human being, one is unthinkable without the other. Or, as Solomon says in Proverbs 3,16, "long life on its right, glory and riches on its left." (3) Since the book of Leviticus deals with the superior character of the Jewish people, the way we have to refrain from contact with impurities more than any other nation, culminating in the special laws about foods, physical purity, holy days etc., the story of the blasphemer explains what could be the background of a person who does not fit the mould of the Jew, as envisioned by the whole book of Leviticus. If a Jewish woman forms a liaison with a gentile, such results as the blasphemer are possible. The Torah wishes to teach the functional wisdom of being selective in the choice of one's life partner. In other words, if we preserve G'ds light, we need worry less about the results of our marriages. (4) The quarrel between the two men concerned their rights of inheritance based on their respective ancestry. We find Yiphtach being chased away by his half brothers for similar reasons. (Judges 11,1-3) It is reasonable to assume that the blasphemer, having lost his claim before the tribunal of Moses, was not content to curse his antagonist or the judge, but vented his rage against the system, i.e. against G'd the legislator. Thus we get an insight into the background of the sin. (5) Since cursing G'd is certainly worse than cursing one's parents, a sin which carries the death penalty, there was a prima facie case for the death penalty. Since however, mere logic is not sufficient reason to impose a death penalty, and such a penalty must be stated in the Torah explicitly, they had to bring the blasphemer before Moses to enquire what precisely his penalty should be. Possibly, since he was a proselyte, being the issue of an Egyptian father and a Jewish mother, there had been some question whether Jewish law applied to him in every respect. This is the reason it is emphasized later, that the penalty is identical for both stranger and natural born citizen. (6) The placing of the witnesses' hands on the victim, expresses their conviction that not the witnesses cause the death of the victim but his own sin has caused it. (Rashi) The major reason however, is that since the witnesses had perforce to repeat the exact words used by the blasphemer when they gave their testimony, something extremely distasteful to them but required by halachah, (Sanhedrin 56) they symbolically return that utterance to the head of the accused. In this way they can feel free of the sin of having themselves uttered the words of the blasphemer. (7) Since it is a cardinal sin in any religion or nation to curse its deity, ish ish, anyone, wherever, whenever, it follows that for a Jew to do so when it involves the only true deity, the perpetrator will be executed, etc. The emphasis "the stranger and the natural born citizen alike," is to underline that someone should not think that this man had been so severely dealt with only because he was a stranger. (8) Our sages stipulate that murder is less serious than causing someone to commit a sin. (Sifrey Ki Teytze 31, section 872) In the former case, one only kills the body; in the latter one causes death to both body and soul. (9) The juxtaposition in our Parshah of killing a person, and killing an animal, emphasizes that causing death may involve more than killing the animalistic soul in man; one may terminate one's nefesh, soul. The Torah is thus talking about someone who causes the other person to sin, thus leading him to this dual death. Since it is inconceivable that the killer should wind up in olam haba, the world to come, whereas his victim should be condemned to eternal oblivion, the penalty for such cases is mot yumat, execution of the machti, the one who caused the death through having caused the victim to sin, as well as the simultaneous loss of olam haba of the machti, the one who caused the sin. However, when an act of murder is merely like that of killing an animal which has no olam haba to lose in any event, then the payment exacted is only nefesh tachat nefesh, animalistic life in return for animalistic life. In other words, only the body of the killer is executed, since his victim has not lost his share in the hereafter through the deed of the killer. The sequence of the verses is clear then. The blasphemer is a machti, since those who hear him and do not react are grossly guilty themselves, both in body and in soul. They have to remove that guilt by testifying and placing their hands on the sinner. Once we deal with the levels of punishment that fit the level of the crime, the remaining verses also fit into the picture. (10) In Mishpatim, the personal injury legislation deals only with material losses sustained, i.e. earning capacity, loss of dignity etc. Here we deal with loss of stature of a person due to injury inflicted. A priest, for instance, cannot perform service in the temple once his body has become blemished. Therefore, considerations such as pain due to burning and other personal injuries are not mentioned in this context. The payment for an animal includes not only the value of the meat, but must include replacing the animal with one of comparable work capacity. The words "you shall have one law," refer to a comparison for restitution purposes between killing an animal and killing a human being. The equality before the law of both stranger and natural born citizen, extends both in regard of capital offences and in respect of offences involving financial or property damages. (11) The verse "and the children of Israel did as the Lord had commanded them," refers to the acceptance by Israel of the newly enacted legislation from that time onwards.

And Cain said unto the LORD: ‘My punishment is greater than I can bear.

Peradventure there are fifty righteous within the city; wilt Thou indeed sweep away and not forgive the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?

Yet now, if Thou wilt forgive their sin—; and if not, blot me, I pray Thee, out of Thy book which Thou hast written.’

The LORD is slow to anger, and plenteous in lovingkindness, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation.