פרשת אמור תש"ג - 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.

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).

[the] Israelite man Scripture omits the definite article before the modified noun, as in “to [the] rich man” [II Samuel 12:4] and “[the] seventh day” [Genesis 2:3]. There is no known reason why the upcoming passage is included here. Perhaps the blasphemer spoke inappropriately regarding the showbread, or the oil, or the sacrifices.

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.

[the] Israelite man Scripture omits the definite article before the modified noun, as in “to [the] rich man” [II Samuel 12:4] and “[the] seventh day” [Genesis 2:3]. There is no known reason why the upcoming passage is included here. Perhaps the blasphemer spoke inappropriately regarding the showbread, or the oil, or the sacrifices.

And the son of the Israelitish woman blasphemed the Name, and cursed; and they brought him unto Moses. And his mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.

ויקב — Translate this as the Targum does: ופרש “and he pronounced”, thus ויקב … ויקלל means that he uttered the Tetragrammaton and by so doing blasphemed. It was the “Proper Name” which he had heard on Mount Sinai (cf. Sifra, Emor, Section 14 2 and Jeremiah Targ.).

ויקוב, he mentioned the holy name of G’d before cursing same.

he pronounced Some translate this word to mean “uttered”, as in “which the mouth of God shall express” [Isaiah 62:2] and “as specified by name” [Numbers 1:17]. Others render it along the lines of “How shall I curse” [Numbers 23:8]. The former explanation strikes me as more plausible.

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

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him; as well the stranger, as the home-born, when he blasphemeth the Name, shall be put to death.

ונשא חטאו [WHOSOEVER EXECRATETH HIS GOD] SHALL BEAR HIS SIN — i. e. shall be punished with excision if there was no legal warning preceding the offence (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 6; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 20:27).

איש איש כי יקלל אלוקיו, this refers to someone cursing G’d by using one of the names which describe His attributes, כנויים, without uttering the tetragram that is forbidden to be uttered except by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement in the sanctuary. The individual in question who curses the attribute he had referred to after mentioning it will be dealt with by G’d, ונשא עונו., If, however he uttered the name of G’d’s essence, and had been warned not to, and curses that name, he will be executed, (as happened in the incident described in our chapter).

the entire assembly meaning, the leaders of Israel. Some people apply the phrase who curses his Lord to the case when someone blasphemes secretly. The truth of the matter is that “lord” is a common noun. Both angels [Judges 13:22] [comment on Genesis 3:5] and judges [Exodus 22:27] are called “lords”. How can one know which meaning the blasphemer intended? However, if he utters the Glorious Name, which is not a descriptive name, and cannot be mistaken for a common noun, then it can only denote Him and no one else [cf. comment on Exodus 3:15]. Thus the meaning of this verse is: When someone blasphemes, if he pronounces the Name, then he is put to death for blaspheming the Name . This is what happened in the case of the Egyptian’s son. Notice that, out of respect for God, the passage on blasphemy does not mention the Name. both the alien and the native shall be put to death This leads us to the upcoming passage, which discusses assault (since the two men who fought, above, almost certainly struck one another). Although these laws were given before [Exodus 21:12 ff], they are repeated here to add the phrase “for both the alien and the native” [:22]. We begin with the case of one who kills any other person deliberately (except in wartime), whether the victim be an alien or a native.

ואיש כי יכה כל נפש אדם, seeing that among some nations cursing the deity is considered a very minor sin as we know from Isaiah 8,21 והתקצף וקלל במלכו ובאלוהיו, “and he shall rage against his king and his divinity, etc.;” we know from our sages in Sanhedrin 60 that when one hears a gentile blaspheme (even against our G’d) one need not rend one’s garment in mourning over having been a witness to such blasphemy, for if that were not the halachah our garments would consist of innumerable shreds.
Keeping this in mind, we might have assumed that the curse uttered by the blasphemer in our paragraph should have been treated as irrelevant. This is especially so since we are all aware that blaspheming against G’d does not harm Him in any way, is an exercise of man’s frustration, not something harmful to the object of his blasphemy. The Torah explains that the reason why this blasphemy is treated as if something of substance, G’d forbid, must be seen in a different context. We know from Torah legislation that each deliberate act of disobedience against G’d is basically an act of insurrection, mutiny, and we could expect it to be treated as such, i.e. as equivalent to forfeiting one’s life.
Nonetheless, the Torah has demonstrated that some deliberate sins rate quite different punishments than others. Basically, the Torah provides for financial penalties, physical punishment, and the death penalty. Clearly, this proves that G’d views different sins as differing in degree of insurrection, or due to different degrees of provocation experienced by the sinner. Killing a human being, basically deserves the death penalty, i.e. anything less would mean that the killer’s life is worth more than that of his victim. When someone kills an animal, this is not comparable, so that the penalty is financial, restitution to the owner for what he lost.
When someone causes injury (deliberately), if the injury was caused to a fellow human being, by rights, the offender should be punished by bodily punishment, unless he were physically too weak to endure such punishment. Seeing that it is impossible to impose an exact equivalent for the injury caused, the sages decided to substitute a financial penalty instead. We must not think that the offender thereby gets off lightly, as the financial compensation comprises five different categories of harm suffered by the injured party, including even his injured pride. (compare Baba Kamma 83)
When someone injures an animal the financial penalty is considerably milder. When someone causes injury to a human being we also distinguish between one human being and another. If he injured his father or mother, he is guilty of the death penalty, whereas an injury of similar severity to someone else draws only a financial penalty; when he injures an animal it is obvious that the penalty would only be financial. Cursing father or mother is not mentioned in the Torah here as it is in a different category altogether, seeing that this cannot be compared to blaspheming, words which by themselves have no effect, since what can man possibly do to harm G’d?. Parents may be harmed by their children’s curses though not necessarily visibly. [some of the wording is my own. Ed.]

And if a man maim his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him:

so shall be done to him Compare Samson’s words: “so have I done to them” [Judges 15:11] [where the term denotes equivalent, but not equal, compensation — Translator]. In addition, Sa‘adya Gaon has brought numerous other proofs, from simple common sense, that Scripture could not mean a fracture for a fracture literally. For example, since the original wound was not precisely calculated, how could one duplicate it exactly? If not, and if the wound is in a sensitive area, one might kill the guilty party inadvertently! If someone removed one-third, say, of another person’s eyelid, how could one possibly give the guilty party precisely that wound? Accordingly, the words of the tradition [Bava Qama 83b] must be correct. The true explanation in all these cases is that the guilty party deserves to lose an eye, but instead, he pays its monetary equivalent. If people should ask, “what if the guilty party is poor?” we answer that the law deals with the cases that are likely to occur. Besides, we can throw the question back at the questioners: What if the guilty party is blind? At least a poor person can conceivably become rich! [see also comment on Exodus 21:24] so it shall be given upon him [literally: with him] [to “give upon” someone in Hebrew means to fine him — Translator] Often, the letter bet [“with”] takes the place of the preposition “upon”. Compare, “upon [literally: with] which I rode” [Nehemiah 2:12]. Many other examples exist. or so it shall be given in him — i.e., so shall it be done to him — if he does not compensate his victim.