Emor 5779

(10) There came out among the Israelites one whose mother was Israelite and whose father was Egyptian. And a fight broke out in the camp between that half-Israelite and a certain Israelite.

(11) The son of the Israelite woman pronounced the Name in blasphemy, and he was brought to Moses—now his mother’s name was Shelomith daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan—

(12) and he was placed in custody, until the decision of the LORD should be made clear to them.

(13) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying:

(1) 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).

(2) בן איש מצרי THE SON OF AN EGYPTIAN MAN — It was the Egyptian whom Moses had killed (Leviticus Rabbah 32 4; cf. Exodus 2:11 where Scripture also uses the expression “איש מצרי”; cf. also Rashi thereon).

(3) בתוך בני ישראל AMONG THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL — This teaches us that he had become a proselyte (Sifra, Emor, Section 14 1).

(4) וינצו במחנה THEY QUARRELLED IN [or CONCERNING] THE CAMP, about matters connected with the camp (i. e. as to where was his proper place in the camp; Sifra, Emor, Section 14 1; cf. Rashi on ית‎ישראל‎ אשה ‎ויצא בן‎‎).

(5) ‎הישראלי‎ ואיש THE ISRAELITISH MAN — this was his opponent (Sifra, Emor, Section 14 1) who had prevented him from pitching his tent in the camp of Dan.

(17) If anyone kills any human being, he shall be put to death.

(18) One who kills a beast shall make restitution for it: life for life.

(19) If anyone maims his fellow, as he has done so shall it be done to him:

(20) fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The injury he inflicted on another shall be inflicted on him.

(21) One who kills a beast shall make restitution for it; but one who kills a human being shall be put to death.

(22) You shall have one standard for stranger and citizen alike: for I the LORD am your God.

(1) כן ינתן בו [AND IF A MAN CAUSES A BLEMISH IN HIS COMPANION…] SO SHALL IT BE DONE TO HIM — Our Rabbis explained that this does not mean the actual infliction of a blemish but that it means monetary compensation — that we estimate his (the injured man’s) value as a slave and the offender has to pay the difference between his value as an unmaimed man and that which he represents after the infliction of the injury. It is for this reason that the term נתן “to give” is written here referring to something that is given (passed) from hand to hand viz., money (Ketubot 32b; Bava Kamma 84a).

The Gemara challenges: But isn’t it written in the verses discussing one who injures another: “And a man who strikes any person mortally shall be put to death” (Leviticus 24:17), which presumably means that in the case of one who severs another’s extremity the same injury, i.e., death of a limb, is done to the one who caused the injury, and he does not pay monetary compensation? The Gemara answers: The verse does not mean that his limb shall be put to death, i.e., removed, but rather, that he should pay compensation with money.

The Gemara asks: From where do you say that the verse is referring to paying compensation with money? Why not say that he is punished with actual death i.e., loss of a limb?

The Gemara answers: That interpretation should not enter your mind for two reasons. One reason is that this verse is juxtaposed to the following verse: “One who strikes an animal mortally shall pay its compensation” (Leviticus 24:18). And furthermore, it is written after it: “A fracture for a fracture, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth; as he has given a blemish to a person, so shall it be given unto him” (Leviticus 24:20); and learn from the use of the word “given” that the verse is referring to money.

The Gemara asks: And what potential difficulty with the first derivation did the baraita refer to when it prefaced its second derivation with the phrase: If it is your wish to say?

The Gemara explains: The baraita means that a further difficulty was troubling to the tanna: What did you see that led you to derive the principle of monetary payment from the phrase “one who strikes an animal”? Why not derive the halakha from the verse: “One who strikes a person shall be put to death” (Leviticus 24:21), and learn that causing an injury renders one liable to receive physical retribution, which is analogous to death, and not monetary payment?

"An eye for an eye"... [Determining whether the punishment is monetary or physical] is one of the matters that the Torah left in the hand of the judges, for if applied to a rich man, who is not concerned with losing money, it would leave him content to harm people. The judges are enabled to create justice. Thus it is written, "an eye for an eye."