Parashat Emor and Blasphemy

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

(7) You shall not swear falsely by the name of the LORD your God; for the LORD will not clear one who swears falsely by His name.

(1) לשוא IN VAIN — for no valid reason, idly. What is a שבועת שוא, an oath taken for no valid reason? If one takes an oath declaring something, the nature of which is evident, to be different from what it is: e. g., swearing about a stone pillar that it is of gold (Shevuot 29a).

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.]

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).

(21) Death and life are in the power of the tongue; Those who love it will eat its fruit.

(13) Who is the man who is eager for life, who desires years of good fortune? (14) Guard your tongue from evil, your lips from deceitful speech.