Leviticus · Chapter 24

And Hashem spoke with Moses, saying:

Command the children of Israel that they bring to you pure pressed olive oil for illumination, to kindle the lamps continually.

צו את בני ישראל COMMAND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL [THAT THEY BRING UNTO THEE CLEAR OLIVE OIL, BEATEN, FOR THE LIGHT] — This is the section containing the commandment concerning the lamps, whilst the section beginning with ואתה תצוה (Exodus 27:20 ff.) which also deals with the lamp is only mentioned there for the sake of giving an orderly account of the work of the Tabernacle, to explain what the purpose of the candlestick was — for thus do those words ואתה תצוה imply: “and thou wilt at some future time command the Children of Israel” about this. שמן זית זך CLEAR OLIVE OIL — Three different qualities of oil come forth (are extracted) from the olive tree, the first of which is called זך, “clear”. They are all fully explained in Treatise Menachot 86a and in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Emor, Section 13 1-3). תמיד (continually not continuously) here implies from night to night. It has the same meaning as in עולת תמיד a “continual” burnt offering which was only sacrificed from day to day (cf. Rashi on Exodus 27:20).

COMMAND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. “This is the section containing the [actual] commandment of lighting the lamps. And the section of V’atah Tetzaveh (And thou shalt command) [where the same subject is mentioned], is stated only for the sake of giving an orderly account of the work of the Tabernacle, explaining what the purpose of the candelabrum is, and the sense of the verse there is as follows: ‘and thou wilt at some future time command the children of Israel on this matter.’” This is Rashi’s language. But it does not appear to me to be correct, for that section [there in Exodus 27:20] is not in fact adjoined to the section of the candelabrum [which is mentioned previously in Exodus 25:31-40]; and [also] it has already been stated, And he lighted the lamps before the Eternal, as the Eternal commanded Moses, thus both the commandment and fulfillment were already mentioned and kept! Rather, the need for [restatement of] this section is for two purposes. For there He commanded that they bring you a donation on the behalf of the children of Israel, that is to say, from every man with whom was found pure olive oil [beaten] for the light, together with the other donations for the Tabernacle. And so they did, as it is said, And the princes brought etc. and the spice, and the oil, for the light. And although it says there, it shall be a statute forever throughout their generations, this refers to the lighting of the lamps. But now the oil which the princes brought as a donation was used up, and therefore He commanded that the children of Israel take from the public treasury throughout the generations pure olive oil beaten for the light, as was the first oil [of the princes]. This is similar to the expression, that they bring thee a Red Heifer, meaning that they should seek it and it is to be brought from the public treasury. Also, there [in the section of V’atah Tetzaveh] He stated only, Aaron and his sons shall set it in order etc., which might mean [set it in order] on the candelabrum, or without the candelabrum if it is broken or lost, as happened when they returned from the [Babylonian] exile. Therefore now He stated clearly, He shall order the lamps upon the pure candelabrum, teaching that they should only light the lamps upon the pure candelabrum. And the interpretation of our Rabbis is as follows: “Upon the pure candelabrum. This means upon the very candelabrum itself, that he is not to support them [i.e., the lamps] with pieces of wood or pebbles [but the lamps are to be upon the candelabrum itself, with nothing intervening between them]. He shall set the lamps before the Eternal. This teaches that he is not to set them outside the Sanctuary and bring them inside. Continually, even on the Sabbath; continually, even in impurity.”

The reason for mentioning the passage of pure olive oil is that, having mentioned the fire-offering for every appointed time, he now needs to mention the bread and the Menorah — corresponding to the Table.

'צו את בני ישראל ויקחו אליך שמן וגו, after the oil which had been donated before the Tabernacle had been built and erected, G’d commanded that the Israelites for all future generations should provide this oil as their contribution.

צו את בני ישראל, "command the children of Israel, etc." Why is this the appropriate place in the Torah to acquaint us with the rules of the oil for the Candlestick and the manner in which it is to be lit? We also need to explain why the procedures involving the Table have to be written at this juncture. After all, the Torah has dealt with those subjects when it described the construction of the Tabernacle! We shall leave aside Rashi's comment as we do not consider his words as adequate to answer the problem we have raised. Nachmanides wrote that at that time the olive oil which the princes had donated when the materials for the Tabernacle were being collected had come to an end. This is mere speculation, there is no supporting evidence for this assumption. Perhaps the fact that the Torah here deals with commandments whose common denominator is the number seven, i.e. 7 days of Passover, 7 days of Tabernacles, the New Year and Day of Atonement which occur in the 7th month, prompted the Torah to add laws about the 7-armed Candlestick. The procedures involving the Table also have a mystical dimension involving the number seven, seeing the Torah speaks about two rows of six breads (verse 6). When you add the table itself to the respective rows of 6 showbreads you have the number seven. The number seven is always considered as completing a cycle. You also had the legislation of the Omer in this portion; that commandment also involved the counting of seven times seven days, i.e. seven weeks. You have a reference to the commandment of the Sabbath, another commandment which features the number seven. We may therefore assume that the Torah was interested in mentioning all the commandments featuring the number seven in one portion. It is also possible that the laws pertaining to the Candlestick were written adjoining the legislation about the festival of Tabernacles to teach us some lessons about the difference between physical and spiritual light. G'd neither needs the light of the Candlestick to illuminate the Tabernacle for Him, nor did the Jewish people travel through the desert for 40 years using physical light (compare Torat Kohanim on the words מחוץ לפרוכת in verse 3). The ענני הכבוד, the clouds of glory i.e. the שכינה, illuminated the way for the Jewish people and the shade they provided actually screened out the sunlight during all those years (compare Tossaphot on Shabbat. 22,B). It follows that the commandment to light the Candlestick daily was only for the sake of the dividing curtain which was so called as it provided testimony for the nations of the world that G'd's presence resided within the camp of the Jewish people.

ויקחו אליך שמן זית, “that they will bring you olive oil;” the reason that this verse, i.e. the instructions it contains, was repeated is that in this Book of the five Books of Moses, the one containing most of the instructions connected with the service of the priests in the Temple, was that the time had come to list in the appropriate order the rules surrounding the function of the Lampstand, Menorah, and the Table, which are interdependent on one another. The incense had already been dealt with at length in Leviticus chapter 17,12-13. By rights we could have expected to read about the presentation of the showbreads before reading about the function of the Menorah which was not a sacrificial act, and was subservient to the presentation of the show breads as had been made plain by the words: ואת המנורה נוכח השלחן, “and the Lampstand opposite the Table,” (Exodus 26,35). The reason that the Torah did not write matters in that order was that it wanted to write the report about the blasphemer next to the portion of the showbreads, as Rashi has explained. Rashi quoted a sage as saying that the blasphemer had made fun of the showbreads ridiculing a law that offered the Lord bread that was on occasion a whole week old, as these breads were only exchanged for new ones every Sabbath. להעלות נר תמיד, “to kindle a lamp to burn continually;” it was kept burning also on the Sabbath, and even if it had become ritually contaminated.

צו את בני ישראל, “command the Children of Israel, etc.” Rashi explains that the paragraph following as well as the portion commencing with Exodus 27,20-21 both pertain only to the chapters dealing with the building of the Tabernacle, even though it deals with the lighting of the lights in the menorah. The paragraph dealing with the construction of the menorah in Exodus 27 was mentioned there only as it was needed to list the furnishings of the Tabernacle. Nachmanides writes that this interpretation does not appear appropriate to him, as the portion is not linked to a paragraph dealing with the menorah at all. Moreover, the Torah had already reported that Moses placed the lights in the menorah in Exodus 40,25, just as he placed the remainder of the furnishings inside the Tabernacle. In other words, both the commandment and the execution of it were mentioned already in the Book of Exodus. Therefore, in Nachmanides’ view the need for the present paragraph is twofold. 1) In Exodus the matter is related in conjunction with the commandment to the Israelites to supply the fuel for the menorah just as they were invited to supply all the building materials for the Tabernacle. The princes are reported as having supplied the initial quantities of the spices for the incense as well as the initial amount of olive oil for the menorah. However, in the Book of Exodus no mention is made of the supply of materials that were being used up on a daily basis. This is so in spite of the fact that the composition of the materials is described as חקת עולם, as a law of unlimited duration. (Exodus 27,21) Those words referred to the manner in which the menorah was to be lit. By now the initial supply had been exhausted and new arrangements had to be made. 2) In Exodus the instructions had been limited for either Aaron or his sons to perform the task of lighting the menorah, nothing having been said about what procedure to follow if the original menorah were to become defunct, or lost, as when the Israelites went into exile, etc. In Exodus the word תמיד, permanently, has not been mentioned in connection with the lighting of the menorah, whereas here mention is made specifically of regulations pertaining to the “pure menorah.”

ויקחו אליך שמן זית זך, this paragraph has been repeated seeing that the Torah here deals with the lamp stand, מנורה, which is located opposite the table in the Sanctuary on which the show breads are placed every week. All that is mentioned here refers to the ritual involving the table and its paraphernalia, i.e. the oil for lighting and the bread

Outside the curtain of the testimony, in the Tent of Meeting, Aaron shall arrange it from evening until morning before Hashem continually — an eternal statute for your generations.

לפרכת העדת [WITHOUT] THE PARTITION VAIL OF THE TESTIMONY — i. e. the Partition Vail which is before the Ark which on account of its contents (the Tablets, termed לחות העדות in Exodus 37:15) is called “Testimony”. Our Rabbis, however, explained it (the word העדות) as referring to the western light of the candlestick which was a testimony (עדות) to mankind that the Shechinah dwelt in Israel through the miracle wrought in connection with it; for he (the priest) put only as much oil into it as was the quantity put into the other lamps and yet he began the lighting of the other lamps in the evening by it and finished the work of cleaning with it [since it continued to burn miraculously until the following evening] (Sifra, Emor, Section 13 9; Shabbat 22b; Menachot 86b). יערך אתו אהרן מערב עד בקר AARON SHALL SET IT IN ORDER FROM EVENING UNTO MORNING — The meaning is not that he shall occupy himself the whole night with setting the lights in order, but he shall arrange it in such a manner (lit., by such an arrangement) that will prove adequate for the length of the whole night. Our Rabbis by experiment (cf. Menachot 89a) fixed the quantity at a half log oil for each lamp, ascertaining that this would suffice also in the long nights of the Teveth quarter; and this quantity therefore became to them the fixed measure [for all the seasons of the year].

יערוך אותו אהרן, even though the procedure of lighting the Menorah, as well as the presentation of the daily incense offering was permitted to be carried out by any priest of the roster during future generations as per the sages’ tradition (Sifrey Behaalotcha 60), this procedure is linked to Aaron, seeing that all the time the Jews were in the desert the procedures involving the Temple service were on a “Day of Atonement” footing because the Torah linked the procedure to the line (17,2) “for I will manifest Myself above the kapporet by day and the column of fire will be visible at night,” a condition which ceased when the Jewish people settled in the land of Israel. It followed that procedures which took place inside the sanctuary would be the exclusive prerogative of the High Priest during those years. These procedures would be performed in the future by the High Priest on the day of Atonement.

מחוץ לפרוכת העדות באהל מועד, “outside of the curtain of testimony of the tent of Meeting.” The wording is to teach that the position of the Menorah inside the Sanctuary was relatively closer to the dividing curtain than to the entrance of the Sanctuary. יערוך אותו, “he is to arrange it.” (the olive oil)

Upon the pure menorah he shall arrange the lamps before Hashem continually.

המנרה הטהרה THE PURE CANDELABRUM — It was so called because it was made of pure gold. Another explanation is: he shall set the lights in order upon the purity of the candlestick, implying that he must first purify (cleanse) it and remove its ashes beforehand (the words therefore mean: on a clean candlestick; cf., however, Sifra, Emor, Section 13 12 where the word is explained differently).

This passage adds, regarding "the pure Menorah," that it is the well-known one made entirely of gold — the work of Bezalel — and no other. As for those who fashioned one from iron in a time of necessity, they did so by prophetic authority.

על המנורה הטהורה, “upon the pure Menorah according to Rashi, as he understood the Sifra, seeing that the priest kindling the lamps on the Menorah did so without using tools such as matches, etc., it was important to make certain that no material was used that could potentially confer ritual impurity on the lampstand which was made of metal and therefore liable to such contamination. לפני ה׳, “before the Lord;” the fire was not to be lit outside the Sanctuary and then to be transferred to the wicks in the oil on the lampstand.

על המנורה הטהורה, “On the pure Menorah, etc.” Nachmanides points out that in Exodus 27,21 where the subject of preparing the oil for the Menorah is first dealt with there is no mention of the Menorah being “pure.” He explains the reason for this as being that that paragraph was not the primary paragraph dealing with the laws concerning the Menorah. When Moses was told in Exodus 27,20: “and you are to command the Children of Israel,” this referred to the details about the oil etc., being revealed to the Israelites eventually. However, here we are dealing with the principal paragraph dealing with the rules governing the use of the Menorah and how it was to be serviced. This is why the words “on the pure Menorah” were added here to tell the Priests that unless the Menorah was in a state of ritual purity the whole procedure could not be performed. This became important when the Hasmoneans recaptured Jerusalem and the Holy Temple from the Greeks and as a result they introduced the festival of Chanukah; and it is important nowadays when we have no Temple, no red heifer, etc. Had the Torah only written the paragraph in Exodus chapter 27 we would have thought that the procedure of preparing oil, etc. was to be performed even in the absence of a Menorah or when the Menorah was temporarily broken. Sifra Emor 13,12 explains that the words על המנורה הטהורה may also be understood as על טהרה של מנורה, “directly on the Menorah,” i.e. there is not to be any insulating material or other matter between the lights (the containers of the oil and wick) and the golden Menorah. Moreover, the words also imply that the lights are to be prepared and kindled inside the Tabernacle, על המנורה, on the Menorah; lit matches, lit wicks, etc., are not to be brought into the Tabernacle and then be placed on the Menorah, but the whole procedure is to be performed inside the Sanctuary. The word תמיד at the end of the verse means that this procedure overrides the Sabbath and is to be performed seven days a week and even when ritually impure.

יערוך את הנרות לפני ה' תמיד, “he shall arrange the lights before Hashem, continually. He must not arrange everything outside the Tabernacle and then carry the menorah into the Tabernacle. תמיד, “continually.“ The word תמיד suggests that this procedure is applicable even on the Sabbath days when lighting fire is prohibited outside the Temple, or when all the priests are in a state of ritual impurity. In Parshat Tetzaveh, (Exodus 27,20-21) no mention is made of the word תמיד seeing that the whole procedure there was addressed only to a single individual, i.e. יערוך אותו, “he is to arrange it,” meaning the subject was only the light in the center of the seven shafts, arms, of the menorah. This light did not burn continually, as it went out when the Israelites had become collectively guilty of sins. In our verse the instructions include all the lights of the menorah, and even though the נר המערבי the light in the center, may have been out, the other lights did not manifest such displeasure by G’d by going out when they would not be expected to do so. They always burned through the entire night.

And you shall take fine flour and bake it into twelve loaves; two tenths of an ephah shall each loaf be.

"And you shall take fine flour" — this is in the imperative, and so too "and you shall bake them." The word ve-afita (and you shall bake) has its accent on the final syllable [mil-ra], which is unusual.

ולקחת סולת, this commandment presumably also applied only after the initial donation of such flour which had been contributed when the Tabernacle was being built had been exhausted. That original amount had been included in what was mentioned in Exodus 39.33. [one wonders where all the flour came from during those years when the Jews, in the desert were cut off from contact with the surrounding nations so that even their exact location was unknown. Ed.]

שתים עשרה חלות, “twelve loaves,” corresponding to the number of the tribes. (Ibn Ezra) They are the loaves known as “showbreads.” החלה האחת, “the one loaf;” the kneading, making the dough, etc., should be a single operation.

And you shall arrange them in two rows, six to a row, upon the pure table before Hashem.

שש המערכת SIX ON A ROW — i. e. six cakes shall form one row. השלחן הטהר THE PURE TABLE — i. e. the table of pure gold (cf. Rashi on v. 4). Another explanation is that על השלחן הטהר means: immediately upon the טהר of the table (i. e. its top and they must not rest upon something else that is placed on the table-top) — i. e. that the supporting pillars (cf. Rashi on Exodus 25:29) must not raise the bread (i. e. the lowest loaves) above the top of the table (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 18 4; Menachot 97a).

"Two rows" — corresponding to the number of the tribes, like the mystery of the ephod and the breastplate; or else [the reason for] two tenths [per loaf] corresponds to the number of the rows. "Upon the pure Table" — to distinguish it from the other tables that were there; it alone was overlaid with gold and had a golden border.

[ושמת אותם, “you shall place them;” the sudden switch to the plural mode, אותם, ”them,” means that when it came to baking, 2 loaves each were put in the oven at one time. (Sifra) Ed.] ושמת אותם, there were three sets of moulds; one to shape them when they were dough; one while the dough was in the oven; and the third when they were finished baking to arrange them in such a manner that they would not deteriorate between one Sabbath and the next. (Sifra) שתים מערכות, “two rows;” one at each end of the Table; שש מערכות על השלחן הטהור, “six rows upon the pure Table;” six loaves would be placed one above the other on either side of the Table the sides of the loaves would face the side of the Table, as I have explained in Exodus 25,29.

And you shall place pure frankincense upon the row, and it shall serve as the memorial for the bread, a sacrifice before Hashem.

ונתת על המערכת AND THOU SHALT PUT UPON THE ROW — i. e. upon each of the two rows [PURE FRANKINCENSE]; there were two bowls for this frankincense, each filled with a handful of it. והיתה THAT IT — this frankincense — MAY BE ללחם לאזכרה ON THE BREAD FOR A MEMORIAL — because of the bread itself nothing was offered to the Lord, but the frankincense was burnt when the former was removed from the golden table every Sabbath. It (the frankincense) thus served as a memorial for the bread, because through it, it (the bread) was recalled to memory Above (the bread itself was not offered) just as the “handful” of flour and of oil (Leviticus 2:2) was “the memorial portion” of the meal offering being the only part offered, while the remainder was eaten by the priests just as this bread was.

The frankincense that was placed with the bread — that is the fire-offering to Hashem, while the bread goes to the priest. It is plausible that this passage is mentioned here because Israel bears an obligation to bring the appointed-time burnt-offerings, and also oil and bread, on an ongoing basis.

ונתת על המערכת, “you are to place next to each row, which were one handbreadth apart, frankincense.” The word על here is to be understood as in Number 2,20 עליו where it mans “next to” (the next tribe). על המערכת, “frankincense would be placed on the surface of the table next to each row.”[The reader will find an illustration at the end of the last volume. Ed. והיתה ללחם אזכרתה, ”so that the frankincense may serve the loaves as a symbol of it.” Rabbi Shimon states that the expression אזכרה here, as well as in Leviticus 2,2, refers to the partial fistful used. In other words, two partial fistfuls of frankincense were required, one for each row of six showbreads.

ונתת על המערכת לבונה זכה, “You shall put on (each) stack frankincense, etc.” The twelve loaves of bread mentioned here and the frankincense were both mandatory so that the absence of either invalidated the whole procedure (compare Menachot 27). They related to each other just like the etrog and the lulav, or the blue wool thread and the white threads on the tzitzit. (according to an opinion expressed in Menachot 38 that when תכלת, the blue colour needed for that thread is available, a garment which has only white tzitiyot is not fit to be worn). The reason that the מנחה offering of a Sotah (woman suspected of marital infidelity) or the מנחה offering of any sinner was unaccompanied by such frankincense as is mentioned here as mandatory is that the Torah expressly forbade it (Leviticus 5,11 and Numbers 5,15) in order to express G’d’s disapproval of the persons having to bring these offerings, i.e. that at that time and until atonement has been obtained the attribute of Justice is poised to strike such a woman. והיתה ללחם לאזכרה, “it will serve as a remembrance for the bread.” Seeing that normally some parts of a sacrifice always wind up on the Altar and in the case of the show-breads this is not the case, the frankincense is the only reminder to G’d that a sacrifice has been offered. Once the frankincense has been offered up this triggers remembrance of the show-breads which had been presented on the Table. Following this, the blessing of our sources of food which is the objective of this procedure can be applied by G’d. This is also the significance of there being twelve such show-breads, i.e. that all the twelve angels surrounding the celestial throne receive Divine input in the form of such blessing. These twelve angels are also known as the four camps of the Shechinah. The encampments of the Jewish people in the desert around the Tabernacle were patterned after what is known about similar procedures in the celestial regions. The four “camps” in the celestial regions serve as the point of departure for directing G’d’s blessing to the four directions on earth, i.e. North, East, South, and West. Three of these angels face each direction. The whole concept is like the significance of the four flags of the four camps of the Israelites in the desert. This concept was later on illustrated in the throne of King Solomon which featured 12 lions (Kings I 10,20). The total amount of flour comprised by the twelve show-breads was “24 tenths” (of the epha). This was an allusion to the twelve tribes of Israelites on earth and the twelve angels in the celestial regions.

On the Sabbath day, on the Sabbath day, he shall arrange it before Hashem continually — from the children of Israel, an eternal covenant.

ביום השבת, ביום השבת, “Every Sabbath day;” while new breads were replacing last week’s breads, the frankincense of last week’s breads was burned up at the end of the week on the Sabbath. יערכנו, “he shall arrange it;” the subject is the showbreads, not the branches described in Exodus 25,32. The latter were not arranged on the Sabbath but on the Sabbath eve. All the furnishings in the Tabernacle were arranged so that their length was parallel to the long walls of the structure, with the exception of the Holy Ark.

And it shall belong to Aaron and to his sons, and they shall eat it in a holy place, for it is most holy to him from the offerings of Hashem — an eternal covenant.

והיתה AND IT SHALL BE — this meal-offering shall be — [AARON’S AND HIS SONS’]; (although the word מנחה is not mentioned in the text it is implicitly contained in the word לחם) because anything that is brought (offered) of grain comes under the term of מנחה. ואכלהו AND THEY SHALL EAT IT; the suffix which is masc. refers to לחם which is masculine.

V’HAYTHAH’ (AND IT SHALL BE) FOR AARON AND HIS SONS — “[The feminine word ‘v’haythah’ refers to] the meal-offering, for anything which is offered of grain is included within the term minchah (meal-offering). [The masculine suffix in] ‘va’achaluhu’ (and they shall eat it), refers to the lechem” [“bread” mentioned in Verse 7, which is a masculine noun]. This is Rashi’s language. It is possible that the verb v’haythah [“and it shall be” — in the feminine] refers to each of the two ma’arachoth [“rows” of six loaves mentioned in Verse 6, since ma’arachah is in the feminine, and hence v’haythah is also in the feminine]. And by way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabalah], ‘v’haythah’ (and it shall be) for Aaron and his sons refers back to brith olam [“an everlasting covenant” at the end of the preceding Verse 8, since the word brith is in the feminine], similar to what is said, ‘Brithi haythah’ (My covenant was) with him of life and peace.

"To Aaron and to his sons" — meaning all the members of his household.

והיתה לאהרן ולבניו “It shall belong to Aaron and his sons.” Rashi explains that the word והיתה refers to the bread of the minchah offering discussed in verses 5-8. According to Nachmanides the word may include all the other presentations on the altar also. [Even though the word is in the feminine mode and לחם, bread is in the masculine mode. Ed.]

Now the son of an Israelite woman went out — and he was the son of an Egyptian man — among the children of Israel, and the son of the Israelite woman and an Israelite man quarreled 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). 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). בתוך בני ישראל AMONG THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL — This teaches us that he had become a proselyte (Sifra, Emor, Section 14 1). 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). 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.

AND THE SON OF AN ISRAELITE WOMAN, WHOSE FATHER WAS AN EGYPTIAN, WENT OUT, etc. This means that he went out among the children of Israel, similar to the expression: and he went out into the midst of the city, meaning that he [Mordecai] went out from his house or from where he was abiding into the city. Similarly, this [son of an Israelite woman] went out from his tent or from his place, and came into the midst of the people, and they strove there. The meaning of the word bamachaneh [“in the camp” — and the son of the Israelite woman and a man of Israel strove together ‘in the camp’], is that the quarrel took place in the camp and many people heard it, and [when they heard the son of the Israelite woman blaspheming the Name], they took hold of him and they brought him unto Moses into [his] tent. And the reason why Scripture mentions this episode here, is as the words of the Sage who says: “He ‘came forth’ from the section above [i.e., he began his argument by speaking contemptuously of a law mentioned in the above section], for he sinned with his lips concerning the fire-offerings of the Eternal, and an Israelite man rebuked him, whereupon they strove and he became angered and then blasphemed “himself.”The intention of the expression the son of an Israelite woman and a man of Israel, is to teach that if a non-Jew has sexual relations with a Jewish woman, the child is not deemed Jewish. And although we have rendered the final decision in the Gemara that if a non-Jew has sexual relations with a Jewish woman whether she is single or married, the child is a fully-qualified Jew, yet they have said, “the child is ‘rejected,’” meaning that it is disqualified for the priesthood; and certainly it is not considered a fully-qualified Israelite by name as far as genealogy is concerned, with respect to the standards [i.e., as to where he was to take his place under one of the four main standards that were set up], and inheriting of the Land, for it is written of them, according to the names of the tribes of their fathers. And that which the Rabbis have said in the Torath Kohanim: “Among the children of Israel, this teaches that he had become a proselyte,” does not mean that he needed conversion, for he was like all Israelites who entered into the covenant by circumcision, immersion, and the expiation by blood, at the time of the Giving of the Torah. But the intention of the Rabbis [in this text of the Torath Kohanim] was to state that he was reared by his mother and became attached to Israel, this being the meaning of the expression among the children of Israel, that he was with them and he did not want to go after his father to be an Egyptian. Similarly, that which the Rabbis have said in the Torath Kohanim: “Although there were no mamzerim at that time, he was like one,” this text follows the opinion of a single Sage [who says that if a non-Jew has sexual relations with a Jewish woman, the child is deemed a mamzer], but the final decision of the law is th...

"And the son of an Israelite woman went out" — from his tent, like "they went out standing at the entrance of their tents." "The son of an Egyptian man" — meaning one who had converted. "And the Israelite man" — similar in grammatical form to "the rich man" (II Sam. 12:4) and "the seventh day" (Gen. 2:3). We do not know why this passage is placed here; perhaps the blasphemer spoke improper things on account of the bread, the oil, and the offerings.

והוא בן איש מצרי, this is why he had the effrontery to curse the tetragram; none of the Israelites would have been so deficient in reverence.

ויצא בן אשה ישראלית, The son of a Jewish woman went out, etc. We must understand the meaning of the expression ויצא as analogous to the way Tanchuma understood the same word when the Torah described the emergence of the golden calf in Exodus 32,24. Tanchuma defined the word as describing an unplanned occurrence, i.e. the emergence of the golden calf from that crucible was totally unexpected. We may therefore relate to the portion of the מקלל, the blasphemer, as the ultimate result of an act by the mother which was totally outside her consciousness. Shemot Rabbah 1,28 describes that the Egyptian overseer killed by Moses once entered the house of his victim pretending to be her husband and slept with her. The child born from that union developed into the blasphemer who is the subject of our verse. This is the reason the Torah describes the mother as אשה ישראלית, comparing her to איש הישראלי, to tell us that her guilt in this matter was no greater than the guilt of the איש הישראלי, i.e. she was free from guilt. The Torah goes on to write בתוך בני ישראל, to inform us that there were no ממזרים, bastards, amongst the Jewish people, i.e. children from unions who may not marry Israelites. We may also deduce from the word ויצא that the Israelites were not prepared to allocate space to that individual in their respective parts of the encampment, each one claiming that he did not belong there. Torat Kohanim write that the manner in which the Torah introduces the blasphemer indicates that he had converted to Judaism. [seeing he was born before the Torah was given, he was not automatically Jewish due to his having a Jewish mother. Ed.] Both commentaries are perfectly true and compatible with Torah principles. ואיש הישראלי. and the Jewish man. It is possible that the reason the Torah does not disclose the name of this man is that it was he who caused the name of G'd to be blasphemed by the son of the Jewish woman, Shlomit bat Divri. G'd is not anxious to condemn a person, especially not in a book such as the Torah which will be read for all future generations so that a dishonourable mention is especially painful to the party concerned. Furthermore, the Torah wanted to reveal that the substance of the quarrel between these two men concerned the difference between being known as merely "the son of a Jewish woman," and being known as "the son of a Jew." The wording of the Torah comprises all that our sages have said about the substance of this quarrel in Vayikra Rabbah 32,3, some saying the quarrel was about the showbread legislation, the blasphemer ridiculing it. Others say that the quarrel centred about whether the blasphemer was a member of the Jewish people, and if so if he could claim membership of a particular tribe. The Torah did not bother to be specific and mention his name as it did not make any difference in the end.

ויצא בן אשה ישראלית, “the son of an Israelite woman went out, (became involved in a serious argument) the word יצא is used in this sense also in Numbers 16,27: יצאו נצבים, “they went out in a challenging posture;” as well as in Proverbs 25,8: אל תצא לריב מהר, “do not be in a hurry to start a quarrel; this is the plain meaning of the line. Rashi on this line comments that this man whose father was an Egyptian, went to pitch his tent among the tents of the tribe of Dan, his mother’s tribe, as stated by the Torah. The Danites rejected him as tribal allegiance is based on the father and not on the mother. When he came to Moses complaining, the court upheld the opinion of the Danites. As a result of being frustrated, he cursed the G-d Who had so discriminated against him. The Torah had ruled that the tribes should each take up positions in camp in the vicinity of their respective tribal flags. Numbers 2,2. This man then ridiculed a religion which sees fit to offer its G-d bread that had been baked as long ago as a whole week ago, instead of presenting Him daily with fresh bread. This had come to his attention on a Sabbath. According to tradition, the incident with the blasphemer and that with the person who had collected kindling on the Sabbath occurred about the same time. This seems difficult to accept as the incident with the person collecting firewood on the Sabbath occurred in the first year of the Israelites’ wandering. Any incident involving tribal allegiance could not have happened until the second year when the order in which the Israelites took up their positions relative to the Tabernacle in their midst was established during the second month of the second year. והוא בן איש מצרי, “and he was the son of an Egyptian man.” Even though at that time he was not yet a bastard as that law had not yet been publicized, he was adjudged as guilty of blasphemy by the court as if he were a bastard. [He would be guilty of violating one of the seven Noachide Commandments that apply universally, bastard or no bastard. (law #2) Ed.] בתוך בני ישראל, according to Rashi, who quotes Torat Kohanim, these words mean that he had converted to Judaism. [Why he should, seeing that his mother was Jewish, I fail to understand. Ed.] If you were to ask that we read in Exodus, Rashi explained on the words: וירא כי אין איש, that Moses had made sure that no one had seen him killing the Egyptian (Exodus 2,12), that these words mean that Moses foresaw in a prophetic vision that no potential descendant of that Egyptian would ever convert to Judaism, we would have to assume that at that moment this man’s mother was already pregnant with him. What Moses had seen prophetically was that in the future no one would ever descend from this man who had the potential to convert to Judaism. Hence by killing him, he had not committed any ethical crime, especially seeing that the man had murdered a Jew. Furthermore, there is nothing in our scriptures that asks us to look for extenuating circumstances before executing a blasphemer. At this point, our author raises the question about the relevancy of conversion, seeing that any child born by a Jewish mother, be the father a slave or a pagan, is automatically Jewish from birth. The only answer to this question could be that this automatic Judaism came into force only after the Torah had been given at Mount Sinai. Seeing that this man had been sired at least about 60 years prior to the giving of the Torah, he had not qualified as a Jew automatically, but of course could have converted at any time. [Remember he had been sired before Moses even escaped to Midian. Ed.] Due to these considerations this blasphemer had been a convert. A different approach to the scenario involved here: the plain meaning of the words: בתוך בני ישראל, the blasphemer had been an Egyptian, due to his father having been an Egyptian; going back to the times when the Israelites had still been enslaved. After the Exodus, he converted and therefore ever since he was viewed as a Jew due to his mother having been a Jewess. He felt that seeing he had no father who also having been a Jew belonged to one of the tribes, he was entitled to belong at least to his mother’s tribe.

ויצא בן אשה ישראלית, “the son of a Jewish woman came forward, etc.” The meaning of the word ויצא here is that he came forth from his house, or from wherever he had made his quarters. בתוך בני ישראל, “among the Children of Israel, etc.” He came from his private place to the midst of the people. וינצו במחנה, “they fought in the camp.” It is possible that seeing that the word ויצא did not specify from where the son of the Jewish woman came it has a similar meaning to the word ויצא in Kings I 22,21 ויצא הרוח, where it is a reference to the spirit of Navot who had been the victim of a judicial murder and whose soul sought revenge. Both the term יצא and באה are used allegorically in a spiritual sense. Another example is Kohelet 8,10: ובכן ראיתי רשעים קבורים ובאו, “and likewise I saw the wicked who had been buried and ‘came.’” How could a buried person “come?” Clearly, the meaning of the word is not to be understood in its usual sense. This is also the meaning of Job 1,21 when he said ערום יצאתי מבטן אמי וערום אשוב שמה, “I came out of my mother’s womb naked and I will return to earth naked.” The words יצא and בא appear as figures of speech. 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. A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Emor 23-24: the meaning of the words ויצא בן אשה ישראלית is that the blasphemer excluded himself from the legislation of the previous paragraph dealing with the show-breads. He made sarcastic remarks about this legislation, ridiculing it by drawing attention to the fact that these loaves were replaced only once a week on the Sabbath. He questioned how one could present G’d with stale bread, saying that it is customary for kings to eat fresh bread every single day. How could one dare present G’d with bread which might be up to nine days old A Baraitha understands the word ויצא to mean that the blasphemer emerged from the court of Moses where he had been found guilty. He had previously erected his tent in the camp of Dan (the tribe his mother belonged to). The Danites did not want him there (as his father was not of their tribe). When the matter was brought before Moses, Moses ruled in favour of the members of that tribe against this man. He was upset about this ruling and cursed the Lord to give vent to his frustration. והוא בן איש מצרי, “and he was a son of an Egyptian man.” According to Tanchuma Emor 24 he was the son of the Egyptian whom Moses had slain when he had killed an Israelite (the husband of the blasphemer’s mother). בתוך בני ישראל, “among the Children of Israel.” These words teach that the man in question had converted to Judaism (Sifra Emor 14,1). וינצו במחנה, “they quarreled in the camp.” This prompts us to ask that if the two people quarreled about something why would one of them use this as a pretext to curse G’d? He should have been angry at Moses, or he could have attacked Moses physically if he felt wronged. Why did he curse the name of the Lord? Perhaps what happened was that the blasphemer told Moses during the trial that his father had been killed and he mentioned to Moses how he had been killed, i.e. that Moses had uttered the holy name of G’d and cursed his father who died as a result. This is why now, when he was found guilty by Moses, he in turn cursed the name of the Lord who had been the cause of his own father’s untimely death. He used the name which he had heard for the first time when he stood at Sinai and listened to the Ten Commandments. The fact that this paragraph is followed immediately by the portion commencing with mention of Mount Sinai is an allusion to the relevance of Mount Sinai to what occurred here. Seeing that the blasphemer had not been willing to come to the Tent of Meeting, the Torah reports hat the people brought him to Moses. This may be the reason why here — contrary to Numbers 15,33 where the Torah reports the man who gathered wood on the Sabbath as being brought before Moses and the whole congregation — the words ואל כל העדה, “and to the whole congregation,” are missing. I wonder why the Torah bothered in this instance to tell us that while the Israelites were in the desert that one of them cursed the name of the Lord thus causing disrespect for G’d? Surely if all the Torah wanted was to teach us the penalty for such a blasphemer, all it had to write was a verse informing us (as it did anyway in verse 15) that anyone who curses the Lord employing His holy Name the tetragrammaton when doing so is guilty of being stoned to death? Even the Gentiles had been warned not to curse the Lord (compare Sanhedrin 56) seeing it is one of the seven commandments which is applicable to all of mankind. There certainly was no need to teach Israelites that this is a cardinal sin! I suppose we must answer that the Torah hoped to achieve two objectives when not only spelling out this legislation here but illustrating it with a personal example so that we would remember this better. 1) The fact that this individual who was guilty of this sin is named is a compliment to the Jewish people, seeing that only one single person had been guilty of that sin during the forty years in the desert and even that person had been the son of an Egyptian father. 2) the story teaches the important principle that the only way to become guilty of this ultimate crime is to first pronounce the holy Name and then utter a curse upon it. This we derive from the wording of the Torah: ויקב בן האשה הישראלית את ה' ויקלל, “the son of the Israelite woman pronounced the name of the Lord and cursed it” (verse 11). The sequence in which the blasphemer acted made him liable to the death penalty. When someone means to bless the name of the Lord he has to do so in the reverse manner, i.e. first to concentrate on the individual letters of the tetragram and on their meaning and subsequently to pronounce the name (in the permissible formula). When done in such a manner one qualifies for the reward due to people who bless the Lord. There is an allusion to this sequence in Psalms 145,1, a psalm we recite several times a day, where David wrote ארוממך אלוקי המלך ואברכה שמך לעולם ועד, “I will extol You my G’d my King, and bless Your name forever and ever.” The reward for following this procedure perfectly is long or infinite life. David preceded the sages in Berachot 8 who directed that a person should make a point of not beginning to pray until he has walked a distance of the width of two entrances to the Synagogue. (He should take time to concentrate before commencing to say the words). בן הישראלית, “the son of the Israelite woman.” These words (the repetition of the information) teach that the child of a sexual union between a pagan and a Jewish woman is not Jewish (by birth). Although, according to the Talmud (Yevamot 45), such a child is Jewish regardless of whether the mother was married or single at the time of that union, the fact remains that we consider the child as genetically tainted, not permitted to marry a priest if a daughter. It would certainly not be permitted to share in the distribution of the land of Israel or make his home amongst the camps with the flags, as such membership was limited to לשמות מטות אבותם, “for the names of the tribes of their fathers” (Numbers 26,55). This is the opinion of Nachmanides.

And the son of an Israelite woman went out, etc. The text does not specify the name of either of them to indicate that both were flawed, because anyone who hastily initiates a quarrel is certainly flawed and not among the men known by their names for glory and praise, but rather among the basest, worthless men, also sons without a name. They had nothing but the family lineage of their ancestors, as one was the son of an Israelite woman and the other an Israelite man. Therefore it says and they fought in the camp, because both were contentious and quarrelsome, and guilt was brought about through the guilty party. Because the Israelite entered into a quarrel with him, he caused him to blaspheme the honored Name. Some evidence for this is from what was said: And you shall speak to the children of Israel, saying: Anyone who curses his God, etc. And how did this statement introduce the utterance, And if a man strikes down any human being? And similarly the verse And if a man causes a blemish in his fellow, etc. Furthermore, this entire verse seems superfluous, since it is stated explicitly afterward fracture for fracture, etc. Rather, all of this speaks to the disgrace of quarreling and disputes, since peace does not emerge from conflict, and through dispute one may come to strike a person or animal, causing harm either to his body or property. And since our Sages of blessed memory said (Kiddushin 70) that “whoever disqualifies others does so with his own defect,” therefore it says and if a man causes a blemish in his fellow. To cast a blemish upon the holy ones, as he did with the bending of his lips [when he cursed], which is considered an action — so shall be done to him, for people will say that he disqualifies others with his own defect. And below it speaks of an actual physical blemish, therefore it says so shall it be inflicted upon him. Similarly, this son of an Israelite woman and this Israelite man — for each one disqualified the other with a blemish, since neither of them were men of reputation and were known only by reference to their ancestors. And what is written: “The son of an Israelite woman went out, and he was the son of an Egyptian man.” This is the Egyptian whom Moses killed using the Explicit Name [of God], and because of this, all his days he [the son] was blaspheming in his heart, but the matter was not known publicly. And whoever desecrates the Name of Heaven in secret will be punished openly (Avot 4:5). Therefore, God arranged that he would go out from his tent among the children of Israel so that his wickedness would be revealed in the assembly, for this is the measure [of justice] in cases of desecration of the Name. And it may be that this is why it says he went out, because regarding Moses it says Moses went out to his brethren (Exodus 2:11) — [so he thought] “I too will go out to blaspheme.” Regarding Moses it says He looked this way and that way, and saw that there was no man (Exodus 2:12) and he acted in private. [But the blasphemer said,] “I will go out among the children of Israel to act publicly.”

ויצא בן אישה הישראלית, “The son of an Israelite woman went out, etc.” The fact that this paragraph has been inserted at this point, prompted the opinion that this individual blasphemed concerning the commandment of the showbreads, which in his opinion was an inappropriate offering, i.e. offering stale bread before G’d, by leaving it on the table for an entire week. Upon blaspheming, sinning with his mouth, he was called to order by another Israelite, as a result of which an argument ensued when this individual cursed the name of G’d. Nachmanides justifies the somewhat obscure introductory word ויצא, “he went out,” here by explaining that this individual “stepped out of line,” by saying what he did. Alternatively, the meaning is that prior to saying what he said he had stepped outside his tent, [presumably in order that his comments would become common knowledge. Ed.] In other words, the resulting argument took place where everybody witnessed it. We need to explain the additional word במחנה, “in the camp,” then as meaning that many people heard it and seized him bringing him to Moses’ tent to be dealt with there. The meaning of the words בן הישראלית, “son of an Israelite woman,” and איש הישראלי, “and the son of an Israelite (male),” teach that when a Gentile sleeps with an Israelite woman and this results in the birth of a child, such a child is considered a member of the Jewish people, i.e. when he grows up he is איש ישראלי, “a Jewish man.” The emphasis on the word ישראלי suggests that though he is Jewish, he is not fit for the priesthood, for instance, neither is he a member of any of the tribes of the Jewish people of whom the army was made up of. As a result, he would not share in the distribution of the land of Israel to the various tribes, and he would not have a claim on any of that land by reason of his having a Jewish mother. When the Torat Kohanim writes that the meaning of the words בתוך בני ישראל is that this man had undergone conversion to Judaism, this is not to be taken at face value, as he did not need to convert to Judaism, seeing that he had a Jewish mother; the meaning is that this man had undergone the same rules of conversion that every Israelite had undergone prior to the eating of the Passover, i.e. circumcision, ritual immersion, and loss of the requisite minimum amount of blood during circumcision. In other words, outwardly he appeared to all to be a fully-fledged Jew. He had made it plain that he preferred the Jewish people and did not consider himself as a member of his father’s people or religion.

והוא בן איש מצרי, “whereas he was the son of an Egyptian man.” It was the fact that he had Egyptian blood in his veins that was responsible for his cursing G–d. We know that Pharaoh did the same when Moses first met him, and he denied the existence of Hashem. (Exodus, 5,2) by ridiculing the idea that he, Pharaoh, should have to accept directives emanating from Hashem. וינצו במחנה, “they quarreled inside the camp.” This son of an Egyptian father was belittled by a normal Israelite who told him that it had been Moses who had killed his father. When this man asked the Israelite how Moses had killed his father, he was told that Moses had killed him by cursing him using the ineffable name of the Lord. Having heard this, this half Egyptian immediately retaliated by cursing this Israelite using the name of G–d to do so.

And the son of the Israelite woman pronounced the Name and blasphemed, and they brought him to Moses. His mother's name was Shelomith 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.). ושם אמו שלמית בת דברי AND HIS MOTHER’S NAME WAS SHELOMITH, THE DAUGHTER OF DIBRI, [THE TRIBE OF DAN] — it is to tell how praiseworthy Israel was that Scripture publicly mentions her name (exposes her), telling us implicitly that of all the women of Israel she alone was a harlot (Leviticus Rabbah 32 5). שלמית (connected with שלום “peace”) — she was so called because she was always babbling: “Peace be with thee”, “peace be with thee”, “peace be with you” — she used to continually babble with many words (she was a בת דברי) — she enquired after the health of everybody (Leviticus Rabbah 32 5). בת דברי (from the root דבר “to speak”) — she was talkative — talking with any man, and in consequence of this she got into trouble. למטה דן OF THE TRIBE OF DAN — This mention also of the parent and tribe of the woman teaches us that the wrong doer brings shame upon himself, shame upon his parent, shame upon his whole tribe. Similarly we find the name of the tribe Dan mentioned to express praise; (Exodus 31:6) “Oholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan”, where the details of Oholiab’s descent imply praise for him, praise for his father and praise for his tribe (Sifra, Emor, Section 14 4).

"And he blasphemed [va-yikov]" — some say its meaning is "and he pronounced distinctly," like "whom the mouth of Hashem shall designate," and like "who were designated by name." Others say it is like "what shall I curse." The first interpretation is, in my view, closer to the correct meaning.

ושם אמו, and the name of his mother, etc. Why was the name of this woman only mentioned here instead of at the time her existence was mentioned in verse 10 prior to the confrontation of her son with Moses? One may answer this in either one of two ways. 1) It reflects credit upon her seeing the Torah wrote: "they brought him to Moses, whereas the name of his mother was Shlomit." This implies that his mother was one of those who brought the blasphemer to Moses to be judged. 2) Mention of Shlomit at this stage reflects discredit upon her. Had it not been for the fact that others brought the blasphemer to Moses for judgment his mother could have remained anonymous. The general tenor of the story indicates that the blasphemer's mother could not overcome her feelings of pity for her son. The Torah teaches the lesson which we learned in Proverbs 12,10 that compassion for the wicked is actually an act of cruelty. The Torah discloses the name of the woman who had been foolish enough to display such feelings for her son the blasphemer. The fact that the Torah also reveals the name of her tribe is an indication that members of a tribe have a tendency to be protective of members of that tribe. This is why the Midrash we quoted earlier stated that when a person disgraces himself he also disgraces his tribe.

ויקוב בן האשה הישראלית ויקלל, “the son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name and cursed;” as a result of the quarrel he began to curse; ויקוב, ויקלל, the Torah does not use the expression ויברך which is traditionally used someone who curses the name of G-d, as for instance in Kings I 21,13, where Navot had been accused (falsely) of cursing the King and G-d, in order for the King to have a pretext to have him executed for not selling him his vineyard. It uses the word: ויקלל, instead, which refers to someone cursing without using the tetragram as the Lord’s name, a sin not punishable by the death penalty. (Sifra) את השם ויקלל, he also used the tetragram when cursing. Rabbi Yossi is on record as saying that the Egyptians who were ritually contaminated, also conferred their ritual contamination on the Israelites. His colleagues claimed that the wife of Neriah, a grandson of Dan, was Shlomit, daughter of Divri, and that during the night following the day when Moses slew the Egyptian who was one of the supervisors checking the number of bricks delivered by the Jewish slaves, raped her. History has a way of repeating itself. According to Tanchuma, Emor 24 as well as Vayikra Rabbah 32,4 when the quarrel broke out, and a Jewish man accused this man to be a bastard, this man asked the accuser where his father had been on the night when he claimed that his mother had been raped. The night he referred to was the night when his mother had supposedly been raped by an Egyptian overseer, who had used a pretext to send her husband on an errant. The reason why this blasphemer used the tetragram when cursing G-d, was that he had overheard how Moses had used that name as a means to kill his father. [I do not follow this, because if he had not been born yet, and his mother became pregnant with him as a result of the rape, how could he have overheard Moses? Ed.][This is why the Torah in Exodus 2,14 has one of the two quarrelling Israelites ask Moses whether he planned to kill him also by using the tetragram to curse him, so that he would fall dead. (הלהרגני אתה אומר: “are you going to utter a word which will kill me?”)] למטה דן, “from the tribe of Dan.” He had been the one causing the quarrel. He had justified his action by saying that he would now rectify an injustice done to him. This may also have been hinted at when in Genesis 49,16, according to the Talmud in Pessachim folio 4, Yaakov on his deathbed, using prophetic vision had said דן ידין עמו, “Dan will judge his people.”

ושם אמו, “and the name of his mother, etc.” Whenever someone displays signs of effrontery and disdain towards the Jewish religion and G’d it is time to examine his maternal genealogy as it is certain that the droplet of sperm which such an individual grew out of reflected a negative deed or thought at the time when marital relations which produced that baby took place. Unless the Torah wanted to teach us something beyond the meaning of the mere information contained in the text it should have simply written: ויצא בן אשה ישראלית ושמה שלומית בת דברי למטה דן, “the son of an Israelite woman by the name of Shlomit bat Divri from the tribe of Dan went out.” The reason the Torah followed a circuitous route before revealing the name of the blasphemer’s mother was that it wanted to keep it secret until after telling us what her son became guilty of. This is why we were first told that he cursed the name of the Lord (Verse 11). By mentioning her name last, the Torah suggested that the original cause of such a terrible sin being committed was the mother of the sinner who had been guilty of a trespass. The baby grows out of the mother’s blood, is nurtured for the length of the pregnancy by the mother’s blood and even after the mother has given birth she nurses the child thus transmitting milk which originally was her blood. As a result of all this it is no more than reasonable that the child absorbs greater genetic input from his mother than from his father. This will eventually be reflected in his deeds which will reflect the mother’s character more than that of the father. This is the reason why we find that the prophets who wrote the Books of the prophets, particularly the Books of Kings always made a point of mentioning the name (and sometimes origin) of the king’s mother. An interesting example is Kings I 22,42 where the mother of King Yehoshaphat, Azuvah daughter of Shilhi, is mentioned. In Kings I 15,2 we are told that the mother of King Aviyam of Yehudah was Maachah daughter of Avishalom. The reason the prophet Jeremiah saw fit to include this information was to give us a little more psychological insight into any character weakness displayed by the sons of such women. (Or, vice versa, if the mothers were outstandingly good women). If a person is an outstandingly righteous individual this reflects credit on his mother who transmitted to him so many of her positive genetic qualities. A good branch is always testimony that the root is healthy. This is reflected in the Torah writing in Exodus 6,29: “Amram took Yocheved his aunt as a wife.” The Torah mentions that a righteous person married a righteous woman and that the children were two outstandingly righteous sons, Aaron and Moses, and one outstandingly righteous woman, Miriam. The Torah reports something similar when reporting the marriage of Eleazar, son of Aaron to one of the daughters of Putiel, i.e. a descendant of the righteous Joseph (Exodus 6,25), and the son born to this union was Pinchas. We are told in Psalms that David described himself as: “I am Your servant, son of your servant maid” (Psalms 116,16). According to Kimchi, what David meant was that he had the good fortune of having been born to a father and a mother both of whom excelled in virtues. Seeing that the Torah chose to reveal the name of the blasphemer’s mother we may deduce that this was a unique occurrence during the whole forty years the Israelites wandered in the desert and that amongst the other six hundred thousand families no genealogical flaw of this kind could be found. Moreover, you must not wonder how it could be that the blasphemer’s mother was an adulterous woman. She had been quite inactive in the matter. When the Egyptian climbed into her bed at night she had presumed that it was her husband joining her. The Torah applies the term זונה, (whore), to any woman who has had sexual relations with a man forbidden to her under Biblical law, regardless of whether such a union occurred voluntarily or not (Compare our comments on Leviticus 21,6). שלומית, she would inquire after everybody’s well being, prattling and saying: “hello to you (female), hello to you (male)!” בת דברי למטה דן, “daughter of Divri of the tribe of Dan.” Mention of the name of the tribe shows that the deeds of a wicked person reflect discredit not only on his father and mother but also on the tribe he or she belongs to. The reverse is true of the righteous. When Oholiov was appointed as Betzalel’s assistant (Exodus 38,23) the Torah does not only tell us the name of his father Achisamach, but also the name of his tribe, i.e. the tribe of Dan.

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

למטה דן, “a member of the tribe of Dan;” it was that tribe which had initiated the quarrel described in the last verse. Compare Talmud, tractate Pesachim folio 4, where we are told that there was a person who whenever he disagreed with someone immediately suggested that he and his adversary take the matter to court. Eventually, people who knew him concluded that he must have been descended from the tribe of Dan, a word which means: “judging.” [This incident occurred many hundreds of years after the tribe of Dan and nine other tribes had been exiled, and no one could trace his antecedents to a particular tribe of the ten tribes whom the Assyrians had transplanted. Ed.]

And they confined him in the house of custody, until the matter should be made clear to them by the decree of the Word of Hashem.

ויניחהו AND THEY PLACED HIM [IN WARD] — him by himself — and they did not place the man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath day with him (Numbers 15:34), because both of whom happened to be (i. e. to commit an offense) at the same period, but they knew that the stick-gatherer was to be punished with the death-penalty, only it had not been explained to them by what kind of death he was to be punished — it is for this reason that it is stated in his case (Numbers 15:33) “[and they placed him in ward] because it was not explained what should be done to him”. In the case of the blasphemer, however, it states “[and they placed him in ward] that [the proper penalty] might be shown to them”; this was because they did not know whether he is at all liable to the death-penalty or not (Sifra, Emor, Section 14 5; Sanhedrin 78b).

"In custody" — in a designated place within the camp.

ויניחהו במשמר, “they placed him in custody;” according to Rashi, they did not place the man who had collected kindling on the Sabbath in the same cell with him, although both incidents occurred at about the same time. If you were to ask that Rashi had interpreted the word ויצא, “he went out,” in Leviticus 24,10 by quoting Rabbi Levi who said that “he left his world,” whereas Rabbi Berechyah is quoted as saying that the word means that this blasphemer first ridiculed the legislation about the showbreads (as we already explained), something that could not have occurred until the second year when the Tabernacle was functioning, whereas the person collecting the kindling had done so on the second Sabbath, i.e. at Marah, or at the latest immediately after the giving of the Torah only 49 days after the Exodus in the first year, even before the Torah had given, so how could they possibly have been placed in the same cell as that person had long since been executed? (see Rashi on Parshat S’hlach lecha) We are therefore forced to answer that the tribes had taken up positions in the desert in accordance with the sequence in which Yaakov had blessed them, already before there had been any mention of the erecting of a Tabernacle, so that the incident with the blasphemer could have occurred much earlier than the impression given in our portion. We have explained repeatedly that the author of the Torah did not feel restrained to report events in their chronological sequence. The blasphemer ridiculed the legislation of the showbreads as soon as it was taught, though the Tabernacle had not even been built yet. [he was not driven to do so because he had been refused to put up his tent with the Danites. Ed] לפרוש להם על פי ה, ”in order to receive instructions from the Lord how to proceed.” They assumed that the sinner had to be stoned to death as is evident from Leviticus 20,9. If stoning is the penalty for cursing one’s parents, how could the penalty for cursing the Lord be more lenient? We have a rule that penalties cannot be based merely on our judgment, i.e. our logic, but must have been ordained from heaven.

'לפרוש להם עלפי ה, “until instructions (how to deal with him) would be revealed by G–d.” It was clear that this man was guilty of the death penalty, seeing that cursing the Lord is one of the seven basic commandments already revealed to mankind long before the Torah was given. What was not clear was if, seeing that his mother was Jewish, he should be stoned to death (according to Jewish law) or if he should be put to death by the sword, the type of death penalty applicable to gentiles who are guilty of such a penalty. Some scholars, aware that when the penalty described by Jewish law is applied the person executed obtains atonement, felt that this person should be denied the opportunity of atonement after death, so that they wanted to kill him by a different method. An example of such a procedure is found in Leviticus 20,2, where a parent who kills one of his or her children by burning them as a sacrifice to the idol molech is executed by stoning, whereas if he did so to all of his children no penalty is spelled out. The Rabbis, perplexed why such a parent should not be punished, explained that the fact that no penalty is spelled out means that the parent guilty of this will be killed by a method which does not bring atonement for his sin in its wake. (Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin, folio 64). This is why the Torah here had to write that Moses had to make enquiries from G–d concerning this. Something similar occurred with the man who collected kindling on the Sabbath, Numbers 15,32. The Torah had already spelled out the death penalty, but without specifying which of the possible four kinds of death penalties applied. This is why the man was first put in jail until the death penalty by stoning was decreed. Normally, when no further details are spelled out in the Torah the death penalty is by asphyxiation, חנק. The difficulty both here and in Numbers 15,32, is that according to Jewish law the guilty party must not only be warned about the impending penalty, but according to Rabbi Yehudah in the Talmud tractate Sanhedrin folio 8, must be warned about which kind of death penalty he would be facing, something that was impossible in both the examples we have cited. It is possible that he was given a warning that he would face one of four kinds of death penalties. Perhaps each one of them used this as an excuse by reasoning that such a warning was not legally valid and they would get away with their sin. There is also the problem that some of our sages feel that any warning which was based on some dubious language is invalid. (Talmud tractate Pessachim folio 63) It is hardly likely that under such circumstances there could be any convictions ever, as to find witnesses who had warned concerning 4 possible type of death penalties would presuppose that witnesses to a capital offence are all learned men. There is also an opinion in the Talmud that if a person who was considered a chaver, known for meticulous observance of the Torah’s commandments, committed a serious sin, the fact that he had not been warned of the consequences is ignored, as he did not need witnesses to warn him not to do what he knew was forbidden and which penalty would await him (Sanhedrin folio 8)

And Hashem spoke with Moses, saying:

Bring out the one who blasphemed to the outside of the camp, and all who heard shall lay their hands upon his head, and the entire congregation shall stone him.

השמעים THEY THAT HEARD — This refers to the witnesses. כל ALL [THOSE THAT HEARD] — 'all' serves to include the judges also (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 1). את ידיהם [AND ALL THAT HEARD HIM SHALL LAY] THEIR HANDS [UPON HIS HEAD] — They said to him: your blood is upon your head; we do not deserve punishment on account of your death, for it was you yourself who brought it about (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 2). כל העדה ALL THE CONGREGATION [SHALL CERTAINLY PELT HIM WITH STONES] — (This means: the witnesses shall stone him), all the congregation standing by (because it cannot possibly mean that all the 600,000 men comprising the whole of the congregation should stone him). From here, we may derive the legal principle that a man’s agent is as himself (i. e. that his actions are legally of the same effect as though they were carried out by those for whom he acts the order) (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 23).

"And all those who heard shall lay their hands" — because it is on the basis of their testimony that he is to be stoned.

וסמכו, “and all who heard the curse are to place their hands, etc.;” what was the reason for this procedure which had to be performed on the bodies of all people about to be executed legally? The reason is that when judgment was passed, the witnesses on whose testimony this sentence was based had been forced during the proceedings to literally quote the words used by the blasphemer in doing so. This had made them perform this symbolic act by means of which they transferred any guilt that they had been burdened with through that to the blasphemer before the latter was executed. כל השומעים, “all who had heard it;” seeing that he would be executed by stoning due to their testimony. ורגמו אותו, “and they (all) have to stone him.” This was because that person had converted to Judaism. If he had not converted, he would still have been guilty of the death penalty, but, like all gentiles, he would have been executed by the sword, following the appropriate warning of what he was risking by committing that sin, and, of course by eye witnesses testifying against him. We have now heard of the penalty for blaspheming, but where did we read about the warning not to commit this sin, especially that it applies also to gentiles? It is found in Genesis 2,16-17, according to the Talmud Sanhedrin, folio 56, and the warning for a Jew is found in Exodus 22,27, “you must not curse G-d.” אותו “him,” he shall be stoned but not his clothing. (Sifra)

And to the children of Israel you shall speak, saying: Any man who blasphemes before his God shall bear his sin.

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).

כי יקלל אלוקיו, and thereby transgresses the negative commandment אלוקים לא תקלל, (Exodus 22,27) ונשא עונו, he will have to carry the burden of his punishment. In other words, this is a problem between him and his Maker, no human court being involved, seeing the sin was committed in private and he had not cursed G’d’s essence but one or more of His attributes. This “leaving him to G’d,” is also applicable when the blasphemer “only” cursed one of the attributes G’d is known by.

כי יקלל אלוקיו ונשא חטאו, “whosoever curses his G-d, shall bear the burden of his sin.” When reading this verse superficially, we gain the impression that the guilty person must simply live with the burden of his sin, i.e. that the matter is between him and his G-d, and that the human tribunal on earth is not charged with carrying out the penalty. After all, how did the court know which of his deities that person had had in mind? Not only that, but in the Torah even judges are also described simply as ‘elohim!’”

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).

איש איש כי יקלל אלוהיו, “any man who curses his G–d, etc.;” the reason why the attribute אלהים is used here for G–d, is that this law includes anyone cursing a Jewish judge. In the latter case the penalty would a 39 strokes by the person appointed to administer this by the court. Compare Exodus 22,27:אלהים לא תקלל, “you must not curse a judge, etc.”

And whoever pronounces the Name of Hashem shall surely be put to death — the entire congregation shall stone him. As the proselyte, so the native-born: when he pronounces the Name, he shall be put to death.

ונקב שם AND HE THAT UTTERETH BLASPHEMOUSLY THE NAME [OF THE LORD SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH] — He is not liable to the death-penalty at the hand of the judges unless he utters the Divine Tetragrammaton blasphemously, but not if he execrateth the Lord by only mention of one of the substitutes for the Divine name (e. g., רחום, חנון, אל etc.), (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 5; Sanhedrin 56a). ונקב here is an expression denoting “cursing”, like (Numbers 23:8) “How shall I curse (אקב) [when God hath not cursed]” (Sanhedrin 56a).

"The entire congregation" — these are the notables of the land, that is, the great men of Israel. Some say that this refers to one who curses his God in private. The correct view is that the word "God" [Elohim] is a descriptive term; angels are called Elohim, as are judges — and who can know what is in the heart of the one who curses? However, if he pronounces the glorious Name — which is not a descriptive term and does not share in any other name, for it belongs to Him alone — then the meaning is: when he curses, if he pronounces the [Divine] Name, he is to be put to death for having uttered the Name, as did the son of the Egyptian man; and for the honor of the Name, it is not mentioned [explicitly]. And the verse states: "like the stranger, so the native-born shall be put to death." It is plausible that these fighters struck one another, and that is why this passage was written. The text had already mentioned this; it adds only "like the stranger, so the native-born shall be" — and begins afresh: "for whoever strikes any life of a person with intent" and not in battle, whether stranger or native-born.

ונוקב שם ה' מות יומת, the penalty of someone cursing the tetragram is not comparable to the punishment for someone who “merely” cursed one of G’d’s attributes. The individual described in our verse will be executed publicly by stoning, and all who heard him commit this crime must participate actively in the execution. כגר כאזרח, and the type of the penalty applied to the blasphemer in our paragraph was not especially harsh seeing the guilty person had been a convert. Natural born Jew and converts are treated exactly alike in the legislation concerning blasphemy.

כגר כאזרח וגו, “both convert and natural born Jew, etc;” we might have expected the Torah to mention the natural born Jew first; but the Torah wanted to teach us that the convert who had been born as a pagan, and had had to overcome many obstacles to convert, is given additional credit for having made this effort by being named here before natural born Israelites.

בנקבו שם יומת, “when he curses the holy Name he shall be executed.” The Torah immediately continues to write that any man committing murder shall be executed. This prompted our sages in Sanhedrin 58 to teach that anyone striking the cheek of his fellow is considered as if he had struck G’d’s “cheek” (in an allegorical manner of speaking).

HE SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH. This is to be explained in this manner, according to its plain sense.

ונוקב שם ה' מות יומת, ”anyone who curses the ineffable name of the Lord is to be executed.” The verb used here for G–d is the one used by the prophet Bileam when he said that “it is useless for me to curse anyone who has been blessed by this attribute of the Lord.” (Numbers 23,8)

And a man who kills any person shall surely be put to death.

ואיש כי יכה AND HE THAT KILLETH [ANY MAN SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH] — Because it is said (Exodus 21:12) “Whosoever smiteth a man so that he die [shall surely be put to death]” I might say that I have here only the law that if one kills a man he is punishable with death; whence, however, do I know that this is also the case if he kills a woman or a child? Because Scripture states here: “[and he that killeth] any person (more lit., the soul of any human being)” (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 20 1; cf. Rashi on Exodus 21:12).

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 ...

ואיש כי יכה כל נפש אדם, “and any person who strikes another human fatally (deliberately), etc.” since the Torah had just dealt with people who started quarrels, something that may have fatal results, it reminds us once more of the seriousness of starting quarrels, the results of which are beyond one’s original intention.

And one who kills an animal shall make restitution for it — a life for a life.

AND HE THAT SMITETH A BEAST MORTALLY SHALL PAY FOR IT; ‘NEFESH’ (LIFE) FOR ‘NEFESH’ (LIFE). This does not mean a real animal, that he must buy him an animal similar to his one [that was killed], but rather it means that he is to give him monetary compensation equal to the damage he caused him. Similarly, breach for breach, eye for eye [also means monetary compensation], according to the opinion of our Rabbis.

"And one who strikes an animal shall make restitution" — thus "life for life" serves both this verse and the one preceding it.

מכה נפש בהמה, so that the animal dies.

And a man who inflicts a blemish upon his fellow — as he has done, so shall be done to him.

"So shall it be done to him" — as Samson said, "so I have done to them."

Fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth — as he inflicts a blemish upon a person, so shall it be rendered upon him.

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 Gaon brought arguments from reason that it cannot be taken literally that a fracture be given for a fracture, since the first [injury] occurred without intent — how then can one intentionally inflict the same fracture? And if it is in a dangerous place, the person will die. Similarly with the eye: one who has lost a third of the light of his eye — how can one do the same to the eye of the injurer? Therefore, the words of tradition [the Oral Law] are true: the meaning of all these is that monetary compensation is owed, and it is fitting to remove his eye if [the injurer] does not redeem it. Should one object that the injurer might be poor [and unable to pay], our answer is that Scripture speaks about the common case, and perhaps the poor man will become wealthy. This same answer applies to those who raise the objection: what if the one who injured the eye were himself blind in that eye? — "so shall it be given to him." The letter bet here stands in place of al ["upon/for"], as in "upon which I ride," and there are many such usages; or else the meaning is: so shall it be imposed upon him if he does not make monetary redemption.

כן ינתן בו, “so shall be done to him;” Rashi on this verse comments that the text is not to be understood literally, but what is meant is that financial compensation must be paid to the victim. This is perfectly logical, as in many instances it would be impossible to carry out the literal meaning of the text, and it would even be totally unfair, for instance, for a one eyed person to have to lose one eye if he had gouged out the eye of a person who had two good eyes with which to see. Our sages’ interpretation of this verse is therefore clearly the correct one. (Ibn Ezra) If the aggrieved party should take issue with this by arguing that he is not to blame that the person who had gouged out one of his eyes had only had a single eye, and that he insists on the literal application of this verse, he is told that the Torah was written in order to address normal situations, not exceptional situations, for if it had intended to provide in its text for every imaginable contingency, the Torah would be far too long. Moreover, even assuming after the exceptions the Torah sometimes made for a person’s financial circumstances, this would not necessarily be fair, as who knows whether a person who is poor today may not become rich next week or vice versa? The overriding consideration for compensation if a life had been taken deliberately is spelled out by the Torah when it wrote that financial compensation for taking a life is absolutely inadmissible, as who can determine the value of a person’s life in terms of money? (Numbers 35,31) Individual limbs, however, are subject to the judges’ evaluation

And one who kills an animal shall make restitution for it, and one who kills a person shall be put to death.

ומכה בהמה ישלמנה AND HE THAT SMITETH A BEAST, HE SHALL PAY FOR IT — Above (v. 18) Scripture was speaking of one who kills a beast, whilst here it speaks of one who inflicts a wound up on it (cf. Rashi on Exodus 21:12). ומכה אדם יומת AND HE THAT SMITETH A MAN SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH — although he has not killed him but only inflicted a wound upon him, because Scripture does not state מכה] נפש] (as it does in v. 17 which implies “smiting of the soul” — killing). Scripture is speaking here of one who smites his father or his mother when he is punishable with death for mere smiting without fatal result (cf. Rashi on Exodus 21:15). It is true that the punishment for this offence has already been stated (Exodus 24:17) but Scripture intends by putting this case in juxtaposition with מכה בהמה to put it in some respect on a level with the case of one who smites a beast. How is it in the case of one who smites a beast? He is subject to the law only if he smote it while it was alive! So, too, is one who smites his father (or his mother) punishable only if he smites them whilst they are alive, thus excluding from the death penalty one who smites them after their death. Because we find that he who curses him (the father; — the same applies to the mother) after death is liable to the death penalty (cf. Rashi Leviticus 20:9), Scripture was compelled to state with reference to one who smites his parents that he is exempt from the death penalty if he does this after their death (as stated above). And there is another point of comparison: How is it in the case of a beast? The law speaks only of smiting resulting in a wound! — for if there is no wound resulting no compensation can be claimed — so, too, he who smites his father is not liable to the death penalty unless he inflicts a wound upon him (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 8; Sanhedrin 84a, 85b).

The reason for mentioning "one who strikes an animal" a second time is to include the stranger — for the law of causing a blemish applies to Israel alone, since it is written "his fellow" (v. 19); but one who strikes a person and one who strikes an animal have the same law for both, whether stranger or native-born. I have already informed you that when two kaf-letters of comparison come together, that is an abbreviated form; and the text likewise employs abbreviated form here, not stating alongside "one who strikes a person" the clause "and he dies" — for it is obvious that the striker is not put to death until the one who was struck dies. Another interpretation: the text first mentioned "life" — meaning he struck him in a dangerous place — and then stated as a general rule that whoever causes death is to be put to death, whether he struck in a dangerous place or not; that is why "life" is not mentioned [the second time].

ומכה בהמה ישלמנה, “someone who had deliberately struck his fellow man’s animal must pay compensation.” The Torah has repeated this legislation, as originally it had used the expression: נפש, “lifeforce,” implying that the attacker had aimed at a part of the body that is most vulnerable, whereas here it did not restrict itself to when an especially vulnerable part of the animal had been struck. Compensation is payable even if the animal had not died as the result of being struck.

ומכה נפש בהמה ישלמנה ומכה אדם יומת, “if someone strikes an animal he shall pay for it, whereas if someone strikes (dead) a human being he shall be executed.” The reason the Torah continues immediately with the words: “there shall be one law for you, etc.,” is that the investigation of crimes involving financial damage or bodily harm resulting in death should be subject to equally thorough investigation as to who is responsible. The word אחד in verse 22 refers to The “One and only G’d;” Torah legislation is based on G’d and not on the considerations applicable in Gentile jurisprudence.

ומכה בהמה ישלמנה, if someone injures someone else’s animal he must pay compensation to its owner, even if the animal does not die as a result to that injury.

One law shall there be for you — as the proselyte, so the native-born shall it be, for I am Hashem your God.

'אני ה אלהיכם I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD — your God — the God of all of you. Just as I attach My Name to you, so do I attach it to the strangers.

The reason for saying "your God" — He is the God of the native-born and the God of the stranger.

כגר כאזרח יהיה, for I the Lord your G’d am just as much the G’d of the convert (compare Job 34,19).

כגר כאזרת, convert and natural-born Israelite alike. The Torah did not write: הגר כאזרח, "the convert himself is equal to the natural-born Israelite." The reason is that in the scale of relative degrees of sanctity the convert ranks below the natural-born Israelite. The wording the Torah did use relates only to both categories of Israelites being equal before the law.

כגר כאזרח, “be it a convert or a natural born Israelite;” just as the Torah is concerned with the wellbeing of a natural born Jew, it is concerned with the wellbeing of a person who has converted to Judaism or to his animal. (B’chor shor)

כגר כאזרח יהיה, “the proselyte and the native shall be alike (before the law).” The Gentile who came from a foreign land and separated himself from his homeland is called גר by the Torah as he resembles a גרגיר, a berry falling of a tree which is separated from its source. If someone’s parents came from the same town he is called an אזרח, a “native.” The word appears in that sense in Psalms 37,35 ומתערה כאזרח רענן, “and well-rooted like a robust native tree.” The Torah wanted to make the point that in spite of these differences in origin of certain people, the law is to be applied to them equally. כי אני ה' אלוקיכם, “for I am the Lord your G’d.” The Torah means that “if you practice these principles then I will indeed be the Lord your G’d. From this positive statement you can also deduce that failure to apply the law equally to natives and people who have converted to Judaism means that G’d will not consider Himself as our exclusive G’d with all the beneficial consequences of that elevated status. Put differently: if you discriminate against newly converted Jews, then G’d will discriminate against you. Additionally, if you submit your legal problems to arbitration by courts which do not recognise the אחד, the One and only G’d as the sole lawgiver, then you are (in the words of Rashi at the beginning of Parshat Mishpatim) as if desecrating the name of the Lord and at the same time lending stature to the pagan religions. Not only this, anyone who wields enough influence to dissuade a Jew from bringing his disputes before a gentile tribunal and does not use his powers of persuasion on Jews about to do this commits an act of desecrating the name of the Lord. Not only does one thereby lend greater stature to the religion practiced by the members of such courts, but one contributes to their depriving the Jews of money which is rightfully theirs. The concept of meting out fair justice is a Torah exclusive as we know from Psalms 147, 19-20) “He issued His commands to Yaakov, His statutes and rules to Israel; He did not do so for any other nation; of such rules they know nothing.”

And Moses spoke with the children of Israel, and they brought out the one who had blasphemed to the outside of the camp and stoned him with a stone. And the children of Israel did as Hashem had commanded Moses.

ובני ישראל עשו AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL DID [AS THE LORD COMMANDED MOSES] every prescription mentioned in respect to the stoning-penalty in another place, viz., the casting down of the culprit from a height, the heaping of stones upon him, and the hanging him after the execution has taken place (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 10; Sanhedrin 43a).

AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL DID AS THE ETERNAL COMMANDED MOSES. “This includes the leaning of hands, casting from a height, and hanging the dead body, as well as the regulation, his body shall not remain all night upon the tree.” [This is the language of the] Torath Kohanim. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that the plain meaning thereof is that from that day onwards they acted in accordance with the law concerning one who wounds [a fellowman or causes him damage, mentioned here above in Verses 17-21]. But it is not a correct [explanation] that this verse be referring to the future. The plain meaning thereof is as follows: “and they stoned him with stones because the children of Israel did according to the commandment which the Eternal commanded Moses.” Such a repetition of expressions is found with respect to all those who keep the commandments of G-d, just as it is said in the section of the Passover, and as He stated in the section of the census, Thus did the children of Israel; according to all that the Eternal commanded Moses, so did they; and so also with regards to the rods of the princes: Thus did Moses; as the Eternal commanded him, so did he. The correct interpretation here appears to me to be that since Scripture mentioned first the stoning, it went back afterwards and stated, and the children of Israel did etc., for the meaning of Scripture is to declare that when Moses spoke to the children of Israel they immediately brought forth him that had cursed, and they stoned him; and all the children of Israel did so in order to keep and fulfill [the commandment] as the Eternal commanded Moses, but not out of hatred to the son of the Egyptian who had striven with the Israelite, for [they did it] in order to remove the unworthy one from their midst. Behar

"And the children of Israel did so" — from that day forward, according to this law, in the case of one who causes injury.

ובני ישראל עשו כאשר צוה ה' את משה, they did not stone him as an act of revenge, or because they hated the individual being stoned; they did it merely in order to fulfill G’d’s commandment.

ובני ישראל עשו כאשר צוה השם. The children of Israel did as G'd commanded. Why did the Torah write that the children of Israel did what G'd commanded after it had already reported in the first part of the verse that they took the blasphemer out of the camp and executed him by stoning him? Seeing that the cause of this execution was a quarrel between a Jew and the son of a Jewess, one could have argued that though the judgment was carried out, many people harboured reservations in their hearts about this execution. The Torah therefore repeats that the children of Israel did what G'd commanded to indicate that their motivation was to carry out G'd's commandment. Alternatively, the Torah wished to give credit to the whole people for having fulfilled this commandment although it was obviously impossible for the entire nation to physically participate in this execution. The Torah may even go beyond this and credit the whole people with having fulfilled all the commandments because they all identified with this execution. This is why the line is couched in general terms, the Torah not specifying which command of G'd the people had fulfilled. It is also possible that the Torah had to write this line seeing that the command to execute the blasphemer had been addressed to Moses, G'd addressing him in the singular and saying (verse 14) "take the blasphemer outside the camp and have all those who heard his blasphemy place their hands upon his head and the whole congregation shall stone him." According to that verse we thought that whereas Moses was only to take the blasphemer outside, the entire people had to execute him. Here the Torah wrote: "they took the blasphemer outside the camp and stoned him to death." The verse makes the people the whole subject. The Torah now proceeds to praise Israel for not having waited until Moses took the blasphemer outside the camp; they did so themselves and proceeded to complete the commandment to execute him. If we adopt the previous ways of interpreting the verse the word הוצא "take out" which G'd said to Moses may be understood to mean that either Moses or the people were to do this.

וירגמו אותו אבן, “they stoned him to death with stones.” The use of the word אבן “stone,” in the singular mode, teaches that if one stone had been enough to kill the sinner, no more stones are to be hurled at him. (Sifra) ובני ישראל עשו, “and the Children of Israel had done;” from this day onwards the legislation of how to deal with people who injure others was practiced. An alternate interpretation of this line: the words: “they did,” refer not only to the last verse preceding this, but state that all the steps of the legal proceedings of carrying out an execution were performed dutifully by all the people whenever the need arose to do so.(Sifra)

ובני ישראל עשו כאשר צוה ה' את משה, “and the Children of Israel did as G’d had commanded to Moses.” Nachmanides draws attention to a statement in Torat Kohanim, according to which the words “as G’d had commanded Moses,” included the requirement that all those who had heard the blasphemer were required to place their hands and weight, סמיכה, upon him prior to his being stoned, as well as the requirement to push him down from an elevated wall into a pit, and to hang him subsequent to his death until the evening after his execution. Ibn Ezra states that the procedures mentioned in Torat Kohanim became effective from that day onwards for all people who were executed at the command of the courts. Nachmanides disagrees with Ibn Ezra on this, claiming that if so, the legislation to do so would have had to be phrased in the future tense. The plain meaning of our verse is that the Israelites carried out the instructions G’d had given to Moses. There is nothing strange in the Torah describing this execution in more than the minimal number of words, as we have many instances of the Torah doing so, as for instance in connection with the Passover, (Exodus 12,28) or with the census of the Jewish people (Numbers 1,54). Personally, (Nachmanides writing) I feel that the reason for the above being apparently repeated is that the instruction was given to Moses individually. When the Torah reports that all the people participated in this execution “as G’d had commanded Moses,” the point the Torah made is that the people did not feel any personal animosity towards this man who had an Egyptian father, but that their participation in the execution was motivated purely by the fact that G’d had commanded Moses that this was what was to be done. They wanted to participate in removing stains on their collective national character by doing so.

ובני ישראל עשו, “and the Children of Israel did, etc.” they carried out what we have read in this portion.