Emor 5759

Parshat Emor 5759 “The Story Behind the Story” Rabbi Ari Kahn Parshat Emor primarily teaches law: Laws concerning the Kohanim, and laws regarding the various festivals, make up the majority of the Parsha. The end of the Parsha introduces a short narrative, which itself introduces more law, then returns to narrative: And the son of an Israelite woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the people of Israel; and this son of the Israelite woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp. And the Israelite woman’s son blasphemed the name of the Lord, and cursed. And they brought him to Moshe; and his mother’s name was Shlomit, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan. And they put him in custody, that the mind of the Lord might be shown to them. And the Lord spoke to Moshe, saying: ‘Bring forth him who has cursed outside the camp; and let all who heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him. And you shall speak to the People of Israel, saying, “Whoever curses his G-d shall bear his sin.” And he who blasphemes the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him; as well the stranger, as he who is born in the land, when he blasphemes the name of the Lord, shall be put to death. …You shall have one kind of law for the stranger, as for one of your own country; for I am the Lord your G-d.’ And Moshe spoke to the People of Israel, that they should bring forth him who had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the People of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moshe. (Vayikra 24:10-23) While the law of the “blasphemer” is certainly important, it seems strange that the law is told in the form of a narrative, rather than recorded in dispassionate legalistic form, as are so many other laws in this Parsha and elsewhere in the Torah. Regarding the narrative itself a number of questions arise: Why is this story told here? Why is the person’s identity revealed?1 Why was it necessary for Moshe to seek consultation with G-d in order to clarify the law? In order to understand the sequence and discern why the story is told at this juncture we must first resolve the other questions raised. The man who blasphemes is described as the son of an Egyptian man and an Israelite woman. By making this identification the Torah seems to be pointing out that the severity of this crime – cursing Gd - is not something which a Jew would be suspected of: The origin of this curse is his Egyptian ancestry.2 Echoes of Paroh’s impudent question, “Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice to let Israel 1 2

In contrast, the wood-gatherer remains anonymous. See Da’at Zekanim of the Baaley Tosfot 24:10 where this observation is made. 1

go? I know not the Lord, nor will I let Israel go.” (Sh’mot 5:3) can be heard in this curse. While his Egyptian identity is crucial to the understanding of the text, and especially the emphasis in the ensuing stricture “as well as the stranger who is born in your land”, the Rabbis go one step farther, and identify the specific Egyptian who was the father of the blasphemer. ‘Whose father was an Egyptian’ (24, 10). Our Rabbis and R. Levi differ on the interpretation. Our Rabbis say: Although there were no bastards among them at that time, he was [like] a bastard. R. Levi says: He was definitely a bastard. How is this to be understood? The taskmasters were Egyptians and the officers were Israelites. One taskmaster was in charge of ten officers and one officer was in charge of ten men. Thus a taskmaster had charge of a hundred men. On one occasion a taskmaster paid an early visit to an officer and said to him: ‘Go and assemble me your group.’ When he came in the other's wife smiled at him. Thought he: 'She is mine!' So he went out and hid behind a ladder. No sooner had her husband gone out than he entered and misconducted himself with her. The other turned round and saw him coming out of the house. When the taskmaster realized that he had seen him, he went to him and kept beating him all that day, saying to him: 'Work hard, work hard!' The reason was that he wanted to kill him. Thereupon the Holy Spirit began to stir in Moshe; hence it is written, ‘And he looked this way and that’ (Shmot 2, 12). What is the significance of the expression ‘this way and that’?--That he saw what the taskmaster had done to the officer in the house and in the field. He thought: Not enough that he has misconducted himself with his wife but he must seek to kill him! Instantly, When he saw that there was no man, he smote the Egyptian (ib.). (Midrash Rabbah - Vayikra 32:4) The father of this man was none other than the abusive taskmaster whom Moshe saw beating the Jewish slave.3 According to the Midrash, the Egyptian first abused the wife and then attempted to kill the husband. In the course of the abuse of the wife a child was conceived. This child joined the Jewish People and left Egypt with his mother. Now, he has an altercation with another man, and curses Gd. 3

According to the Arizal (Shaar Hapasukim Emor) the taskmaster was a reincarnation of Cain, who also was motivated by a woman who was not “his”. See my comments to Bereishit 5758. Moshe was a reincarnation of Hevel: Rather than seeking to kill his brother, Moshe attempts to help his brother, and kills in defense of his brother, in stark contrast to the heinous crime of Cain. According to the Midrash, Moshe merited prophesy due to this gesture. “G-d then said to him: ‘You have put aside your work and have gone to share the sorrow of Israel, behaving to them like a brother; well, I will also leave those on high and below and only speak with you.’ Hence it is written: ‘And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see’ (Shmot 3, 4); because G-d saw that Moshe turned aside from his duties to look upon their burdens, He called unto him out of the midst of the bush.’ (ib.).”(Shmot Rabba 1:27)

2

It is interesting that the husband is described as an officer of his fellow slaves; given his abusive position, it is unlikely that he was beloved by his people. Nonetheless, even this officer is seen by Moshe as a brother, and he proceeds to save him by killing the Egyptian. Later, when Moshe again intercedes to try to stop an altercation between two Jews, his previous meritorious action is thrown in his face: And when he went out the second day, behold, two men of the Hebrews struggled together; and he said to the one who did the wrong, ‘Why do you strike your fellow?’ And he said, ‘Who made you a prince and a judge over us? Do you intend to kill me, as you killed the Egyptian?’ And Moshe feared, and said, ‘Certainly this thing is known.’ (Sh’mot 2:13,14) According to the Midrash, the two who were fighting on the second day were Datan and Aviram, two provocateurs known primarily for their activities in the desert. And he went out the second day, and behold, two men of the Hebrews were striving together (ib. 13). This refers to Datan and Aviram, whom he calls ’striving’ on account of their subsequent record; for it was they who said this thing; it was they who left over of the Manna; they it was who said: ‘Let us make a captain and return to Egypt’ (Bamidbar 14, 4). It was they who rebelled at the Red Sea. (Midrash Rabba 1:29) At almost every turn in the desert, whenever trouble brewed, Datan was not far behind. Perhaps the old “Kapo” had a difficult time following Moshe and the Torah. This resentment is especially ironic, if we consider the debt which Datan owed Moshe – his very life. According to the Midrash, the reason Datan knew of Moshe having killed the Egyptian in order to save a Jew, was because Datan was that Jew. The Midrash explains that Datan was the husband of Shlomit, the daughter of Dibri. When Moshe saw this, he knew by means of the Holy Spirit what had happened in the house and what the Egyptian was about to do in the field; so he said: 'This man certainly deserves his death, as it is written: ‘And he that smiteth any man mortally shall surely be put to death’. Moreover, since he cohabited with the wife of Datan he deserves slaying, as it is said: Both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death’. Hence does it say: “And he looked this way and that way’(2, 12); namely, he saw what he did to him [Datan] in the house and what he intended to do to him in the field. (Shmot Rabba 1:28)

3

One day Datan struggles with the Egyptian taskmaster who wished to kill him; the next day he struggles with another Jew. On both occasions, Moshe intercedes and saves him. Datan, though, is ungrateful. It is unclear if Datan returns to his wife. The various Midrashim accord different degrees of responsibility on her part. The Midrash cited above notes her flirtatious behavior: When he came in the other's wife smiled at him. Thought he: “She is mine!” Furthermore, certain commentators see something ominous in her name: Shlomit, the daughter of Dibri. Shlomit is derived from Shalom – she would say hello to alland Dibri – she was too talkative and outgoing.4 On the other hand, other sources seem to indicate that what transpired was completely without her knowledge! Once an Egyptian taskmaster went to a Jewish officer and set eyes upon his wife who was beautiful without blemish. He waited for daybreak, when he dragged the officer out of his house and then returned to lie down with the woman, who thought that it was her husband, with the result that she became pregnant from him. When her husband returned, he discovered the Egyptian emerging from his house. He then asked her: ‘Did he touch you?’ She replied: ‘Yes, for I thought it was you.’ (Shmot Rabba 1:28) But even this source is introduced by a more damning statement: Tradition tells us that the Jews remained chaste during the duration of their enslavement. There was one exception: Whence do we know that they were not suspect of adultery? Because there was only one immoral woman and the Bible published her name, as it is said: ‘And his mother's name was Shlomit, the daughter of Dibri.5 (Shmot Rabba 1:28) Although the Midrash tells us that the Egyptian violated her without her knowledge, and ostensibly against her will, the prefacing remarks concerning her immorality belie a less-than flattering attitude toward her. Perhaps both Midrashim need to be seen as complimenting one another, and indeed the “inviting smile” of the other Midrash should be read into this second Midrash as well. Furthermore, the logic Moshe employs when deciding to kill the Egyptian is based on a verse concerning adultery, not rape: “Both 4

See Rashi ad loc. Rashi in Vayikra labels Shlomit a “whore”, while Rashi in Sh’mot states that she was unaware that the man with whom she was intimate was not her husband. My conclusion from these conflicting portraits is that Rashi felt her provocative behavior had provoked the assault. While this resolution may not be ‘politically correct’, it may be the only way to resolve the contradictions between Rashi’s two comments. While in the Midrash one may conclude that there are conflicting Midrashim, it is more difficult to say that Rashi contradicts himself. 5

4

the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” (ib. 20, 10). Not all the Jews were so confident that their spouses had remained pure. The Zohar explains the enigmatic passage in the Torah which describes the bitter water encountered in Marah. R. Eleazar adduced here the verse: “And when they came to Marah, they could not drink the waters of Marah, for they were bitter.... There he made for them a statute and an ordinance, and there he proved them” (Shmot 15: 23-25). ‘I wonder’, he said, ‘how it is that people take so little trouble to understand the words of the Torah. Here, for example, one should really inquire what is the point of the words “There he made for them... and there he proved them”. But the inward significance of the water mentioned here is this. The Egyptians claimed to be the parents of the children of Israel, and many among the Israelites suspected their wives in the matter. So the Holy One, blessed be He, brought them to that place, where He desired to put them to the test. Thus when Moshe cried to the Lord he was told: Write down the Divine Name, cast it into the water, and let all of them, women and men, be tested, so that no evil report should remain in regard to My children; and until they all be probed I will not cause My Name to rest upon them. Straightway “the Lord showed him a tree, and he cast it into the waters”, the tree being thus identical with the Divine Name the priest has to write for the testing of the wife of an Israelite. Thus “There he made for them a statute and an ordinance, and there he proved them”. Now it may be asked: This was properly done for the women, but why include the men? But, indeed, the men also had to be probed to show that they had not contaminated themselves with Egyptian women, in the same way as the women had to be probed to show that they had kept themselves uncontaminated by Egyptian men, all the time they were among them. And all, male and female, were proved to be pure, were found to be the seed of Israel, holy and pure. Then the Holy One, blessed be He, caused His Name to dwell among them. (Zohar, Bamidbar 124b) The prerequisite for the Divine Presence to dwell amongst the people was the drinking of bitter water which contained the Divine Name. There was one woman, though, who had the forbidden fruit of her tryst in tow, Shlomit bat Dibri. We may surmise that she alone was not tested, and not found guilty, because her husband Datan had already separated from her. The various characters in our short but strange narrative are beginning to come into focus-- Datan and Shlomit, a worthy match;

5

her son by her Egyptian paramour, and an unidentified individual with whom he becomes embroiled in strife and fisticuffs. And the son of an Israelite woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the people of Israel; and this son of the Israelite woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp. (24:10) What was the root of the controversy? R. Hiyya taught: He went out as a result of the section regarding pedigrees. For he came with the intention of pitching his tent in the camp of Dan, so they said to him: ‘What right have you to pitch your tent in the camp of Dan?' Said he to them: 'I am descended from the daughters of Dan.’ It is written, they told him, “By their fathers’ houses; every man with his own standard, according to the ensigns” (Bamidbar 2, 2);-- fathers’ but not mothers’ houses. He appealed to the court of Moshe and lost his case, so he rose and reviled G-d. This indeed explains the source of his discontent but not the reason for his altercation with the Israelite. The Zohar explains the reason for the fight and the identity of his antagonist: ‘And his mother’s name, etc.’ Up to this point his mother's name was concealed, but now that he had uttered blasphemy his mother's name is mentioned. Said R. Abba: ‘Were it not that the Sacred Lamp is still alive, I would not reveal this, since it is not meant to be revealed save to those who are among the reapers of the field: a curse on those who want to reveal to those who should not know! The Israelite man mentioned here was the son of another woman, and his father was the husband of Shlomit. When an Egyptian came to her in the middle of the night and he returned home and became aware of it, he separated from her and took another wife. Hence one is called “the Israelite man” and the other “the son of the Israelite woman”. Now if they quarreled, how came the Holy Name to be involved? The reason was that the Israelite man reviled the other's mother, and the latter took the He from the Holy Name and cursed with it to defend his mother; hence the word nakav (lit. hollowed) is used, to show that he separated the letters of the Holy Name. But all this is only for “the reapers of the field”.’ (Zohar, Vayikra, Page 106a) While certain elements of this Zohar are clearly too obscure to explain, there are some points that we can decipher. These men who fought had something in common – their parents were once

6

married. Their fathers once fought; both seemed to have inherited contentious constitutions from their respective fathers. When the son of Shlomit is denied the right to dwell with the tribe of Dan, the son of Datan provokes him. Perhaps possessing the tact and congeniality of his father he calls the formers’ mother a whore. He tells him how his mother cheated on her husband, with a hated Egyptian. He is further told of how Moshe himself intervened and killed his father.6 Now perhaps this man suspects that he knows why he lost his case, assuming that Moshe would never rule in his favor because of his background. So he curses. He uses the great and awesome name of G-d to vent his anger, sadness and frustration. But why curse with the name of G-d? Why utter the ineffable, - the unspeakable? The Midrash provides the explanation: R. Nehemiah says: He saw that there was none who would mention over him G-d's name and slay him. The Sages said: He saw that there was no hope that righteous persons would arise from him or his offspring until the end of generations. When Moshe saw this, he took counsel with the angels and said to them: ‘This man deserves death.’ They agreed; hence it says: “And when he saw that there was no man” to say a good word for him, “and he smote the Egyptian.” With what did he slay him? … The Rabbis say that he pronounced G-d's name against him and thus slew him, for it is said: “Do you say to kill me?” (Shmot 2, 14). (Midrash Rabba Sh’mot 1:29) The method of execution of the Egyptian was by uttering the Divine Name. Now, when the son of the Egyptian utters the Divine Name he is placed in detention, awaiting a Divine directive. Moshe’s silence is not due to lack of knowledge, rather to what he may feel is an inappropriate legal decision on his part. A similar phenomenon is discerned in the case of Zimri and Cozbi. Moshe had married a woman from Midyan; why couldn’t Zimri do the same? Of course Moshe knew the response; he sensed, though, that it would be unseemly if it was meted out directly by himself without Divine instruction.7 But where did the man learn the ineffable name? The sages say he heard it at Sinai. When G-d said “I am the Lord…” the ineffable name was articulated. Therefore we see that this man, born of a forbidden union and raised as one of the Jews, a man who witnessed the plagues and the splitting of the sea, who stood at Mount Sinai and saw the heavens open, also saw and heard the Voice of G-d. Yet he was only able to distill from these experiences the ability to 6

Zohar Vayikra 106a “R. Isaac said: Besides insulting his mother, he mentioned that his father was the man whom Moshe had slain” 7 See comments of Rabbenu Bachya ad loc. 7

curse. That was his failure. It is true that he was most likely livid with rage, emotionally ravaged, utterly humiliated. Nonetheless, his response indicates a complete breakdown, a total moral failure. The use he makes of the Divine Name is so different from that of Moshe. Moshe uses the name of G-d to achieve peace. When he sees a man abusing his slave, Moshe feels obligated to stop the unjustified beating. His use of the Divine Name is similar to the use of the Divine Name in the waters of the Sotah: There, too, the Name is utilized in order to create peace. The son of the Egyptian did not seem to understand this, or did not wish to understand this. His action is as different as Moshe’s marriage was from Zimri’s affair. At Sinai, the greatest event in the history of the world, all witnesses should have been transformed, elevated. This man concluded the wrong lesson from Sinai: Instead of truth, understanding and holiness, he walked away with venom. Perhaps now we also understand why this narrative is taught at this juncture. The next Parsha is “B’har”, which tells us what Moshe learned at Sinai: And the Lord spoke to Moshe in Mount Sinai, saying… (25:1) This section stands in stark contrast to the lesson learned by the son of the Egyptian at Sinai. Instead of beauty, he saw emptiness. He missed the mountain, as it were; perhaps that is why he was stoned.

© 1999 Rabbi Ari Kahn, All Rights Reserved

8