A child comes home from school and tells his father that his Rebbi hit him for misbehaving. The father called up the Rebbi and asked him if that was indeed what had happened. The Rebbi confirmed the reports and mentioned that because he was a Rebbi and like a father to his students, he had the right to hit him. (This is supported by the gemara, but I do not remember where it is) The father then asked the Rebbi- could you hug my son like he was your son? When the Rebbi said no, the father responded that in that case, I do not think you had a right to hit my son.

The parsha deals with the subject of the mekalel, the one who blasphemed God. Before Moshe asked God what should be done with this person, he put the mekalel in ‘jail’ as he awaited God’s decion, as the pasukim below show.

10 Now the son of an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father went out among the Israelites, and a fight broke out in the camp between him and an Israelite. 11 The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name with a curse; so they brought him to Moses. (His mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri the Danite.) 12 They put him in custody until the will of the LORD should be made clear to them. 13 Then the LORD said to Moses: 14 “Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. 15 Say to the Israelites: ‘If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible; 16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death. 17 ” ‘If anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death. 18 Anyone who takes the life of someones animal must make restitution—life for life. 19 If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured. 21 Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a man must be put to death. 22 You are to have the same law for the alien and the native-born. I am the LORD your God.’ ” 23 Then Moses spoke to the Israelites, and they took the blasphemer outside the camp and stoned him. The Israelites did as the LORD commanded Moses. A couple questions. Moshe didn’t know what should be done with such a person!? He learned virtually the entire Torah straight from God! Why did he have to ask? Another question is that right after Moshe asks God about the blasphemer, God tells Moshe some seemingly random laws: if one kills another, he is killed. If one injures another, he must pay restitution. What is the message taught by this interruption?

The answer given is that before we can punish someone we must evaluate our intentions and feelings. If we have a feeling of haughtiness, of hatred, we cannot properly punish someone else. Punishment must come from a sense of love for the other person. Thus, the laws about mortality. God is teaching the Jewish People and Moshe that before a man is rightfully killed, I want to show that a human life is immensely important in My eyes, as My creation. If one is slayed, the murderer must be killed in return to show that the value of a human life is so important. (We see that even in that case, when the murderer himself is put to death, those that kill him must recognize the graveness of the matter.)

Only after Moshe realized the importance of a life and the seriousness of the situation, could he properly administer death to the blasphemer. The Jewish People should throw stones at him because he is deserving of death, but they must do so out of love and respect. One can only hit if he can also hug.

(Rabbi Schneider did not answer the first question, but it seems that perhaps God specifically withheld this Law from him until now to demonstrate this point.)

Yaakov

(Courtesy of Rabbi Avi Schneider of Yeshivat Torat Shraga)

 

Dibur and Emor differ as “speaking” and “informing.” Speaking is the expression of thought in words, without any consideration of its being accepted by the hearer, but informing is always “telling somebody.” One can speak to oneself, but not inform. Dibur is the concise expression of a thought, Emor is addressing the same to the mind and feeling of another person, the complete explanation and development of a thought into genuine understanding.

Hence in the speech of the Torah, Dibur is always the concise, pregnant expression of the Law, as given in the Written Torah, but Emor is the full explanation of it in the Oral Torah. The Torah is written with two types of fire. Black fire makes up the letters, but its teachings are confined to them. White fire is the space between the letters, which has no such limitation.

True understanding of Torah require more than words on a page, it requires conversation, interaction, creative expression of something more intimate than letters can convey.

God spoke the Law in Ten Statements – “Asseres HaDibros,” but He created the world in Ten Utterances “Assarah Ma’amaros.”

 

At the end of this week’s Parsha we come across an interesting story. A man, born to a Jewish mother (from the Tribe of Dan) and an Egyptian father, gets into an argument with one of the other Jews. In the course of the disagreement he pronounces the name of Hashem and curses Him. The people bring the man to Moshe and place him in jail while Moshe asks Hashem for advice. God instructs them to take the man out of the camp, to have the people who heard him curse Hashem place their hands on his head and then stone him to death.

The Midrash, filling in some gaps in the story, tells us that the argument was about whether this man was entitled to place his tent with the rest of the Tribe of Dan, since tribal association is patrilineal. The Dan-ites didn’t want this man camping with them, and are backed by Moshe, who rules that the Dan-ites have the right to not allow him in their camp. The man leaves Moshe in frustration, continues his fight with someone else in the camp, and ultimately curses God.

This Midrash is quite hard to understand. Even if Dan wasn’t obligated count the blasphemer as a member of their tribe, wouldn’t it still have been a good gesture to allow him to stay there? He didn’t really have anywhere else to go, as he surely didn’t belong to any of the other tribes!

Further, even if he wasn’t a particularly nice person and they were justified in not wanting him around, why did the Jew allow the blasphemer to pick a fight with him? It was surely possible for them to handle this situation without getting drawn into one-on-one quarrels with him, and the man’s temper would not have flared to the point of cursing Hashem. There seems, however, to be no criticism levied against Dan or the man who argued with the blasphemer.

Rashi (citing a different Midrash) makes a very insightful comment when analyzing the punishment given. What is the point of having the people who witnessed the event place their hands on the blasphemer’s head? We don’t see this action in other places that stoning is discussed. Rashi says that they placed their hands on his head to tell him “דמך בראשך ואין אנו נענשים במיתתך שאתה גרמת לך” (“Your blood is on your own head! We are not to be punished for your death, for you brought this upon yourself!”).

The lesson here is clear. This is man who comes from a broken family, who was pushed around by the people he considered the members of his Tribe and was provoked further by another individual. Yet ultimately he alone is responsible for his actions and must take full responsibility for them.

How many times do we blame our circumstances for mistakes we make?

Shabbat Shalom and have a great Lag BaOmer!

© 2012 myDvar.com Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha

Switch to our mobile site