Parshat Emor is familiar to many because Chazal selected it to play a prominent role in the Torah portions that we read on the holidays of Sukkot and Pesach. It was chosen for this notable role because it is the most explicit and comprehensive listing of all the Jewish festivals in the Torah. Less well known and often overlooked are the opening and closing sections of the Parsha. The beginning of Emor contains Mitzvot relating to the sanctity of the Kohanim and the Korbanot. While some of these sections might be less familiar, they understandably fit thematically into the broader motif of Kedusha that runs through Sefer Vayikra. In addition, their order and placement is not surprising as they are a part of the triad of sanctities – place, people and time – that comprise Sefer Vayikra. In contrast, the closing section of Parshat Emor is much more obscure and presents a contextual conundrum. Following the section on the holidays, the Torah relates a short narrative about a blasphemer that seems to be a complete non-sequitur. That story is also surrounded by a series of seemingly uncorrelated and misplaced Mitzvot. As in many other instances, the Midrashei Chazal, and the exegetes following in their footsteps, help to decipher this puzzling trail by filling in many of the missing links and contextual connections. While these explanations might relieve the contextual quandary as to why these Parshiyot are found here, the more fundamental question that needs to be addressed is how did Chazal and the commentators arrive at these interpretive conclusions?
In order to delve into this issue more thoroughly, we must first quickly review the structure of the tail end of Parshat Emor and consider the challenges presented by its layout. After the detailed presentation of the holidays, the Torah turns to the lighting of the Menorah and the placement of the Lechem HaPanim on the Shulchan. It then shifts abruptly to the narrative of the blasphemer, where it states that an individual who was the son of an Israelite woman and an Egyptian father emerged into the midst of the people and they quarreled with an Israelite man.
Seemingly without rhyme or reason, the son of the Israelite woman suddenly curses the name of God and is brought before Moshe. As an apparent aside, the Torah then inexplicably notes the identity of his mother as Shlomit bat Divri from the tribe of Dan. The people then place the blasphemer in custody in order to await God’s instructions as to his fate. The Torah presents God’s response to Moshe as to the proper course of action utilizing a chiastic structure (A-B-C-B-A).
In this section, Moshe receives the divine directive to put the blasphemer to death since that is the appropriate punishment for someone who curses God. It continues by relaying that anyone who gives a life blow to their fellow man shall be put to death, anyone who kills an animal will have to make remuneration to its owner and one who injures another party will be culpable for the damage caused. The Parsha then closes with the fulfillment of God’s command to put the blasphemer to death. For further discussion regarding the significance of this structure, please see Parshat Emor – The Curse that Strikes a Punch. To summarize briefly, the concluding section of Parshat Emor includes instructions as to the proper function of the Menorah and Shulchan in the Mishkan, which is followed by the enigmatic story of the blasphemer and closes with a series of criminal and tort laws regarding damages and capital crimes.
The questions arising from this concluding section abound. First and foremost, none of the content seems to belong here. One would have expected the instructions regarding the Menorah and Shulchan to appear in Parshiyot Terumah and Titzaveh (Sefer Shmot), the story of the blasphemer to be situated alongside other similar narrative episodes in Parshiyot Sh’lach and Korach (Sefer Bamidbar) and the criminal and tort laws to be presented in Parshat Mishpatim (Sefer Shmot). Beyond the fundamental question as to why these Parshiyot form the conclusion of Parshat Emor, they also seem to disrupt what would have been the seamless thematic flow, from the sanctity of time found in presentation of the festivals in Emor to the laws of Sh’mita and Yovel found at the beginning of the subsequent Parsha of Behar. Moreover, what is the internal correlation between these seemingly disparate components? What unites the Menora, the Lecham HaPanim, the blasphemer and the tort laws? While each of these subsections deserves a complete Shiur in order to properly explore their nuances (see Parshat Emor – Why is Shmot in Vayikra?), in this week’s Shiur, we will concentrate on the anecdote of the blasphemer and in doing so tangentially address the other Mitzvot found adjacent to it.
Unveiling the Egyptian Moshe
In Parshat Shmot, the Torah recounts Moshe’s first venture beyond the palace of Paroah. Moshe was raised as the adopted son of Paroah’s daughter and upon reaching maturity wanders out to see the plight of his brethren. He immediately identifies with their suffering and notices an Egyptian man beating one of his brothers, an unidentified Ivri man. Moshe quickly assesses the situation and wastes no time in doing away with the Egyptian oppressor. The next day Moshe once again emerges from the palace and stumbles upon two Ivrim quarrelling and says to the wicked one, “why are you hitting your friend?” The wicked individual retorts by challenging Moshe’s authority to be a minister and judge over us, and concludes with, “are you planning to kill me as you killed the Egyptian?” Moshe grows fearful as he realizes that his killing of the Egyptian is becoming more widely known. Eventually, Paroah is made aware of the incident and in response issues a death warrant for Moshe.
This forces Moshe to flee to Midyan. While the Torah simply states that Moshe struck the Egyptian, the Midrashei Chazal indicate that Moshe used the ineffable name of God to slay the oppressor.
Where did the Midrash come up with such a fantastical explanation? One of the exegetical tools employed by Chazal in the Oral Law to deduce normative laws is the linguistic parallel (גזירה שוה). That same philological method is often enlisted by the Midrash to bridge narrative gaps or to indicate a thematic parallel between seemingly uncorrelated events. Rashi frequently quotes these Midrashim to resolve questions about the placement of a particular anecdote or to fill in the missing information of a perplexing text. Often these additions become so deeply woven into the fabric of the story that the simple explanation of the text becomes conflated with the addition of Chazal. While there is nothing inherently problematic with this development, it sometimes can obscure the literary source for these Midrashei Chazal and in doing so, there is a missed opportunity to understand the deeper thematic connection that Chazal sought to convey.
That is because the comparing and contrasting of the two stories usually yields a richer understanding of each story individually. In our case, how did the Midrash know that Moshe utilized the ineffable name of God to slay the Egyptian? The answer to that question is found in this week’s Parsha. The story of the blasphemer and the story of Moshe’s exiting the palace share striking linguistic parallels. Both stories employ the terms Ish Mitzri, Vayetze and Nitzim as well as sport anonymous characters simply referred to by the term Ish. These textual similarities spawn a series of Midrashei Chazal that conceptually cross-pollinate between these two episodes:
The term Ish Mitzri appears in the Torah to describe only three individuals; the Sar HaTabachim, the Egyptian slain by Moshe and Moshe himself. Of these, only one is a plausible candidate to be the father of the blasphemer in Parshat Emor. Chazal therefore identify the Ish Mitzri mentioned in the blasphemer’s story as being the Egyptian slain by Moshe.
They further synthesize the stories to suggest that the Israelite victim being beaten by the Egyptian oppressor was none other than Shlomit’s husband, who had discovered the Egyptian non-consensually consorting with his wife. The child born of that illicit relationship is the blasphemer found in Parshat Emor who has an altercation with an Ish Yisraeli. Similarly, Moshe, who is figuratively the product of a Mitzrit, the daughter of Paraoh, and an Ish Ivri has an altercation with an Ish Ivri. In piecing these stories together, Chazal conclude from the narrative link that Moshe must have used the ineffable name of God to slay the Egyptian since it is a central part of the story of the blasphemer.
What Provoked the Blasphemer?
What is most striking about the story of the blasphemer is the absence of what is seemingly the most crucial detail – what provoked the blasphemer to react in such a manner? Chazal and the commentators present many options that derive from the context and the language of the passage to explain what elicited the reaction of the blasphemer. Some suggest that it might be related to the previous command regarding the showbreads or to the fact that his standing denied him legal right to inherit amongst his brethren in the tribe of Dan.
Others propose that the blasphemer’s anger was directed towards Moshe (and God) for killing his father, or that his compromised status made him more likely to engage in such deviant behavior.
While all of these explanations are plausible and find evidence in the text, one might argue that Torah is intentionally ambiguous with regards to the provocation because it is, ultimately, irrelevant. Perhaps the Torah wishes to emphasize that there can be no justification for perpetrating such an egregious crime such as blaspheming the ineffable name of God.
Alternatively, the omission is intended to shift our focus from the particulars of the provocation that gave rise to the blasphemy to the broader narrative. The Torah encourages one to focus on the bigger picture to facilitate comparing and contrasting the story with that of Moshe in order to convey important principles rather than just the minutiae about the specifics of the case.
Contrasting Moshe and the Blasphemer
The common thread between the stories of Moshe in Shmot and the blasphemer in Emor is the presence of an actual or perceived injustice that has been perpetrated. Through employing parallel language in both incidents, the Torah is coaxing one to contrast the reaction of Moshe to that of the counterparty to the blasphemer. In Shmot, an Egyptian is persecuting an Israelite and Moshe utilizes the ineffable name to intervene on behalf of the oppressed party and to stop the perpetrator of the injustice. On the other hand, in Emor, the roles are reversed. We have just the opposite situation, an Israelite that is the instigator or the perpetrator of the injustice against an Egyptian. The fact that the Israelite opponent remains anonymous in the story indicates that the Torah is subtly indicting the blasphemer’s adversary in the terrible outcome that ensues.
Firstly, the Gemara suggests that anyone who zealously accuses another of having flawed lineage is in all likelihood covering up a skeleton in the closet by projecting their flaw or inferiority upon the victim of their fervor. Even if the counterparty’s grievance was justified, the method by which he approached it was clearly flawed. The Torah’s description of the interaction between the parties as a public quarrel in the camp clearly connects it to the two individuals squabbling in the story in Shmot. Similar to that instance where Moshe terms the provoker as evil, here too the Torah through its parallel language is implicitly branding the counterparty as wicked and morally culpable. This notion is reinforced by the Mishna in Avot that declares that when two litigants approach a judge, they should both be viewed as evil-doers even though one party will eventually be vindicated.
As evidenced by the terrible outcome in Emor, especially in those situations involving converts or outsiders, it is the compassionate, gentle and humble hand of Beit Hillel rather than the confrontational heavy-handed approach of Beit Shamai that prevails.
In addition, one needs to contrast the reaction of Moshe with that of the blasphemer himself. They both end up on death row, but for very different reasons. At the pivotal moment, when faced with injustice, Moshe makes the difficult choice to take action and to walk away from being a Mitzri, with all the advantages and privileges it afforded him, and identify as an Ivri. The blasphemer by contrast does just opposite when faced with injustice, choosing to walk away from being an Israelite and identifying as a Mitzri. Moshe invokes the ineffable name of God to halt the injustice, while the blasphemer utters the ineffable name to, similar to the fighting Ivrim, to curse Moshe and express his resentment.
The Torah’s subtle message is that when faced with injustice, the proper response is not to perpetuate the cycle of violence or to turn away from one’s people, but to act with integrity and humility, seeking justice while remaining true to one’s identity and values.
