The Source of Blasphemy (Emor)

Because we live in an era in which almost nothing is held sacred, the term blasphemer seems somewhat archaic. Ok, honestly, when I hear the word blasphemer, I hear it in upper case, a word shouted out by an angry looking old man with a long finger pointing at someone else. But in Hebrew, the blasphemer is ham’kaelel, he who makes light - and in the Torah, blasphemy is nothing to take lightly!

At the end of this week’s parsha, the Torah relates how the son of an Israelite woman, whose father was an Egyptian, fought with an Israelite man. The first man then blasphemed with the name of God and made a mockery of that which was holy. He was taken into custody “to clarify for themselves through Hashem” (24:10-12).

Hashem told them to take him outside of the camp, for the witnesses of his blaspheme to put their hands on his head, and for the entire assembly to stone him. “Any man who will blaspheme his God shall bear his sin; and one who pronounces blasphemously the Name of Hashem shall be put to death, the entire assembly shall surely stone him; proselyte and native alike, when he blasphemes the Name, he shall be put to death” (24:15-16).  Seven pasukim later, it is recorded that Moses told this to Children of Israel, and they took him out and stoned him and “the Children of Israel did as Hashem had commanded” (23-24).

In between God’s instructions and the conclusion with action, Hashem lists off a number of crimes and consequences. If a man mortally wounds any human, then his life is forfeit. If a man kills an animal, then he must make restitution. If a man wounds another person than, “so shall be done to him...just as he will have inflicted a wound on a person, so shall be inflicted upon him (financially)” (20). And then a reiteration “One who strikes an animal shall make restitution, and one who strikes a person shall be put to death. There shall be one law for you, it shall be for the proselyte and native alike, for I, Hashem, am your God” (21-22).

Why are verses 17-22, the list of actions and consequences, included? Should God have just told Moshe what the punishment for blaspheme was, and that’s it since that was the question on the table? And why is it mentioned twice in this chapter that the ruling is the same for the proselyte and the native alike?

The issue of the proselyte and native is interesting because it makes one question just who this man was who blasphemed. He was, after all the son of an Israelite woman. However, according to the mepharshim, until matan Torah Jewish lineage was patriarchal. It only became matriarchal after matan Torah and this man was born before the Israelites came to Mount Sinai. Some are then of the opinion that everyone at Mount Sinai accepted Hashem and His Torah and so this man was like a proselyte. Hashem was making certain that it was clear that it did not matter what this man’s lineage was, for he had blasphemed God’s name.

The people were now learning that blasphemy, which can seem benign, is a capital crime. The list of actions and consequences that follow could, perhaps, be understood as God adding in a reminder that no man can take judgement into his own hands. If one hears someone blaspheme, one cannot just smite the blasphemer because that would be murder. The mention of restitution for an injured animal is a distinction between the punishment for murdering a man verses the consequence of killing an animal. And here, too, one cannot make excuses based on the other person’s lineage. Hashem makes no distinction.

A zealous person hearing another make a mockery of Hashem and the Torah might struggle with a desire to react. Blasphemy, unless done in a very public manner, could be hard to prove. The Chatam Sofer notes that “by using the term v’nasah cheto, he shall bear his sin (24:15), the Torah is implying that Hashem will deliberately bear (i.e. hold back from punishing) the sin of the blasphemer for a while but will eventually punish him. Contrary to the blasphemer’s assertion - which mocked many sacred aspects of Torah - that if Hashem could, He would have stricken me down immediately, the Torah assures us of his eventual punishment.”

Another interesting commentary quoted the Meshech Chachma: “Generally, when a person ridicules something, he poisons the minds of those present, turning them against the thing he is deriding. However, the present verse (...and the people of Israel did as Hashem had commanded Moshe) testifies that the blasphemer’s words had no effect at all on Israel...”

The blasphemer was unsuccessful in influencing those around him. But in reading this section of the parsha, one could, perhaps, feel some compassion for him. Rashi explains this man’s story (citing the Midrash): The fight, according to the Midrash, occurred when the son of the Israelite woman, whose father was Egyptian, set up his tent in the camp of his mother’s tribe, Dan. An Israelite man from the tribe of Dan told him that since the ruling was to set up their tents according to the tribe of their father, he had no place there. They took their dispute to Moshe’s court, and the ruling went against the son of the Israelite woman. Angry at the way he felt he had been unfairly treated, the man blasphemed with the name of God.

There was a comment in the Artscroll Stone Chumash commentaries after its citation of Rashi’s rendition of the Midrash, “The Torah mentions the fight because if they had argued rationally, they would not have come to blows; had they merely disputed, there would have been no blasphemy.” While it is true that his blasphemy did not affect anyone else’s belief in Hashem or His Torah, one can hope that it caused a great deal of self-reflection. How did this man who had witnessed the exodus from Egypt and the giving of the Torah and all the other miracles of the midbar come to make a mockery of Hashem?...because he was pushed away because of his background.

The lesson we can draw from it is that the best way each of us can guard the holiness of Hashem is by being aware of the feelings of other people.