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 G-
d - 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
In contrast, the wood-gatherer remains anonymous.
2
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 G-
d.

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 all-
and 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.
5
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.

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