Tafsiran yang Mengutip untuk Bilangan 15:33

אשר יעשה את הרע בעיני ד׳ א׳ לעבר בריתו ist wohl nicht bloß eine Charakterisierung des im folgenden als Problem gewählten ע׳׳ז-Verbrechens, sondern die ganz allgemeine Charakterisierung eines jeden zur richterlichen Kognition erwachsenden Verbrechens. Die Übertretung eines jeden Verbotes, also die Verübung dessen, was Gott als רע בעיניו ausgesprochen hat, ist ein Überschreiten seines ברית. Ausnahmlos, ein jedes der göttlichen Gesetze ist von wiederholtem כריתות ברית (siehe Schmot 24, 8 und Dewarim 28, 69 u. 29, 8, sowie Sota 37b) getragen und damit als ברית, als das Absolute, für immer Unverbrüchliche dahin gestellt (siehe Bereschit 6, 18). Zur richterlichen Kognition erwächst ein Verbrechen nur dann, wenn das, was רע בעיני ה׳ א׳ ist, in dem Bewusstsein geübt wird, daß man damit עובר בריתו sei, also, wenn dem Verbrecher im Momente der Tat der verbietende Gesetzesausspruch mit seinen strafrechtlichen Folgen gegenwärtig war, wenn er das רע בעיני ה׳ geübt hat in dem Bewusstsein, daß er damit עובר בריתו sei. Ein Umstand, der nur durch התראה, durch geschehene Warnung durch die Zeugen im Augenblicke des Verbrechens und durch ausdrückliche קבלת התראה, durch ausdrückliche Erklärung des Verbrechers zu konstatieren ist, daß er es nichts destoweniger und mit vollem Entgegensehen der Folgen übe. Daher die an die Zeugen zu richtenden Fragen: התריתם בו קבל עליו התראה התיר עצמו למיתה המית תוך כדי דבור וגו׳ (Sanhedrin 40b; – siehe zu Wajikra 20, 17 und Bamidbar 15, 33; siehe auch V. 6).

וינצו במחנה, “they quarreled in the camp.” This prompts us to ask that if the two people quarreled about something why would one of them use this as a pretext to curse G’d? He should have been angry at Moses, or he could have attacked Moses physically if he felt wronged. Why did he curse the name of the Lord? Perhaps what happened was that the blasphemer told Moses during the trial that his father had been killed and he mentioned to Moses how he had been killed, i.e. that Moses had uttered the holy name of G’d and cursed his father who died as a result. This is why now, when he was found guilty by Moses, he in turn cursed the name of the Lord who had been the cause of his own father’s untimely death. He used the name which he had heard for the first time when he stood at Sinai and listened to the Ten Commandments. The fact that this paragraph is followed immediately by the portion commencing with mention of Mount Sinai is an allusion to the relevance of Mount Sinai to what occurred here.
Seeing that the blasphemer had not been willing to come to the Tent of Meeting, the Torah reports hat the people brought him to Moses. This may be the reason why here — contrary to Numbers 15,33 where the Torah reports the man who gathered wood on the Sabbath as being brought before Moses and the whole congregation — the words ואל כל העדה, “and to the whole congregation,” are missing.

ויניחהו AND THEY PLACED HIM [IN WARD] — him by himself — and they did not place the man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath day with him (Numbers 15:34), because both of whom happened to be (i. e. to commit an offense) at the same period, but they knew that the stick-gatherer was to be punished with the death-penalty, only it had not been explained to them by what kind of death he was to be punished — it is for this reason that it is stated in his case (Numbers 15:33) “[and they placed him in ward] because it was not explained what should be done to him”. In the case of the blasphemer, however, it states “[and they placed him in ward] that [the proper penalty] might be shown to them”; this was because they did not know whether he is at all liable to the death-penalty or not (Sifra, Emor, Section 14 5; Sanhedrin 78b).