Commento su Levitico 24:26

צו את בני ישראל COMMAND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL [THAT THEY BRING UNTO THEE CLEAR OLIVE OIL, BEATEN, FOR THE LIGHT] — This is the section containing the commandment concerning the lamps, whilst the section beginning with ואתה תצוה (Exodus 27:20 ff.) which also deals with the lamp is only mentioned there for the sake of giving an orderly account of the work of the Tabernacle, to explain what the purpose of the candlestick was — for thus do those words ואתה תצוה imply: “and thou wilt at some future time command the Children of Israel” about this.

COMMAND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. “This is the section containing the [actual] commandment of lighting the lamps. And the section of V’atah Tetzaveh (And thou shalt command)⁵⁰⁸Exodus 27:20. [where the same subject is mentioned], is stated only for the sake of giving an orderly account of the work of the Tabernacle, explaining what the purpose of the candelabrum is, and the sense of the verse there is as follows: ‘and thou wilt at some future time command the children of Israel on this matter.’” This is Rashi’s language.
But it does not appear to me to be correct, for that section [there in Exodus 27:20] is not in fact adjoined to the section of the candelabrum [which is mentioned previously in Exodus 25:31-40]; and [also] it has already been stated, And he lighted the lamps before the Eternal, as the Eternal commanded Moses,⁵⁰⁹Ibid., 40:25. thus both the commandment and fulfillment were already mentioned and kept! Rather, the need for [restatement of] this section is for two purposes. For there He commanded that they bring you a donation on the behalf of the children of Israel,⁵¹⁰Ibid., 27:21. that is to say, from every man with whom was found pure olive oil [beaten] for the light,⁵⁰⁸Exodus 27:20. together with the other donations for the Tabernacle. And so they did, as it is said, And the princes brought etc. and the spice, and the oil, for the light.⁵¹¹Ibid., 35:27-28. And although it says there, it shall be a statute forever throughout their generations,⁵¹⁰Ibid., 27:21. this refers to the lighting of the lamps. But now the oil which the princes brought as a donation was used up, and therefore He commanded that the children of Israel take from the public treasury throughout the generations⁵¹²Verse 3 here. pure olive oil beaten for the light, as was the first oil [of the princes]. This is similar to the expression, that they bring thee a Red Heifer,⁵¹³Numbers 19:2. meaning that they should seek it and it is to be brought from the public treasury. Also, there [in the section of V’atah Tetzaveh]⁵⁰⁸Exodus 27:20. He stated only, Aaron and his sons shall set it in order etc.,⁵¹⁰Ibid., 27:21. which might mean [set it in order] on the candelabrum, or without the candelabrum if it is broken or lost, as happened when they returned from the [Babylonian] exile.⁵¹⁴Bamidbar Rabbah 15:7: “Therefore when the [First] Sanctuary was destroyed the candelabrum was hidden. And this was one of the five things that were hidden: the ark, the candelabrum, etc.” Therefore now He stated clearly, He shall order the lamps upon the pure candelabrum,⁵¹⁵Verse 4. teaching that they should only light the lamps upon the pure candelabrum. And the interpretation of our Rabbis is as follows:⁵¹⁶Torath Kohanim, Emor 13:12. “Upon the pure candelabrum.⁵¹⁵Verse 4. This means upon the very candelabrum itself, that he is not to support them [i.e., the lamps] with pieces of wood or pebbles [but the lamps are to be upon the candelabrum itself, with nothing intervening between them]. He shall set the lamps before the Eternal.⁵¹⁵Verse 4. This teaches that he is not to set them outside the Sanctuary and bring them inside. Continually,⁵¹⁵Verse 4. even on the Sabbath; continually, even in impurity.”⁵¹⁷If all the priests have been rendered impure, they may yet proceed to minister the Service.

'צו את בני ישראל ויקחו אליך שמן וגו, after the oil which had been donated before the Tabernacle had been built and erected, G’d commanded that the Israelites for all future generations should provide this oil as their contribution.

צו את בני ישראל, "command the children of Israel, etc." Why is this the appropriate place in the Torah to acquaint us with the rules of the oil for the Candlestick and the manner in which it is to be lit? We also need to explain why the procedures involving the Table have to be written at this juncture. After all, the Torah has dealt with those subjects when it described the construction of the Tabernacle! We shall leave aside Rashi's comment as we do not consider his words as adequate to answer the problem we have raised. Nachmanides wrote that at that time the olive oil which the princes had donated when the materials for the Tabernacle were being collected had come to an end. This is mere speculation, there is no supporting evidence for this assumption.

ויקחו אליך שמן זית זך, this paragraph has been repeated seeing that the Torah here deals with the lamp stand, מנורה, which is located opposite the table in the Sanctuary on which the show breads are placed every week. All that is mentioned here refers to the ritual involving the table and its paraphernalia, i.e. the oil for lighting and the bread

צו את בני ישראל, “command the Children of Israel, etc.” Rashi explains that the paragraph following as well as the portion commencing with Exodus 27,20-21 both pertain only to the chapters dealing with the building of the Tabernacle, even though it deals with the lighting of the lights in the menorah. The paragraph dealing with the construction of the menorah in Exodus 27 was mentioned there only as it was needed to list the furnishings of the Tabernacle. Nachmanides writes that this interpretation does not appear appropriate to him, as the portion is not linked to a paragraph dealing with the menorah at all. Moreover, the Torah had already reported that Moses placed the lights in the menorah in Exodus 40,25, just as he placed the remainder of the furnishings inside the Tabernacle. In other words, both the commandment and the execution of it were mentioned already in the Book of Exodus. Therefore, in Nachmanides’ view the need for the present paragraph is twofold. 1) In Exodus the matter is related in conjunction with the commandment to the Israelites to supply the fuel for the menorah just as they were invited to supply all the building materials for the Tabernacle. The princes are reported as having supplied the initial quantities of the spices for the incense as well as the initial amount of olive oil for the menorah. However, in the Book of Exodus no mention is made of the supply of materials that were being used up on a daily basis. This is so in spite of the fact that the composition of the materials is described as חקת עולם, as a law of unlimited duration. (Exodus 27,21) Those words referred to the manner in which the menorah was to be lit. By now the initial supply had been exhausted and new arrangements had to be made. 2) In Exodus the instructions had been limited for either Aaron or his sons to perform the task of lighting the menorah, nothing having been said about what procedure to follow if the original menorah were to become defunct, or lost, as when the Israelites went into exile, etc. In Exodus the word תמיד, permanently, has not been mentioned in connection with the lighting of the menorah, whereas here mention is made specifically of regulations pertaining to the “pure menorah.”

ויקחו אליך שמן זית, “that they will bring you olive oil;” the reason that this verse, i.e. the instructions it contains, was repeated is that in this Book of the five Books of Moses, the one containing most of the instructions connected with the service of the priests in the Temple, was that the time had come to list in the appropriate order the rules surrounding the function of the Lampstand, Menorah, and the Table, which are interdependent on one another. The incense had already been dealt with at length in Leviticus chapter 17,12-13. By rights we could have expected to read about the presentation of the showbreads before reading about the function of the Menorah which was not a sacrificial act, and was subservient to the presentation of the show breads as had been made plain by the words: ואת המנורה נוכח השלחן, “and the Lampstand opposite the Table,” (Exodus 26,35). The reason that the Torah did not write matters in that order was that it wanted to write the report about the blasphemer next to the portion of the showbreads, as Rashi has explained. Rashi quoted a sage as saying that the blasphemer had made fun of the showbreads ridiculing a law that offered the Lord bread that was on occasion a whole week old, as these breads were only exchanged for new ones every Sabbath.

שמן זית זך CLEAR OLIVE OIL — Three different qualities of oil come forth (are extracted) from the olive tree, the first of which is called זך, “clear”. They are all fully explained in Treatise Menachot 86a and in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Emor, Section 13 1-3).

Perhaps the fact that the Torah here deals with commandments whose common denominator is the number seven, i.e. 7 days of Passover, 7 days of Tabernacles, the New Year and Day of Atonement which occur in the 7th month, prompted the Torah to add laws about the 7-armed Candlestick. The procedures involving the Table also have a mystical dimension involving the number seven, seeing the Torah speaks about two rows of six breads (verse 6). When you add the table itself to the respective rows of 6 showbreads you have the number seven. The number seven is always considered as completing a cycle. You also had the legislation of the Omer in this portion; that commandment also involved the counting of seven times seven days, i.e. seven weeks. You have a reference to the commandment of the Sabbath, another commandment which features the number seven. We may therefore assume that the Torah was interested in mentioning all the commandments featuring the number seven in one portion.

להעלות נר תמיד, “to kindle a lamp to burn continually;” it was kept burning also on the Sabbath, and even if it had become ritually contaminated.

תמיד (continually not continuously) here implies from night to night. It has the same meaning as in עולת תמיד a “continual” burnt offering which was only sacrificed from day to day (cf. Rashi on Exodus 27:20).

It is also possible that the laws pertaining to the Candlestick were written adjoining the legislation about the festival of Tabernacles to teach us some lessons about the difference between physical and spiritual light. G'd neither needs the light of the Candlestick to illuminate the Tabernacle for Him, nor did the Jewish people travel through the desert for 40 years using physical light (compare Torat Kohanim on the words מחוץ לפרוכת in verse 3). The ענני הכבוד, the clouds of glory i.e. the שכינה, illuminated the way for the Jewish people and the shade they provided actually screened out the sunlight during all those years (compare Tossaphot on Shabbat. 22,B). It follows that the commandment to light the Candlestick daily was only for the sake of the dividing curtain which was so called as it provided testimony for the nations of the world that G'd's presence resided within the camp of the Jewish people.

לפרכת העדת [WITHOUT] THE PARTITION VAIL OF THE TESTIMONY — i. e. the Partition Vail which is before the Ark which on account of its contents (the Tablets, termed לחות העדות in Exodus 37:15) is called “Testimony”. Our Rabbis, however, explained it (the word העדות) as referring to the western light of the candlestick which was a testimony (עדות) to mankind that the Shechinah dwelt in Israel through the miracle wrought in connection with it; for he (the priest) put only as much oil into it as was the quantity put into the other lamps and yet he began the lighting of the other lamps in the evening by it and finished the work of cleaning with it [since it continued to burn miraculously until the following evening] (Sifra, Emor, Section 13 9; Shabbat 22b; Menachot 86b).

יערוך אותו אהרן, even though the procedure of lighting the Menorah, as well as the presentation of the daily incense offering was permitted to be carried out by any priest of the roster during future generations as per the sages’ tradition (Sifrey Behaalotcha 60), this procedure is linked to Aaron, seeing that all the time the Jews were in the desert the procedures involving the Temple service were on a “Day of Atonement” footing because the Torah linked the procedure to the line (17,2) “for I will manifest Myself above the kapporet by day and the column of fire will be visible at night,” a condition which ceased when the Jewish people settled in the land of Israel. It followed that procedures which took place inside the sanctuary would be the exclusive prerogative of the High Priest during those years. These procedures would be performed in the future by the High Priest on the day of Atonement.

The westernmost lamp. Gur Aryeh writes: Re’m asks: how does one reconcile the Rabbis’ exposition with the “Curtain of Testimony”? The curtain does not serve as a curtain for the westernmost lamp, which [according to the Rabbis] is called a testimony! The answer is as follows: The curtain is called the “Curtain of Testimony” since it was next to the ark that holds the Tablets of Testimony which are a testimony between the Holy One and Yisroel. However, the Rabbis are explaining why the Torah specifically writes the “Curtain of Testimony” here [where the Torah speaks of the menorah]. They explain that only through the westernmost lamp from which the kohein begins and where he ends, is it evident that the curtain is a “Curtain of Testimony.” The “Tablets of Testimony” alone are no proof to this testimony, since they do not demonstrate that the Divine Presence still dwells in the midst of Yisroel, as perhaps it no longer dwells in Yisroel. Thus, we need the westernmost lamp to demonstrate that the curtain is a “Curtain of Testimony” and that the Tablets are a testimony between the Holy One and Yisroel that the Divine Presence still dwells in the midst of Yisroel. [Alternatively], even if you say that the word “testimony” here refers to the westernmost lamp there is no difficulty, because the Torah says that the menorah should be next to the curtain as it says, “outside of the Curtain of Testimony,” from which Toras Kohanim derives that the menorah must be closer to the curtain than it is to the entrance. Therefore, since the menorah is at the curtain and close to the curtain, it is appropriate to call the curtain the “Curtain of Testimony” because they are together.

מחוץ לפרוכת העדות באהל מועד, “outside of the curtain of testimony of the tent of Meeting.” The wording is to teach that the position of the Menorah inside the Sanctuary was relatively closer to the dividing curtain than to the entrance of the Sanctuary.

יערך אתו אהרן מערב עד בקר AARON SHALL SET IT IN ORDER FROM EVENING UNTO MORNING — The meaning is not that he shall occupy himself the whole night with setting the lights in order, but he shall arrange it in such a manner (lit., by such an arrangement) that will prove adequate for the length of the whole night. Our Rabbis by experiment (cf. Menachot 89a) fixed the quantity at a half log oil for each lamp, ascertaining that this would suffice also in the long nights of the Teveth quarter; and this quantity therefore became to them the fixed measure [for all the seasons of the year].

And with it he would end. I.e., when he began lighting the lamps in the evening, he would first light the westernmost lamp. And when he came to set up the lamps in the morning he would set them all up and the westernmost lamp would still be burning; he would take out the burning wicks out and set [them] up. However, this lamp he only set up in the evening and he would put into it the same amount of oil as the other lamps. So explains Rashi in Perek Bameh Madlikin (Shabbos 22b).

יערוך אותו, “he is to arrange it.” (the olive oil)

המנרה הטהרה THE PURE CANDELABRUM — It was so called because it was made of pure gold. Another explanation is: he shall set the lights in order upon the purity of the candlestick, implying that he must first purify (cleanse) it and remove its ashes beforehand (the words therefore mean: on a clean candlestick; cf., however, Sifra, Emor, Section 13 12 where the word is explained differently).

That is that He commanded us to believe in His awe, may He be exalted, and to be afraid of Him. And we should not be like the heretics who walk brazen-heartedly and heedlessly, but should be scared with the fear of His punishment at all times. And that is His saying, "And you shall fear the Lord, your God." And in the Gemara (Sanhedrin 56a), they said by way of give and take about His saying, "And if he pronounces (nokev) the name, Lord, he shall be put to death" (Leviticus 24:16) - "Say that [nokev] is to mention, as it is stated (Numbers 1:17), 'who were mentioned (nikvu) by name,' and its prohibition is from, 'And you shall fear the Lord, your God.'" That is to say, maybe His saying, "And if he pronounces," is only that he mention [God's] name [even] without cursing. And if you will say, "What transgression is there in that" - we will say that it is because he neglected fear. For included in the fear of God is not to mention His name gratuitously. The answer to this question, and its rejection, was, "First, you need the name with the name" - as they said, "Yossi should smite Yossi" - "and also, that this is [only] a prohibition of a positive commandment. And any prohibition of a positive commandment is not called a prohibition" - for it is a command and a positive commandment, and we cannot prohibit with a positive commandment. Behold it has been made clear to you that His saying, "And you shall fear the Lord, your God," is a positive commandment. (See Parashat Ekev; Mishneh Torah, Foundations of the Torah.)

יערוך את הנרות לפני ה' תמיד, “he shall arrange the lights before Hashem, continually. He must not arrange everything outside the Tabernacle and then carry the menorah into the Tabernacle.

על המנורה הטהורה, “On the pure Menorah, etc.” Nachmanides points out that in Exodus 27,21 where the subject of preparing the oil for the Menorah is first dealt with there is no mention of the Menorah being “pure.” He explains the reason for this as being that that paragraph was not the primary paragraph dealing with the laws concerning the Menorah. When Moses was told in Exodus 27,20: “and you are to command the Children of Israel,” this referred to the details about the oil etc., being revealed to the Israelites eventually. However, here we are dealing with the principal paragraph dealing with the rules governing the use of the Menorah and how it was to be serviced. This is why the words “on the pure Menorah” were added here to tell the Priests that unless the Menorah was in a state of ritual purity the whole procedure could not be performed. This became important when the Hasmoneans recaptured Jerusalem and the Holy Temple from the Greeks and as a result they introduced the festival of Chanukah; and it is important nowadays when we have no Temple, no red heifer, etc. Had the Torah only written the paragraph in Exodus chapter 27 we would have thought that the procedure of preparing oil, etc. was to be performed even in the absence of a Menorah or when the Menorah was temporarily broken.
Sifra Emor 13,12 explains that the words על המנורה הטהורה may also be understood as על טהרה של מנורה, “directly on the Menorah,” i.e. there is not to be any insulating material or other matter between the lights (the containers of the oil and wick) and the golden Menorah. Moreover, the words also imply that the lights are to be prepared and kindled inside the Tabernacle, על המנורה, on the Menorah; lit matches, lit wicks, etc., are not to be brought into the Tabernacle and then be placed on the Menorah, but the whole procedure is to be performed inside the Sanctuary. The word תמיד at the end of the verse means that this procedure overrides the Sabbath and is to be performed seven days a week and even when ritually impure.

על המנורה הטהורה, “upon the pure Menorah according to Rash,i as he understood the Sifra, seeing that the priest kindling the lamps on the Menorah did so without using tools such as matches, etc., it was important to make certain that no material was used that could potentially confer ritual impurity on the lampstand which was made of metal and therefore liable to such contamination.

תמיד, “continually.“ The word תמיד suggests that this procedure is applicable even on the Sabbath days when lighting fire is prohibited outside the Temple, or when all the priests are in a state of ritual impurity. In Parshat Tetzaveh, (Exodus 27,20-21) no mention is made of the word תמיד seeing that the whole procedure there was addressed only to a single individual, i.e. יערוך אותו, “he is to arrange it,” meaning the subject was only the light in the center of the seven shafts, arms, of the menorah. This light did not burn continually, as it went out when the Israelites had become collectively guilty of sins. In our verse the instructions include all the lights of the menorah, and even though the נר המערבי the light in the center, may have been out, the other lights did not manifest such displeasure by G’d by going out when they would not be expected to do so. They always burned through the entire night.

לפני ה׳, “before the Lord;” the fire was not to be lit outside the Sanctuary and then to be transferred to the wicks in the oil on the lampstand.

ולקחת סולת, this commandment presumably also applied only after the initial donation of such flour which had been contributed when the Tabernacle was being built had been exhausted. That original amount had been included in what was mentioned in Exodus 39.33. [one wonders where all the flour came from during those years when the Jews, in the desert were cut off from contact with the surrounding nations so that even their exact location was unknown. Ed.]

שתים עשרה חלות, “twelve loaves,” corresponding to the number of the tribes. (Ibn Ezra) They are the loaves known as “showbreads.”

החלה האחת, “the one loaf;” the kneading, making the dough, etc., should be a single operation.

שש המערכת SIX ON A ROW — i. e. six cakes shall form one row.

Six loaves. The is an abbreviated verse and Rashi has to add the word “loaves” after the word “six,” in order to tell us what these six are. Rashi adds the word “one” to tell us that the six other loaves were on a second stack.

ושמת אותם, “you shall place them;” the sudden switch to the plural mode, אותם, ”them,” means that when it came to baking, 2 loaves each were put in the oven at one time. (Sifra) ושמת אותם, there were three sets of moulds; one to shape them when they were dough; one while the dough was in the oven; and the third when they were finished baking to arrange them in such a manner that they would not deteriorate between one Sabbath and the next. (Sifra) שתים מערכות, “two rows;” one at each end of the Table;

השלחן הטהר THE PURE TABLE — i. e. the table of pure gold (cf. Rashi on v. 4). Another explanation is that על השלחן הטהר means: immediately upon the טהר of the table (i. e. its top and they must not rest upon something else that is placed on the table-top) — i. e. that the supporting pillars (cf. Rashi on Exodus 25:29) must not raise the bread (i. e. the lowest loaves) above the top of the table (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 18 4; Menachot 97a).

On the “purity.” The meaning of “purity” is the top. In Arabic the top is called tahor, with a weak טי"ת that is called dat in that language. Re’m.

שש מערכות על השלחן הטהור, “six rows upon the pure Table;” six loaves would be placed one above the other on either side of the Table the sides of the loaves would face the side of the Table, as I have explained in Exodus 25,29.

Above the table. I.e., there were supports above the table upon which the loaves rested; they [i.e. the tubes that rested on the supports] separated between all the loaves as is explained in parshas Terumah, so that the upper loaves would not weigh down on the lower ones and break them. However, there was no [supporting] tube on the table, because the loaf at the bottom rested [directly] on the table

ונתת על המערכת AND THOU SHALT PUT UPON THE ROW — i. e. upon each of the two rows [PURE FRANKINCENSE]; there were two bowls for this frankincense, each filled with a handful of it.

ונתת על המערכת לבונה זכה, “You shall put on (each) stack frankincense, etc.” The twelve loaves of bread mentioned here and the frankincense were both mandatory so that the absence of either invalidated the whole procedure (compare Menachot 27). They related to each other just like the etrog and the lulav, or the blue wool thread and the white threads on the tzitzit. (according to an opinion expressed in Menachot 38 that when תכלת, the blue colour needed for that thread is available, a garment which has only white tzitiyot is not fit to be worn).
The reason that the מנחה offering of a Sotah (woman suspected of marital infidelity) or the מנחה offering of any sinner was unaccompanied by such frankincense as is mentioned here as mandatory is that the Torah expressly forbade it (Leviticus 5,11 and Numbers 5,15) in order to express G’d’s disapproval of the persons having to bring these offerings, i.e. that at that time and until atonement has been obtained the attribute of Justice is poised to strike such a woman.

On each one of the two stacks. Explanation: This is derived from a gezeroh shovoh. It is written “stack” here, and it is written “stack” regarding the showbread. Just as [the word] “stack” stated by the showbread refers to two, so here also, [meaning] he put down two bowls of frankincense, i.e., he put frankincense next to each stack. The bowls were not placed on the bread but next to each stack, so that the bread should not break from the bowls’ weight. When the verse says “on (על) [each] stack” it means next to and close to the stack, similar to, “And spread the paroches (partition) over (על) the ark.”

ונתת על המערכת, “you are to place next to each row, which were one handbreadth apart, frankincense.” The word על here is to be understood as in Number 2,20 עליו where it mans “next to” (the next tribe).

והיתה THAT IT — this frankincense — MAY BE

והיתה ללחם לאזכרה, “it will serve as a remembrance for the bread.” Seeing that normally some parts of a sacrifice always wind up on the Altar and in the case of the show-breads this is not the case, the frankincense is the only reminder to G’d that a sacrifice has been offered. Once the frankincense has been offered up this triggers remembrance of the show-breads which had been presented on the Table. Following this, the blessing of our sources of food which is the objective of this procedure can be applied by G’d. This is also the significance of there being twelve such show-breads, i.e. that all the twelve angels surrounding the celestial throne receive Divine input in the form of such blessing. These twelve angels are also known as the four camps of the Shechinah. The encampments of the Jewish people in the desert around the Tabernacle were patterned after what is known about similar procedures in the celestial regions. The four “camps” in the celestial regions serve as the point of departure for directing G’d’s blessing to the four directions on earth, i.e. North, East, South, and West. Three of these angels face each direction. The whole concept is like the significance of the four flags of the four camps of the Israelites in the desert. This concept was later on illustrated in the throne of King Solomon which featured 12 lions (Kings I 10,20). The total amount of flour comprised by the twelve show-breads was “24 tenths” (of the epha). This was an allusion to the twelve tribes of Israelites on earth and the twelve angels in the celestial regions.

על המערכת, “frankincense would be placed on the surface of the table next to each row.”[The reader will find an illustration at the end of the last volume. Ed.

ללחם לאזכרה ON THE BREAD FOR A MEMORIAL — because of the bread itself nothing was offered to the Lord, but the frankincense was burnt when the former was removed from the golden table every Sabbath. It (the frankincense) thus served as a memorial for the bread, because through it, it (the bread) was recalled to memory Above (the bread itself was not offered) just as the “handful” of flour and of oil (Leviticus 2:2) was “the memorial portion” of the meal offering being the only part offered, while the remainder was eaten by the priests just as this bread was.

והיתה ללחם אזכרתה, ”so that the frankincense may serve the loaves as a symbol of it.” Rabbi Shimon states that the expression אזכרה here, as well as in Leviticus 2,2, refers to the partial fistful used. In other words, two partial fistfuls of frankincense were required, one for each row of six showbreads.

ביום השבת, ביום השבת, “Every Sabbath day;” while new breads were replacing last week’s breads, the frankincense of last week’s breads was burned up at the end of the week on the Sabbath.

יערכנו, “he shall arrange it;” the subject is the showbreads, not the branches described in Exodus 25,32. The latter were not arranged on the Sabbath but on the Sabbath eve. All the furnishings in the Tabernacle were arranged so that their length was parallel to the long walls of the structure, with the exception of the Holy Ark.

והיתה AND IT SHALL BE — this meal-offering shall be — [AARON’S AND HIS SONS’]; (although the word מנחה is not mentioned in the text it is implicitly contained in the word לחם) because anything that is brought (offered) of grain comes under the term of ‎מנחה.

V’HAYTHAH’ (AND IT SHALL BE) FOR AARON AND HIS SONS — “[The feminine word ‘v’haythah’ refers to] the meal-offering,⁵¹⁸The point of Rashi’s comment is that since the word v’haythah (and it shall be) is in the feminine, and in the preceding verse [7] lechem (bread) is mentioned, which is in the masculine, the word minchah (meal-offering) which is in the feminine must then be added to v’haythah. Ramban will suggest this is not necessary, as will be explained in the text. for anything which is offered of grain is included within the term minchah (meal-offering). [The masculine suffix in] ‘va’achaluhu’ (and they shall eat it), refers to the lechem” [“bread” mentioned in Verse 7, which is a masculine noun]. This is Rashi’s language. It is possible that the verb v’haythah [“and it shall be” — in the feminine] refers to each of the two ma’arachoth [“rows” of six loaves mentioned in Verse 6, since ma’arachah is in the feminine, and hence v’haythah is also in the feminine]. And by way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabalah], ‘v’haythah’ (and it shall be) for Aaron and his sons refers back to brith olam [“an everlasting covenant” at the end of the preceding Verse 8, since the word brith is in the feminine], similar to what is said, ‘Brithi haythah’ (My covenant was) with him of life and peace.⁵¹⁹Malachi 2:5.

והיתה לאהרן ולבניו “It shall belong to Aaron and his sons.” Rashi explains that the word והיתה refers to the bread of the minchah offering discussed in verses 5-8. According to Nachmanides the word may include all the other presentations on the altar also. [Even though the word is in the feminine mode and לחם, bread is in the masculine mode. Ed.]

ואכלהו‎ AND THEY SHALL EAT IT; the suffix which is masc. refers to לחם which is masculine.

ויצא בן אשה ישראלית AND THE SON OF THE ISRAELITISH WOMAN WENT OUT — Whence did he go out? Surely not from the camp, since Scripture states “and they strove in the camp”! Rabbi Levi said, “He went out from (by his blasphemous utterance he lost) his eternal life (עולמו; R. Levi evidently connects ויצא with the last word of v. 8; “the everlasting covenant, ברית עולם”). R. Berachya said, “He set forth (יצא) (started his argument) from the above section. He said sneeringly: “Every Sabbath he shall set it in order!? Surely it is the way of a king to eat fresh (lit., warm) bread every day; is it perhaps his way to eat bread nine days old (lit., cold bread of nine days)?! (The Hebrew word בתמיה “Say this in the intonation of a question” means nothing other than our question mark) (Midrash Tanchuma 38 23). A Baraitha states that ויצא means, he came out of the judicial court of Moses where he had been pronounced to be in the wrong in the following matter: although his father was an Egyptian he had gone to pitch his tent in the camp of the tribe of Dan to whom his mother belonged (cf. v. 11). They (the men of Dan) said to him, “What have you to do here" (lit., what is your character that gives you the right to come here?). He replied. “I am one of the children of the tribe of Dan”. Thereupon they said to him, “Scripture states: (Numbers 2:2) “Every man [of the children of Israel shall encamp] by his own standard, that bears the signs of their father’s house”! He thereupon went in to the judicial court of Moses to have the matter decided and came forth (יצא) declared to be in the wrong. He then stood up and blasphemed (Sifra, Emor, Section 14 1; Leviticus Rabbah 32 3).

AND THE SON OF AN ISRAELITE WOMAN, WHOSE FATHER WAS AN EGYPTIAN, WENT OUT, etc. This means that he went out among the children of Israel,⁵²⁰In the Hebrew, the word vayeitzei (and he went out) is not adjoined to the phrase, among the children of Israel. Ramban thus calls attention to the fact that they are to be understood together: “and there went out among the children of Israel,” or “into the midst of the children of Israel, the son of an Israeli woman” etc. similar to the expression: and he went out into the midst of the city,⁵²¹Esther 4:1. meaning that he [Mordecai] went out from his house or from where he was abiding into the city. Similarly, this [son of an Israelite woman] went out from his tent or from his place, and came into the midst of the people, and they strove there. The meaning of the word bamachaneh [“in the camp” — and the son of the Israelite woman and a man of Israel strove together ‘in the camp’], is that the quarrel took place in the camp and many people heard it, and [when they heard the son of the Israelite woman blaspheming the Name], they took hold of him and they brought him unto Moses⁵²²Verse 11. into [his] tent. And the reason why Scripture mentions this episode here, is as the words of the Sage⁵²³Rabbi Berachyah (Tanchuma, Emor 23) and mentioned in Rashi. who says: “He ‘came forth’ from the section above [i.e., he began his argument by speaking contemptuously of a law mentioned in the above section], for he sinned with his lips concerning the fire-offerings of the Eternal,⁵²⁴Above, Verse 9. In that section the law is stated concerning the showbread; that it was to be set on the table in the Sanctuary every Sabbath, and the following Sabbath it was to be removed, and after the frankincense was burnt as a memorial for the showbread, the bread was to be eaten by the priests. When this law was announced, the son of the Israelite woman said: “It behoves a king to eat fresh bread daily, and not stale bread!” and an Israelite man rebuked him, whereupon they strove and he became angered and then blasphemed “himself.”⁵²⁵This is a euphemism, the real intent of which is the Ineffable Name.
The intention of the expression the son of an Israelite woman and a man of Israel, is to teach that if a non-Jew has sexual relations with a Jewish woman, the child is not deemed Jewish. And although we have rendered the final decision in the Gemara⁵²⁶Yebamoth 45 a. that if a non-Jew has sexual relations with a Jewish woman whether she is single or married, the child is a fully-qualified Jew, yet they have said,⁵²⁷Bechoroth 47 a. “the child is ‘rejected,’” meaning that it is disqualified for the priesthood;⁵²⁸Thus, if the child was a girl she may not be married to a priest (Yebamoth 45 a). and certainly it is not considered a fully-qualified Israelite by name as far as genealogy is concerned, with respect to the standards [i.e., as to where he was to take his place under one of the four main standards that were set up],⁵²⁹See Numbers Chapter 2. and inheriting of the Land, for it is written of them, according to the names of the tribes of their fathers.⁵³⁰Ibid., 26:55 (with respect to inheritance). With regard to the standards it is also written, The children of Israel shall pitch by their fathers’ houses (ibid., 2:2). And that which the Rabbis have said in the Torath Kohanim:⁵³¹Torath Kohanim, Emor 14:1. “Among the children of Israel, this teaches that he had become a proselyte,” does not mean that he needed conversion, for he was like all Israelites who entered into the covenant by circumcision, immersion, and the expiation by blood, at the time of the Giving of the Torah.⁵³²Exodus 24:6. See in Vol. II, p. 260, Note 79 for full discussion of this matter. But the intention of the Rabbis [in this text of the Torath Kohanim] was to state that he was reared by his mother and became attached to Israel, this being the meaning of the expression among the children of Israel, that he was with them and he did not want to go after his father to be an Egyptian. Similarly, that which the Rabbis have said in the Torath Kohanim:⁵³¹Torath Kohanim, Emor 14:1. “Although there were no mamzerim at that time, he was like one,” this text follows the opinion of a single Sage [who says that if a non-Jew has sexual relations with a Jewish woman, the child is deemed a mamzer], but the final decision of the law is that the child is a fully-qualified Jew.
And the French Rabbis⁵³³I found this opinion in the commentary of Chizkuni (see my Hebrew commentary, beginning with the fifth edition, p. 535). say that the reason why this son of the Israelite woman required conversion [according to the Torath Kohanim mentioned above], was because he lived before the Giving of the Torah, and his status was determined by that of the male parent, as is to be deduced from what the Rabbis have said:⁵³⁴Kiddushin 67 a. “Where [the parents of a child are of] non-Jewish nations, we go [as far as the status of the child is concerned] by that of the father.” And when this [son of the Israelite woman whose father was an Egyptian] was born, they did not circumcise him, for his status was that of an Egyptian, but when he grew up he voluntarily converted and was circumcised.⁵³⁵All this is the opinion of the “French Rabbis.” Essentially this opinion is based upon the theory that up till the Giving of the Torah the Israelites had a status [in the law of the Torah] similar to that of all other nations, and hence the law quoted [“Where the parents of a child are of non-Jewish nations etc.”] applied. Ramban is now to differ with this opinion, and holds that since Abraham entered the covenant, he and his seed already enjoyed that status later defined as that of Israelites, and under such law the son of the Israelite woman assumed her status, and hence there was no need for his official conversion. The statement of the Torath Kohanim that he was converted must mean only, as explained above, that he was reared by his mother and he became attached to Israel. But such is not my opinion, for since the time that Abraham entered into the covenant [with G-d], they [i.e., his descendants through Isaac and Jacob] were Israelites and were not to be reckoned among the nations,⁵³⁶Numbers 23:9. just as the Rabbis have said with respect to Esau:⁵³⁷Kiddushin 18 a. “Perhaps the case of an Israelite who is an apostate is different!” [Thus the Rabbis referred to Esau, who was long before the Giving of the Torah on Sinai, as an “Israelite.”] And is it not an argument from minor to major! “If after the Giving of the Torah when a Cuthean has sexual relations with a daughter of Abraham, and he is forbidden to her by a negative commandment and his betrothal to her is not valid, yet she is the source of purification of the nations, so that her child becomes fully-qualified and of her own standing — does it not follow all the more so that before the Torah was given, she purifies her child to be of her own standing, so that circumcision be incumbent upon him as upon the seed of Abraham, and that he be part of the community of the children of Israel!”

והוא בן איש מצרי, this is why he had the effrontery to curse the tetragram; none of the Israelites would have been so deficient in reverence.

ויצא בן אשה ישראלית, The son of a Jewish woman went out, etc. We must understand the meaning of the expression ויצא as analogous to the way Tanchuma understood the same word when the Torah described the emergence of the golden calf in Exodus 32,24. Tanchuma defined the word as describing an unplanned occurrence, i.e. the emergence of the golden calf from that crucible was totally unexpected. We may therefore relate to the portion of the מקלל, the blasphemer, as the ultimate result of an act by the mother which was totally outside her consciousness. Shemot Rabbah 1,28 describes that the Egyptian overseer killed by Moses once entered the house of his victim pretending to be her husband and slept with her. The child born from that union developed into the blasphemer who is the subject of our verse. This is the reason the Torah describes the mother as אשה ישראלית, comparing her to איש הישראלי, to tell us that her guilt in this matter was no greater than the guilt of the איש הישראלי, i.e. she was free from guilt. The Torah goes on to write בתוך בני ישראל, to inform us that there were no ממזרים, bastards, amongst the Jewish people, i.e. children from unions who may not marry Israelites.

ויצא בן אישה הישראלית, “The son of an Israelite woman went out, etc.” The fact that this paragraph has been inserted at this point, prompted the opinion that this individual blasphemed concerning the commandment of the showbreads, which in his opinion was an inappropriate offering, i.e. offering stale bread before G’d, by leaving it on the table for an entire week. Upon blaspheming, sinning with his mouth, he was called to order by another Israelite, as a result of which an argument ensued when this individual cursed the name of G’d. Nachmanides justifies the somewhat obscure introductory word ויצא, “he went out,” here by explaining that this individual “stepped out of line,” by saying what he did. Alternatively, the meaning is that prior to saying what he said he had stepped outside his tent, [presumably in order that his comments would become common knowledge. Ed.] In other words, the resulting argument took place where everybody witnessed it. We need to explain the additional word במחנה, “in the camp,” then as meaning that many people heard it and seized him bringing him to Moses’ tent to be dealt with there. The meaning of the words בן הישראלית, “son of an Israelite woman,” and איש הישראלי, “and the son of an Israelite (male),” teach that when a Gentile sleeps with an Israelite woman and this results in the birth of a child, such a child is considered a member of the Jewish people, i.e. when he grows up he is איש ישראלי, “a Jewish man.” The emphasis on the word ישראלי suggests that though he is Jewish, he is not fit for the priesthood, for instance, neither is he a member of any of the tribes of the Jewish people of whom the army was made up of. As a result, he would not share in the distribution of the land of Israel to the various tribes, and he would not have a claim on any of that land by reason of his having a Jewish mother. When the Torat Kohanim writes that the meaning of the words בתוך בני ישראל is that this man had undergone conversion to Judaism, this is not to be taken at face value, as he did not need to convert to Judaism, seeing that he had a Jewish mother; the meaning is that this man had undergone the same rules of conversion that every Israelite had undergone prior to the eating of the Passover, i.e. circumcision, ritual immersion, and loss of the requisite minimum amount of blood during circumcision. In other words, outwardly he appeared to all to be a fully-fledged Jew. He had made it plain that he preferred the Jewish people and did not consider himself as a member of his father’s people or religion.

ויצא בן אשה ישראלית, “the son of a Jewish woman came forward, etc.” The meaning of the word ויצא here is that he came forth from his house, or from wherever he had made his quarters.

He went out of his [everlasting] world. Because we derive lessons from juxtapositions. [Since] it is written above, “an everlasting statute” [and then it says], “[He] went out,” it hints that he went out of his [everlasting] world.

והוא בן איש מצרי, “whereas he was the son of an Egyptian man.” It was the fact that he had Egyptian blood in his veins that was responsible for his cursing G–d. We know that Pharaoh did the same when Moses first met him, and he denied the existence of Hashem. (Exodus, 5,2) by ridiculing the idea that he, Pharaoh, should have to accept directives emanating from Hashem.

ויצא בן אשה ישראלית, “the son of an Israelite woman went out, (became involved in a serious argument) the word יצא is used in this sense also in Numbers 16,27: יצאו נצבים, “they went out in a challenging posture;” as well as in Proverbs 25,8: אל תצא לריב מהר, “do not be in a hurry to start a quarrel; this is the plain meaning of the line. Rashi on this line comments that this man whose father was an Egyptian, went to pitch his tent among the tents of the tribe of Dan, his mother’s tribe, as stated by the Torah. The Danites rejected him as tribal allegiance is based on the father and not on the mother. When he came to Moses complaining, the court upheld the opinion of the Danites. As a result of being frustrated, he cursed the G-d Who had so discriminated against him. The Torah had ruled that the tribes should each take up positions in camp in the vicinity of their respective tribal flags. Numbers 2,2. This man then ridiculed a religion which sees fit to offer its G-d bread that had been baked as long ago as a whole week ago, instead of presenting Him daily with fresh bread. This had come to his attention on a Sabbath. According to tradition, the incident with the blasphemer and that with the person who had collected kindling on the Sabbath occurred about the same time. This seems difficult to accept as the incident with the person collecting firewood on the Sabbath occurred in the first year of the Israelites’ wandering. Any incident involving tribal allegiance could not have happened until the second year when the order in which the Israelites took up their positions relative to the Tabernacle in their midst was established during the second month of the second year.

בן איש מצרי THE SON OF AN EGYPTIAN MAN — It was the Egyptian whom Moses had killed (Leviticus Rabbah 32 4; cf. Exodus 2:11 where Scripture also uses the expression “איש מצרי”; cf. also Rashi thereon).

“Every Shabbos he shall arrange them.” Re’m writes: This indicates that the incident of the blasphemer occurred in the second year, because there was no showbread until after the Mishkon was erected. Similarly, the arrangement of the tribes under flags [mentioned by Rashi in verse 10] only happened in the second year as it is written in parshas Bamidbar. But this is contradicted by Rashi who writes, “’They placed him [in the guardhouse],’ (by himself), and they did not place the wood-gatherer with him, etc.” But the wood-gatherer incident occurred in the first year as Rashi (Bamidbar 15:32) explains [on the verse], “(Bnei Yisroel were in the desert) and they found a man gathering wood.” “Scripture speaks disparagingly of the Israelites. They kept only the first Shabbos, and then this person came and desecrated the second, etc.” Thus, the incident of the blasphemer was also in the first year. Re’m answers: Even though there was no showbread until the second year, nonetheless, perhaps they had been commanded about it in the first year, and at the time of the command, that wicked person heard and immediately mocked. See there.

We may also deduce from the word ויצא that the Israelites were not prepared to allocate space to that individual in their respective parts of the encampment, each one claiming that he did not belong there. Torat Kohanim write that the manner in which the Torah introduces the blasphemer indicates that he had converted to Judaism. [seeing he was born before the Torah was given, he was not automatically Jewish due to his having a Jewish mother. Ed.] Both commentaries are perfectly true and compatible with Torah principles.

וינצו במחנה, “they quarreled inside the camp.” This son of an Egyptian father was belittled by a normal Israelite who told him that it had been Moses who had killed his father. When this man asked the Israelite how Moses had killed his father, he was told that Moses had killed him by cursing him using the ineffable name of the Lord. Having heard this, this half Egyptian immediately retaliated by cursing this Israelite using the name of G–d to do so.

והוא בן איש מצרי, “and he was the son of an Egyptian man.” Even though at that time he was not yet a bastard as that law had not yet been publicized, he was adjudged as guilty of blasphemy by the court as if he were a bastard. [He would be guilty of violating one of the seven Noachide Commandments that apply universally, bastard or no bastard. (law #2) Ed.]

בתוך בני ישראל AMONG THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL — This teaches us that he had become a proselyte (Sifra, Emor, Section 14 1).

Whom Moshe killed. Because you might ask: Regarding Rashi’s above explanation that, “He entered Moshe’s court and went out guilty, [whereupon] he stood up and blasphemed,” how did this [blaspheming] result from that [his leaving guilty]. Therefore [Rashi explains that] it means as follows: When they told him that it is written “[according to] the signs of their fathers’ house,” he said to them, “Who was my father?” They said to him, “He was an Egyptian.” He said to them, “Which Egyptian?” They said to him, “The Egyptian that Moshe killed with the explicit Name.” He immediately stood up and blasphemed [the Name that killed his father].

ואיש הישראלי. and the Jewish man. It is possible that the reason the Torah does not disclose the name of this man is that it was he who caused the name of G'd to be blasphemed by the son of the Jewish woman, Shlomit bat Divri. G'd is not anxious to condemn a person, especially not in a book such as the Torah which will be read for all future generations so that a dishonourable mention is especially painful to the party concerned.

בתוך בני ישראל, according to Rashi, who quotes Torat Kohanim, these words mean that he had converted to Judaism. [Why he should, seeing that his mother was Jewish, I fail to understand. Ed.] If you were to ask that we read in Exodus, Rashi explained on the words: וירא כי אין איש, that Moses had made sure that no one had seen him killing the Egyptian (Exodus 2,12), that these words mean that Moses foresaw in a prophetic vision that no potential descendant of that Egyptian would ever convert to Judaism, we would have to assume that at that moment this man’s mother was already pregnant with him. What Moses had seen prophetically was that in the future no one would ever descend from this man who had the potential to convert to Judaism. Hence by killing him, he had not committed any ethical crime, especially seeing that the man had murdered a Jew. Furthermore, there is nothing in our scriptures that asks us to look for extenuating circumstances before executing a blasphemer. At this point, our author raises the question about the relevancy of conversion, seeing that any child born by a Jewish mother, be the father a slave or a pagan, is automatically Jewish from birth. The only answer to this question could be that this automatic Judaism came into force only after the Torah had been given at Mount Sinai. Seeing that this man had been sired at least about 60 years prior to the giving of the Torah, he had not qualified as a Jew automatically, but of course could have converted at any time. [Remember he had been sired before Moses even escaped to Midian. Ed.] Due to these considerations this blasphemer had been a convert. A different approach to the scenario involved here: the plain meaning of the words: בתוך בני ישראל, the blasphemer had been an Egyptian, due to his father having been an Egyptian; going back to the times when the Israelites had still been enslaved. After the Exodus, he converted and therefore ever since he was viewed as a Jew due to his mother having been a Jewess. He felt that seeing he had no father who also having been a Jew belonged to one of the tribes, he was entitled to belong at least to his mother’s tribe.

וינצו במחנה THEY QUARRELLED IN [or CONCERNING] THE CAMP, about matters connected with the camp (i. e. as to where was his proper place in the camp; Sifra, Emor, Section 14 1; cf. Rashi on ית‎ישראל‎ אשה ‎ויצא בן‎‎).

He was converted. You might ask: In parshas Shemos Rashi explains on the verse, “And he saw that no man was there,” that no good man was destined to descend from him. The answer is: This is why Rashi writes “Destined to descend from him,” as this one was already born at that time. However, no good person would come from him afterwards. Regarding Rashi’s statement that he was converted, [you might ask that] when a non-Jew has relations with a Jewess the offspring is a kosher [Jew], so why did he have to convert? The Ramban answers that it was not that he required conversion, but that like all of Bnei Yisroel he underwent the circumcision, immersion, and sprinkling of blood at the time the Torah was given. He chose not to follow his father’s ways, but went after his mother and attached himself to the Israelites. Tosfos answer that before the giving of the Torah, the status of offspring was determined by one’s father. When he was born they did not circumcise [or convert] him because he was an Egyptian, and when he grew up, he converted voluntarily.

Furthermore, the Torah wanted to reveal that the substance of the quarrel between these two men concerned the difference between being known as merely "the son of a Jewish woman," and being known as "the son of a Jew." The wording of the Torah comprises all that our sages have said about the substance of this quarrel in Vayikra Rabbah 32,3, some saying the quarrel was about the showbread legislation, the blasphemer ridiculing it. Others say that the quarrel centred about whether the blasphemer was a member of the Jewish people, and if so if he could claim membership of a particular tribe. The Torah did not bother to be specific and mention his name as it did not make any difference in the end.

‎הישראלי‎ ואיש THE ISRAELITISH MAN — this was his opponent (Sifra, Emor, Section 14 1) who had prevented him from pitching his tent in the camp of Dan.

והוא בן איש מצרי, “and he was a son of an Egyptian man.” According to Tanchuma Emor 24 he was the son of the Egyptian whom Moses had slain when he had killed an Israelite (the husband of the blasphemer’s mother).
בתוך בני ישראל, “among the Children of Israel.” These words teach that the man in question had converted to Judaism (Sifra Emor 14,1).

Who protested. I.e., he would not allow him to pitch his tent there.

בן הישראלית, “the son of the Israelite woman.” These words (the repetition of the information) teach that the child of a sexual union between a pagan and a Jewish woman is not Jewish (by birth). Although, according to the Talmud (Yevamot 45), such a child is Jewish regardless of whether the mother was married or single at the time of that union, the fact remains that we consider the child as genetically tainted, not permitted to marry a priest if a daughter. It would certainly not be permitted to share in the distribution of the land of Israel or make his home amongst the camps with the flags, as such membership was limited to לשמות מטות אבותם, “for the names of the tribes of their fathers” (Numbers 26,55). This is the opinion of Nachmanides.

ויקב — Translate this as the Targum does: ופרש “and he pronounced”, thus ויקב … ויקלל means that he uttered the Tetragrammaton and by so doing blasphemed. It was the “Proper Name” which he had heard on Mount Sinai (cf. Sifra, Emor, Section 14 2 and Jeremiah Targ.).

ושם אמו, and the name of his mother, etc. Why was the name of this woman only mentioned here instead of at the time her existence was mentioned in verse 10 prior to the confrontation of her son with Moses? One may answer this in either one of two ways. 1) It reflects credit upon her seeing the Torah wrote: "they brought him to Moses, whereas the name of his mother was Shlomit." This implies that his mother was one of those who brought the blasphemer to Moses to be judged. 2) Mention of Shlomit at this stage reflects discredit upon her. Had it not been for the fact that others brought the blasphemer to Moses for judgment his mother could have remained anonymous. The general tenor of the story indicates that the blasphemer's mother could not overcome her feelings of pity for her son. The Torah teaches the lesson which we learned in Proverbs 12,10 that compassion for the wicked is actually an act of cruelty. The Torah discloses the name of the woman who had been foolish enough to display such feelings for her son the blasphemer. The fact that the Torah also reveals the name of her tribe is an indication that members of a tribe have a tendency to be protective of members of that tribe. This is why the Midrash we quoted earlier stated that when a person disgraces himself he also disgraces his tribe.

ויקוב, he mentioned the holy name of G’d before cursing same.

She alone. Re’m asks: In Parshas Shemos (2:11), Rashi explains, “She thought that he was her husband.” If so, she erred and [did] not [sin] voluntarily, so why does he call her wayward? It seems to me that she was not modest before men as Rashi explains, “She would chatter..., inquiring [about] everyone’s wellbeing.” Therefore, she stumbled into waywardness and suffered this mishap, just as we find with Dinah. (Nachalas Yaakov)

למטה דן, “a member of the tribe of Dan;” it was that tribe which had initiated the quarrel described in the last verse. Compare Talmud, tractate Pesachim folio 4, where we are told that there was a person who whenever he disagreed with someone immediately suggested that he and his adversary take the matter to court. Eventually, people who knew him concluded that he must have been descended from the tribe of Dan, a word which means: “judging.” [This incident occurred many hundreds of years after the tribe of Dan and nine other tribes had been exiled, and no one could trace his antecedents to a particular tribe of the ten tribes whom the Assyrians had transplanted. Ed.]

ויקוב בן האשה הישראלית ויקלל, “the son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name and cursed;” as a result of the quarrel he began to curse;

ושם אמו שלמית בת דברי AND HIS MOTHER’S NAME WAS SHELOMITH, THE DAUGHTER OF DIBRI, [THE TRIBE OF DAN] — it is to tell how praiseworthy Israel was that Scripture publicly mentions her name (exposes her), telling us implicitly that of all the women of Israel she alone was a harlot (Leviticus Rabbah 32 5).

ויקוב, ויקלל, the Torah does not use the expression ויברך which is traditionally used someone who curses the name of G-d, as for instance in Kings I 21,13, where Navot had been accused (falsely) of cursing the King and G-d, in order for the King to have a pretext to have him executed for not selling him his vineyard. It uses the word: ויקלל, instead, which refers to someone cursing without using the tetragram as the Lord’s name, a sin not punishable by the death penalty. (Sifra)

שלמית (connected with שלום “peace”) — she was so called because she was always babbling: “Peace be with thee”, “peace be with thee”, “peace be with you” — she used to continually babble with many words (she was a בת דברי) — she enquired after the health of everybody (Leviticus Rabbah 32 5).

את השם ויקלל, he also used the tetragram when cursing. Rabbi Yossi is on record as saying that the Egyptians who were ritually contaminated, also conferred their ritual contamination on the Israelites. His colleagues claimed that the wife of Neriah, a grandson of Dan, was Shlomit, daughter of Divri, and that during the night following the day when Moses slew the Egyptian who was one of the supervisors checking the number of bricks delivered by the Jewish slaves, raped her. History has a way of repeating itself. According to Tanchuma, Emor 24 as well as Vayikra Rabbah 32,4 when the quarrel broke out, and a Jewish man accused this man to be a bastard, this man asked the accuser where his father had been on the night when he claimed that his mother had been raped. The night he referred to was the night when his mother had supposedly been raped by an Egyptian overseer, who had used a pretext to send her husband on an errant. The reason why this blasphemer used the tetragram when cursing G-d, was that he had overheard how Moses had used that name as a means to kill his father. [I do not follow this, because if he had not been born yet, and his mother became pregnant with him as a result of the rape, how could he have overheard Moses? Ed.][This is why the Torah in Exodus 2,14 has one of the two quarrelling Israelites ask Moses whether he planned to kill him also by using the tetragram to curse him, so that he would fall dead. (הלהרגני אתה אומר: “are you going to utter a word which will kill me?”)]

בת דברי (from the root דבר “to speak”) — she was talkative — talking with any man, and in consequence of this she got into trouble.

למטה דן, “from the tribe of Dan.” He had been the one causing the quarrel. He had justified his action by saying that he would now rectify an injustice done to him. This may also have been hinted at when in Genesis 49,16, according to the Talmud in Pessachim folio 4, Yaakov on his deathbed, using prophetic vision had said דן ידין עמו, “Dan will judge his people.”

למטה דן OF THE TRIBE OF DAN — This mention also of the parent and tribe of the woman teaches us that the wrong doer brings shame upon himself, shame upon his parent, shame upon his whole tribe. Similarly we find the name of the tribe Dan mentioned to express praise; (Exodus 31:6) “Oholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan”, where the details of Oholiab’s descent imply praise for him, praise for his father and praise for his tribe (Sifra, Emor, Section 14 4).

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).

By himself.. [Afterwards Rashi] explains [that he was imprisoned by himself] because the woodgatherer was more wicked, since everyone knew that he was liable for the death penalty, whereas the blasphemer was less wicked, for they did not know whether or not he was liable for the death penalty. Therefore they were not imprisoned together. As the Gemara says that there were two cemeteries, one for those whom [Beis Din] stoned, and one for those whom they burnt [because stoning is punishment for a more serious sin]. Similarly, we do not imprison someone who is [considered] more wicked together with someone who is [considered] less wicked. (Nachalas Yaakov)

'לפרוש להם עלפי ה, “until instructions (how to deal with him) would be revealed by G–d.” It was clear that this man was guilty of the death penalty, seeing that cursing the Lord is one of the seven basic commandments already revealed to mankind long before the Torah was given. What was not clear was if, seeing that his mother was Jewish, he should be stoned to death (according to Jewish law) or if he should be put to death by the sword, the type of death penalty applicable to gentiles who are guilty of such a penalty. Some scholars, aware that when the penalty described by Jewish law is applied the person executed obtains atonement, felt that this person should be denied the opportunity of atonement after death, so that they wanted to kill him by a different method. An example of such a procedure is found in Leviticus 20,2, where a parent who kills one of his or her children by burning them as a sacrifice to the idol molech is executed by stoning, whereas if he did so to all of his children no penalty is spelled out. The Rabbis, perplexed why such a parent should not be punished, explained that the fact that no penalty is spelled out means that the parent guilty of this will be killed by a method which does not bring atonement for his sin in its wake. (Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin, folio 64). This is why the Torah here had to write that Moses had to make enquiries from G–d concerning this. Something similar occurred with the man who collected kindling on the Sabbath, Numbers 15,32. The Torah had already spelled out the death penalty, but without specifying which of the possible four kinds of death penalties applied. This is why the man was first put in jail until the death penalty by stoning was decreed. Normally, when no further details are spelled out in the Torah the death penalty is by asphyxiation, חנק. The difficulty both here and in Numbers 15,32, is that according to Jewish law the guilty party must not only be warned about the impending penalty, but according to Rabbi Yehudah in the Talmud tractate Sanhedrin folio 8, must be warned about which kind of death penalty he would be facing, something that was impossible in both the examples we have cited. It is possible that he was given a warning that he would face one of four kinds of death penalties. Perhaps each one of them used this as an excuse by reasoning that such a warning was not legally valid and they would get away with their sin. There is also the problem that some of our sages feel that any warning which was based on some dubious language is invalid. (Talmud tractate Pessachim folio 63) It is hardly likely that under such circumstances there could be any convictions ever, as to find witnesses who had warned concerning 4 possible type of death penalties would presuppose that witnesses to a capital offence are all learned men. There is also an opinion in the Talmud that if a person who was considered a chaver, known for meticulous observance of the Torah’s commandments, committed a serious sin, the fact that he had not been warned of the consequences is ignored, as he did not need witnesses to warn him not to do what he knew was forbidden and which penalty would await him (Sanhedrin folio 8)

ויניחהו במשמר, “they placed him in custody;” according to Rashi, they did not place the man who had collected kindling on the Sabbath in the same cell with him, although both incidents occurred at about the same time. If you were to ask that Rashi had interpreted the word ויצא, “he went out,” in Leviticus 24,10 by quoting Rabbi Levi who said that “he left his world,” whereas Rabbi Berechyah is quoted as saying that the word means that this blasphemer first ridiculed the legislation about the showbreads (as we already explained), something that could not have occurred until the second year when the Tabernacle was functioning, whereas the person collecting the kindling had done so on the second Sabbath, i.e. at Marah, or at the latest immediately after the giving of the Torah only 49 days after the Exodus in the first year, even before the Torah had given, so how could they possibly have been placed in the same cell as that person had long since been executed? (see Rashi on Parshat S’hlach lecha) We are therefore forced to answer that the tribes had taken up positions in the desert in accordance with the sequence in which Yaakov had blessed them, already before there had been any mention of the erecting of a Tabernacle, so that the incident with the blasphemer could have occurred much earlier than the impression given in our portion. We have explained repeatedly that the author of the Torah did not feel restrained to report events in their chronological sequence. The blasphemer ridiculed the legislation of the showbreads as soon as it was taught, though the Tabernacle had not even been built yet. [he was not driven to do so because he had been refused to put up his tent with the Danites. Ed]

That one who gathered wood [on Shabbos] was [condemned] to death. This is a reason for the above, why he [Moshe] did not put them together. He [Rashi] explains that this was because they knew that this one was liable to death, but did not know whether the blasphemer was liable to death. Perhaps he was not liable to death and would suffer by thinking, that because they are sitting together [he too, must be liable to death].

'לפרוש להם על פי ה, ”in order to receive instructions from the Lord how to proceed.” They assumed that the sinner had to be stoned to death as is evident from Leviticus 20,9. If stoning is the penalty for cursing one’s parents, how could the penalty for cursing the Lord be more lenient? We have a rule that penalties cannot be based merely on our judgment, i.e. our logic, but must have been ordained from heaven.

The execution itself. You might ask: Since they knew that one who desecrates Shabbos is liable to death, why did they not punish him with strangling, since every unspecified death penalty in the Torah is by strangling? The answer is: They thought that one who desecrates Shabbos is like an idolater and an atheist; since he does not believe that the Holy One rested at Creation he does not believe that the Holy One created the world, and it is as if he believes in idolatry. And perhaps, just as idolatry is punished by stoning, so too one who desecrates Shabbos is punished by stoning, or perhaps [he is punished by] strangling. Therefore, they were in doubt. Many ask, why was there any doubt? If someone who curses a father or mother is liable to death, how much more so regarding the Divine Presence? You cannot answer that we do not derive punishment from a kal vachomer, because if so, it would be obvious that he was not liable for death since [the prohibition against blasphemy] was not explicitly [stated until now]. It seems that they were in doubt here because he had not been warned properly, and the Gemara rules in Sanhedrin that a person is not liable for any sin unless he was warned that he will be liable to death and also the type death he is liable for. This however, was a temporary injunction [valid only] for that particular time [to kill him without prior warning]. (Divrei Dovid)

השמעים THEY THAT HEARD — This refers to the witnesses.

For you caused [it] to yourself. Some explain [that the witnesses were saying], “We will not be punished [for testifying against you],” even though the witnesses have to testify [the actual blasphemy] they heard from the blasphemer. However, this is not implied in Rashi.

וסמכו, “and all who heard the curse are to place their hands, etc.;” what was the reason for this procedure which had to be performed on the bodies of all people about to be executed legally? The reason is that when judgment was passed, the witnesses on whose testimony this sentence was based had been forced during the proceedings to literally quote the words used by the blasphemer in doing so. This had made them perform this symbolic act by means of which they transferred any guilt that they had been burdened with through that to the blasphemer before the latter was executed. כל השומעים, “all who had heard it;” seeing that he would be executed by stoning due to their testimony.

כל ALL [THOSE THAT HEARD] — 'all' serves to include the judges also (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 1).

In the presence of the entire congregation. You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps the verse implies its plain meaning as taught in the Mishnah of Perek Nigmar Hadin (Sanhedrin 45a), “He is stoned by all Yisroel,” and the Mishnah there is speaking of all cases when people are liable to death? The answer is: There it is different because the Mishnah says, “One of the witnesses pushes him [so that he falls onto] his back [lit. loins] ... If he died through this, the obligation has been fulfilled. And if not, he is stoned by all Yisroel as it says, “The hand of the witnesses shall be upon him first to kill him, and the hand of the entire nation in the end” (Devarim 17:7). This [indicates that] we require the hand of the witnesses be first. But here it is written, “The entire congregation shall surely stone him,” implying that they should all stone him immediately, and thus the verses apparently contradict each other. Therefore, Rashi answers that although the witnesses’ hands are is certainly first, this should be [done] in the presence of the entire congregation so that it is as if the entire congregation stoned him, because a man’s agent is like the man himself. (Nachalas Yaakov)

ורגמו אותו, “and they (all) have to stone him.” This was because that person had converted to Judaism. If he had not converted, he would still have been guilty of the death penalty, but, like all gentiles, he would have been executed by the sword, following the appropriate warning of what he was risking by committing that sin, and, of course by eye witnesses testifying against him. We have now heard of the penalty for blaspheming, but where did we read about the warning not to commit this sin, especially that it applies also to gentiles? It is found in Genesis 2,16-17, according to the Talmud Sanhedrin, folio 56, combined with Exodus 22,27, “you must not curse G-d.” אותו “him,” but not his clothing. (Sifra)

את ידיהם [AND ALL THAT HEARD HIM SHALL LAY] THEIR HANDS [UPON HIS HEAD] — They said to him: your blood is upon your head; we do not deserve punishment on account of your death, for it was you yourself who brought it about (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 2).

כל העדה ALL THE CONGREGATION [SHALL CERTAINLY PELT HIM WITH STONES] — (This means: the witnesses shall stone him), all the congregation standing by (because it cannot possibly mean that all the 600,000 men comprising the whole of the congregation should stone him). From here, we may derive the legal principle that a man’s agent is as himself (i. e. that his actions are legally of the same effect as though they were carried out by those for whom he acts the order) (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 23).

ונשא חטאו [WHOSOEVER EXECRATETH HIS GOD] SHALL BEAR HIS SIN — i. e. shall be punished with excision if there was no legal warning preceding the offence (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 6; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 20:27).

כי יקלל אלוקיו, and thereby transgresses the negative commandment אלוקים לא תקלל, (Exodus 22,27)

איש איש כי יקלל אלוקיו, this refers to someone cursing G’d by using one of the names which describe His attributes, כנויים, without uttering the tetragram that is forbidden to be uttered except by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement in the sanctuary. The individual in question who curses the attribute he had referred to after mentioning it will be dealt with by G’d, ונשא עונו., If, however he uttered the name of G’d’s essence, and had been warned not to, and curses that name, he will be executed, (as happened in the incident described in our chapter).

איש איש כי יקלל אלוהיו, “any man who curses his G–d, etc.;” the reason why the attribute אלהים is used here for G–d, is that this law includes anyone cursing a Jewish judge. In the latter case the penalty would a 39 strokes by the person appointed to administer this by the court. Compare Exodus 22,27:אלהים לא תקלל, “you must not curse a judge, etc.”

כי יקלל אלוקיו ונשא חטאו, “whosoever curses his G-d, shall bear the burden of his sin.” When reading this verse superficially, we gain the impression that the guilty person must simply live with the burden of his sin, i.e. that the matter is between him and his G-d, and that the human tribunal on earth is not charged with carrying out the penalty. After all, how did the court know which of his deities that gentile had had in mind? Not only that, but in the Torah even judges are also described simply as ‘elohim!’”

ונשא עונו, he will have to carry the burden of his punishment. In other words, this is a problem between him and his Maker, no human court being involved, seeing the sin was committed in private and he had not cursed G’d’s essence but one or more of His attributes. This “leaving him to G’d,” is also applicable when the blasphemer “only” cursed one of the attributes G’d is known by.

ונקב שם AND HE THAT UTTERETH BLASPHEMOUSLY THE NAME [OF THE LORD SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH] — He is not liable to the death-penalty at the hand of the judges unless he utters the Divine Tetragrammaton blasphemously, but not if he execrateth the Lord by only mention of one of the substitutes for the Divine name (e. g., רחום, חנון, אל etc.), (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 5; Sanhedrin 56a).

ונוקב שם ה' מות יומת, the penalty of someone cursing the tetragram is not comparable to the punishment for someone who “merely” cursed one of G’d’s attributes. The individual described in our verse will be executed publicly by stoning, and all who heard him commit this crime must participate actively in the execution.

HE SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH. This is to be explained in this manner, according to its plain sense.

בנקבו שם יומת, “when he curses the holy Name he shall be executed.” The Torah immediately continues to write that any man committing murder shall be executed. This prompted our sages in Sanhedrin 58 to teach that anyone striking the cheek of his fellow is considered as if he had struck G’d’s “cheek” (in an allegorical manner of speaking).

ונוקב שם ה' מות יומת, ”anyone who curses the ineffable name of the Lord is to be executed.” The verb used here for G–d is the one used by the prophet Bileam when he said that “it is useless for me to curse anyone who has been blessed by this attribute of the Lord.” (Numbers 23,8)

'כגר כאזרח וגו, “both convert and natural born Jew, etc;” we might have expected the Torah to mention the natural born Jew first; but the Torah wanted to teach us that the convert who had been born as a pagan, and had had to overcome many obstacles to convert, is given additional credit for having made this effort by being named here before natural born Israelites.

ונקב here is an expression denoting “cursing”, like (Numbers 23:8) “How shall I curse (אקב) [when God hath not cursed]” (Sanhedrin 56a).

כגר כאזרח, and the type of the penalty applied to the blasphemer in our paragraph was not especially harsh seeing the guilty person had been a convert. Natural born Jew and converts are treated exactly alike in the legislation concerning blasphemy.

ואיש כי יכה AND HE THAT KILLETH [ANY MAN SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH] — Because it is said (Exodus 21:12) “Whosoever smiteth a man so that he die [shall surely be put to death]” I might say that I have here only the law that if one kills a man he is punishable with death; whence, however, do I know that this is also the case if he kills a woman or a child? Because Scripture states here: “[and he that killeth] any person (more lit., the soul of any human being)” (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 20 1; cf. Rashi on Exodus 21:12).

ואיש כי יכה כל נפש אדם, seeing that among some nations cursing the deity is considered a very minor sin as we know from Isaiah 8,21 והתקצף וקלל במלכו ובאלוהיו, “and he shall rage against his king and his divinity, etc.;” we know from our sages in Sanhedrin 60 that when one hears a gentile blaspheme (even against our G’d) one need not rend one’s garment in mourning over having been a witness to such blasphemy, for if that were not the halachah our garments would consist of innumerable shreds.
Keeping this in mind, we might have assumed that the curse uttered by the blasphemer in our paragraph should have been treated as irrelevant. This is especially so since we are all aware that blaspheming against G’d does not harm Him in any way, is an exercise of man’s frustration, not something harmful to the object of his blasphemy. The Torah explains that the reason why this blasphemy is treated as if something of substance, G’d forbid, must be seen in a different context. We know from Torah legislation that each deliberate act of disobedience against G’d is basically an act of insurrection, mutiny, and we could expect it to be treated as such, i.e. as equivalent to forfeiting one’s life.
Nonetheless, the Torah has demonstrated that some deliberate sins rate quite different punishments than others. Basically, the Torah provides for financial penalties, physical punishment, and the death penalty. Clearly, this proves that G’d views different sins as differing in degree of insurrection, or due to different degrees of provocation experienced by the sinner. Killing a human being, basically deserves the death penalty, i.e. anything less would mean that the killer’s life is worth more than that of his victim. When someone kills an animal, this is not comparable, so that the penalty is financial, restitution to the owner for what he lost.
When someone causes injury (deliberately), if the injury was caused to a fellow human being, by rights, the offender should be punished by bodily punishment, unless he were physically too weak to endure such punishment. Seeing that it is impossible to impose an exact equivalent for the injury caused, the sages decided to substitute a financial penalty instead. We must not think that the offender thereby gets off lightly, as the financial compensation comprises five different categories of harm suffered by the injured party, including even his injured pride. (compare Baba Kamma 83)
When someone injures an animal the financial penalty is considerably milder. When someone causes injury to a human being we also distinguish between one human being and another. If he injured his father or mother, he is guilty of the death penalty, whereas an injury of similar severity to someone else draws only a financial penalty; when he injures an animal it is obvious that the penalty would only be financial. Cursing father or mother is not mentioned in the Torah here as it is in a different category altogether, seeing that this cannot be compared to blaspheming, words which by themselves have no effect, since what can man possibly do to harm G’d?. Parents may be harmed by their children’s curses though not necessarily visibly. [some of the wording is my own. Ed.]

ואיש כי יכה כל נפש אדם, “and any person who strikes another human fatally (deliberately), etc.” since the Torah had just dealt with people who started quarrels, something that may have fatal results, it reminds us once more of the seriousness of starting quarrels, the results of which are beyond one’s original intention.

AND HE THAT SMITETH A BEAST MORTALLY SHALL PAY FOR IT; ‘NEFESH’ (LIFE) FOR ‘NEFESH’ (LIFE). This does not mean a real animal, that he must buy him an animal similar to his one [that was killed], but rather it means that he is to give him monetary compensation equal to the damage he caused him. Similarly, breach for breach, eye for eye⁵³⁸Verse 20. [also means monetary compensation], according to the opinion of our Rabbis.⁵³⁹Baba Kama 83 b.

מכה נפש בהמה, so that the animal dies.

Whoever kills an animal shall pay for it. It should have said ישלם [instead of ישלמנה]. This is the source for the halachic derivation (Baba Kama 10b): He shall complete it [ישלימנה — he pays for the difference after the owner deducts the value of the carcass]. According to the plain meaning: He should pay minimally, according to the animal’s value; for besides the differences in the animal’s skill or work, there is also an evaluation based on its lineage — someone who had the horse upon whom the king rode … he is obligated to pay only its minimum worth.

כן ינתן בו [AND IF A MAN CAUSES A BLEMISH IN HIS COMPANION…] SO SHALL IT BE DONE TO HIM — Our Rabbis explained that this does not mean the actual infliction of a blemish but that it means monetary compensation — that we estimate his (the injured man’s) value as a slave and the offender has to pay the difference between his value as an unmaimed man and that which he represents after the infliction of the injury. It is for this reason that the term נתן “to give” is written here referring to something that is given (passed) from hand to hand viz., money (Ketubot 32b; Bava Kamma 84a).

We appraise [his worth] as a slave. Explanation: What he was worth without the maiming and what he is worth with it, and he pays the depreciation.

כן ינתן בו, “so shall be done to him;” Rashi on this verse comments that the text is not to be understood literally, but what is meant is that financial compensation must be paid to the victim. This is perfectly logical, as in many instances it would be impossible to carry out the literal meaning of the text, and it would even be totally unfair, for instance, for a one eyed person to have to lose one eye if he had gouged out the eye of a person who had two good eyes with which to see. Our sages’ interpretation of this verse is therefore clearly the correct one. (Ibn Ezra) If the aggrieved party should take issue with this by arguing that he is not to blame that the person who had gouged out one of his eyes had only had a single eye, and that he insists on the literal application of this verse, he is told that the Torah was written in order to address normal situations, not exceptional situations, for if it had intended to provide in its text for every imaginable contingency, the Torah would be far too long. Moreover, even assuming after the exceptions the Torah sometimes made for a person’s financial circumstances, this would not necessarily be fair, as who knows whether a person who is poor today may not become rich next week or vice versa? The overriding consideration for compensation if a life had been taken deliberately is spelled out by the Torah when it wrote that financial compensation for taking a life is absolutely inadmissible, as who can determine the value of a person’s life in terms of money? (Numbers 35,31) Individual limbs, however, are subject to the judges’ evaluation

ומכה בהמה ישלמנה AND HE THAT SMITETH A BEAST, HE SHALL PAY FOR IT — Above (v. 18) Scripture was speaking of one who kills a beast, whilst here it speaks of one who inflicts a wound up on it (cf. Rashi on Exodus 21:12).

ומכה בהמה ישלמנה, if someone injures someone else’s animal he must pay compensation to its owner, even if the animal does not die as a result to that injury.

ומכה נפש בהמה ישלמנה ומכה אדם יומת, “if someone strikes an animal he shall pay for it, whereas if someone strikes (dead) a human being he shall be executed.” The reason the Torah continues immediately with the words: “there shall be one law for you, etc.,” is that the investigation of crimes involving financial damage or bodily harm resulting in death should be subject to equally thorough investigation as to who is responsible. The word אחד in verse 22 refers to The “One and only G’d;” Torah legislation is based on G’d and not on the considerations applicable in Gentile jurisprudence.

Who causes a wound to it. Because if not so, why should he pay for it [for merely smiting it]? What deficiency did he make in it that he should pay?

ומכה בהמה ישלמנה, “someone who had deliberately struck his fellow man’s animal must pay compensation.” The Torah has repeated this legislation, as originally it had used the expression: נפש, “lifeforce,” implying that the attacker had aimed at a part of the body that is most vulnerable, whereas here it did not restrict itself to when an especially vulnerable part of the animal had been struck. Compensation is payable even if the animal had not died as the result of being struck.

ומכה אדם יומת AND HE THAT SMITETH A MAN SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH — although he has not killed him but only inflicted a wound upon him, because Scripture does not state מכה] נפש] (as it does in v. 17 which implies “smiting of the soul” — killing). Scripture is speaking here of one who smites his father or his mother when he is punishable with death for mere smiting without fatal result (cf. Rashi on Exodus 21:15). It is true that the punishment for this offence has already been stated (Exodus 24:17) but Scripture intends by putting this case in juxtaposition with מכה בהמה to put it in some respect on a level with the case of one who smites a beast. How is it in the case of one who smites a beast? He is subject to the law only if he smote it while it was alive! So, too, is one who smites his father (or his mother) punishable only if he smites them whilst they are alive, thus excluding from the death penalty one who smites them after their death. Because we find that he who curses him (the father; — the same applies to the mother) after death is liable to the death penalty (cf. Rashi Leviticus 20:9), Scripture was compelled to state with reference to one who smites his parents that he is exempt from the death penalty if he does this after their death (as stated above). And there is another point of comparison: How is it in the case of a beast? The law speaks only of smiting resulting in a wound! — for if there is no wound resulting no compensation can be claimed — so, too, he who smites his father is not liable to the death penalty unless he inflicts a wound upon him (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 8; Sanhedrin 84a, 85b).

His father or his mother. Explanation: Because it is not written “soul,” it implies a blow that did not cause death. However, if the verse is speaking of someone else [i.e., other than his father or mother], is written (Shemos 21:12), “If one strikes a man and he [the victim] dies (he shall be put to death),” not only for a mere blow. Perforce, it is speaking of one who strikes his father or his mother.

‎'אני ה אלהיכם I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD — your God — the God of all of you. Just as I attach My Name to you, so do I attach it to the strangers.

כגר כאזרח יהיה, for I the Lord your G’d am just as much the G’d of the convert (compare Job 34,19).

כגר כאזרת, convert and natural-born Israelite alike. The Torah did not write: הגר כאזרח, "the convert himself is equal to the natural-born Israelite." The reason is that in the scale of relative degrees of sanctity the convert ranks below the natural-born Israelite. The wording the Torah did use relates only to both categories of Israelites being equal before the law.

כגר כאזרח, “be it a convert or a natural born Israelite;” just as the Torah is concerned with the wellbeing of a natural born Jew, it is concerned with the wellbeing of a person who has converted to Judaism or to his animal. (B’chor shor)

ובני ישראל עשו AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL DID [AS THE LORD COMMANDED MOSES] every prescription mentioned in respect to the stoning-penalty in another place, viz., the casting down of the culprit from a height, the heaping of stones upon him, and the hanging him after the execution has taken place (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 10; Sanhedrin 43a).

AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL DID AS THE ETERNAL COMMANDED MOSES. “This includes the leaning of hands,⁵⁴⁰Verse 14. casting from a height, and hanging the dead body, as well as the regulation, his body shall not remain all night upon the tree.”⁵⁴¹Deuteronomy 21:23. [This is the language of the] Torath Kohanim.⁵⁴²Torath Kohanim, end of Emor. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that the plain meaning thereof is that from that day onwards they acted in accordance with the law concerning one who wounds [a fellowman or causes him damage, mentioned here above in Verses 17-21]. But it is not a correct [explanation] that this verse be referring to the future. The plain meaning thereof is as follows: “and they stoned him with stones because the children of Israel did according to the commandment which the Eternal commanded Moses.” Such a repetition of expressions is found with respect to all those who keep the commandments of G-d, just as it is said in the section of the Passover,⁵⁴³Exodus 12:28. and as He stated in the section of the census, Thus did the children of Israel; according to all that the Eternal commanded Moses, so did they;⁵⁴⁴Numbers 1:54. and so also with regards to the rods of the princes: Thus did Moses; as the Eternal commanded him, so did he.⁵⁴⁵Ibid., 17:26.
The correct interpretation here appears to me to be that since Scripture mentioned first the stoning, it went back afterwards and stated, and the children of Israel did etc., for the meaning of Scripture is to declare that when Moses spoke to the children of Israel they immediately brought forth him that had cursed, and they stoned him; and all the children of Israel did so in order to keep and fulfill [the commandment] as the Eternal commanded Moses, but not out of hatred to the son of the Egyptian who had striven with the Israelite, for [they did it] in order to remove the unworthy one from their midst.
Behar

ובני ישראל עשו כאשר צוה השם. The children of Israel did as G'd commanded. Why did the Torah write that the children of Israel did what G'd commanded after it had already reported in the first part of the verse that they took the blasphemer out of the camp and executed him by stoning him? Seeing that the cause of this execution was a quarrel between a Jew and the son of a Jewess, one could have argued that though the judgment was carried out, many people harboured reservations in their hearts about this execution. The Torah therefore repeats that the children of Israel did what G'd commanded to indicate that their motivation was to carry out G'd's commandment.

ובני ישראל עשו כאשר צוה ה' את משה, they did not stone him as an act of revenge, or because they hated the individual being stoned; they did it merely in order to fulfill G’d’s commandment.

ובני ישראל עשו כאשר צוה ה' את משה, “and the Children of Israel did as G’d had commanded to Moses.” Nachmanides draws attention to a statement in Torat Kohanim, according to which the words “as G’d had commanded Moses,” included the requirement that all those who had heard the blasphemer were required to place their hands and weight, סמיכה, upon him prior to his being stoned, as well as the requirement to push him down from an elevated wall into a pit, and to hang him subsequent to his death until the evening after his execution. Ibn Ezra states that the procedures mentioned in Torat Kohanim became effective from that day onwards for all people who were executed at the command of the courts. Nachmanides disagrees with Ibn Ezra on this, claiming that if so, the legislation to do so would have had to be phrased in the future tense. The plain meaning of our verse is that the Israelites carried out the instructions G’d had given to Moses. There is nothing strange in the Torah describing this execution in more than the minimal number of words, as we have many instances of the Torah doing so, as for instance in connection with the Passover, (Exodus 12,28) or with the census of the Jewish people (Numbers 1,54). Personally, (Nachmanides writing) I feel that the reason for the above being apparently repeated is that the instruction was given to Moses individually. When the Torah reports that all the people participated in this execution “as G’d had commanded Moses,” the point the Torah made is that the people did not feel any personal animosity towards this man who had an Egyptian father, but that their participation in the execution was motivated purely by the fact that G’d had commanded Moses that this was what was to be done. They wanted to participate in removing stains on their collective national character by doing so.

ובני ישראל עשו, “and the Children of Israel did, etc.” they carried out what we have read in this portion.

וירגמו אותו אבן, “they stoned him to death with stones.” The use of the word אבן “stone,” in the singular mode, teaches that if one stone had been enough to kill the sinner, no more stones are to be hurled at him. (Sifra)

Alternatively, the Torah wished to give credit to the whole people for having fulfilled this commandment although it was obviously impossible for the entire nation to physically participate in this execution.

ובני ישראל עשו, “and the Children of Israel had done;” from this day onwards the legislation of how to deal with people who injure others was practiced. An alternate interpretation of this line: the words: “they did,” refer not only to the last verse preceding this, but state that all the steps of the legal proceedings of carrying out an execution were performed dutifully by all the people whenever the need arose to do so.(Sifra)

The Torah may even go beyond this and credit the whole people with having fulfilled all the commandments because they all identified with this execution. This is why the line is couched in general terms, the Torah not specifying which command of G'd the people had fulfilled.

It is also possible that the Torah had to write this line seeing that the command to execute the blasphemer had been addressed to Moses, G'd addressing him in the singular and saying (verse 14) "take the blasphemer outside the camp and have all those who heard his blasphemy place their hands upon his head and the whole congregation shall stone him." According to that verse we thought that whereas Moses was only to take the blasphemer outside, the entire people had to execute him. Here the Torah wrote: "they took the blasphemer outside the camp and stoned him to death." The verse makes the people the whole subject. The Torah now proceeds to praise Israel for not having waited until Moses took the blasphemer outside the camp; they did so themselves and proceeded to complete the commandment to execute him. If we adopt the previous ways of interpreting the verse the word הוצא "take out" which G'd said to Moses may be understood to mean that either Moses or the people were to do this.

That is that he commanded us to place the bread of display always in front of Him. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "And on the table shall you set the bread of display, to be before Me always" (Exodus 25:30). And you already know the language of the Torah about placing new bread every Shabbat, and that frankincense be with it and that the priests eat the bread made for the previous Shabbat (Leviticus 23:8,7,9). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 11 of Menachot. (See Parashat Terumah; Mishneh Torah, Daily Offerings and Additional Offerings 2).