Komentarz do Kapłańska 24:10

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.