Pensamento Judaico sobre Levítico 20:9

Reflecting the high standard of Israel, the opening Midrash described the disease as epilepsy, a temporary affliction, of brief duration. The remedy quoted, the kami-a, amulet, is considered spiritual in nature, not something organic, (in Talmudic and Midrashic parlance) This suggests that the aberration had been brief, subject to prompt correction by proper spiritual orientation. Angels achieve their shleymut, perfection, by means of a single expression, i.e. experience. (Daniel 4,14), whereas man requires two expressions, i.e. experiences. The first was "let Us make man in Our image," at the time man was being created. The second expression, a further stage leading to complete perfection was the revelation at Mount Sinai. Hopefully, the two experiences between them will achieve mankind's refinement, and convert our potential into the actual achievement of the finest our species is capable of.

(1) After completing the legislation about the various offerings that have to be brought in the tabernacle at various times of the day or year, and a list of whose function it was to bring these sacrifices, the Torah concludes by giving details of a fundamental service, i.e. the preparation of the menorah mornings and evenings by the priest. In Parshat Tetzaveh the service of the menorah is mentioned only to account for the need of priestly garments. We are told there that one does not appear in the tabernacle without proper garments for the service. (2) Similarly, once the menorah service has been mentioned, the service of the shulchan, table, is mentioned also. This is in line with what our sages mention on frequent occasions, "the menorah is in the South, the Table in the North," i.e. these two furnishings of the tabernacle perform functions which are mutually complementary, on opposite sides of the sanctuary. They are like opposite sides of a human being, one is unthinkable without the other. Or, as Solomon says in Proverbs 3,16, "long life on its right, glory and riches on its left." (3) Since the book of Leviticus deals with the superior character of the Jewish people, the way we have to refrain from contact with impurities more than any other nation, culminating in the special laws about foods, physical purity, holy days etc., the story of the blasphemer explains what could be the background of a person who does not fit the mould of the Jew, as envisioned by the whole book of Leviticus. If a Jewish woman forms a liaison with a gentile, such results as the blasphemer are possible. The Torah wishes to teach the functional wisdom of being selective in the choice of one's life partner. In other words, if we preserve G'ds light, we need worry less about the results of our marriages. (4) The quarrel between the two men concerned their rights of inheritance based on their respective ancestry. We find Yiphtach being chased away by his half brothers for similar reasons. (Judges 11,1-3) It is reasonable to assume that the blasphemer, having lost his claim before the tribunal of Moses, was not content to curse his antagonist or the judge, but vented his rage against the system, i.e. against G'd the legislator. Thus we get an insight into the background of the sin. (5) Since cursing G'd is certainly worse than cursing one's parents, a sin which carries the death penalty, there was a prima facie case for the death penalty. Since however, mere logic is not sufficient reason to impose a death penalty, and such a penalty must be stated in the Torah explicitly, they had to bring the blasphemer before Moses to enquire what precisely his penalty should be. Possibly, since he was a proselyte, being the issue of an Egyptian father and a Jewish mother, there had been some question whether Jewish law applied to him in every respect. This is the reason it is emphasized later, that the penalty is identical for both stranger and natural born citizen. (6) The placing of the witnesses' hands on the victim, expresses their conviction that not the witnesses cause the death of the victim but his own sin has caused it. (Rashi) The major reason however, is that since the witnesses had perforce to repeat the exact words used by the blasphemer when they gave their testimony, something extremely distasteful to them but required by halachah, (Sanhedrin 56) they symbolically return that utterance to the head of the accused. In this way they can feel free of the sin of having themselves uttered the words of the blasphemer. (7) Since it is a cardinal sin in any religion or nation to curse its deity, ish ish, anyone, wherever, whenever, it follows that for a Jew to do so when it involves the only true deity, the perpetrator will be executed, etc. The emphasis "the stranger and the natural born citizen alike," is to underline that someone should not think that this man had been so severely dealt with only because he was a stranger. (8) Our sages stipulate that murder is less serious than causing someone to commit a sin. (Sifrey Ki Teytze 31, section 872) In the former case, one only kills the body; in the latter one causes death to both body and soul. (9) The juxtaposition in our Parshah of killing a person, and killing an animal, emphasizes that causing death may involve more than killing the animalistic soul in man; one may terminate one's nefesh, soul. The Torah is thus talking about someone who causes the other person to sin, thus leading him to this dual death. Since it is inconceivable that the killer should wind up in olam haba, the world to come, whereas his victim should be condemned to eternal oblivion, the penalty for such cases is mot yumat, execution of the machti, the one who caused the death through having caused the victim to sin, as well as the simultaneous loss of olam haba of the machti, the one who caused the sin. However, when an act of murder is merely like that of killing an animal which has no olam haba to lose in any event, then the payment exacted is only nefesh tachat nefesh, animalistic life in return for animalistic life. In other words, only the body of the killer is executed, since his victim has not lost his share in the hereafter through the deed of the killer. The sequence of the verses is clear then. The blasphemer is a machti, since those who hear him and do not react are grossly guilty themselves, both in body and in soul. They have to remove that guilt by testifying and placing their hands on the sinner. Once we deal with the levels of punishment that fit the level of the crime, the remaining verses also fit into the picture. (10) In Mishpatim, the personal injury legislation deals only with material losses sustained, i.e. earning capacity, loss of dignity etc. Here we deal with loss of stature of a person due to injury inflicted. A priest, for instance, cannot perform service in the temple once his body has become blemished. Therefore, considerations such as pain due to burning and other personal injuries are not mentioned in this context. The payment for an animal includes not only the value of the meat, but must include replacing the animal with one of comparable work capacity. The words "you shall have one law," refer to a comparison for restitution purposes between killing an animal and killing a human being. The equality before the law of both stranger and natural born citizen, extends both in regard of capital offences and in respect of offences involving financial or property damages. (11) The verse "and the children of Israel did as the Lord had commanded them," refers to the acceptance by Israel of the newly enacted legislation from that time onwards.