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.

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.

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.]

'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)

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.”