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.

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.

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.

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.

בתוך בני ישראל, “among the Children of Israel, etc.” He came from his private place to the midst of the people. וינצו במחנה, “they fought in the camp.” It is possible that seeing that the word ויצא did not specify from where the son of the Jewish woman came it has a similar meaning to the word ויצא in Kings I 22,21 ויצא הרוח, where it is a reference to the spirit of Navot who had been the victim of a judicial murder and whose soul sought revenge. Both the term יצא and באה are used allegorically in a spiritual sense. Another example is Kohelet 8,10: ובכן ראיתי רשעים קבורים ובאו, “and likewise I saw the wicked who had been buried and ‘came.’” How could a buried person “come?” Clearly, the meaning of the word is not to be understood in its usual sense. This is also the meaning of Job 1,21 when he said ערום יצאתי מבטן אמי וערום אשוב שמה, “I came out of my mother’s womb naked and I will return to earth naked.” The words יצא and בא appear as figures of speech.

I believe that this is what our sages alluded to in Tanchuma Emor 23 when Rabbi Levi is quoted on these words as saying that the blasphemer of whom the Torah spoke here יצא, “left עולמו,” “his world,” and that this is the reason the word ויצא here was preceded by the word עולם, “world” in the last word of the previous paragraph. Man is perceived of as being עולם קטן, “a small world, a microcosm.” We find a reference to the word יצא meaning leaving one’s country such as in Ezekiel 36,20 or as meaning “emerging,” originating, such as in Ezekiel 15,7 מהאש יצאו, “they emerged from fire,” meaning that these people had been born as a result of burning sexual passion of a man and a woman when they embraced in a sexual embrace.

A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Emor 23-24: the meaning of the words ויצא בן אשה ישראלית is that the blasphemer excluded himself from the legislation of the previous paragraph dealing with the show-breads. He made sarcastic remarks about this legislation, ridiculing it by drawing attention to the fact that these loaves were replaced only once a week on the Sabbath. He questioned how one could present G’d with stale bread, saying that it is customary for kings to eat fresh bread every single day. How could one dare present G’d with bread which might be up to nine days old A Baraitha understands the word ויצא to mean that the blasphemer emerged from the court of Moses where he had been found guilty. He had previously erected his tent in the camp of Dan (the tribe his mother belonged to). The Danites did not want him there (as his father was not of their tribe). When the matter was brought before Moses, Moses ruled in favour of the members of that tribe against this man. He was upset about this ruling and cursed the Lord to give vent to his frustration.

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).

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

I wonder why the Torah bothered in this instance to tell us that while the Israelites were in the desert that one of them cursed the name of the Lord thus causing disrespect for G’d? Surely if all the Torah wanted was to teach us the penalty for such a blasphemer, all it had to write was a verse informing us (as it did anyway in verse 15) that anyone who curses the Lord employing His holy Name the tetragrammaton when doing so is guilty of being stoned to death? Even the Gentiles had been warned not to curse the Lord (compare Sanhedrin 56) seeing it is one of the seven commandments which is applicable to all of mankind. There certainly was no need to teach Israelites that this is a cardinal sin! I suppose we must answer that the Torah hoped to achieve two objectives when not only spelling out this legislation here but illustrating it with a personal example so that we would remember this better. 1) The fact that this individual who was guilty of this sin is named is a compliment to the Jewish people, seeing that only one single person had been guilty of that sin during the forty years in the desert and even that person had been the son of an Egyptian father. 2) the story teaches the important principle that the only way to become guilty of this ultimate crime is to first pronounce the holy Name and then utter a curse upon it. This we derive from the wording of the Torah: ויקב בן האשה הישראלית את ה' ויקלל, “the son of the Israelite woman pronounced the name of the Lord and cursed it” (verse 11). The sequence in which the blasphemer acted made him liable to the death penalty. When someone means to bless the name of the Lord he has to do so in the reverse manner, i.e. first to concentrate on the individual letters of the tetragram and on their meaning and subsequently to pronounce the name (in the permissible formula). When done in such a manner one qualifies for the reward due to people who bless the Lord. There is an allusion to this sequence in Psalms 145,1, a psalm we recite several times a day, where David wrote ארוממך אלוקי המלך ואברכה שמך לעולם ועד, “I will extol You my G’d my King, and bless Your name forever and ever.” The reward for following this procedure perfectly is long or infinite life. David preceded the sages in Berachot 8 who directed that a person should make a point of not beginning to pray until he has walked a distance of the width of two entrances to the Synagogue. (He should take time to concentrate before commencing to say the words).

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.

ושם אמו, “and the name of his mother, etc.” Whenever someone displays signs of effrontery and disdain towards the Jewish religion and G’d it is time to examine his maternal genealogy as it is certain that the droplet of sperm which such an individual grew out of reflected a negative deed or thought at the time when marital relations which produced that baby took place. Unless the Torah wanted to teach us something beyond the meaning of the mere information contained in the text it should have simply written: ויצא בן אשה ישראלית ושמה שלומית בת דברי למטה דן, “the son of an Israelite woman by the name of Shlomit bat Divri from the tribe of Dan went out.” The reason the Torah followed a circuitous route before revealing the name of the blasphemer’s mother was that it wanted to keep it secret until after telling us what her son became guilty of. This is why we were first told that he cursed the name of the Lord (Verse 11). By mentioning her name last, the Torah suggested that the original cause of such a terrible sin being committed was the mother of the sinner who had been guilty of a trespass. The baby grows out of the mother’s blood, is nurtured for the length of the pregnancy by the mother’s blood and even after the mother has given birth she nurses the child thus transmitting milk which originally was her blood. As a result of all this it is no more than reasonable that the child absorbs greater genetic input from his mother than from his father. This will eventually be reflected in his deeds which will reflect the mother’s character more than that of the father. This is the reason why we find that the prophets who wrote the Books of the prophets, particularly the Books of Kings always made a point of mentioning the name (and sometimes origin) of the king’s mother. An interesting example is Kings I 22,42 where the mother of King Yehoshaphat, Azuvah daughter of Shilhi, is mentioned. In Kings I 15,2 we are told that the mother of King Aviyam of Yehudah was Maachah daughter of Avishalom. The reason the prophet Jeremiah saw fit to include this information was to give us a little more psychological insight into any character weakness displayed by the sons of such women. (Or, vice versa, if the mothers were outstandingly good women). If a person is an outstandingly righteous individual this reflects credit on his mother who transmitted to him so many of her positive genetic qualities. A good branch is always testimony that the root is healthy. This is reflected in the Torah writing in Exodus 6,29: “Amram took Yocheved his aunt as a wife.” The Torah mentions that a righteous person married a righteous woman and that the children were two outstandingly righteous sons, Aaron and Moses, and one outstandingly righteous woman, Miriam. The Torah reports something similar when reporting the marriage of Eleazar, son of Aaron to one of the daughters of Putiel, i.e. a descendant of the righteous Joseph (Exodus 6,25), and the son born to this union was Pinchas. We are told in Psalms that David described himself as: “I am Your servant, son of your servant maid” (Psalms 116,16). According to Kimchi, what David meant was that he had the good fortune of having been born to a father and a mother both of whom excelled in virtues. Seeing that the Torah chose to reveal the name of the blasphemer’s mother we may deduce that this was a unique occurrence during the whole forty years the Israelites wandered in the desert and that amongst the other six hundred thousand families no genealogical flaw of this kind could be found. Moreover, you must not wonder how it could be that the blasphemer’s mother was an adulterous woman. She had been quite inactive in the matter. When the Egyptian climbed into her bed at night she had presumed that it was her husband joining her. The Torah applies the term זונה, (whore), to any woman who has had sexual relations with a man forbidden to her under Biblical law, regardless of whether such a union occurred voluntarily or not (Compare our comments on Leviticus 21,6).

שלומית, she would inquire after everybody’s well being, prattling and saying: “hello to you (female), hello to you (male)!” בת דברי למטה דן, “daughter of Divri of the tribe of Dan.” Mention of the name of the tribe shows that the deeds of a wicked person reflect discredit not only on his father and mother but also on the tribe he or she belongs to. The reverse is true of the righteous. When Oholiov was appointed as Betzalel’s assistant (Exodus 38,23) the Torah does not only tell us the name of his father Achisamach, but also the name of his tribe, i.e. the tribe of Dan.

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).

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.

כגר כאזרח יהיה, “the proselyte and the native shall be alike (before the law).” The Gentile who came from a foreign land and separated himself from his homeland is called גר by the Torah as he resembles a גרגיר, a berry falling of a tree which is separated from its source. If someone’s parents came from the same town he is called an אזרח, a “native.” The word appears in that sense in Psalms 37,35 ומתערה כאזרח רענן, “and well-rooted like a robust native tree.” The Torah wanted to make the point that in spite of these differences in origin of certain people, the law is to be applied to them equally.

כי אני ה' אלוקיכם, “for I am the Lord your G’d.” The Torah means that “if you practice these principles then I will indeed be the Lord your G’d. From this positive statement you can also deduce that failure to apply the law equally to natives and people who have converted to Judaism means that G’d will not consider Himself as our exclusive G’d with all the beneficial consequences of that elevated status. Put differently: if you discriminate against newly converted Jews, then G’d will discriminate against you. Additionally, if you submit your legal problems to arbitration by courts which do not recognise the אחד, the One and only G’d as the sole lawgiver, then you are (in the words of Rashi at the beginning of Parshat Mishpatim) as if desecrating the name of the Lord and at the same time lending stature to the pagan religions. Not only this, anyone who wields enough influence to dissuade a Jew from bringing his disputes before a gentile tribunal and does not use his powers of persuasion on Jews about to do this commits an act of desecrating the name of the Lord. Not only does one thereby lend greater stature to the religion practiced by the members of such courts, but one contributes to their depriving the Jews of money which is rightfully theirs. The concept of meting out fair justice is a Torah exclusive as we know from Psalms 147, 19-20) “He issued His commands to Yaakov, His statutes and rules to Israel; He did not do so for any other nation; of such rules they know nothing.”