|
Vol 7.20 - Emor 3 Spanish French Audio Video |
| Hebrew Text:
Page 158 Page159 Page160 Page161 Page162 Page163 Page164 Page165 Page166 Page167 Page168 Page169 |
|
Summary: |
|
Translation: 1. On the verse (Lev.24:23) at the end of our Parsha, “Moshe spoke to Bnei Yisroel and they took the blasphemer . . and they stoned him with a stone. And Bnei Yisroel did just as the L-rd commanded Moshe”. Rashi cites the words, “And Bnei Yisroel did” and states: “The whole commandment of stoning, described elsewhere (in Scripture)-namely, “pushing” (him off a two-story building-see Rashi on Ex. 19:13 and Sanh. 45a) the actual “stoning” and “hanging” (him afterwards on a pole, taking him down before nightfall and burying him then)”. (כל המצוה האמורה בסקילה במקום אחר דחייה, רגימה ותלייה) Learning this at first glance, it comes out that the words of the verse, “And Bnei Yisroel did just as the L-rd commanded Moshe” is problematic to Rashi (which is why he must explain, “the whole commandment of stoning, described elsewhere” etc.) The verse itself states, “they stoned him with a stone”. Therefore, what is the Torah adding by stating, “And Bnei Yisroel did just as the L-rd commanded Moshe”? Therefore, Rashi answers that with these words the verse is telling us, that they did (not just) stone him, but also) that they did the other Mitzvot which are stated regarding Skila.
According to this, it is however problematic: Since Rashi explains that the wording, “And Bnei Yisroel did” adds to, “they stoned him with a stone”, he should have stated just pushing and hanging, and not stoning. Stoning should, seemingly, not have been placed in “And Bnei Yisroel did”, since it is already expressly stated, previously, in “they stoned him with a stone”? This question is even stronger: Rashi’s comment that, “And Bnei Yisroel did” refers to the other Mitzvot in Skila, is (seemingly) taken from Torat Kohanim. There, it enumerates all the aspects which must be in the punishment of Skila – leaning their hands on his head (semicha), pushing, hanging and “His corpse shall not remain on the tree”. However, stoning is indeed, not mentioned there. Therefore, why does Rashi change and also add stoning? 2. Just as it is not understood why Rashi adds stoning, so too it is also difficult why he omits semicha and “his corpse shall not remain on the tree”? Regarding semicha, one can answer that Rashi enumerates just, “the whole commandment of stoning, described elsewhere” and therefore, does not mention semicha. For this is stated previously in the Parsha itself, as it states, “and all who heard (his blasphemy) shall lean their hands on his head”. However, why does he omit, “His corpse shall not remain on the tree”? Seemingly, one could say that since regarding the verse, “His corpse shall not remain etc.” it states, “and you shall not defile your land etc.”, the law is (according to the manner of Pshat) just in Eretz Yisroel. Therefore, since the episode of the blasphemer of the Parsha was in the desert and not in Eretz Yisroel, Therefore Rashi omits, “His corpse shall not remain”. However, one cannot learn so. For the reason of “His corpse shall not remain” is (not “and you shall not defile your land etc.” but rather) as is explained in the (previous) verse, “for a hanging (human corpse) is a blasphemy of G-d”, And as Rashi explains there, “This is a degradation of the (Divine) King (in Whose image Man is created)” According to this, it is understood that the law, “His corpse shall not remain” also pertains to other locations (not just in Eretz Yisroel). Therefore, why does Rashi omit it in our Parsha? 3. In addition to the difficulties regarding the details that Rashi enumerates in, “the whole commandment of stoning, described elsewhere”, his entire comment is also not understood. Previously in the Parsha, it states that G-d told Moshe, that he should do three things with the blasphemer:
However, in the conclusion of the Parsha, where it tells regarding the fulfillment of the command, it just expressly states two things:
However, “They shall lean their hands on his head” (semicha) is not mentioned when they fulfilled the command. It is not understood: Why is Rashi forced to learn that with the words, “And Bnei Yisroel did just as the L-rd commanded Moshe”, that the verse means, “the whole commandment of stoning, described elsewhere”, (not like in the majority of places where the words “as the L-rd commanded Moshe” refers to the command of the subject (באטרעפנדע) of the Parsha itself)? Seemingly, it should have stated that with “And Bnei Yisroel did”, the verse means that they leaned their hands on his head”! This question is even stronger: According to Rashi’s comment that “And Bnei Yisroel did” means the commands which are stated in another place, it comes out, that the verse tells regarding the fulfillment of the command of,
However, regarding the fulfillment of the command “lean their hands”/semicha etc., in our Parsha, the entire verse does not mention it at all – even not in a hint! 4. As has been mentioned many times, not only are the words of Rashi’s comment precise, but also the words of the verses which he cites (for his comment). It is not understood: The explanation, “the whole commandment (המצוה) etc.” is taken by Rashi from the words “as the L-rd commanded (צוה) etc.” Therefore, why does he just cite “And Bnei Yisroel did” and not the words “as the L-rd commanded”? (Moreover), he does not even allude to it with the word v’Gomer (etc.)? It is also not understood: Rashi explains the wording “did” – namely, what the Yidden did beyond (אויסער) “taking him out” and “stoning him”. Therefore, why must he also cite the words “Bnei Yisroel”? 5. The explanation of all the aforementioned is: This question that troubles Rashi here is (not just what they did in addition to “they took him” and ”they stoned him”, but also) the wording, “And Bnei Yisroel did”. Even “taking him” and “stoning him” were done by the Yidden. Therefore, why does it state “Bnei Yisroel” specifically by “they did”?
“Moshe spoke to Bnei Yisroel”. Therefore, it is understood that all the latter aspects were done by the Yidden (Bnei Yisroel). Therefore, it could have stated, “and they did as G-d commanded Moshe “.
“And Bnei Yisroel took . . and stoned him, and . . did just as the L-rd had commanded etc.” Since it does not plainly state, “and they did etc.”, but rather “And Bnei Yisroel did”, it proves (געדרונגען) that before this – in the first half of the verse, it speaks (not regarding all the Yidden, but rather) regarding “all who heard (his blasphemy) etc.” (the witnesses and judges). Whereas, in the other half of the verse, where it states, “And Bnei Yisroel did”, it speaks regarding all the other Yidden – just like as before (v. 14) where the Torah splits “all who heard (his blasphemy)” - from the entire community. Therefore, Rashi cannot learn - according to the simple meaning of the verse, that with “And Bnei Yisroel did” it means semicha. For regarding semicha it states, “and all who heard shall lean their hands etc.” Therefore, since here it states, “And Bnei Yisroel did”, Rashi therefore learns that this refers to the commands which are stated in another place – pushing (stoning) and hanging which were done by all Yidden. 6. However, according to this, it is problematic: Why does the verse not mention that they also fulfilled the command of semicha –“They shall lean their hands etc.”? Therefore, Rashi learns that the words, “as the L-rd commanded etc.” refer, not just to “And Bnei Yisroel did”, but also on the entire verse – even regarding “They shall stone him” which was done through “all who heard (his blasphemy)” - that they stoned him exactly “as the L-rd commanded Moshe”. In other words, before they stoned him, they leaned their hands on his head, as G-d told Moshe, “They shall lean their hands . . and stone him etc.” Therefore, Rashi just cites the wording “And Bnei Yisroel did” and he divides (and omits) “as the L-rd commanded etc.” in order to inform us that “as the L-rd commanded etc.” also refers to stoning, as aforementioned. 7. According to the aforementioned (Par. 5) that
it is understood that “And Bnei Yisroel did”, can include (not just pushing and hanging, but also) stoning, which is not included in previous words, “they stoned him with a stone”. For subsequent to the stone that the witnesses cast on him, after this, the other Yidden cast additional stones, per the law regarding Skila: “Let the hand of the witnesses be against him first to execute him, and the hand of the entire people afterward”. In other words, if he did not die from the stone that the witnesses cast on him, then “all the people” had to cast additional stones on him. However, it is still problematic: What was previously said is just an explanation that “And Bnei Yisroel did” could also be considered as including stoning. However, where does Rashi know that, with the stone that the witnesses cast, that he indeed did not die – and that “Bnei Yisroel” cast upon him additional stones? It could be that he died from the stone that the witnesses cast upon him, and the words, “And Bnei Yisroel did” just means pushing and hanging (not stoning)? On the contrary – according to this, Rashi would prevent (אויסמיידן) a dispute between his study according to Pshat, versus the study according to Halacha. For, as it is cited in Torat Kohanim – stoning is not enumerated, as aforementioned. Especially since, Rashi apparently takes his explanation here, from Torat Kohanim, but (changes, and) adds “stoning”! 8. The explanation of this is: In the beginning of the verse, before it tells what was done to the blasphemer, namely, “they took him . . and they stoned him . . And Bnei Yisroel did etc.”, it states, “Moshe spoke to Bnei Yisroel”. What did Moshe tell the Yidden? It is understood simply, that he conveyed to them G-d’s word regarding a blasphemer, in general: “Any man who blasphemes etc.” (v.15) (and not just the command, “Take the blasphemer . . and stone him” – which one should do with this blasphemer). On the contrary: Since, in this command from G-d, “Take the blasphemer etc.”, it does not mention that Moshe should say this to the Yidden, which is not so with the verse, “Any man who blasphemes etc.”, that begins with, “And to Bnei Yisroel, you shall speak, saying”, it is understood that the words, “Moshe spoke to Bnei Yisroel” means (at least, primarily) that Moshe conveyed the laws of a blasphemer, in general. The question arises: What is the connection between “Moshe spoke to Bnei Yisroel”, at the beginning of this verse (which primarily refers to the laws of a blasphemer, in general) to the continuation of the verse, “they took the blasphemer” – which tells what was done with this blasphemer? The answer is: Since before the words, “they took . . and they stoned him . .and Bnei Yisroel did”, the verse prefaces, “Moshe spoke to Bnei Yisroel”, it is logical to say that the Yidden did certain deeds - to this blasphemer - that they inferred (not from the command, “Take the blasphemer etc.” and not from the laws of Skila, that are stated in another place, but rather) from the verse (v. 15), “And to Bnei Yisroel, you shall speak, saying: Any man who blasphemes etc.”. Therefore, Rashi explains that with the words “And Bnei Yisroel did”, it means (not just pushing and hanging which are stated in another place, but) also stoning. In other words, that after the stoning that the witnesses did – as it states “they stoned him with a stone” – Bnei Yisroel also stoned him. For this aspect (stoning by all the Yidden) was derived by them from the verse (v.16) “the entire community shall stone him”, which is stated in conjunction with the verse: “Any man who blasphemes etc.”. 9. One must however understand: 1. Even regarding the command, “Take the blasphemer outside” (v.14) (which is stated regarding the first blasphemer) it states, “the entire community shall stone him”, and Rashi learns on this that it means that this was, “in the presence of the entire community”. What is the necessity that the explanation of, “the entire community shall stone him” (which is stated regarding every blasphemer) is that it means differently than, “the entire community shall stone him” which is stated two verses prior (in v.14)? (Note: that necessitated Rashi’s comment that it was, “in the presence of the entire community”). Although regarding the command “Take the blasphemer outside”, it previously mentions (before “the entire community shall stone him”) in the verse “all who heard (his blasphemy)” Whereas regarding the command, “the entire community shall stone him”, which is stated by a blasphemer, in general, it does not state before this, “all who heard” – Nevertheless, it is not a proof to say, that the explanation of “the entire community” regarding every blasphemer should be different than regarding the first blasphemer! 2. If Rashi indeed has a proof that, “the entire community shall stone him” means that all the Yidden must stone him. Where does he take that “And Bnei Yisroel did” also means pushing and hanging which are stated in another place. It could be that this implies just “stoning” (of all the community)? 10. The explanation of this is: One does not find regarding any person, that is liable for the death penalty, that the witnesses and judges must place their hands on the person’s head and say to him, “Your blood is on your own head! We are not to be punished for your death” (This is plainly understood: For how can there be a supposition that they should be punished for his death – he is the one who is guilty of death according to the law). Why then, must one place his hands on this blasphemer and state, “We are not to be punished for your death”? Another difference in this aspect of “stoning” which is stated regarding the blasphemer, as opposed to the obligation of Skila, in other places is: Whenever it states the penalty of Skila, the verse does not just state the word “stoning” or “Skila”, but also word “death”. As it states with “Molech” (The idol worship involving child sacrifice) where before the words, “they shall stone him with a stone”, it states, “he shall surely be put to death”. As well as regarding a medium (Ov) or an oracle (Yidoni) where it states, “they shall surely be put to death. You shall stone them to death”. (Moreover, also regarding the blasphemer itself – regarding a the blasphemer, in general – it states, “He shall be put to death; he shall be stoned”) Whereas, in the command of the first blasphemer, it just states, “they stoned him”. However, the expression of “death” is not mentioned. 11. What is the reason for the two differences? The penalty of death is specifically with “warning” (בהתראה). Since regarding the first the blasphemer, there was no warning (since “they did not know whether or not he was liable to the death penalty”. Therefore, they could not warn him) Therefore, the command to “stone him” was a temporary ruling (הוראת שעה). Therefore, one could say that this stoning is different from other penalties of Skila:
Therefore, here, one must specifically forewarn, “We are not to be punished for your death”. For since he is not liable for the death penalty (he is just liable for the verdict of stoning) there could be a supposition that they should be punished for his death, if the blasphemer would die as a result of that stone. According to this it is understood that the explanation of “the entire community shall stone him”, that is stated regarding a blasphemer, in general, means (not that solely those that “hear” must cast upon him stones, “in the presence of the entire community” – just like the explanation of, “And the entire community shall stone him”, which is stated by the first blasphemer – but rather) as it states before this, “he shall surely die”. Namely, that there is an obligation upon all the Yidden to stone him until he dies. For since regarding, “one who blasphemously pronounces the Name of the L-rd” (with warning) there is a penalty that he “shall be put to death”, it is understood that if he does not die from the stone that the witnesses cast on him, then “all the community” must cast additional stones on him, until “he surely dies”. 12. Although from the verse, “Take the blasphemer .. and stone him” one only knows the law of stoning - in other words, that those who hear must cast one stone upon him. (and if he does not die as a result of that stone that one must cast additional stones on him, so that he dies as a result of them) However, since the command, “One who blasphemously pronounces the Name of the L-rd, shall be put to death; the entire community shall stone him” was stated in conjunction (צוזאמענהאנג) with the first blasphemer, and before “they took the blasphemer”, the verse tells us that “Moshe spoke to Bnei Yisroel” (that Moshe also (and primarily) conveyed to the Yidden the section “And to Bnei Yisroel, you shall speak, saying: Any man who blasphemes . . shall be put to death”, as aforementioned Par. 8), it is therefore logical to say, that the command “shall be put to death etc.” was also stated regarding the first blasphemer. This means that in addition to the command, “and all who heard (his blasphemy) shall lean their hands . and shall stone him etc.”. which was said specifically regarding the first blasphemer and solely to “all who heard” - there was another command that was stated as a temporary ruling - to “the entire community”, at the same time (גלייך). Namely, that even though he committed the sin without warning, nevertheless, “He shall be put to death; the entire community shall stone him”. just like, “one who blasphemously pronounces the Name of the L-rd”, with warning. However, since from the flow of the verses, it is understood that the words, “And Bnei Yisroel did” refer to an aspect what was stated in the section of “And to Bnei Yisroel, you shall speak etc.”, therefore Rashi learns that through the “stoning him with a stone” ( in the singular), by the witnesses, he did not die and Bnei Yisroel had to stone him with additional stones. 13. According to the aforementioned, one can also understand, why Rashi explains that “And Bnei Yisroel did” means (not just stoning, which one derives from the verse “the entire community shall stone him” which is stated here but also) “the whole commandment of stoning”, also including pushing and hanging: The command, “the entire community shall stone him etc.” which was stated specifically regarding the first blasphemer, since regarding him - there was no obligation of “he shall be put to death” (like the command “he shall be stoned” regarding one who is liable for Skila - that one must stone him until “he surely dies”) is not an aspect of Skila. Since, however, from the words, “Moshe spoke to Bnei Yisroel”, the Yidden understood that regarding this blasphemer, there is also the law of “he shall be put to death; the entire community shall stone him” - that this stoning is indeed an aspect of Skila. It is understood, that they not only stoned him, but they also did “the whole commandment of stoning” – also pushing and hanging. 14. Although from the preface, “Moshe spoke to Bnei Yisroel”, one knows that with “And Bnei Yisroel did” it means “the whole commandment of stoning, described elsewhere. Nevertheless, Rashi just enumerates “pushing, stoning and hanging” and omits, “His corpse shall not remain on the tree”. The reasoning of this is: Since the reason for the law, “His corpse shall not remain on the tree” is, as is explained in the verse, “a hanging (human corpse) is a blasphemy of G-d”. And as Rashi explains, “This is a degradation of the (Divine) King (in Whose image Man is created)”, it comes out that “His corpse shall not remain on the tree” is not a boundary of Skila, but rather in the keeping of “the honor of the King” – to protect the honor of the one being stoned who is made in the very image (בדמות דיוקנו) of G-d. Although in the Negative precept of “His corpse shall not remain”, it states, “His corpse shall not remain on the tree”, which proves that the Negative precept (Lav) comes in conjunction to the previous verse (Dev.21:22): “You shall hang him on a tree/pole”, which is stated specifically regarding those who are liable for Skila. And especially since the reason, “His corpse shall not remain – a hanging (human corpse) is a blasphemy of G-d” (also refers to) “a blasphemer” who incurs Skila, (however, not regarding a general corpse) - it is however (not due to that which “His corpse shall not remain” is a boundary in Skila, but rather) because, “This is a degradation of the King”. Therefore, it is specifically, in the case when the sinner was hanged because he was “arrested for banditry”, where he committed an extremely severe sin which incurs the penalty of Skila. 15. Another explanation is required: Due to the aspect of “a hanging (human corpse) is a blasphemy of G-d - This is a degradation of the King”, the Torah should have, seemingly, not allowed him to be hanged even for a short period. For one may not degrade the “King”, G-d forbid, even for one moment? However, in this there is an aspect of “Yayina shel Torah” - the homiletic style of Torah (which is alluded to in Rashi’s commentary): On the verse “You shall (then) hang him on a tree/עץ”, the Arizal states that “on a tree/עץ”” means on (due to the sin of) the Tree of Knowledge. According to this, one can also explain this, according to the simple meaning of the verse. To preface: It is known that the first sin – the Sin of the Tree of Knowledge of Adam HaRishon (who is inclusive of all people) is the source and gives the possibility that there can even be the existence of a sin. After there became the possibility for the existence of sin, there can also come out, after many descents etc., as Rashi states, “The first (sin) draws the second etc.”, so much so that it results in a severe sin. Even until it is a “a sin for which he is sentenced to death” – so much so, until there is a prohibition of Skila (the most stringent of all the deaths). Even until it comes to “a blasphemer” (מגדף) G-d forbid. According to this, one could say (as an allusion) regarding this verse (Dev. 21:22): “If a man commits a sin for which he is sentenced to death, and he is put to death, you shall (then) hang him on a pole”. (וְכִי-יִהְיֶה בְאִישׁ, חֵטְא מִשְׁפַּט-מָוֶת--וְהוּמָת: וְתָלִיתָ אֹתוֹ, עַל-עֵץ)
How can this occur to a person - to one that is at the level of an “Ish”? The answer to this is: The possibility for this and the source and cause is)
17. This is also the explanation why one must specifically be “hanged on a tree” after he “is put to death”. The simple reason is: Although those who are killed by Beit Din confess, “may my death be an atonement for all my sins”, and the atonement is so great, that it atones for all sins. However, one must, in conjunction, have, death and burial and decomposition (עיכול בשר) (or torments of the grave (חיבוט הקבר - https://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/1443363/jewish/Chibut-Hakever-233.htm) which then atones - with his death and disgrace (בזיונו). So too, one can also explain the obligation of “you shall hang him” – “for it is disgraceful”, as it also states that this is reason why “they did not mourn him” – for there must be an additional disgrace. Especially regarding an extremely severe sin like those who are stoned etc. However, there must be an explanation: Burial and decomposition are (details and) pertain to death (as it states, “to dust shall you return”) where “my death atones” (מיתתי כפרה). Why, however, was the disgrace of hanging on a tree, specifically ordained? The Talmud states there, many manners of disgrace: dragging his bones (גירור עצמות), leaving his corpse unburied (for no reason), (rain) falling on his bier etc.? However, according to the aforementioned, it is understood: In the “sin that incurs the death penalty”, there are two aspects:
Therefore, after he “is put to death” which atones for the “sin”, (as he descended to the severity of one) “that incurs the death penalty”, the completeness (גמר) of the atonement is specifically when one atones (cleanses) also the source. For his source, “You shall hang him” – is - “on the tree” (the Tree of Knowledge). Therefore, there is also the additional disgrace of “you shall hang him on a tree/pole” – literally. This also has a relation to, “my death is my atonement”. For the Sin of the Tree of Knowledge is the root and source of the general aspect of sin and – of the general aspect of death. 17. According to this one can also answer why beforehand one must hang him, and only then comes the command, “His corpse shall not remain hanged etc.”. Although due to the aspect of “a hanging (human corpse) is a blasphemy of G-d - This is a degradation of the King etc.”, the Torah, seemingly, should have not allowed him to be hanged, even for a short period (as aforementioned Par. 15). For specifically through “you shall hang him on a tree” (which depicts the sin that he committed is due to the Sin of the Tree of Knowledge, and this is also cleansed through the hanging) it is revealed within him the “very image (בדמות דיוקנו) of G-d”. Therefore, immediately after “hanging” – one must take him down from the hanging. For, “Man is created in the very image (בדמות דיוקנו) of G-d and Yisroel are His children” M’Sichas Shabbat Parshat Emor 5725
|
| Links: |
| Date Delivered: | Reviewer: | ||
| Date Modified: | Date Reviewed: | ||
| Contributor: |