Skip to main contentSkip to Content
Parashat HaShavuaפרשת אמורAliyah 7 — שביעי

פרשת אמור — שביעי (Aliyah 7)

Parashat Emor | Leviticus 24:1–24:23 | Aliyah 7 of 7


קלאוד על הפרשה

The seventh aliyah of Emor forms the parasha’s coda, and its structure is one of the most striking in all of Vayikra. After the great festival cycle of chapter 23, which moves from Shabbat through Pesach, the Omer, Shavuot, the Days of Awe, and Sukkot, the Torah turns to two cultic items inside the Mishkan, the menorah and the lechem hapanim, and then plunges into a brief but devastating narrative about a man who blasphemes the divine Name. The aliyah closes with a compact restatement of capital and civil law, lex talionis, and the actual stoning of the blasphemer outside the camp. Coda, narrative, legal coda — three layers folded into twenty-three verses.

The opening eight verses (24:1-9) describe the ner tamid and the lechem hapanim, both of which stand inside the Heichal opposite one another, the menorah on the south and the showbread table on the north. Sforno reads the placement of these laws as a continuation of the festival passage that precedes them: just as the chagim mark Israel’s calendar of public service before the Lord, so the daily kindling of pure olive oil and the weekly setting of twelve loaves marks Israel’s perpetual presence before the Lord through the priests. Or HaChaim notices the recurring number seven across these chapters — seven days of Pesach, seven of Sukkot, the seventh month, the seven-branched menorah, the two rows that with the table itself sum to seven — and suggests that the Torah is gathering the laws of sevens into one place. Ibn Ezra’s reading is simpler and structurally elegant: having mentioned the festival fire offerings, the Torah must now mention the showbread, which serves the table that stands directly opposite the menorah. The two cultic items, light and bread, become a single tableau of constancy.

Into this serene picture the Torah suddenly drops a quarrel. A man, the son of an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father, goes out into the camp and, in the heat of a dispute with an Israelite, pronounces and curses the Name (24:10-12). Rashi, drawing on the Sifra and Vayikra Rabbah, asks why the Torah says he “went out” (vayetze) — went out from where? Several answers compete. He went out from his eternal portion; he went out from the parasha just preceding, mocking the showbread by saying that no king eats nine-day-old cold bread; he went out from the court of Moshe, having been ruled against in a tribal dispute. The man wished to pitch his tent within the camp of Dan because his mother was of Dan, but he was rebuffed because Israelite tribal lineage runs through the father, and his father was Egyptian. The Torah therefore identifies him by his mother’s tribe, Shelomit bat Divri of the tribe of Dan, both to expose the singular sin and, as the Sifra says, to teach that a wicked person disgraces himself, his parent, and his entire tribe. Ibn Ezra, with characteristic restraint, says simply that we do not know why this section was placed here, and offers as a possibility that the man spoke ill precisely about the bread, the oil, and the offerings just commanded.

The literary juxtaposition is breathtaking. The One whose Name is being blasphemed has just commanded the most beautiful festival cycle in all of Tanakh, the kindling of the pure light, the setting of the twelve loaves of remembrance. The Torah names the offense in two stages — vayikkov et hashem va-yekallel — he pronounced the Name and cursed. Rashi explains, following the Targum, that he uttered the explicit four-letter Name that he had heard at Sinai. Ibn Ezra debates whether vayikkov means pronounced or cursed and concludes the former: the verse is sequential, first the pronouncing, then the cursing. The man is placed in custody (24:12) until the Lord clarifies the law, and the answer comes in the form of new legislation: take him outside the camp; let those who heard him lay their hands upon his head, transferring the bloodguilt back to the offender; let the entire community stone him. The law is then generalized — anyone who blasphemes shall bear his sin, and one who pronounces the Name shall surely be put to death — ger and ezrach alike (24:14-16). The convert and the native-born stand under one law.

From the singular crime the Torah then opens out into a compact restatement of the law of damages (24:17-22), framed deliberately by the figure of the blasphemer who quarreled and may have struck. One who kills shall die; one who kills a beast shall make restitution; fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Rashi, following Bava Kamma 84a, insists with the unanimous tradition of Chazal that ayin tachat ayin does not mean literal mutilation but monetary compensation — the verb natan, “to give,” signals something passed from hand to hand, money. Ibn Ezra cites Saadiah Gaon’s argument from logic: the original wound was unintentional, made in the heat of conflict; how could the Torah command the deliberate infliction of an identical wound? And what of unequal eyes, of vital organs, of a poor offender or a blind one? The phrase, then, is the Torah’s way of declaring the moral magnitude of the injury: as if you had taken his eye, you owe him the value of his eye. The closing pair of verses (24:22-23) holds the legal frame and the narrative frame together. One law for stranger and citizen, for I am the Lord your God — the God, says Rashi, of all of you alike. And then, finally, the people take the blasphemer outside the camp and stone him, and “the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moshe.” Sforno notices that the verse stresses the people’s pure motivation: not revenge, not hatred of the convert, but obedience to the divine command. Or HaChaim sees in the closing line a credit extended to all of Israel for the act, a final note that closes the parasha with the people standing as one community before the Name they had heard cursed and now publicly vindicate.


Leviticus 24:1–24:23 · ויקרא כד:א–כד:כג

פסוק כד:א · 24:1

Hebrew:

וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר׃

English:

יהוה spoke to Moses, saying:


פסוק כד:ב · 24:2

Hebrew:

צַ֞ו אֶת־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל וְיִקְח֨וּ אֵלֶ֜יךָ שֶׁ֣מֶן זַ֥יִת זָ֛ךְ כָּתִ֖ית לַמָּא֑וֹר לְהַעֲלֹ֥ת נֵ֖ר תָּמִֽיד׃

English:

Command the Israelite people to bring you clear oil of beaten olives for lighting, for kindling lamps regularly.

Israel is commanded to supply pure beaten olive oil so that the lamps of the menorah may burn perpetually. Rashi notes that 'tamid' here does not mean continuously but from evening to morning, and that this is the standing commandment for all generations after the Mishkan was erected. Sforno adds that this duty took effect once the original donated oil was exhausted, becoming a perpetual obligation upon the people.
רש״יRashi
צו את בני ישראל. זוֹ פָרָשַׁת מִצְוַת הַנֵּרוֹת, וּפָרָשַׁת וְאַתָּה תְּצַוֶּה לֹא נֶאֶמְרָה אֶלָּא עַל סֵדֶר מְלֶאכֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן, לְפָרֵשׁ צֹרֶךְ הַמְּנוֹרָה, וְכֵן מַשְׁמָע: וְאַתָּה סוֹפְךָ לְצַוּוֹת אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל כָּךְ: שמן זית זך. שְׁלוֹשָׁה שְׁמָנִים יוֹצְאִים מִן הַזַּיִת, הָרִאשׁוֹן קָרוּי זָךְ, וְהֵן מְפֹרָשִׁין בִּמְנָחוֹת (דף פ"ו) וּבְתֹ"כֹּ: תמיד. מִלַּיְלָה לְלַיְלָה, כְּמוֹ עוֹלַת תָּמִיד, שֶׁאֵינָהּ אֶלָּא מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם:
צו את בני ישראל COMMAND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL [THAT THEY BRING UNTO THEE CLEAR OLIVE OIL, BEATEN, FOR THE LIGHT] — This is the section containing the commandment concerning the lamps, whilst the section beginning with ואתה תצוה (Exodus 27:20 ff.) which also deals with the lamp is only mentioned there for the sake of giving an orderly account of the work of the Tabernacle, to explain what the purpose of the candlestick was — for thus do those words ואתה תצוה imply: "and thou wilt at some future time command the Children of Israel" about this. שמן זית זך CLEAR OLIVE OIL — Three different qualities of oil come forth (are extracted) from the olive tree, the first of which is called זך, "clear". They are all fully explained in Treatise Menachot 86a and in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Emor, Section 13 1-3). תמיד (continually not continuously) here implies from night to night. It has the same meaning as in עולת תמיד a "continual" burnt offering which was only sacrificed from day to day (cf. Rashi on Exodus 27:20).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
וטעם להזכיר פרשת שמן זית זך בעבור שהזכיר אשה כל מועד והוא צריך להזכיר הלחם והמנורה כנגד השלחן:
[PURE OLIVE OIL.] The reason Scripture now mentions the section1Verses 1-4. dealing with the pure olive oil is that the Torah earlier recorded the fire offering of each festival2In the previous chapter. and now has to mention the show bread.3The show bread was similar to the offerings. Hence Scripture mentions the show bread after listing the festival offerings. The menorah stood opposite the table.4Of the showbread. See Ex. 40:24.
ספורנוSforno
צו את בני ישראל ויקחו אליך שמן כו'. אחר שכלה השמן שהתנדבו במלאכת המשכן צוה שיביאו לדורות:
'צו את בני ישראל ויקחו אליך שמן וגו, after the oil which had been donated before the Tabernacle had been built and erected, G'd commanded that the Israelites for all future generations should provide this oil as their contribution.
אור החייםOr HaChaim
צו את בני ישראל וגו'. צריך לדעת מה ענין מצות שמן והדלקתו במקום זה, גם מצות מערכת השלחן מה ענינו לכאן, ומה גם שכבר נאמרו הדברים ככתבן במקומן במצות המשכן ומצותיו, ורש"י ז"ל פירש מה שפירש, ואין בדבריו דבר מספיק, ורמב"ן ז"ל כתב שכלה השמן וכו', ואין ראיה לדבריו. ואולי כי לצד שצוה מצות שבעיות פסח ז' ימים, חג הסוכות ז' ימים, שמחת המינים ז' ימים, גם ראש השנה ויום הכיפורים ישנם בבחינת השבע להיותם בחודש השביעי, לזה סמך לזה גם כן מצות המנורה שהיא בחינת שבע נרות, גם השלחן ישנו בסוד שבע דכתיב שש המערכת וגו' והשלחן הסדורות עליו שהוא סוד המתקבץ בו שש מעלות והיא משלמת שבע, ותמצא שצוה גם כן בפרשה זו מצות העומר שהוא שבע שבתות, גם מצות השבת, נמצאת אומר שכלל כל מצות השביעיות יחד לומר כי סודם ועיקרם אחד: עוד אפשר שנתכוין בסמיכות פרשת מנורה לפרשת סוכה על דרך מה שאמרו ז"ל (תורת כהנים) בפסוק מחוץ לפרוכת העדות וז"ל וכי לאורה היה צריך והלא כל המ' שנה שהיו במדבר לא הלכו אלא לאורו, ופירשו התוספות (שבת כ"ב:) שלא היו הולכים לאור החמה אלא לאור השכינה שהיו רואים מה שבתוך התפוח וכו' אלא עדות לבאי עולם וכו' ע"כ, והוא מה שנתחכם ה' בסמיכות זה של מצות המנורה למצות סוכה כי בסוכות וגו' לומר כי ישראל לצד ענני כבוד לא היה להם אור השמש והליכתם היתה לאורו יתברך, אם כן מצות מנורה אינה אלא לפרוכת העדות עדות לבאי עולם וכו':
צו את בני ישראל, "command the children of Israel, etc." Why is this the appropriate place in the Torah to acquaint us with the rules of the oil for the Candlestick and the manner in which it is to be lit? We also need to explain why the procedures involving the Table have to be written at this juncture. After all, the Torah has dealt with those subjects when it described the construction of the Tabernacle! We shall leave aside Rashi's comment as we do not consider his words as adequate to answer the problem we have raised. Nachmanides wrote that at that time the olive oil which the princes had donated when the materials for the Tabernacle were being collected had come to an end. This is mere speculation, there is no supporting evidence for this assumption. Perhaps the fact that the Torah here deals with commandments whose common denominator is the number seven, i.e. 7 days of Passover, 7 days of Tabernacles, the New Year and Day of Atonement which occur in the 7th month, prompted the Torah to add laws about the 7-armed Candlestick. The procedures involving the Table also have a mystical dimension involving the number seven, seeing the Torah speaks about two rows of six breads (verse 6). When you add the table itself to the respective rows of 6 showbreads you have the number seven. The number seven is always considered as completing a cycle. You also had the legislation of the Omer in this portion; that commandment also involved the counting of seven times seven days, i.e. seven weeks. You have a reference to the commandment of the Sabbath, another commandment which features the number seven. We may therefore assume that the Torah was interested in mentioning all the commandments featuring the number seven in one portion. It is also possible that the laws pertaining to the Candlestick were written adjoining the legislation about the festival of Tabernacles to teach us some lessons about the difference between physical and spiritual light. G'd neither needs the light of the Candlestick to illuminate the Tabernacle for Him, nor did the Jewish people travel through the desert for 40 years using physical light (compare Torat Kohanim on the words מחוץ לפרוכת in verse 3). The ענני הכבוד, the clouds of glory i.e. the שכינה, illuminated the way for the Jewish people and the shade they provided actually screened out the sunlight during all those years (compare Tossaphot on Shabbat. 22,B). It follows that the commandment to light the Candlestick daily was only for the sake of the dividing curtain which was so called as it provided testimony for the nations of the world that G'd's presence resided within the camp of the Jewish people.

פסוק כד:ג · 24:3

Hebrew:

מִחוּץ֩ לְפָרֹ֨כֶת הָעֵדֻ֜ת בְּאֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֗ד יַעֲרֹךְ֩ אֹת֨וֹ אַהֲרֹ֜ן מֵעֶ֧רֶב עַד־בֹּ֛קֶר לִפְנֵ֥י יְהֹוָ֖ה תָּמִ֑יד חֻקַּ֥ת עוֹלָ֖ם לְדֹרֹֽתֵיכֶֽם׃

English:

Aaron shall set them up in the Tent of Meeting outside the curtain of the Pact [to burn] from evening to morning before יהוה regularly; it is a law for all time throughout the ages.

Aharon arranges the lamps just outside the parochet, before the Aron, so that they burn from evening to morning. Rashi cites the rabbinic tradition that the western lamp (ner maaravi) burned miraculously beyond its measure of oil and served as testimony (edut) that the Shechinah dwelt in Israel. Sforno explains why the Torah singles out Aharon by name even though any kohen could perform the kindling: the Mishkan in the wilderness operated on a Yom Kippur footing, with inner-sanctuary service reserved for the kohen gadol.
רש״יRashi
לפרכת העדת. שֶׁלִּפְנֵי הָאָרוֹן שֶׁהוּא קָרוּי עֵדוּת; וְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ דָרְשׁוּ עַל נֵר מַעֲרָבִי, שֶׁהוּא עֵדוּת לְכָל בָּאֵי עוֹלָם שֶׁהַשְּׁכִינָה שׁוֹרָה בְיִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנּוֹתֵן בָּהּ שֶׁמֶן כְּמִדַּת חַבְרוֹתֶיהָ, וּמִמֶּנָּה הָיָה מַתְחִיל וּבָהּ הָיָה מְסַיֵּם (שבת כ"ב; מנחות פ"ו): יערך אתו אהרן מערב עד בקר. יַעֲרֹךְ אוֹתוֹ עֲרִיכָה הָרְאוּיָה לְמִדַּת כָּל הַלַּיְלָה, וְשִׁעֲרוּ חֲכָמִים חֲצִי לֹג לְכָל נֵר וָנֵר, וְהֵן כְּדַאי אַף לְלֵילֵי תְּקוּפַת טֵבֵת, וּמִדָּה זוֹ הֻקְבְּעָה לָהֶם (מנחות פ"ט):
לפרכת העדת [WITHOUT] THE PARTITION VAIL OF THE TESTIMONY — i. e. the Partition Vail which is before the Ark which on account of its contents (the Tablets, termed לחות העדות in Exodus 37:15) is called "Testimony". Our Rabbis, however, explained it (the word העדות) as referring to the western light of the candlestick which was a testimony (עדות) to mankind that the Shechinah dwelt in Israel through the miracle wrought in connection with it; for he (the priest) put only as much oil into it as was the quantity put into the other lamps and yet he began the lighting of the other lamps in the evening by it and finished the work of cleaning with it [since it continued to burn miraculously until the following evening] (Sifra, Emor, Section 13 9; Shabbat 22b; Menachot 86b). יערך אתו אהרן מערב עד בקר AARON SHALL SET IT IN ORDER FROM EVENING UNTO MORNING — The meaning is not that he shall occupy himself the whole night with setting the lights in order, but he shall arrange it in such a manner (lit., by such an arrangement) that will prove adequate for the length of the whole night. Our Rabbis by experiment (cf. Menachot 89a) fixed the quantity at a half log oil for each lamp, ascertaining that this would suffice also in the long nights of the Teveth quarter; and this quantity therefore became to them the fixed measure [for all the seasons of the year].
ספורנוSforno
יערוך אותו אהרן. אף על פי שהיתה הדלקת הנרות וכן קטרת התמיד כשרה בכהן הדיוט לדורות כפי מה שקבלו ז"ל מכל מקום נאמר בשניהם אהרן כי אמנם כל ימי המדבר היה ענין המשכן בכל יום כענינו לדורות ביום הכפורים שנאמר בו כי בענן אראה על הכפרת וזה כי בכל ימי המדבר נאמר כי ענן ה' על המשכן יומם ואש תהיה לילה בו וכו' ולכן היה מן הראוי שיהיו מעשה הקטרת והדלקת הנרות בו הנעשים בפנים נעשים על ידי כהן גדול כמו שנעשים לדורות ביום הכפורים:
יערוך אותו אהרן, even though the procedure of lighting the Menorah, as well as the presentation of the daily incense offering was permitted to be carried out by any priest of the roster during future generations as per the sages' tradition (Sifrey Behaalotcha 60), this procedure is linked to Aaron, seeing that all the time the Jews were in the desert the procedures involving the Temple service were on a "Day of Atonement" footing because the Torah linked the procedure to the line (17,2) "for I will manifest Myself above the kapporet by day and the column of fire will be visible at night," a condition which ceased when the Jewish people settled in the land of Israel. It followed that procedures which took place inside the sanctuary would be the exclusive prerogative of the High Priest during those years. These procedures would be performed in the future by the High Priest on the day of Atonement.

פסוק כד:ד · 24:4

Hebrew:

עַ֚ל הַמְּנֹרָ֣ה הַטְּהֹרָ֔ה יַעֲרֹ֖ךְ אֶת־הַנֵּר֑וֹת לִפְנֵ֥י יְהֹוָ֖ה תָּמִֽיד׃ {פ}

English:

He shall set up the lamps on the pure*pure See note at Exod. 31.8. lampstand before יהוה [to burn] regularly.

The lamps are arranged 'on the pure menorah' before the Lord, perpetually. Rashi offers two readings of 'tehorah' — the menorah of pure gold, or the cleanness of the menorah itself, since the kohen had to clear away the previous day's ashes before kindling. Ibn Ezra emphasizes that this refers to the original menorah constructed by Betzalel, not to any substitute, even the iron menorah that prophets later permitted in emergency conditions.
רש״יRashi
המנרה הטהרה. שֶׁהִיא זָהָב טָהוֹר; דָּ"אַ עַל טָהֳרָהּ שֶׁל מְנוֹרָה, שֶׁמְּטַהֲרָהּ וּמְדַשְּׁנָהּ תְּחִלָּה מִן הָאֵפֶר (עי' ספרא):
המנרה הטהרה THE PURE CANDELABRUM — It was so called because it was made of pure gold. Another explanation is: he shall set the lights in order upon the purity of the candlestick, implying that he must first purify (cleanse) it and remove its ashes beforehand (the words therefore mean: on a clean candlestick; cf., however, Sifra, Emor, Section 13 12 where the word is explained differently).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
והוסיף בפרשה הזאת על המנורה הטהורה היא הידועה (עטו) [צ״ל זהב] כלה מעשה בצלאל ולא אחרת ואשר עשוה מברזל בשעת הצורך על פי הנביאים עשוה:
[UPON THE PURE CANDLESTICK.] Scripture in our section adds upon the pure candlestick.5After stating that Aaron shall light the lamp (v. 2), Scripture adds that Aaron shall light it upon the pure candlestick. The latter refers to the known candlestick,6Known from earlier references in Scripture. See Ex. 25:31-40. which was constructed by Betzalel7Ex. 37:1; 17-24. and was completely made of gold.8Ibid. It does not refer to any other candlestick. [As to the menorah], which was made of iron,9According to the Talmud the menorah used by the Hasmoneans in the Chanukkah period was made of iron. See Avodah Zarah 43a. it was done so in time of need10It was an emergency, or the gold menorah was defiled and they did not have the means to make a menorah out of gold. by the word of the prophets.11An oral tradition handed down from the later prophets (Weiser), for there were no prophets in the Maccabean period.

פסוק כד:ה · 24:5

Hebrew:

וְלָקַחְתָּ֣ סֹ֔לֶת וְאָפִיתָ֣ אֹתָ֔הּ שְׁתֵּ֥ים עֶשְׂרֵ֖ה חַלּ֑וֹת שְׁנֵי֙ עֶשְׂרֹנִ֔ים יִהְיֶ֖ה הַֽחַלָּ֥ה הָאֶחָֽת׃

English:

You shall take choice flour and bake of it twelve loaves, two-tenths of a measure for each loaf.

The Torah turns from the menorah to the lechem hapanim: take fine flour and bake twelve loaves, each containing two-tenths of an ephah. Ibn Ezra notes the unusual ultimate accent on 'va-afita' (and you shall bake) and reads the imperative as a command Moshe relays to those who will perform it. Sforno parallels his comment on the oil — this commandment likewise took effect once the original donated flour was exhausted. The number twelve corresponds to the twelve tribes of Israel.
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
ולקחת סלת. בצווי וכך ואפית אותה ובאה זו המלה מלרע והיא זרה:
AND THOU SHALT TAKE FINE FLOUR. By command.12Moses shall command that fine flour be taken. Similarly, and bake…thereof.13The meaning of and bake…thereof is and bake…thereof by command. Ve-afita (and shalt bake) is ultimately accented. It is irregular.14Words in the perfect whose roots end in a heh and have a conversive vav prefixed to them maintain their penultimate accent. However, ve-afita (and shalt bake) is ultimately accented. Hence it is irregular.
ספורנוSforno
ולקחת סלת. גם זה נראה שנאמר אחר ששלמה קצבת לחם הפנים של נדבת המשכן המבוארת בספור ויביאו את המשכן אל משה:
ולקחת סולת, this commandment presumably also applied only after the initial donation of such flour which had been contributed when the Tabernacle was being built had been exhausted. That original amount had been included in what was mentioned in Exodus 39.33. [one wonders where all the flour came from during those years when the Jews, in the desert were cut off from contact with the surrounding nations so that even their exact location was unknown. Ed.]

פסוק כד:ו · 24:6

Hebrew:

וְשַׂמְתָּ֥ אוֹתָ֛ם שְׁתַּ֥יִם מַֽעֲרָכ֖וֹת שֵׁ֣שׁ הַֽמַּעֲרָ֑כֶת עַ֛ל הַשֻּׁלְחָ֥ן הַטָּהֹ֖ר לִפְנֵ֥י יְהֹוָֽה׃

English:

Place them on the pure*pure See note at Exod. 31.8. table before יהוה in two rows, six to a row.

The twelve loaves are arranged in two rows of six on the pure golden table. Rashi reads 'shulchan ha-tahor' both as the table of pure gold and, derashah-wise, as referring to the surface (toharo) of the table itself — the lowest loaves had to rest directly on the table and not be lifted by the supporting tubes (senifin). Ibn Ezra connects the two rows to the pattern of the ephod and choshen, which also bore the names of the twelve tribes.
רש״יRashi
שש המערכת. שֵׁשׁ חַלּוֹת הַמַּעֲרֶכֶת הָאַחַת: השלחן הטהר. שֶׁל זָהָב טָהוֹר; דָּ"אַ: עַל טָהֳרוֹ שֶׁל שֻׁלְחָן, שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ הַסְּנִיפִין מַגְבִּיהִין אֶת הַלֶּחֶם מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַשֻּׁלְחָן (שם; מנחות צ"ז):
שש המערכת SIX ON A ROW — i. e. six cakes shall form one row. השלחן הטהר THE PURE TABLE — i. e. the table of pure gold (cf. Rashi on v. 4). Another explanation is that על השלחן הטהר means: immediately upon the טהר of the table (i. e. its top and they must not rest upon something else that is placed on the table-top) — i. e. that the supporting pillars (cf. Rashi on Exodus 25:29) must not raise the bread (i. e. the lowest loaves) above the top of the table (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 18 4; Menachot 97a).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
ב׳ מערכות. במספר השבטים כסוד האפוד והחשן או שני עשרונים כמספר המערכות: על השלחן הטהור. כנגד שלחנות אחרים שיש שם והוא לבדו מצופה זהב וזרו זהב:
IN TWO ROWS. Corresponding to the number of the tribes.15The 12 loaves which were arranged in two rows corresponded to the 12 tribes of Israel. This is similar to the secret of the ephod and the breastplate.16The names of the 12 tribes of Israel were inscribed on the ephod and the breastplate. The17So Filwarg. The text reads "or." "Or" in this context is difficult. Filwarg emends to "the." Weiser suggests emending to "perhaps." two tenth parts (v. 5) corresponded to the arrangement of the two rows.18I.E. believes that there is a correspondence between the contents of each one of the loaves and the arrangement of all of the loaves. Thus each of the loaves consisted of "two" tenth parts. Each one of the two tenth parts corresponds to the "two" rows into which all the loaves were divided. UPON THE PURE TABLE. In contrast to the other tables that were there. This table alone was covered with gold and its crown was of gold.19See Ex. 25:23-25.

פסוק כד:ז · 24:7

Hebrew:

וְנָתַתָּ֥ עַל־הַֽמַּעֲרֶ֖כֶת לְבֹנָ֣ה זַכָּ֑ה וְהָיְתָ֤ה לַלֶּ֙חֶם֙ לְאַזְכָּרָ֔ה אִשֶּׁ֖ה לַֽיהֹוָֽה׃

English:

With each row you shall place pure frankincense, which is to be a token offering*token offering See Lev. 2.2. for the bread, as an offering by fire to יהוה.

Pure levonah is placed alongside each of the two rows; it serves as the bread's azkarah, its memorial portion, an offering by fire to the Lord. Rashi explains that the bread itself is not burned on the altar; rather, when the loaves are removed each Shabbat, the levonah is offered, functioning for the bread the way the kometz (the priest's handful) functions for a meal offering. Ibn Ezra observes that Israel is obligated to provide both the festival burnt offerings and the perpetual oil and bread of the sanctuary.
רש״יRashi
ונתת על המערכת. עַל כָּל אַחַת מִשְּׁתֵי הַמַּעֲרָכוֹת; וְהָיוּ שְׁנֵי בְזִיכֵי לְבוֹנָה מְלֹא קֹמֶץ לְכָל אַחַת: והיתה. הַלְּבוֹנָה הַזֹּאת: ללחם לאזכרה. שֶׁאֵין מִן הַלֶּחֶם לְגָבוֹהַּ כְּלוּם, אֶלָּא הַלְּבוֹנָה נִקְטֶרֶת כְּשֶׁמְּסַלְּקִין אוֹתוֹ בְּכָל שַׁבָּת וְשַׁבָּת, וְהִיא לְזִכָּרוֹן לַלֶּחֶם, שֶׁעַל יָדָהּ הוּא נִזְכָּר לְמַעְלָה, כַּקֹּמֶץ שֶׁהִיא אַזְכָּרָה לַמִּנְחָה (עי' ספרא):
ונתת על המערכת AND THOU SHALT PUT UPON THE ROW — i. e. upon each of the two rows [PURE FRANKINCENSE]; there were two bowls for this frankincense, each filled with a handful of it. והיתה THAT IT — this frankincense — MAY BE ללחם לאזכרה ON THE BREAD FOR A MEMORIAL — because of the bread itself nothing was offered to the Lord, but the frankincense was burnt when the former was removed from the golden table every Sabbath. It (the frankincense) thus served as a memorial for the bread, because through it, it (the bread) was recalled to memory Above (the bread itself was not offered) just as the "handful" of flour and of oil (Leviticus 2:2) was "the memorial portion" of the meal offering being the only part offered, while the remainder was eaten by the priests just as this bread was.
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
והלבונה שהיתה עם הלחם הוא אשה לה׳‎ והלחם לכהן ויתכן שהזכיר זאת הפרשה בעבור שיש חיוב על ישראל לתת עולות המועד ושמן ולחם תמיד:
It was the frankincense that was with the bread that served as an offering made by fire unto the Lord. The bread was for the kohen. It is possible that Scripture mentioned this section20Verses 5-9. because there is an obligation on Israel to provide the festival burnt offerings, the oil, and the bread, which was always on the altar.

פסוק כד:ח · 24:8

Hebrew:

בְּי֨וֹם הַשַּׁבָּ֜ת בְּי֣וֹם הַשַּׁבָּ֗ת יַֽעַרְכֶ֛נּוּ לִפְנֵ֥י יְהֹוָ֖ה תָּמִ֑יד מֵאֵ֥ת בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל בְּרִ֥ית עוֹלָֽם׃

English:

He shall arrange them before יהוה regularly every sabbath day—it is a commitment for all time on the part of the Israelites.


פסוק כד:ט · 24:9

Hebrew:

וְהָֽיְתָה֙ לְאַהֲרֹ֣ן וּלְבָנָ֔יו וַאֲכָלֻ֖הוּ בְּמָק֣וֹם קָדֹ֑שׁ כִּ֡י קֹ֩דֶשׁ֩ קׇֽדָשִׁ֨ים ה֥וּא ל֛וֹ מֵאִשֵּׁ֥י יְהֹוָ֖ה חׇק־עוֹלָֽם׃ {ס}        

English:

They shall belong to Aaron and his sons, who shall eat them in the sacred precinct; for they are his as most holy things from יהוה’s offerings by fire, a due for all time.

The previous week's loaves, after the new ones replace them and the levonah is offered, become the priests' portion: kodesh kodashim, eaten in a sacred place. Rashi clarifies that the masculine suffix on 'va-akhaluhu' refers to lechem (masculine), and the loaves are categorized as a minchah since anything brought of grain falls under that designation. Ibn Ezra reads 'le-Aharon u-le-vanav' broadly to include all the members of the kohen's household.
רש״יRashi
והיתה. הַמִּנְחָה הַזֹּאת, שֶׁכָּל דָּבָר הַבָּא מִן הַתְּבוּאָה בִּכְלַל מִנְחָה הוּא: ואכלהו. מוּסָב עַל הַלֶּחֶם שֶׁהוּא לְשׁוֹן זָכָר:
והיתה AND IT SHALL BE — this meal-offering shall be — [AARON'S AND HIS SONS']; (although the word מנחה is not mentioned in the text it is implicitly contained in the word לחם) because anything that is brought (offered) of grain comes under the term of ‎מנחה. ואכלהו‎ AND THEY SHALL EAT IT; the suffix which is masc. refers to לחם which is masculine.
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
לאהרן ולבניו. כל בני ביתו:
FOR AARON AND HIS SONS. His entire household.

פסוק כד:י · 24:10

Hebrew:

וַיֵּצֵא֙ בֶּן־אִשָּׁ֣ה יִשְׂרְאֵלִ֔ית וְהוּא֙ בֶּן־אִ֣ישׁ מִצְרִ֔י בְּת֖וֹךְ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וַיִּנָּצוּ֙ בַּֽמַּחֲנֶ֔ה בֶּ֚ן הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִ֔ית וְאִ֖ישׁ הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִֽי׃

English:

There came out among the Israelites a man whose mother was Israelite and whose father was Egyptian. And a fight broke out in the camp between that half-Israelite*half-Israelite Lit. “the son of an Israelite woman.” and a certain Israelite.

A man whose mother was an Israelite and whose father was an Egyptian goes out among the children of Israel and quarrels with an Israelite in the camp. Rashi gathers three midrashic readings of 'vayetze' — he went out from his eternal portion, from the parasha of the showbread which he mocked, or from the court of Moshe after losing a tribal claim to dwell among the camp of Dan. Or HaChaim adds that the wording 'ish ha-yisraeli' (rather than naming the Israelite) reflects the Torah's reluctance to disgrace a participant in a dispute that ended in blasphemy.
רש״יRashi
ויצא בן אשה ישראלית. מֵהֵיכָן יָצָא? רַבִּי לֵוִי אוֹמֵר מֵעוֹלָמוֹ יָצָא, רַבִּי בְּרֶכְיָה אוֹמֵר מִפָּרָשָׁה שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה יָצָא, לִגְלֵג וְאָמַר "בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת יַעַרְכֶנּוּ" דֶּרֶךְ הַמֶּלֶךְ לֶאֱכֹל פַּת חַמָּה בְכָל יוֹם, שֶׁמָּא פַּת צוֹנֶנֶת שֶׁל תִּשְׁעָה יָמִים, בִּתְמִיהָ? וּמַתְנִיתָא אֲמַרָה מִבֵּית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה יָצָא, מְחֻיָּב, בָּא לִטַּע אָהֳלוֹ בְתוֹךְ מַחֲנֵה דָן, אָמְרוּ לוֹ מַה טִּיבְךָ לְכָאן? אָמַר לָהֶם מִבְּנֵי דָּן אֲנִי, אָמְרוּ לוֹ "אִישׁ עַל דִּגְלוֹ בְאֹתֹת לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם" כְּתִיב (במדבר ב'), נִכְנַס לְבֵית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה וְיָצָא מְחֻיָּב, עָמַד וְגִדֵּף (ספרא, ויקרא ל"ב): בן איש מצרי. הוּא הַמִּצְרִי שֶׁהָרַג מֹשֶׁה (שם): בתוך בני ישראל. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁנִּתְגַיֵּר (ספרא): וינצו במחנה. עַל עִסְקֵי הַמַּחֲנֶה: ואיש הישראלי. זֶה שֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ שֶׁמִּחָה בוֹ מִטַּע אָהֳלוֹ:
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). 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). בתוך בני ישראל AMONG THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL — This teaches us that he had become a proselyte (Sifra, Emor, Section 14 1). 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). ‎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.
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
ויצא בן אשה ישראלית. מאהלו כמו יצאו נצבים פתח אהליהם: בן איש מצרי. מתיהד: ואיש הישראלי. כמו לאיש העשיר את יום השביעי ולא נדע למה נסמכה זאת הפרשה אולי דבר המקלל דברים אשר לא כן בעבור הלחם והשמן והקרבנות:
AND THE SON OF AN ISRAELITISH WOMAN…WENT OUT. From his tent. Compare, came out, and stood at the door of their tents (Num. 16:27). WHOSE FATHER WAS AN EGYPTIAN. Who converted to Judaism.21Our verse literally reads, "whose father was an Egyptian in the camp of Israel." According to I.E. the Egyptian was living among Israel because he was a convert AND A MAN OF ISRAEL. Ve-ish ha-yisra'eli (and a man of Israel) is similar to le-ish he-ashir (unto the rich man) (II Sam. 12:4) and to et yom ha-shevi'iy (the seventh day) (Gen. 2:3).22When an adjective has a heh prefixed to it, the noun which it modifies also has a heh prefixed to it. I.E. points out that there are instances in Scripture where the above is not followed, viz., our verse, II Sam. 12:4, and Gen 2:3. See I.E. on Gen 1:31 (Vol. 1, p. 47). We do not know why this section23Verses 10-12. was connected to that which comes before it. Perhaps the blasphemer spoke improperly with regard to the bread, the oil, and the sacrifices.
ספורנוSforno
והוא בן איש מצרי. ובכן העיז פניו לברך את השם דישראל לא פקירי כולי האי:
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.
אור החייםOr HaChaim
ויצא בן אשה וגו'. אמר ויצא על דרך אומרם ז"ל (תנחומא) בפסוק ויצא העגל הזה שיצא בלא כוונת הפועל, כמו כן כאן לא שנתכוונה האשה ישראלית למעשה הכיעור אלא בלא מתכוין לדבר איסור יצא הנגע, כאומרם ז"ל (שמו"ד פ"א) שהעמיד המצרי הבעל לעבודתו וחזר לבית ועשה מעשה והאשה חשבה כי בעלה היה ויצא נגע זה, ולזה תמצא שהכתוב משוה זכרון האשה לזכרון האיש הישראלי דכתיב האשה הישראלית ואיש הישראלי כי נקיה האשה מעון ושוה לאיש הישראלי המוזכר לפנינו שאין בו דופי, ואומרו בתוך בני ישראל לומר שלא היה בתוכם ממזר כיוצא בו: עוד ירצה שלא נתנו לו מושב בתוכם שבמקום שהיה רוצה לטעת אהלו היה אומר לו אינך משלנו, ורז"ל (תורת כהנים) אמרו שבא לומר הכתוב שנתגייר ואלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים: ואיש הישראלי. טעם שלא הוזכר שמו, אולי שלא רצה להזכירו משום שעל ידו היה הדבר שנקב בן הישראלית את השם ומגלגלין וכו', ואין הקדוש ברוך הוא חפץ לגנות אדם, ומה גם בתורה שנשאר הרושם לעולם ועד: עוד נתכוין הכתוב לומר שמריבה אשר נצו עליה היא על הפרש הנרשם שזה הוא בן ישראלית וזה בן ישראלי וכאן כלל כל מה שאמרו ז"ל (ויק"ר פל"ב) למ"ד על דבר יוחסין ולמ"ד וכו', ולא חש הכתוב להאריך לשון ולומר גם כן שמו כי אין צורך בדבר:
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. 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. 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. 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.

פסוק כד:יא · 24:11

Hebrew:

וַ֠יִּקֹּ֠ב בֶּן־הָֽאִשָּׁ֨ה הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִ֤ית אֶת־הַשֵּׁם֙ וַיְקַלֵּ֔ל וַיָּבִ֥יאוּ אֹת֖וֹ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֑ה וְשֵׁ֥ם אִמּ֛וֹ שְׁלֹמִ֥ית בַּת־דִּבְרִ֖י לְמַטֵּה־דָֽן׃

English:

The son of the Israelite woman pronounced the Name in blasphemy, and he was brought to Moses—now his mother’s name was Shelomith daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan—

The son of the Israelite woman 'pronounced the Name and cursed,' and was brought to Moshe; the Torah names his mother as Shelomit bat Divri, of the tribe of Dan. Rashi, following the Targum, explains that 'vayikkov' means he uttered the explicit Tetragrammaton heard at Sinai, and identifies his mother by name to expose her singular failure and to teach that a wicked person disgraces his parent and his entire tribe. Ibn Ezra debates the verb's meaning and concludes that 'pronounced' fits better, since the verse already adds 'va-yekallel' (and cursed).
רש״יRashi
ויקב. כְּתַרְגּוּמוֹ "וּפָרֵשׁ", שֶׁנָּקַב שֵׁם הַמְיֻחָד וְגִדֵּף, וְהוּא שֵׁם הַמְפֹרָשׁ שֶׁשָּׁמַע מִסִּינַי (ספרא): ושם אמו שלמית בת דברי. שִׁבְחָן שֶׁל יִשְֹרָאֵל שֶׁפִּרְסְמָהּ הַכָּתוּב לְזוֹ, לוֹמַר שֶׁהִיא לְבַדָּהּ הָיְתָה זוֹנָה: שלמית. דַּהֲוָה פִּטְפְּטָה "שְׁלָם עֲלָךְ", "שְׁלָם עֲלֵיכוֹן", מְפַטְפֶּטֶת בִּדְבָרִים, שׁוֹאֶלֶת בִּשְׁלוֹם הַכֹּל: בת דברי. דַּבְּרָנִית הָיְתָה, מְדַבֶּרֶת עִם כָּל אָדָם, לְפִיכָךְ קִלְקְלָה: למטה דן. מַגִּיד שֶׁהָרָשָׁע גּוֹרֵם גְּנַאי לוֹ, גְּנַאי לְאָבִיו, גְּנַאי לְשִׁבְטוֹ; כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ "אָהֳלִיאָב בֶּן אֲחִיסָמָךְ לְמַטֵּה דָן" (שמות ל"א), שֶׁבַח לוֹ, שֶׁבַח לְאָבִיו, שֶׁבַח לְשִׁבְטוֹ (ספרא):
ויקב — Translate this as the Targum does: ופרש "and he pronounced", thus ויקב … ויקלל means that he uttered the Tetragrammaton and by so doing blasphemed. It was the "Proper Name" which he had heard on Mount Sinai (cf. Sifra, Emor, Section 14 2 and Jeremiah Targ.). ושם אמו שלמית בת דברי AND HIS MOTHER'S NAME WAS SHELOMITH, THE DAUGHTER OF DIBRI, [THE TRIBE OF DAN] — it is to tell how praiseworthy Israel was that Scripture publicly mentions her name (exposes her), telling us implicitly that of all the women of Israel she alone was a harlot (Leviticus Rabbah 32 5). שלמית (connected with שלום "peace") — she was so called because she was always babbling: "Peace be with thee", "peace be with thee", "peace be with you" — she used to continually babble with many words (she was a בת דברי) — she enquired after the health of everybody (Leviticus Rabbah 32 5). בת דברי (from the root דבר "to speak") — she was talkative — talking with any man, and in consequence of this she got into trouble. למטה דן OF THE TRIBE OF DAN — This mention also of the parent and tribe of the woman teaches us that the wrong doer brings shame upon himself, shame upon his parent, shame upon his whole tribe. Similarly we find the name of the tribe Dan mentioned to express praise; (Exodus 31:6) "Oholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan", where the details of Oholiab's descent imply praise for him, praise for his father and praise for his tribe (Sifra, Emor, Section 14 4).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
ויקב. יש אומרים שפירושו ויפרש כמו אשר פי ה׳‎ יקבנו אשר נקבו בשמות ויש אומרים שהוא כמו מה אקוב והראשון קרוב לפי דעתי:
BLASPHEMED. Some say that the meaning of va-yikkov (blasphemed) is enunciated. Compare, Which the mouth of the Lord shall mark out (yikkavennu) (Is. 62:2) and that are pointed out (nikkevu) by name (Num. 1:17). Others say that va-yikkov is similar to ekkov (I curse) in How shall I curse (Num. 23:8). However, I believe that the first interpretation is correct.24Our verse reads va-yikkov et ha-shem va-yekkalel (and blasphemed the Name and cursed). If va-yikkov means "and cursed," then our verse is repetitious. Hence it appears that our verse should be interpreted as, and enunciated the Name of God and cursed it.
אור החייםOr HaChaim
ושם אמו. צריך לדעת למה לא הזכיר שמה בתחלה כשהזכירו עד הבאתו אל משה, ויש לומר בב' דרכים, האחד לשבח על זה הדרך ויביאו אותו אל משה ושם אמו וגו', פירוש גם היא מכלל המביאים והאחד לגנאי ויביאו אותו אל משה ועל ידי הבאה זו נתחייבה שהכתוב יפרסם אותה שאמו היא שלומית, וממוצא דבר אתה יודע כי נכמרו רחמיה על בנה וכתיב (משלי י״ב:י׳) ורחמי רשעים אכזרי, לזה גילה אותה הכתוב כי זאת האשה וזה בנה, גם הזכיר שבטה להטעם עצמו שכתבתי כי מן הסתם השבט ירחם ויעמוד לעזר הקרובים, ולזה אמרו במדרש (ויק"ר פל"ב) גנאי לו גנאי לשבטו וכו':
ושם אמו, and the name of his mother, etc. Why was the name of this woman only mentioned here instead of at the time her existence was mentioned in verse 10 prior to the confrontation of her son with Moses? One may answer this in either one of two ways. 1) It reflects credit upon her seeing the Torah wrote: "they brought him to Moses, whereas the name of his mother was Shlomit." This implies that his mother was one of those who brought the blasphemer to Moses to be judged. 2) Mention of Shlomit at this stage reflects discredit upon her. Had it not been for the fact that others brought the blasphemer to Moses for judgment his mother could have remained anonymous. The general tenor of the story indicates that the blasphemer's mother could not overcome her feelings of pity for her son. The Torah teaches the lesson which we learned in Proverbs 12,10 that compassion for the wicked is actually an act of cruelty. The Torah discloses the name of the woman who had been foolish enough to display such feelings for her son the blasphemer. The fact that the Torah also reveals the name of her tribe is an indication that members of a tribe have a tendency to be protective of members of that tribe. This is why the Midrash we quoted earlier stated that when a person disgraces himself he also disgraces his tribe.

פסוק כד:יב · 24:12

Hebrew:

וַיַּנִּיחֻ֖הוּ בַּמִּשְׁמָ֑ר לִפְרֹ֥שׁ לָהֶ֖ם עַל־פִּ֥י יְהֹוָֽה׃ {פ}

English:

and he was placed in custody, until the decision of יהוה should be made clear to them.

The blasphemer is held in custody until the Lord clarifies the law. Rashi notes that he was kept alone, not together with the mekoshesh etzim (the wood-gatherer of Bamidbar 15), who lived in the same period: in the wood-gatherer's case they knew the death penalty applied but not by which means, while here they did not yet know whether the death penalty applied at all. Ibn Ezra adds that 'ba-mishmar' refers to a known place of confinement within the camp.
רש״יRashi
ויניחהו. לְבַדּוֹ, וְלֹא הִנִּיחוּ מְקוֹשֵׁשׁ עִמּוֹ — שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם הָיוּ בְּפֶרֶק אֶחָד — וְיוֹדְעִים הָיוּ שֶׁהַמְּקוֹשֵׁשׁ בְּמִיתָה, אֲבָל לֹא פֹרַשׁ לָהֶם בְּאֵיזוֹ מִיתָה לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר (במדבר ט"ו), כִּי לֹא פֹרַשׁ מַה יֵּעָשֶֹה לוֹ; אֲבָל בַּמְּקַלֵּל הוּא אוֹמֵר לִפְרֹשׁ לָהֶם, שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ יוֹדְעִים אִם חַיָּב מִיתָה אִם לָאו (ספרא; סנהדרין ע"ח):
ויניחהו AND THEY PLACED HIM [IN WARD] — him by himself — and they did not place the man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath day with him (Numbers 15:34), because both of whom happened to be (i. e. to commit an offense) at the same period, but they knew that the stick-gatherer was to be punished with the death-penalty, only it had not been explained to them by what kind of death he was to be punished — it is for this reason that it is stated in his case (Numbers 15:33) "[and they placed him in ward] because it was not explained what should be done to him". In the case of the blasphemer, however, it states "[and they placed him in ward] that [the proper penalty] might be shown to them"; this was because they did not know whether he is at all liable to the death-penalty or not (Sifra, Emor, Section 14 5; Sanhedrin 78b).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
במשמר. במקום ידוע במחנה:
IN WARD.25Literally, in the ward (ba-mishmar). In a known place in the camp.26Hence the use of the direct object (ba).

פסוק כד:יג · 24:13

Hebrew:

וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר׃

English:

And יהוה spoke to Moses, saying:


פסוק כד:יד · 24:14

Hebrew:

הוֹצֵ֣א אֶת־הַֽמְקַלֵּ֗ל אֶל־מִחוּץ֙ לַֽמַּחֲנֶ֔ה וְסָמְכ֧וּ כׇֽל־הַשֹּׁמְעִ֛ים אֶת־יְדֵיהֶ֖ם עַל־רֹאשׁ֑וֹ וְרָגְמ֥וּ אֹת֖וֹ כׇּל־הָעֵדָֽה׃

English:

Take the blasphemer outside the camp; and let all who were within hearing lay their hands upon his head, and let the community leadership*community leadership See note at 8.3. stone him.

The Lord commands that the blasphemer be taken outside the camp; all who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire community is to stone him. Rashi explains that 'ha-shomim' refers to the witnesses, and the inclusive 'kol' adds the judges; the laying of hands is a verbal declaration that 'your blood is upon your head — we bear no guilt for your death, for you brought it upon yourself.' From 'kol ha-edah' Chazal derive that the witnesses act as agents for the entire congregation, since clearly not every Israelite physically participates.
רש״יRashi
השמעים. אֵלּוּ הָעֵדִים: כל. לְהָבִיא אֶת הַדַּיָּנִים (ספרא): את ידיהם. אוֹמְרִים לוֹ דָּמְךָ בְּרֹאשְׁךָ, וְאֵין אָנוּ נֶעֱנָשִׁים בְּמִיתָתְךָ, שֶׁאַתָּה גָרַמְתָּ לְךָ (שם): כל העדה. בְּמַעֲמַד כָּל הָעֵדָה, (מִכָּאן) שֶׁשְּׁלוּחוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם כְּמוֹתוֹ (עי' שם):
השמעים THEY THAT HEARD — This refers to the witnesses. כל ALL [THOSE THAT HEARD] — 'all' serves to include the judges also (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 1). את ידיהם [AND ALL THAT HEARD HIM SHALL LAY] THEIR HANDS [UPON HIS HEAD] — They said to him: your blood is upon your head; we do not deserve punishment on account of your death, for it was you yourself who brought it about (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 2). כל העדה ALL THE CONGREGATION [SHALL CERTAINLY PELT HIM WITH STONES] — (This means: the witnesses shall stone him), all the congregation standing by (because it cannot possibly mean that all the 600,000 men comprising the whole of the congregation should stone him). From here, we may derive the legal principle that a man's agent is as himself (i. e. that his actions are legally of the same effect as though they were carried out by those for whom he acts the order) (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 23).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
וסמכו כל השומעים. בעבור כי על פי עדותם יסקל:
AND LET ALL THAT HEARD. For he was stoned because of their testimony.

פסוק כד:טו · 24:15

Hebrew:

וְאֶל־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל תְּדַבֵּ֣ר לֵאמֹ֑ר אִ֥ישׁ אִ֛ישׁ כִּֽי־יְקַלֵּ֥ל אֱלֹהָ֖יו וְנָשָׂ֥א חֶטְאֽוֹ׃

English:

And to the Israelite people speak thus: Anyone who blasphemes God shall bear the guilt;

The general law is now stated: anyone who curses 'his God' shall bear his sin. Rashi reads 've-nasa cheto' as karet — divine excision — applicable when the offender did not receive prior legal warning and so cannot be tried before a human court. Sforno sees this verse as covering one who curses an attribute or aspect of the divine rather than the explicit four-letter Name; such a case is left between the offender and the Maker.
רש״יRashi
ונשא חטאו. בְּכָרֵת כְּשֶׁאֵין הַתְרָאָה:
ונשא חטאו [WHOSOEVER EXECRATETH HIS GOD] SHALL BEAR HIS SIN — i. e. shall be punished with excision if there was no legal warning preceding the offence (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 6; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 20:27).
ספורנוSforno
כי יקלל אלהיו. ויעבור על לאו אלהים לא תקלל: ונשא חטאו. ישא העונש הראוי לו כפי המקלל והמקולל בפרט כשלא קלל בשם או שגדף ובזה בלבד כתרגומו דיינין לא תקיל:
כי יקלל אלוקיו, and thereby transgresses the negative commandment אלוקים לא תקלל, (Exodus 22,27) ונשא עונו, he will have to carry the burden of his punishment. In other words, this is a problem between him and his Maker, no human court being involved, seeing the sin was committed in private and he had not cursed G'd's essence but one or more of His attributes. This "leaving him to G'd," is also applicable when the blasphemer "only" cursed one of the attributes G'd is known by.

פסוק כד:טז · 24:16

Hebrew:

וְנֹקֵ֤ב שֵׁם־יְהֹוָה֙ מ֣וֹת יוּמָ֔ת רָג֥וֹם יִרְגְּמוּ־ב֖וֹ כׇּל־הָעֵדָ֑ה כַּגֵּר֙ כָּֽאֶזְרָ֔ח בְּנׇקְבוֹ־שֵׁ֖ם יוּמָֽת׃

English:

and one who also pronounces the name יהוה shall be put to death. The community leadership*community leadership See note at 8.3. shall stone that person; stranger or citizen—having thus pronounced the Name—shall be put to death.

One who pronounces the explicit Name shall surely die by stoning, ger and ezrach alike. Rashi specifies that liability for death applies only when the offender uses the Tetragrammaton itself, not a substitute name like Rachum or Chanun. Sforno underscores that the convert and the native-born stand under one law; the punishment is in no way mitigated by the offender's status as a ger. Ibn Ezra adds that the laws of personal injury that follow are placed here precisely because the original quarrel may have involved physical blows.
רש״יRashi
ונקב שם. אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיְּפָרֵשׁ אֶת הַשֵּׁם, וְלֹא הַמְקַלֵּל בְּכִנוּי (סנהדרין נ"ו): ונקב. לְשׁוֹן קְלָלָה כְּמוֹ (במדבר כ"ג) "מָה אֶקֹּב" (סנהדרין נ"ו):
ונקב שם AND HE THAT UTTERETH BLASPHEMOUSLY THE NAME [OF THE LORD SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH] — He is not liable to the death-penalty at the hand of the judges unless he utters the Divine Tetragrammaton blasphemously, but not if he execrateth the Lord by only mention of one of the substitutes for the Divine name (e. g., רחום, חנון, אל etc.), (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 5; Sanhedrin 56a). ונקב here is an expression denoting "cursing", like (Numbers 23:8) "How shall I curse (אקב) [when God hath not cursed]" (Sanhedrin 56a).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
כל העדה. הם גדולי הארץ שהם גדולי ישראל ויש אומרים כי יקלל אלהיו בסתר והנכון שמלת אלהים שם התאר והמלאכים יקראו אלהים וכן הדיינים ומי יוכל לדעת מה יש בלב המקלל אך אם יפרש השם הנכבד שאינו שם התאר ולא יתערב עם שם כי הוא לבדו והנה הטעם בעת שיקלל אם יפרש השם יומת בנקבו שם כאשר עשה בן המצרי ולמען כבוד השם לא נזכר. ואמר כגר כאזרח. יומת. ויתכן שהכו אלה הנצים זה את זה על כן נכתבה זאת הפרשה וכבר הזכירה רק הוסיף כגר כאזרח יהיה והחל כי יכה כל נפש אדם בזדון ולא במלחמה מגר או אזרח:
ALL THE CONGREGATION. The reference is to the magnates of the land who are the great ones of Israel.27See I.E. on Lev. 23:44. Some say that Whosoever curseth his God (v. 15) means whosoever curseth his God in secret.28For our verse does not specify the punishment of the one who curses God. The correct interpretation is as follows. The term Elohim (god) is an adjective. The angels are called elohim.29See I.E. on Gen. 1:1 (Vol. 1, p. 26). So are the judges.30Ibid. Who can know what is in the mind of the one who curses? However, if he enunciates the glorious name of God, which stands by itself and is not an adjective and is not intertwined with any noun, [he shall be stoned]. Its meaning is,31The meaning of Whosoever curseth his God. when one curses and enunciates the Name he shall be put to death if he enunciates the Name as the son of the Egyptian did.32In other words, verses 15 and 16 are connected to each other. The Name33God's name. is not mentioned34In verse 17. out of respect for God. Scripture reads, as well the stranger, as the home-born…shall be put to death. It is possible that the ones who quarreled (v. 10) struck each other. This section35Verses 17-22. was therefore written.36At this point. In other words, the laws dealing with personal injuries follow the laws of the men who quarreled because the latter came to blows. It37The section about the laws dealing with personal injuries. See Ex. 21:12-27. had previously been mentioned. However, our chapter adds, as well for the stranger, as for the home-born (v. 22).[17. AND HE THAT SMITETH.] Scripture begins38The laws dealing with personal injury. with and he that smiteth any man mortally.39Shall be put to death. He is not participating in war and deliberately smites any man, be that man a stranger or a native
ספורנוSforno
ונוקב שם ה' מות יומת. אבל נוקב שם ה' לא יהיה ענשו כעונש קללת שאר אלהים ולא ממין אותו העונש גם עם רבוי מנינו אבל הוא במיתה: כגר כאזרח. ואין זה העונש לזה המברך עתה מפני היותו גר כי בזה גם האזרח היה שוה לו בנקבו שם:
ונוקב שם ה' מות יומת, the penalty of someone cursing the tetragram is not comparable to the punishment for someone who "merely" cursed one of G'd's attributes. The individual described in our verse will be executed publicly by stoning, and all who heard him commit this crime must participate actively in the execution. כגר כאזרח, and the type of the penalty applied to the blasphemer in our paragraph was not especially harsh seeing the guilty person had been a convert. Natural born Jew and converts are treated exactly alike in the legislation concerning blasphemy.

פסוק כד:יז · 24:17

Hebrew:

וְאִ֕ישׁ כִּ֥י יַכֶּ֖ה כׇּל־נֶ֣פֶשׁ אָדָ֑ם מ֖וֹת יוּמָֽת׃

English:

If any party kills any human being, that person shall be put to death.

The first of the law-of-damages verses: one who kills any human being shall be put to death. Rashi notes that the broader phrase 'kol nefesh adam' extends the law beyond the adult male of Shemot 21:12 to women and children as well — every soul. Sforno places this and the following verses in a graded scheme of punishments: capital cases for taking a human life, monetary restitution for property, and a deliberate parallel structure that contrasts the value of human life with the value of an animal.
רש״יRashi
ואיש כי יכה. לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר מַכֵּה אִישׁ וָמֵת (שמות כ"א), אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁהָרַג אֶת הָאִישׁ, אִשָּׁה וְקָטָן מִנַּיִן? תַּ"לֹ "כָּל נֶפֶשׁ אָדָם":
ואיש כי יכה AND HE THAT KILLETH [ANY MAN SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH] — Because it is said (Exodus 21:12) "Whosoever smiteth a man so that he die [shall surely be put to death]" I might say that I have here only the law that if one kills a man he is punishable with death; whence, however, do I know that this is also the case if he kills a woman or a child? Because Scripture states here: "[and he that killeth] any person (more lit., the soul of any human being)" (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 20 1; cf. Rashi on Exodus 21:12).
ספורנוSforno
ואיש כי יכה כל נפש אדם. בהיות קללת אלהים אצל קצת האומות דבר נקל מאד כאמרו והתקצף וקלל במלכו ובאלהיו וכאמרם ז"ל (סנהדרין ס, א) השומע אזכרה מפי גוי אינו חייב לקרוע שאם אין אתה אומר כן נתמלא כל הבגד כולו קרעים ועם זה נראה שיהיה דבור המקלל בזה דבור בטל בהיות כל קללה נמנעת במציאות האל יתברך באר הטעם ואמר כי אמנם הפועל הרע כאשר יהיה נעשה בנושאים מתחלפים אף על פי שהוא פועל אחד בעצמו יתחלף ענשו כפי חלוף אותם הנושאים עד שיהיה העונש בהיות החטא באיזה נושא עונש בגוף או עונש מיתה וכאשר יהיה בנושא אחר למטה ממנו יהיה העונש ממון. ועל זה נתן שלשה ראיות אחד בהורג שההורג נפש אדם חייב מיתה וההורג בהמת חבירו חייב ממון בלבד. שנית בחובל שהחובל אדם היה ראוי ליענש בגוף לולי חסרון יכולתנו לצמצם כמו שקבלו רבותינו ז"ל (קמא פרק החובל) והוצרך לענשו ממון ועם כל זה הנה הממון רב שחייב בחמשה דברים כמו שקבלו הם ז"ל ומכה בהמה יהיה ענשו ממון מועט. שלישית בחובל אדם שחובל באביו ובאמו חייב מיתה וחובל באדם אחר חייב ממון ואין צריך לומר מכה בהמה בזה האופן שיהיה ענשו מועט מאד. ולא הזכיר קללת אביו ואמו כי היא בלתי דומה לזאת הקללה שהוא דבור בטל לגמרי ולא כן קללת האב:
ואיש כי יכה כל נפש אדם, seeing that among some nations cursing the deity is considered a very minor sin as we know from Isaiah 8,21 והתקצף וקלל במלכו ובאלוהיו, "and he shall rage against his king and his divinity, etc.;" we know from our sages in Sanhedrin 60 that when one hears a gentile blaspheme (even against our G'd) one need not rend one's garment in mourning over having been a witness to such blasphemy, for if that were not the halachah our garments would consist of innumerable shreds.Keeping this in mind, we might have assumed that the curse uttered by the blasphemer in our paragraph should have been treated as irrelevant. This is especially so since we are all aware that blaspheming against G'd does not harm Him in any way, is an exercise of man's frustration, not something harmful to the object of his blasphemy. The Torah explains that the reason why this blasphemy is treated as if something of substance, G'd forbid, must be seen in a different context. We know from Torah legislation that each deliberate act of disobedience against G'd is basically an act of insurrection, mutiny, and we could expect it to be treated as such, i.e. as equivalent to forfeiting one's life.Nonetheless, the Torah has demonstrated that some deliberate sins rate quite different punishments than others. Basically, the Torah provides for financial penalties, physical punishment, and the death penalty. Clearly, this proves that G'd views different sins as differing in degree of insurrection, or due to different degrees of provocation experienced by the sinner. Killing a human being, basically deserves the death penalty, i.e. anything less would mean that the killer's life is worth more than that of his victim. When someone kills an animal, this is not comparable, so that the penalty is financial, restitution to the owner for what he lost. When someone causes injury (deliberately), if the injury was caused to a fellow human being, by rights, the offender should be punished by bodily punishment, unless he were physically too weak to endure such punishment. Seeing that it is impossible to impose an exact equivalent for the injury caused, the sages decided to substitute a financial penalty instead. We must not think that the offender thereby gets off lightly, as the financial compensation comprises five different categories of harm suffered by the injured party, including even his injured pride. (compare Baba Kamma 83)When someone injures an animal the financial penalty is considerably milder. When someone causes injury to a human being we also distinguish between one human being and another. If he injured his father or mother, he is guilty of the death penalty, whereas an injury of similar severity to someone else draws only a financial penalty; when he injures an animal it is obvious that the penalty would only be financial. Cursing father or mother is not mentioned in the Torah here as it is in a different category altogether, seeing that this cannot be compared to blaspheming, words which by themselves have no effect, since what can man possibly do to harm G'd?. Parents may be harmed by their children's curses though not necessarily visibly. [some of the wording is my own. Ed.]

פסוק כד:יח · 24:18

Hebrew:

וּמַכֵּ֥ה נֶֽפֶשׁ־בְּהֵמָ֖ה יְשַׁלְּמֶ֑נָּה נֶ֖פֶשׁ תַּ֥חַת נָֽפֶשׁ׃

English:

One who kills a beast shall make restitution for it: life for life.

One who kills an animal must make restitution: nefesh tachat nefesh, life for life — meaning, in this case, the value of the slain beast paid to its owner. Ibn Ezra reads the phrase 'nefesh tachat nefesh' as serving both verses, the verse about killing a person and the verse about killing an animal, with each receiving its appropriate weight: capital for the human and monetary for the beast.
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
ומכה בהמה ישלמנה. והנה נפש תחת נפש משמש לשני׳‎ הפסוקים:
AND HE THAT SMITETH A BEAST MORTALLY SHALL MAKE IT GOOD. Note, the phrase life for life,40Which concludes verse 18. serves two verses.41Verses 17 and 18. I.E. reads verse 17 as follows: And he that smiteth any man mortally shall surely be put to death, life for life.

פסוק כד:יט · 24:19

Hebrew:

וְאִ֕ישׁ כִּֽי־יִתֵּ֥ן מ֖וּם בַּעֲמִית֑וֹ כַּאֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׂ֔ה כֵּ֖ן יֵעָ֥שֶׂה לּֽוֹ׃

English:

If any party maims another [person]: what was done shall be done in return—

One who inflicts a blemish on his fellow shall have done to him as he has done. Ibn Ezra cites Saadiah Gaon's argument from logic that 'ka-asher asah ken yeasah lo' cannot be taken at face value — the original wound was unintentional, the wound might be in a vital area, and equality of injury is impossible to ensure. The phrase therefore functions, as Chazal teach, as the moral magnitude of the offense, with the actual penalty paid in kofer (ransom money) commensurate with the harm.
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
כן יעשה לו. ואמר שמשון כן עשיתי להם:
SO SHALL IT BE DONE TO HIM. Samson said, so have I done unto them (Jud. 15:11).42The full clause reads, As they did unto me, so have I done unto them. The latter is not to be taken literally, for Samson did not repay his enemies exactly tit for tat. We thus see that as he hath done, so shall it be done to him is not necessarily to be taken literally. It rather means punishment is to be inflicted. The Gaon43Rabbi Saadiah Gaon. brought proof from logic that breach for breach (v. 20) cannot be taken literally. The first wound was made unintentionally. How can we justify making a similar wound?44The Torah does not distinguish (except for murder) between one who harms his neighbor intentionally and one who harms him unintentionally. This being the case, if someone wounded his neighbor unintentionally, how can we justify making a similar wound in him? It should be noted that Rabbi Saadiah Gaon held that the Torah does not contain laws that contradict reason. If the wound is in a vital area, the person will die. The same applies to the eye. How are we to do the same to one who injured his neighbor by causing him to suffer the loss of a third of the sight of an eye?45How can we be sure that we are only removing a third of the eye's vision of the one guilty of doing the same to his neighbor? The words of tradition are thus true.46That as he hath done, so shall it be done to him is not to be taken literally. It rather means that he shall make commensurate compensation. Scripture is to be understood as follows. Ransom money is to be paid in all of these cases. It is fitting to remove his eye if he does not ransom it.47According to I.E.'s short commentary on Ex. 21:24 the eye of the one who blinds his neighbor is removed if he refuses to pay ransom. Should one argue against us and say, what happens if the injurer is poor? Then we answer, Scripture speaks about the majority of cases.48Most people are not poor. It is possible for the poor to become rich.49That is, furthermore it is possible for the poor to become rich. In other words, the poor will pay when they eventually have the means to do so. This also answers those who argue, what shall we do in instances when the injurer of the eye is blind?50And the law of an eye for an eye cannot be applied literally. I.E. in his commentary on Ex. 21:24 (Vol. 2, p. 476) quotes Saadiah Gaon as arguing that an eye for an eye cannot be taken literally, for what shall we do in instances when the injurer is blind? I.E. here counters that argument by saying that Scripture speaks of what is usual, and in cases where a blind person blinds someone the penalty of an eye for an eye is not applicable.

פסוק כד:כ · 24:20

Hebrew:

שֶׁ֚בֶר תַּ֣חַת שֶׁ֔בֶר עַ֚יִן תַּ֣חַת עַ֔יִן שֵׁ֖ן תַּ֣חַת שֵׁ֑ן כַּאֲשֶׁ֨ר יִתֵּ֥ן מוּם֙ בָּֽאָדָ֔ם כֵּ֖ן יִנָּ֥תֶן בּֽוֹ׃

English:

fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The injury inflicted on a human being shall be inflicted in return.

The famous formula: shever tachat shever, ayin tachat ayin, shen tachat shen. Rashi, citing Bava Kamma 84a and Ketubot 32b, insists that 'ken yinaten bo' means monetary compensation, not literal mutilation — the verb 'natan' implies something passed from hand to hand, namely money. The court evaluates the injured party's loss in value (as one would assess a slave) and the offender pays the difference. Ibn Ezra echoes this reading and the Saadiah-Gaon argument.
רש״יRashi
כן ינתן בו. פֵּרְשׁוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ שֶׁאֵינוֹ נְתִינַת מוּם מַמָּשׁ אֶלָּא תַּשְׁלוּמֵי מָמוֹן, שָׁמִין אוֹתוֹ כְּעֶבֶד, לְכָךְ כָּתוּב בּוֹ לְשׁוֹן נְתִינָה — דָּבָר הַנָּתוּן מִיָּד לְיָד (בבא קמא פ"ד; כתובות ל"ב):
כן ינתן בו [AND IF A MAN CAUSES A BLEMISH IN HIS COMPANION…] SO SHALL IT BE DONE TO HIM — Our Rabbis explained that this does not mean the actual infliction of a blemish but that it means monetary compensation — that we estimate his (the injured man's) value as a slave and the offender has to pay the difference between his value as an unmaimed man and that which he represents after the infliction of the injury. It is for this reason that the term נתן "to give" is written here referring to something that is given (passed) from hand to hand viz., money (Ketubot 32b; Bava Kamma 84a).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
והגאון הביא ראיות משקול הדעת כי לא יתכן להיות שבר תחת שבר כמשמעו כי הראשון בא בלא כוונה ואיך יתכן לעשות שבר כמוהו ואם הוא במקום מסוכן הנה ימות וכן בעין ומי שסר שלישית אור עינו איך יוכל לעשות כן בעין החובל על כן דברי הקבלה אמת כי פירוש כל אלה שיש עליו כופר וראוי להוציא עינו אם לא יפדנו ואם טענו עלינו אם היה החובל עני ותשובתינו כי על הרוב דבר הכתוב ושמא יעשיר העני גם זאת התשובה על הטוענים אם היה חובל העין עור כן ינתן בו. יש בי״ת תחת על כמו אשר אני רוכב בה ורבים כן או פירושו כן ינתן בו אם לא יפדה:
SO SHALL IT BE RENDERED UNTO HIM.51Hebrew, bo (literally in him). Hence I.E.'s comment. There are instances where the bet has the meaning of on.52In other words, bo means unto him. I.E. renders our clause, "so shall it be rendered upon him," i.e., a penalty shall be placed upon him. Compare, the beast that I rode upon (bah) (Neh. 2:12). There are many such instances. On the other hand, its meaning might be, so shall it be rendered unto him if he does not pay ransom.53In this case bo means unto him.

פסוק כד:כא · 24:21

Hebrew:

וּמַכֵּ֥ה בְהֵמָ֖ה יְשַׁלְּמֶ֑נָּה וּמַכֵּ֥ה אָדָ֖ם יוּמָֽת׃

English:

One who kills a beast shall make restitution for it; but one who kills a human being shall be put to death.

The Torah pairs animal and human cases once more, but with a sharper edge: one who strikes a beast (causing a wound) makes restitution; one who strikes a person dies. Rashi notes that 'makeh adam yumat' here, lacking the word 'nefesh,' is read as referring to one who strikes his father or mother and inflicts a wound — a capital matter even without the victim's death. Ibn Ezra suggests that the repetition is to extend the law equally to ger and ezrach.
רש״יRashi
ומכה בהמה ישלמנה. לְמַעְלָה דִּבֵּר בְּהוֹרֵג בְּהֵמָה וְכָאן דִּבֵּר בְּעוֹשֶׂה בָהּ חַבּוּרָה: ומכה אדם יומת. אֲפִלּוּ לֹא הֲרָגוֹ אֶלָּא עָשָׂה בוֹ חַבּוּרָה, שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר כָּאן נֶפֶשׁ; וּבְמַכֵּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ דִּבֵּר הַכָּתוּב, וּבָא לְהַקִּישׁוֹ לְמַכֵּה בְהֵמָה, מַה מַּכֵּה בְהֵמָה מֵחַיִּים, אַף מַכֵּה אָבִיו מֵחַיִּים, פְּרָט לְמַכֶּה לְאַחַר מִיתָה; לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ שֶׁהַמְקַלְּלוֹ לְאַחַר מִיתָה חַיָּב, הֻצְרַךְ לוֹמַר בַּמַּכֶּה שֶׁפָּטוּר, וּמַה בִּבְהֵמָה בְּחַבָּלָה, שֶׁאִם אֵין חַבָּלָה אֵין תַּשְׁלוּמִין, אַף מַכֵּה אָבִיו אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶֹה בוֹ חַבּוּרָה (ספרא; סנהדרין פ"ד):
ומכה בהמה ישלמנה AND HE THAT SMITETH A BEAST, HE SHALL PAY FOR IT — Above (v. 18) Scripture was speaking of one who kills a beast, whilst here it speaks of one who inflicts a wound up on it (cf. Rashi on Exodus 21:12). ומכה אדם יומת AND HE THAT SMITETH A MAN SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH — although he has not killed him but only inflicted a wound upon him, because Scripture does not state מכה] נפש] (as it does in v. 17 which implies "smiting of the soul" — killing). Scripture is speaking here of one who smites his father or his mother when he is punishable with death for mere smiting without fatal result (cf. Rashi on Exodus 21:15). It is true that the punishment for this offence has already been stated (Exodus 24:17) but Scripture intends by putting this case in juxtaposition with מכה בהמה to put it in some respect on a level with the case of one who smites a beast. How is it in the case of one who smites a beast? He is subject to the law only if he smote it while it was alive! So, too, is one who smites his father (or his mother) punishable only if he smites them whilst they are alive, thus excluding from the death penalty one who smites them after their death. Because we find that he who curses him (the father; — the same applies to the mother) after death is liable to the death penalty (cf. Rashi Leviticus 20:9), Scripture was compelled to state with reference to one who smites his parents that he is exempt from the death penalty if he does this after their death (as stated above). And there is another point of comparison: How is it in the case of a beast? The law speaks only of smiting resulting in a wound! — for if there is no wound resulting no compensation can be claimed — so, too, he who smites his father is not liable to the death penalty unless he inflicts a wound upon him (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 8; Sanhedrin 84a, 85b).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
וטעם ומכה בהמה. פעם אחרת להזכיר הגר כי נתינת המום הוא בישראל כי כן כתוב בעמיתו רק מכה אדם ובהמה משפט אחד להם כגר כאזרח וכבר הודעתיך כי בהתחבר שני כפי״ן הוא דרך קצרה גם הכתוב אחז דרך קצרה שלא הזכיר עם מכה אדם ומת כי ידוע הוא כי המכה לא יומת עד מות המוכה. ופירוש אחר הזכיר בתחלה נפש והטעם שהכהו במקום מסוכן ואחר כן אמר כלל מי שימית יומת בין שיכה במקום מסוכן או שאינו מסוכן על כן לא הזכיר נפש:
[AND HE THAT KILLETH A BEAST.] Scripture repeats And he that killeth a beast…54And he that killeth a man… because it wants to mention the stranger, for when Scripture speaks of maiming (v. 19) it speaks of an Israelite, for the Torah clearly says,55In verse 19. his neighbor. However, there is one law for both the stranger and the native regarding he that kills a person and he that kills a beast.I have previously informed you that Scripture is being brief when two cafs come together.56That is, when two words with a kaf prefix follow each other. Our verse reads ka-ger ka-ezrach (as well for the stranger, as for the home-born). According to I.E. ka-ger ka-ezrach is short for ha-ger ke-ezrach, ve-ha'ezrach ka-ger (the stranger is like the home-born and the home-born is like the stranger). See I.E. on Gen. 44:18 (Vol. 1, p. 396). Scripture also chooses to employ brevity when it does not add "and he dies" to u-makkeh adam57Literally, and he that strikes a man. (and he that killeth a man), for it is known that the culprit is not executed unless the one who is struck dies. Another interpretation for the repetition58Why verse 21 repeats verses 17 and 18. is that Scripture earlier mentions "mortally" (v. 17).59Hebrew, nefesh. The latter refers to a blow struck in a vital area. Scripture then lays down60In our verse. the following general law: A person who kills shall be put to death whether the blow was struck in a vital area or in a non-vital area. The word nefesh (mortal) is thus not mentioned.61In our verse.

פסוק כד:כב · 24:22

Hebrew:

מִשְׁפַּ֤ט אֶחָד֙ יִהְיֶ֣ה לָכֶ֔ם כַּגֵּ֥ר כָּאֶזְרָ֖ח יִהְיֶ֑ה כִּ֛י אֲנִ֥י יְהֹוָ֖ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶֽם׃

English:

You shall have one standard for stranger and citizen alike: for I יהוה am your God.

One law for ger and for ezrach: 'For I am the Lord your God.' Rashi reads 'Eloheikhem' as the God of all of you alike — just as the divine Name is associated with the native-born, so too with the convert. Or HaChaim is precise about the phrasing: the Torah does not write 'ha-ger ka-ezrach' but 'ka-ger ka-ezrach,' implying mutual likeness in legal standing rather than the convert being measured against the native as a lower category.
רש״יRashi
אני ה' אלהיכם. אֱלֹהֵי כֻלְּכֶם, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֲנִי מְיַחֵד שְׁמִי עֲלֵיכֶם, כָּךְ אֲנִי מְיַחֲדוֹ עַל הַגֵּרִים:
‎'אני ה אלהיכם I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD — your God — the God of all of you. Just as I attach My Name to you, so do I attach it to the strangers.
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
וטעם אלהיכם. אלהי האזרח ואלהי הגר:
[YOUR GOD.] The God of the native and the God of the stranger.
ספורנוSforno
כגר כאזרח יהיה כי אני ה' אלהיכם. אלהי הגר ואלהי האזרח ולא נכר שוע לפני דל:
כגר כאזרח יהיה, for I the Lord your G'd am just as much the G'd of the convert (compare Job 34,19).
אור החייםOr HaChaim
כגר כאזרח. ולא אמר הגר כאזרח, שאז יהיה נשמע כי מדרגת גר למטה ממדרגת אזרח שהקטן נתלה בגדול, לזה אמר כגר כאזרח פירוש האזרח כגר והגר כאזרח ששקולים הם במשפט:
כגר כאזרת, convert and natural-born Israelite alike. The Torah did not write: הגר כאזרח, "the convert himself is equal to the natural-born Israelite." The reason is that in the scale of relative degrees of sanctity the convert ranks below the natural-born Israelite. The wording the Torah did use relates only to both categories of Israelites being equal before the law.

פסוק כד:כג · 24:23

Hebrew:

וַיְדַבֵּ֣ר מֹשֶׁה֮ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ וַיּוֹצִ֣יאוּ אֶת־הַֽמְקַלֵּ֗ל אֶל־מִחוּץ֙ לַֽמַּחֲנֶ֔ה וַיִּרְגְּמ֥וּ אֹת֖וֹ אָ֑בֶן וּבְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֣ל עָשׂ֔וּ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֛ר צִוָּ֥ה יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶת־מֹשֶֽׁה׃ {פ}

English:

Moses spoke thus to the Israelites. And they took the blasphemer outside the camp and pelted him with stones. The Israelites did as יהוה had commanded Moses.

The parasha closes with the execution: the people take the blasphemer outside the camp and stone him, fulfilling all that the Lord had commanded Moshe. Rashi explains that 'ovnei Yisrael asu' encompasses all the procedural elements of stoning — pushing the offender from a height, the throwing of stones, and the post-execution hanging. Sforno emphasizes the people's pure motive: they did not stone him out of hatred for the convert or out of partisanship in the original quarrel, but solely to fulfill the divine command. Or HaChaim sees in this closing line the Torah's credit to all of Israel as having performed the command.
רש״יRashi
ובני ישראל עשו. כָּל הַמִּצְוָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַּסְּקִילָה בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר — דְּחִיָּה, רְגִימָה וּתְלִיָּה (עי' ספרא; סנהדרין מ"ג):
ובני ישראל עשו AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL DID [AS THE LORD COMMANDED MOSES] every prescription mentioned in respect to the stoning-penalty in another place, viz., the casting down of the culprit from a height, the heaping of stones upon him, and the hanging him after the execution has taken place (cf. Sifra, Emor, Chapter 19 10; Sanhedrin 43a).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
ובני ישראל עשו. מאותו היום כמשפט הזה בחובל:
AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL DID. They did from this day and onward to one who injures his neighbor, in accordance with this law.
ספורנוSforno
ובני ישראל עשו כאשר צוה ה' את משה. שלא רגמוהו מפני שנאה על שהיה גר ושהתגרה באזרח אבל עשו לבלתי סור מן המצוה:
ובני ישראל עשו כאשר צוה ה' את משה, they did not stone him as an act of revenge, or because they hated the individual being stoned; they did it merely in order to fulfill G'd's commandment.
אור החייםOr HaChaim
ובני ישראל עשו וגו'. קשה מה מקום ובני ישראל עשו וגו' אחר שאמר ויוציאו את המקלל וגו' וירגמו אותו אבן הריני רואה שעשו את אשר צוה ה', וי"ל לצד שהיה הדבר על ידי מריבה ומחלוקת שהיתה בין הישראלי ובין בן הישראלית יש מקום לומר שעשו בו משפט כתוב לאמצעות גם כן טינא שבלב, לזה אמר עשו כאשר צוה ה' פירוש לצד מצות ה' הוא שעשו: או נתכוין הכתוב להעלות המצוה שעשאוה כל ישראל הגם שלא היתה בו יד כולם: או ירצה שעל ידי מעשה זה שקנאו קנאת כבודו יתברך העלה עליהם הכתוב גם כן כאלו עשו כל התורה, והוא אומרו כאשר צוה ה' את משה בדרך כלל: או יאמר על זה הדרך לצד שבמצות ה' למשה אמר הוצא את המקלל שחוזר אל משה כי הוא יוציא אותו והרגימה תהיה על ידי ישראל דכתיב ורגמו אותו כל העדה, וכאן אמר ויוציאו המקלל שחוזר אל ישראל המוזכרים בסמוך, ובא הכתוב לשבח לישראל ואמר ובני ישראל עשו כאשר צוה ה' למשה, פירוש לעשות הוא קדמו הם בדברו אליהם ועשו אותו קודם שיעשהו משה לצד הזריזות והמהירות לקיים מצות ה', ולדרכים הראשונים נפרש הוצא, או הוא או שלוחו: חסלת פרשת אמור
ובני ישראל עשו כאשר צוה השם. The children of Israel did as G'd commanded. Why did the Torah write that the children of Israel did what G'd commanded after it had already reported in the first part of the verse that they took the blasphemer out of the camp and executed him by stoning him? Seeing that the cause of this execution was a quarrel between a Jew and the son of a Jewess, one could have argued that though the judgment was carried out, many people harboured reservations in their hearts about this execution. The Torah therefore repeats that the children of Israel did what G'd commanded to indicate that their motivation was to carry out G'd's commandment. Alternatively, the Torah wished to give credit to the whole people for having fulfilled this commandment although it was obviously impossible for the entire nation to physically participate in this execution. The Torah may even go beyond this and credit the whole people with having fulfilled all the commandments because they all identified with this execution. This is why the line is couched in general terms, the Torah not specifying which command of G'd the people had fulfilled. It is also possible that the Torah had to write this line seeing that the command to execute the blasphemer had been addressed to Moses, G'd addressing him in the singular and saying (verse 14) "take the blasphemer outside the camp and have all those who heard his blasphemy place their hands upon his head and the whole congregation shall stone him." According to that verse we thought that whereas Moses was only to take the blasphemer outside, the entire people had to execute him. Here the Torah wrote: "they took the blasphemer outside the camp and stoned him to death." The verse makes the people the whole subject. The Torah now proceeds to praise Israel for not having waited until Moses took the blasphemer outside the camp; they did so themselves and proceeded to complete the commandment to execute him. If we adopt the previous ways of interpreting the verse the word הוצא "take out" which G'd said to Moses may be understood to mean that either Moses or the people were to do this.

Aliyah 6 — ששי |

Back to Parashat Emor | Back to Parashat HaShavua

Last updated on