Parshas Emor
1. At the end of the Sidrah (on the verse "וידבר משה גו' ויוציאו את המקלל גו' וירגמו אותו אבן ובני ישראל עשו כאשר צוה ה' את משה" ("Moshe spoke … and they took the blasphemer out … and they stoned him with a stone; and the Children of Israel did as G‑d had commanded Moshe")), Rashi pauses on "ובני ישראל עשו" ("and the Children of Israel did") and says: "כל המצוה האמורה בסקילה במקום אחר: דחי' רגימה ותלי'" ("The entire commandment stated regarding stoning elsewhere: pushing, stoning and hanging").
Studying this at first glance, it emerges that Rashi's difficulty is with "and the Children of Israel did" (on account of which he must explain "the entire commandment etc."): the verse has already said "and they stoned him with a stone" — so what does it add with "and the Children of Israel did"?1 To this he answers that with these words the verse means to relate that they (not only stoned him, but also) performed the other commandments stated regarding stoning: "pushing" (which Rashi already states in an earlier Sidrah: "מכאן לנסקלין שהם נדחין כו'" ("From here we learn that those who are stoned are pushed etc.")2) and "hanging" (which Rashi states in a later Sidrah: "כל הנסקלין נתלין" ("All who are stoned are hanged")3).
According to this, however, there is a difficulty: Since Rashi is explaining what the words "and the Children … did" add to "and they stoned him with a stone," he should have said only pushing and hanging, but not stoning — stoning, seemingly, need not be included in "and the Children … did," since it is already stated explicitly earlier, "and they stoned him with a stone"?
The question is even stronger: Rashi's explanation that "and the Children of Israel did" refers to the other commandments stated regarding stoning is (seemingly) taken from Toras Kohanim. And there it enumerates all the matters required in the punishment of stoning — leaning of the hands, pushing, hanging and "לא תלין נבלתו על העץ" ("his body shall not remain overnight on the tree")4 — but stoning is indeed not mentioned there5. Why does Rashi deviate and add stoning as well?
2. Just as it is not understood why Rashi adds stoning, so too it is difficult: why does he omit the leaning of the hands (semichah) and "his body shall not remain overnight"?
Regarding semichah one could answer that Rashi enumerates only "the commandment stated regarding stoning elsewhere," and therefore he does not mention semichah, because that is stated earlier in this very passage6: "וסמכו כל השומעים את ידיהם על ראשו" ("All who heard shall lean their hands upon his head")7. But why does he omit "his body shall not remain overnight on the tree"?
Seemingly, one could say that since at the verse "his body shall not remain overnight" it is stated "ולא תטמא את אדמתך גו'" ("and you shall not defile your land …"), the law (according to the plain meaning) applies only in Eretz Yisrael. Consequently, since the episode of the blasphemer in our passage took place in the desert and not in Eretz Yisrael, Rashi here omits "his body shall not remain overnight."
However, one cannot learn this way, for the reason for "his body shall not remain overnight" is (not "and you shall not defile your land," but) as stated explicitly in the verse (before it): "כי קללת אלקים תלוי" ("for a hanged man is a curse of G‑d"), and as Rashi explains there, "זלזולו של מלך הוא כו'" ("it is a disgrace to the King etc."). Accordingly it is understood that the law of "his body shall not remain overnight" applies in other places as well (not only in Eretz Yisrael)8. So why does Rashi omit it in our passage?
3. In addition to the difficulties regarding the details that Rashi enumerates in "the entire commandment stated regarding stoning etc.," his general explanation is also not understood:
Earlier in the passage it is stated that G‑d told Moshe that three things should be done with the blasphemer: a) "הוצא גו' אל מחוץ למחנה" ("Take … outside the camp"); b) "וסמכו גו' את ידיהם על ראשו" ("they shall lean … their hands upon his head"); c) "ורגמו אותו גו'" ("and they shall stone him …"). But at the end of the passage, where the fulfillment of the command is related, only two things are stated explicitly: "ויוציאו את המקלל אל מחוץ למחנה" ("they took the blasphemer outside the camp") and "and they stoned him with a stone." "ויסמכו את ידיהם" ("they leaned their hands") is not mentioned in the fulfillment of the command.
It is not understood: what compels Rashi to learn that with "and the Children of Israel did as G‑d had commanded Moshe" the verse means "the entire commandment stated regarding stoning elsewhere" (unlike in most places9, where "as G‑d had commanded" refers to the command of that very passage)? Seemingly, he should have said that with "and the Children of Israel did etc." the verse means that they leaned their hands upon his head!
The question is even stronger: According to Rashi's explanation that "and the Children of Israel did" refers to the commands stated elsewhere, it emerges that the verse relates the fulfillment of the command "Take out the blasphemer"; "and they shall stone him"; and also "the entire commandment etc. elsewhere" (pushing, (stoning,) and hanging) — but the fulfillment of the command "they shall lean …" of our passage is not mentioned at all in the entire verse — not even by allusion!
4. As has been discussed many times, in Rashi's commentary not only the words of his explanation are precise, but also the words of the verse that he quotes (before the explanation).
It is not understood: Rashi derives the explanation "the entire commandment etc." from the words "as … commanded …"; so why does he quote only "and the Children of Israel did" and not the words "as … commanded"10, and (what is more:) he does not even allude to them by adding "etc."?
It is also not understood: Rashi here is explaining the word "did" — what the Jews did besides "they took out" and "they stoned." Why must he also quote "and the Children of Israel"?
5. The explanation of all the above:
The question that troubles Rashi here is (not only what they did in addition to "they took out" and "they stoned," but also)11 the wording "and the Children of Israel did": "they took out" and "they stoned" were also done by the Jews — so why is "the Children of Israel" stated specifically with "did"? Either "the Children of Israel" need not have been stated at all regarding the fulfillment of the command — for at the beginning of the verse it says "וידבר משה אל בני ישראל" ("Moshe spoke to the Children of Israel"), so it is understood that all the subsequent matters were done by the Jews, and therefore it could have said "ויעשו כאשר צוה ה' את משה" ("and they did as G‑d had commanded Moshe"); and if the verse does want to mention "the Children of Israel" also in the fulfillment of the command, it should have said so at the beginning of the matter: "ויוציאו בני ישראל גו' וירגמו גו' ויעשו כאשר צוה גו'" ("The Children of Israel took out … and stoned … and did as … had commanded …")?
From the fact that it does not simply say "and they did …," but "and the Children of Israel did," it necessarily follows that before this — in the first half of the verse — it speaks (not of all the Jews, but) of "כל השומעים" ("all who heard") (the witnesses and judges); while in the second half of the verse, "and the Children of Israel did," it speaks of all the other Jews — just as earlier it distinguishes "all who heard" from "כל העדה" ("the entire congregation").
Therefore Rashi cannot learn — in the plain meaning12 of Scripture — that "and the Children … did" refers to semichah, because regarding semichah it is stated "and all who heard shall lean …"; and since here it says "and the Children of Israel did," Rashi therefore learns that this refers to the commands stated elsewhere — pushing13, (stoning,) and hanging — which are done by all the Jews.
6. According to this, however, it is difficult: why does the verse not relate that they also fulfilled the command "they shall lean"? Therefore Rashi learns that "as G‑d had commanded" relates not only to "and the Children of Israel did," but to the entire verse — also to "they stoned," which was done by "all who heard": that they stoned him precisely "as G‑d had commanded Moshe." That is, before they stoned him, they leaned their hands upon his head14, as G‑d had told Moshe: "they shall lean … and they shall stone …".
Therefore Rashi quotes only the words "and the Children of Israel did," and he separates (and omits) "as … had commanded …," to teach us that "as … had commanded" relates also to "they stoned," as above.
7. According to the above (section 5), that "they took out … they stoned …" refers to the witnesses (and judges) and "and the Children of Israel did" — to the other Jews, it is understood that "and the Children of Israel did" can include (not only pushing and hanging, but) also stoning that is not included in "and they stoned him with a stone" stated here earlier — because after the stone that the witnesses threw at him, the other Jews threw more stones at him, as is the law regarding stoning: "יד העדים תהי' בו בראשונה להמיתו ויד כל העם באחרונה" ("The hand of the witnesses shall be upon him first to put him to death, and the hand of all the people afterwards")15 — that if he was not killed by the stone the witnesses threw, "all the people" had to pelt him with more stones16.
It is still difficult, however: the above is only an explanation of how "and the Children of Israel did" can include stoning as well. But how does Rashi know that he was indeed not killed by the stone that the witnesses threw at him17, and that "the Children of Israel" threw more stones at him? It could be that he was killed by the stone with which the witnesses stoned him, and "and the Children of Israel did" refers only to pushing and hanging (not stoning)? On the contrary — this way Rashi would avoid a disagreement between his study according to the plain meaning and the study according to halachah — as brought in Toras Kohanim — which does not count stoning, as above. Especially since, apparently, Rashi takes his explanation here from Toras Kohanim, yet he (changes and) adds "stoning"!
8. The explanation of this:
At the beginning of the verse, before it relates what was done to the blasphemer — "they took out … they stoned … and the Children of Israel did …" — it states "Moshe spoke to the Children of Israel."
What did Moshe say to the Jews? It is simply understood that he conveyed to them the statement of the Holy One, blessed be He, "איש איש כי יקלל גו'" ("Any man who curses …")18 — regarding a blasphemer in general (and not merely the command "הוצא את המקלל גו' ורגמו אותו גו'" ("Take out the blasphemer … and they shall stone him …") — what should be done with this blasphemer).
On the contrary: since in G‑d's command "Take out the blasphemer …" it is not mentioned that Moshe should say it to the Jews, whereas the statement "Any man who curses …" begins with "ואל בני ישראל תדבר לאמר" ("And to the Children of Israel you shall speak, saying"), it is understood that "Moshe spoke to the Children of Israel" means (primarily, at least) that Moshe conveyed to them the laws of a blasphemer in general.
The question then arises: what is the connection between "Moshe spoke to the Children of Israel" at the beginning of this verse (which refers primarily to the laws of a blasphemer in general) and the continuation of the verse — "they took the blasphemer out …" — which relates what was done to this blasphemer?
The answer: From the fact that before "they took out … they stoned … and the Children of Israel did …" the verse prefaces the words "Moshe spoke to the Children of Israel," it is logical to say that the Jews also did to the blasphemer such actions as they derived (not from the command "Take out the blasphemer …" and not from the laws of stoning stated elsewhere, but) from the passage "And to the Children … you shall speak, saying … Any man who curses …".
Therefore Rashi explains that "and the Children of Israel did" refers (not only to pushing and hanging, which are stated elsewhere, but) also to stoning. That is, after the stoning by the witnesses — "and they shall stone him with a stone" — the Children of Israel also stoned him, because this matter (stoning by all the Jews) they derived from the verse "רגום ירגמו בו כל העדה" ("the entire congregation shall surely stone him")19, which is stated in the passage of "Any man who curses …".
9. We still need to understand, however:
a) In the command "Take out the blasphemer" as well (which is stated regarding the first blasphemer) it says "ורגמו אותו כל העדה" ("and the entire congregation shall stone him"), and yet Rashi learns there that this means "במעמד כל העדה" ("in the presence of the entire congregation"). So what compels us to say that the meaning of "the entire congregation shall surely stone him" (which is stated regarding every blasphemer) is different from "and … the entire congregation shall stone him," which is stated two verses earlier?
And although in the command "Take out the blasphemer" the verse first mentions (before "and the entire congregation shall stone him") "all who heard," whereas in the command "the entire congregation shall surely stone him," stated regarding a blasphemer in general, "all who heard" is not stated before it — this is no proof that the meaning of "the entire congregation" for every blasphemer should be different from that for the first blasphemer20!
b) If Rashi does have a compelling reason that "the entire congregation shall surely stone him" means that all the Jews must stone him — how does he derive that "and the Children of Israel did" also refers to pushing and hanging, which are stated elsewhere? It could be that it refers only to "stoning" (by the entire congregation)21?
10. The explanation of this:
Regarding no one liable to the death penalty do we find22 that the witnesses and judges must lean their hands upon his head and say to him "דמך בראשך ואין אנו נענשים במיתתך" ("Your blood is upon your own head, and we are not punished for your death") (and this is simply understood: why should one even entertain the thought that they would be punished for his death — he is liable to death by law). Why then, with this blasphemer, did they have to lean their hands and say "and we are not punished for your death"23?
There is another difference in the matter of "and they shall stone him" stated regarding the blasphemer, compared with the obligation of stoning in other places:
Wherever the obligation of stoning is stated, the verse uses not only the term stoning (רגימה or סקילה), but also the term death. Thus regarding Molech, before the words "ירגמוהו באבן" ("they shall pelt him with stones") it states "מות יומת" ("he shall surely be put to death")24. So too regarding Ov and Yidoni it states "מות יומתו באבן ירגמו אותם" ("they shall surely be put to death; they shall pelt them with stones")25 [and also regarding the blasphemer himself — a blasphemer in general — "מות יומת רגום ירגמו בו" ("he shall surely be put to death; they shall surely stone him")19]. Whereas in the command regarding the first blasphemer it says only "and they shall stone him," and the term death is not mentioned.
11. What is the reason for these two differences?
The obligation of the death penalty applies only where there was a warning (hasra'ah)26. Since with the first blasphemer there was no warning (for since "לא היו יודעים אם חייב מיתה אם לאו" ("they did not know whether he was liable to death or not")27, they could not have warned him28), and the command "and they shall stone him" was a temporary directive (hora'as sha'ah)29, one can therefore say that this stoning differs from every other obligation of stoning:
With all others liable to stoning (all of whom were warned), he must be stoned until "he shall surely be put to death," i.e., if he did not die from the first stone, more stones must be thrown at him until he is killed. Whereas here, where he had not been warned, it is a lesser punishment: only one stone must be thrown at him, and if he does not die from that stone, there is no obligation to throw more stones at him, and consequently one may not throw more. This is similar to lashes (malkos), where it is possible that one will kill him through the lashes29*, but one is not permitted to do so30.
Therefore, specifically here one must make the declaration "and we are not punished for your death," for since he is not liable to death (it is only a law of stoning), one might therefore think that they will be punished for his death if he is killed by that stone31.
Accordingly, it is understood that the meaning of "the entire congregation shall surely stone him," which is stated regarding a blasphemer in general, is (not that only "those who heard" must stone him "in the presence of the entire congregation" — as is the meaning of "and the entire congregation shall stone him" stated regarding the first blasphemer — but rather) as stated before it, "he shall surely be put to death": that there is an obligation upon all the Jews to stone him until he dies. For since regarding "ונוקב שם ה'" ("one who pronounces the Name of G‑d [in blasphemy]") (with a warning) there is the obligation of "he shall surely be put to death," it is understood that if he was not killed by the stone that the witnesses threw at him, "the entire congregation" must pelt him with more stones, until "he shall surely be put to death"32.
12. Even though from the verse "Take out the blasphemer … and they shall stone him …" one knows only the law of stoning, i.e., that those who heard must throw one stone at him (and if he is not killed by that stone, one need not throw more stones at him so that he be killed by them), nevertheless, since the command "ונוקב שם ה' מות יומת רגום ירגמו בו כל העדה" ("One who pronounces the Name of G‑d shall surely be put to death; the entire congregation shall surely stone him") was said in connection with the first blasphemer, and before "they took the blasphemer out …" the verse relates "Moshe spoke to the Children of Israel" (that Moshe conveyed to the Jews) also (and primarily) the passage "And to the Children of Israel you shall speak … one who pronounces … shall surely be put to death …," as above, section 8 — it is therefore logical to say that the command "he shall surely be put to death …" was said also regarding the first blasphemer.
That is, in addition to the command "all who heard shall lean … and they shall stone him …," which was said specifically regarding the first blasphemer, and only to "all who heard," there was together with it another command, by way of a temporary directive, addressed to "the entire congregation" equally: that although he committed the sin without a warning, nevertheless "he shall surely be put to death; the entire congregation shall surely stone him," just like "one who pronounces the Name of G‑d" with a warning33.
And since from the sequence of the verses it is understood that "and the Children of Israel did" refers to something that was said in the passage "And to the Children of Israel you shall speak …," Rashi therefore learns that through "and they stoned him with a stone" (in the singular) by the witnesses, he did not die, and the Children of Israel stoned him with more stones.
13. According to the above we will also understand why Rashi explains that "and the Children of Israel did" refers (not only to stoning, which is derived from the verse "the entire congregation shall surely stone him" stated here, but also) to "the entire commandment stated regarding stoning," including pushing and hanging:
The command "and they shall stone him …," which was said specifically regarding the first blasphemer — since with him there was no obligation of "he shall surely be put to death" (as with the command "they shall stone" regarding one liable to stoning, that he must be stoned until "he shall surely be put to death") — is not a matter of the death penalty of sekilah.
Since, however, from "Moshe spoke to the Children of Israel" the Jews understood that the blasphemer was also subject to the law of "he shall surely be put to death; the entire congregation shall surely stone him," and this stoning is indeed a matter of sekilah, it is understood that they not only stoned him, but they also did "the entire commandment stated regarding stoning" — pushing and hanging as well.
14. Although from the preface "Moshe spoke to the Children of Israel" one knows that "and the Children … did" refers to "the entire commandment stated regarding stoning elsewhere," nevertheless Rashi enumerates only "pushing, stoning and hanging," and omits "his body shall not remain overnight."
The explanation of this: Since the reason for the law "his body shall not remain overnight on the tree" is, as stated explicitly in Scripture, "for a hanged man is a curse of G‑d," and as Rashi explains, "it is a disgrace to the King," it follows that "his body shall not remain overnight" is not a component of stoning, but of preserving "כבודו של מלך" ("the honor of the King") — to protect the honor of the one who was stoned, who is made in the image of G‑d's likeness.
And although the prohibition says "his body shall not remain overnight on the tree," which proves that the prohibition comes in continuation of the preceding verse "ותלית אותו על עץ" ("and you shall hang him on a tree"), which is stated specifically regarding those who are stoned34; and especially since the reason for "his body shall not remain overnight" — "for a hanged man is a curse of G‑d" — refers (also) to "המברך ה'" ("one who blasphemes G‑d")34, who is liable to stoning (but not to an ordinary dead person35) — this is, however, (not because "his body shall not remain overnight" is a component of stoning, but) because "a disgrace to the King" applies specifically where the sinner was hanged because "נתפס ללסטיות" ("he was caught for banditry") — that he committed an exceedingly grave sin for which one is liable to stoning.
15. This still requires explanation: Due to the matter of "a hanged man is a curse of G‑d — it is a disgrace to the King etc.," the Torah, seemingly, should not have allowed him to be hanged even for a short while — even for one moment36; for one may not, G‑d forbid, disgrace "the King"37?
However, there is in this a matter of the "יינה של תורה" ("wine of the Torah," its inner dimension):
On the verse "and you shall hang him on a tree," the Arizal explains that "on a tree" refers to the (sin of the) Tree of Knowledge38. Accordingly, one can interpret this also in the plain meaning of this verse, with the following preface:
a) It is known39 that the first sin, the sin of the Tree of Knowledge of Adam HaRishon (who comprises all human beings40), is the source and grants the possibility for sin to be able to exist at all. After the possibility for the existence of sin came about, there can also result — through many descents etc., as Rashi says41, "הראשונה גוררת השני' כו'" ("the first draws on the second etc.") — until it comes to a grave sin, to a "חטא משפט מות" ("a sin worthy of death"), to a prohibition punishable by stoning (the most severe of all the death penalties42), even to blasphemy, may G‑d spare us43.
Accordingly one can say (by way of allusion) in this verse:
b) "וכי יהי' באיש" ("If there will be in a man") (which indicates importance — as Rashi explains44, "master," "mighty one") "חטא" ("a sin") (unqualified — which can mean no more than an inadvertent sin45. Afterwards comes something even more severe:) "משפט מות" ("worthy of death") (unqualified — up to the most severe) "והומת" ("and he is put to death") (by the court46. How can this happen to an "איש," a man of stature? — The answer is: the possibility for it, and its source and cause:) "ותלית אותו על עץ" ("and you shall hang him on a tree") (of Knowledge).
16. This is also the explanation of why "and you shall hang him on a tree" must specifically come after "and he is put to death"47:
The simple reason is: Although even those executed by the court confess, saying "תהא מיתתי כפרה על כל עונותי" ("May my death be an atonement for all my sins")48, and the atonement is so great that it atones even for all his sins49 — nevertheless there is also required50 death, burial and decomposition of the flesh (or the anguish of chibut hakever, the beating in the grave), at which point he is atoned through his death and his disgrace. Likewise one can explain the obligation of "and you shall hang him" — "דאית בי' בזיון" ("because there is disgrace in it"), as is also stated as the reason why "לא היו מתאבלין עליהן" ("they would not mourn them")51 — there must be an additional disgrace, especially for an exceedingly grave sin such as that of those who are stoned etc.
This still requires explanation, however: burial and decomposition of the flesh are (details of, and) connected52 to death ("אל עפר תשוב" ("to dust you shall return")), whereby "מיתתי53 כפרה" ("my death is an atonement") — but why was specifically the disgrace of hanging on a tree required? The Gemara there54 brings several kinds of disgrace: dragging the bones, leaving [the body] overnight without reason, (rain) dripping on his bier etc.?
According to the above it is understood: In a "sin worthy of death" there are two aspects: the general existence of the sin as it comes from its source — the sin of the Tree of Knowledge; and how it became more and more severe until it came to a "sin worthy of death." Therefore, after "and he is put to death," which atones for the "sin (as it descended to the severity of being) worthy of death," the completion of the atonement comes specifically when its source too is atoned (wiped away). And since its source — "and you shall hang him" — is "on a tree" (of Knowledge), therefore there is also the additional disgrace of "and you shall hang him on a tree" — literally.
This is also connected to "מיתתי כפרתי" ("my death is my atonement") — for the sin of the Tree of Knowledge is the root and source of the entire phenomenon of sin and — of the entire phenomenon of death55.
17. According to this it will also be resolved why he must first be hanged, and only afterwards comes the command "his body shall not remain overnight …":
Although, because of the matter of "a hanged man is a curse of G‑d — it is a disgrace to the King etc.," the Torah seemingly should not have allowed him to be hanged even for a short while (as above, section 15) —
[it is] because precisely through "and you shall hang him on a tree" (which shows that the sin he committed stems from the sin of the Tree of Knowledge, and that this too has been wiped away through the hanging) the "דמות דיוקנו של מלך" ("the image of the King's likeness") is revealed in him; and therefore immediately56 after the hanging he must be taken down from the gallows, because "אדם עשוי בדמות דיוקנו וישראל הם בניו" ("man is made in the image of His likeness, and Israel are His children")57.
(From the sichah of Shabbos Parshas Emor 5725)
Notes
1) The Ramban here: "ופשוטו.. כי כן יכפול בכל השומרים מצות השם.. ויעשו בני' גו' כן עשו" ("Its plain meaning … for so Scripture repeats regarding all who observe G‑d's commandments … 'and the Children of Israel did … so they did'"). However, in all the places the Ramban cites (Bo 12:28; ibid. 50; Bamidbar 1:54; Korach 17:26) it says "ויעשו" ("and they did") or "ויעש" ("and he did") — without specifying the action. Whereas here, where first it says "they took out … and they stoned him with a stone" and afterwards "and the Children of Israel did," it is reasonable that "did" adds further actions. But see below, note 11.
2) Yisro 19:13.
3) Teitzei 21:22.
4) Ibid. 23.
5) Nor in Sanhedrin 43a on this verse.
6) 24:14.
7) But this is forced, for [besides the fact that according to this the question is magnified as to why Rashi counts stoning, which is written in this very verse!] regarding what "and the Children of Israel did" adds over "and they stoned him with a stone," it makes no difference whether the command is stated in this passage or elsewhere (on the contrary, "as … had commanded" in most places refers to a command in the passage under discussion, as below, section 3).
8) What is written, "and you shall not defile your land …," is an addition that emphasizes the severity of the matter. Similar to "ולא תקיא הארץ" ("and the land shall not vomit [you] out") (Acharei 18:25; Kedoshim 20:22) — although the preceding laws are not dependent on the land. Moreover: in Parshas Eikev (11:18-21) it is written "ושמתם את דברי גו' למען ירבו גו' על האדמה גו'" ("You shall place these words of Mine … so that [your days] may be multiplied … upon the land …") — although "You shall place these words of Mine etc." applies "(even) after you are exiled" (Rashi there). This is not the place to elaborate.
9) See the sources cited in notes 1 and 11, et al.
10) Especially since the derivation in Toras Kohanim here (both for semichah and for pushing etc.) is on the words "and the Children … did as G‑d had commanded Moshe," whereas Rashi deviates and quotes only "and the Children … did."
11) One can also say that what troubled Rashi is only the wording "and the Children of Israel did," while the repetition of "they stoned … did" can be explained according to the Ramban's interpretation, "והנכון בעיני כו'" ("What appears correct to me is etc."). So too in Sforno here. Or it can be explained according to the first interpretation in the Ramban (quoted above, note 1), for one can say (unlike in the above note) that it is Scripture's way to repeat [the statement] regarding those who observe G‑d's commandments even when it first specifies the action (as in "ויעשו בני' גו'" ("and the Children of Israel did …") (Pekudei 39:32; see also there, 42) — although before that it specifies etc.).
12) Unlike in Toras Kohanim and in Sanhedrin there.
13) According to this we learn a novelty (in the plain meaning): that the pushing — although it comes before the stoning by those who heard — was done by "the entire congregation," and not as in the plain meaning of the verse "יד העדים תהי' בו בראשונה" ("The hand of the witnesses shall be upon him first"). This requires further study.
14) This is made even sweeter according to Rashi (24:14), that with the semichah they explain the matter of the stoning.
15) Shoftim 17:7 (and one can say that this too is included in "elsewhere" in Rashi's commentary. See below, end of section 8).
16) As Rashi explains regarding an inciter (Re'eh 13:10) — before the verse in Shoftim — in explaining "and the hand of all the people afterwards" there.
17) Especially since this is something that is not at all common, to the extent that they said (Sanhedrin 45b): "מעולם לא שנה בה אדם" ("No one ever needed a second [stone]").
18) 24:15 ff.
19) 24:16.
20) For Rashi's proof that "the entire congregation" in the first verse means "in the presence of the entire congregation," and not "the entire congregation" [itself], is seemingly [not because "all who heard" is stated before it (for on the contrary: from the plain wording of the verse "all who heard shall lean … and the entire congregation shall stone him," it is implied that "all who heard" refers only to "they shall lean," while "they shall stone him" refers (not to "all who heard," but) to "the entire congregation") — but rather] because it is impossible for the entire congregation (six hundred thousand and more) to stone him, it is therefore necessary to explain that "the entire congregation" means in the presence of the entire congregation and as their agents, as Rashi concludes: "מכאן ששלוחו של אדם כמותו" ("From here [we learn] that a person's agent is like himself") (and similar to Rashi on Bo 12:6, s.v. "ושחטו"). And since the verse does not specify who the agents are, it is reasonable that they are "all who heard," mentioned [earlier] (unlike "and they shall slaughter it" in Parshas Bo there — where they are all equal in it). If so, "the entire congregation shall surely stone him" (stated regarding a blasphemer in general) must also, seemingly, be explained to mean that those who heard must stone him in the presence of the entire congregation and as their agents. See below, note 30.
21) Especially since "as G‑d had commanded" in most places refers to the command in the passage under discussion, as above, section 3. And even more so — "elsewhere" means a distant place, in Mishneh Torah [Devarim] (although according to this, the continuation in Rashi on the adjacent verse is made sweeter).
22) Rambam, Laws of Idolatry, end of ch. 2.
23) In Daas Zekeinim of the Baalei HaTosafos here, citing Toras Kohanim: "לפי שבשעת גמר דין צריכין העדים לומר בפירוש כמו ששמעו מפי המברך כו' העון הזה שאתה גורם לנו עליך יהי'" ("Because at the time the verdict is concluded, the witnesses must state explicitly what they heard from the blasphemer etc.; [and they say,] this sin that you cause us shall be upon you"). But this reason can be said only according to the wording in Toras Kohanim, "שאתה גרמת לכך" ("for you caused this") (note that the commentary of the Tosafos on the Torah here (which also explains as above) cites from Toras Kohanim "שאתה גרמת לנו" ("for you caused us")), but not according to Rashi's wording, "and we are not punished for your death etc." Note also the wording of the Rambam there, "שאתה גרמת לך" ("for you caused yourself") (and not "לכך" or "לנו" as in Toras Kohanim).
24) Kedoshim 20:2.
25) Ibid. 27.
26) Sources cited above, p. 140, note 7; see there also note 6. In Kesef Mishneh, Laws of Idolatry there, halachah 9, [it is stated] that according to the Rambam (Laws of Testimony 20:4) a blasphemer does not require a warning. But in Rashi's commentary (our Parshah, 24:15): "בכרת כשאין התראה" ("[he is punished] with kareis when there is no warning")*, so that a blasphemer too requires a warning. This is also the view of the Raavad in Laws of Testimony there. And in the Radbaz there it is proven that according to the Rambam too this is so. It requires slight further study that the Kesef Mishneh in Laws of Testimony, when citing the Raavad's question there, does not explain that indeed according to the Rambam a blasphemer does not require a warning.
*) One can say its basis: for — according to the plain meaning — when there is no warning there is no (complete) certainty that he acted deliberately, so how would Scripture make him liable to death? (Unlike regarding a specific blasphemer — the one in the desert — where it was revealed before Heaven, and a special directive came accordingly.)
27) Rashi, our Parshah, 24:12.
28) Unlike the wood-gatherer (mekoshesh): since they knew that he was liable to death (Rashi there; Shelach 15:34), it was possible to warn him (as Rashi explains, Shelach there, 33), in accordance with the view of the Tanna Kamma (Sanhedrin 80b).
29) As in Sanhedrin there regarding the wood-gatherer — according to Rabbi Yehudah. See also there, 75b [as printed]: "מגדף הוראת שעה היתה" ("[The case of] the blasphemer was a temporary directive"). Only that in Rashi there: "שהרי לא נצטוו מתחלה על אותה חבישה כו'" ("for they had not been commanded at first regarding that detention etc."), whereas the Kesef Mishneh there (see also Radbaz there) connects the fact that the blasphemer was a temporary directive with the fact that a blasphemer does not require a warning. See there.
29*) See Rashi, Mishpatim 21:14 (from the Mechilta); Makkos 8a.
30) According to this one will understand why Rashi explains: "כל העדה — במעמד כל העדה, מכאן ששלוחו של אדם כמותו" ("'The entire congregation' — in the presence of the entire congregation; from here [we learn] that a person's agent is like himself"). For seemingly: a) Since "the entire congregation" means in their presence — there is no matter of agency here at all? b) This is even more difficult: the explanation "in the presence of the entire congregation" is in Toras Kohanim here — and there the continuation "from here [we learn] that a person's agent etc." does not appear; i.e., Rashi changes and adds all this to Toras Kohanim! c) On the other hand: if there is a matter of agency here — "a person's agent is like himself" — one could say that "the entire congregation" means only "as agents of the entire congregation" (as Rashi explains on Bo 12:6), so how do we know that it means in the presence of the entire congregation? d) The law that a person's agent is like himself is derived from Parshas Bo (there), as stated explicitly in Rashi there, "From here [we learn] that a person's agent etc." So how does he say on this verse too, "From here [we learn] that a person's agent etc."?
The explanation — according to what was said above in the main text:
The command "and they shall stone him" [stated regarding the first blasphemer] — since this command does not obligate death but only stoning (similar to lashes, where it is possible that he will die, but it is forbidden — see note 33), and it applies only to "all who heard" — it is not at all reasonable to say that regarding "they shall lean" (in which there is no danger of death) the entire congregation was not commanded, while regarding "they shall stone" (where, if many stone him, he will die) they were commanded, except that they appoint agents! Therefore Rashi explains simply that "the entire congregation" means, in its simple sense (its plain translation), "in the presence of the entire congregation." But according to this it is difficult: it should have said "לפני כל העדה" ("before the entire congregation") (or the like)? He answers: "From here (since it changes the wording etc.) — that a person's agent is like himself" — in a matter like the one "here" in our Parshah, i.e., in something regarding which one was not commanded (on the contrary, there is a concern in the matter, and the command is only to those who heard, as above); and the change of wording teaches us that there is also a matter of agency here, i.e., that they were commanded to appoint an agent, and he is like them (as though they had been commanded to stone and fulfilled the command).
The law in Parshas Bo, on the other hand, concerns something that the person himself specifically was commanded to do. Both are necessary; this is easily understood.
According to the above, the change of wording in Rashi on Parshas Bo is also resolved, where he explains the rejection of the initial assumption, "וכי כולן שוחטין אלא כו'" ("Do they all slaughter? Rather etc."), whereas in our Parshah he does not begin "וכי כולן רוגמין כו'" ("Do they all stone? etc."): for here one cannot entertain the assumption etc., since there is concern and prohibition involved, as above.
31) According to this — according to Rashi in the plain meaning — the command "they shall lean …" applies only to the blasphemer in the desert. Perhaps one can say that they follow their respective views: according to the Rambam (as understood by the Kesef Mishneh), that every blasphemer does not require a warning, like the blasphemer in the desert — they are also equal regarding "they shall lean"; unlike according to Rashi.
32) According to this it is simply understood why, after the command "and they shall stone him …," it adds "איש איש כי יקלל רגום ירגמו בו גו'" ("Any man who curses … they shall surely stone him …") (and it is forced to say that the novelty in "Any man who curses …" is: a) even though the blasphemer in the desert was "בן איש מצרי" ("the son of an Egyptian man"); or b) only the law of "ונשא חטאו" ("he shall bear his sin") — "with kareis when there is no warning") — unlike regarding the wood-gatherer, where it is stated (Shelach 15:35) only "רגום אותו באבנים גו'" ("stone him with stones …"), and it is not repeated that so shall be done to every wood-gatherer.
One cannot say that the wood-gatherer is different, because it is obvious that this applies to every wood-gatherer, since there was in this only a clarification (by which death he should die) — for the doubt was only regarding this wood-gatherer*, who was before Matan Torah (as Rashi there) — but regarding a wood-gatherer after Matan Torah, since every unspecified death penalty stated in the Torah is only strangulation (Rashi, Kedoshim 20:10-14), seemingly this would apply to a wood-gatherer as well, and an explicit directive would be needed that it is by stoning.
Since it is not repeated regarding the wood-gatherer — one must say, by prefacing a simple logic (understood even by a five-year-old beginning Scripture), that the laws stated in the Torah (unlike the narratives of the Torah), regarding which it is said "ולמדתם אותם ושמרתם לעשותם" ("you shall learn them and observe to do them")** and the like, are to be practiced also at a later time (unless Scripture specifies the opposite), and therefore there is no need to repeat the command.
So it is with the laws of the wood-gatherer, who was warned, and whose stoning is explained from "יומת גו'" ("he shall be put to death …") — i.e., stoning.
Whereas with the blasphemer in the desert — all the laws in the verse "Take out the blasphemer …" were (according to Rashi, as in the main text) stated only regarding him (without warning; "they shall lean"; and "they shall stone" (only "all who heard," and in the presence of "the entire congregation")).
The meaning of the verse "And to the Children of Israel you shall speak …" — regarding the generations (and also regarding the blasphemer in the desert, whether by law or as a temporary directive, as above).
According to this, the double question on Rashi (Shelach there, 36) is resolved: "ויוציאו אותו, מכאן כו'" ("'They took him out' — from here etc."): a) he should have said this regarding the blasphemer of our Parshah; b) he writes "from here" — but they had already been commanded regarding this in our Parshah.
There still remains a need for explanation: according to the above, 1) it should have said (in our Parshah) "Take out the blasphemer" among what was said for the generations (and we would know it also for the blasphemer in the desert); 2) it is even more difficult according to what is explained (Sanhedrin 42b) as the reason for taking out etc., so that the court not appear as murderers, or so that he may have a chance of rescue — there is no need to take out etc. in a law of [mere] stoning, but only in [the death penalty of] sekilah.
But this too is simply understood, and even more so: "Take out the blasphemer" — this too was only for the blasphemer in the desert, for in the entire Torah it appears only in a punishment of death. Therefore one cannot learn "מכאן שבית הסקילה רחוק הוא" ("from here, that the place of stoning is distant"). According to this, the difference in wording between the verses is also resolved: regarding the wood-gatherer the order of the command is "he shall be put to death …" (and afterwards) "outside the camp" (for this results from his being liable to death), whereas regarding the blasphemer in the desert the order is "Take out …" (and afterwards) "and they shall stone …".
Note: according to the Baraisa cited in Rashi (24:10), that he blasphemed over matters of the camp — the reason for "take out of the camp" and for "in the presence of the entire congregation" (for in the entire [camp] he could not pitch his tent) is simply understood — which we do not find elsewhere. This is easily understood.
*) According to this, the question of Rashi's commentators (there) as to what the doubt was is removed.
**) Vaeschanan 5:1.
33) As for why they had to say to him "and we are not punished for your death" — even though he was liable to death — one can say: a) because it was without a warning; b) "all who heard," since they were commanded only regarding stoning — if he died through their stoning, one might think that they require atonement. Note the law of a court agent who killed through lashes (see above, note 29*).
34) Rashi, Teitzei 21:22.
35) See Radbaz, Laws of Mourning 4:8, that "his body shall not remain overnight" regarding all the dead "is not a Torah prohibition, for the verse speaks of those executed by the court."
36) Note Tanya, end of ch. 24: "for there is no greater insult than this, even if one does so only temporarily."
37) And all the more so, a fortiori, from the saying of our Sages, "יאבד עולמו מפני השוטים" ("Shall He destroy His world because of the fools?") (Avodah Zarah 54b), where the discussion concerns things that "the world" needs — all the more so regarding "the King." And although the question there is about "destruction" — in practice there is not even a disgrace to the sun etc., and one must say it is because of the reason "because of the fools etc."
38) "Our master the Arizal expounded regarding our master the Ramak, of blessed memory, at his funeral: 'וכי יהי' באיש חטא משפט מות' ('If there will be in a man a sin worthy of death') — [חטא, sin, is] a term of deficiency: for he was a perfect tzaddik, and no deficiency was found [in him] to say that he became liable to death on account of this sin, for no sin was found in him and [yet] he was put to death; nevertheless he died, and this is what is difficult. Therefore it says 'ותלית אותו על עץ' ('and you shall hang him on a tree') — because of the counsel of the serpent, by which Adam HaRishon ate. Thus far the holy words" (Nachal Kedumim on the verse; see also Shelah, in the discourse for a eulogy (209b — citing the Tikkunim)). See at length Likkutei Sichos vol. 24, p. 132 ff.
39) See also Torah Or 79d; the maamar Basi LeGani 5711 (in Sefer HaMaamarim Basi LeGani, vol. 1), ch. 2.
40) Mishnah Sanhedrin 37a, end. See Iggeres HaKodesh, sec. 7 (111b); Derech Chaim 90b; and elsewhere. See also Shemos Rabbah 40:3.
41) Bechukosai 26:15. See there.
42) Sanhedrin 59b ff.
43) For he denies the fundamental principle [of faith], as in idolatry (Sanhedrin 45b, end; Rambam, Laws of Idolatry 2:3; et al.). See Gur Aryeh here, that this sin of blasphemy is worse even than idolatry. See there.
44) Noach 9:20; Beshalach 15:3 ("כל איש כו'" ("every 'man' etc.")).
45) But it is also used regarding a deliberate sin (Vayikra 5:21, et al.).
46) According to this, the elaboration and the basis of Rashi there (Teitzei 21:22) are understood: "שיצא לתרבות כו' בב"ד" ("that he went astray etc. … by the court").
47) As in the plain meaning of the verse. Sanhedrin 46, beginning of side b.
48) Sanhedrin 43b; Rambam, Laws of Sanhedrin, beginning of ch. 13.
49) By virtue of repentance (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, [OCR unclear], ch. 6, mishnah 4. See there).
50) Sanhedrin 47b, and Rashi (there; and s.v. "נתעכל," 46, end of side a).
51) Ibid. 46a; 46, beginning of side b.
52) Similarly the anguish of chibut hakever (which, as its name indicates, is a detail of burial), and not mourning — which indicates the severing of the connection to life.
53) See Rashi (ibid. 46, beginning of side b, s.v. "מיתה"): "אם נקברו מכפרת מיתתן עליהן" ("If they were buried, their death atones for them").
54) 47a.
55) Shabbos 55, beginning of side b. And even according to the view of the Midrash HaNe'elam (Zohar Chadash, Bereishis 18:3) that even before the sin it was decreed that he would die, because he was taken from the earth — he would then have lived a long life (as it says there), and there would be no place for a sentence of death etc. Regarding these two views, see Ramban and Rabbeinu Bachya on Bereishis (2:17), et al.
56) Rambam, Laws of Sanhedrin 15:7. So too it is implied in the Sifri on the verse — Teitzei there, 23; Sanhedrin 46, beginning of side b.
57) Rashi, Teitzei there.
Key Lesson
Even the harshest consequence of sin is, at its core, a process of cleansing: by reaching back to the root of all sin, the sin of the Tree of Knowledge, it wipes away the source as well, and then the "image of the King" in the person shines through again. No matter how far a Jew has fallen, he remains made in G‑d's image and one of His children, and his honor must be guarded immediately.