Shalom from Beta Bikai and thank you for joining me in the study of Parashat Emor. Today we're going to try to discuss one of the most mysterious parasha, mysterious story, very enigmatic, which is mitri, at the end of Parashat Emor that talked about the Mu'adim, the holidays, Chabbat, and the other Khagim, the other holidays. At the end of this parchat, there is a story about someone who is uh his mother was Israelite, was Jewish, and Ben Ishmitrin, his father was an Egyptian. So he was walking in the midst of the Israel camp, Israeli camp, and then there is a fight between him and another Jew that both of his parents were Jewish. So what do we have here? Someone that his mother is Jewish and his father is not Jewish, and he has a fight with someone who both of his parents are Jewish. But the problem is that the Torah does not describe to us, does not uh delineate for us any details. What was the fight about? Why did they fight? Why did no one tried to what? To reconcile their problems. What's going on in that story? Obviously, by not saying anything about it, the Torah opened up a gate here, really the door for so many interpretations and so many different aspects and explanations to what exactly happened here. So in Vikar Rabbah, we will start with the early stages. In Vikar Rabbah in the Midrash, that is around the 5th or 6th century in Eret Israel, says the following Rabileviya Maryatza me'olamo. He came out from his world, from his uh realm. And that's what it's that's what it says. That's like Goliat, where it says when Goliath went to fight with Sha'ul, with King Saul, and then later on with David, it says, He went out from his like comfort zone. With Goliath, he left the Philistines camp and he went into the middle of the battlefield and he challenged Saul and his army. And in a way, the same thing happened here. This person, the person who his mother is Jewish and his father is Egyptian, he came out and he challenged the nation. Which means that Pansha before this story talks about Lechem Apanim. The bread that they put in the tabernacle and in the Beta Migdash, and he had a form, a special form, it's called Lechem Apanim, the showface bread. And it could you could eat it for almost 11 days sometimes. And he said, it's not nice. You know, every king he likes to eat fresh bread. You want to tell me that we can bring bread that already went through 10 days, and that's what we give to Hashem? So he was upset with it. Okay. Tani Rabihya Mi Parashati Yuchasiniatza. And that's where I want to focus. The first two interpretations belong really to a different class that we might discuss later on. But I would like to focus and to really emphasize the third interpretation. Tani Rabihya Rabbichia says, He studied the pasha about lineage, and there he was very upset. Why? Shabali ta' oh bethmachanedan. Because he came to pitch his tent at the territory where the tribe of Den dwell. Ambrullo Malita lechawal chabitohmachanedan. So the tribe of Dan came to him and said, What are you doing here? Why do you pitch your tent with us? He says, My mother is Shlomit, her name was Shlomit, but Divri, the daughter of Divri, to the tribe of Den, so I belong with you. He said, No, no, no, no, no. Territory is based on the father. And because your father is Egyptian, he's not from the tribe of Den, you have no place with us. So he went to Moshe to discuss the issue and to try to find a place to pitch his tent. And Moshe told him they are correct. It says, Ish aldiglo levait le ototam levait avotam. It's based on the father, and your father is Egyptian, so you really have no place. So he stood up and he he was what is called the blasphemer. He cursed the name of God. So Abu Dak has to focus on the third interpretation. We have here something very interesting. We're not going to go into all the halakha, all the halachic applications of it. But let's just try to imagine the drama. You have a child, you have a person, his mother is Jewish, she belongs to the tribe of Dan. The father was an Egyptian. According to some, that was the Egyptian that Moshe killed back then at the beginning of the book of Shemor, the book of Exodus. And he is trying to find his way. He's trying to find where he belongs. So he goes to the tribe of Dan and he says to them, okay, I'm going to be with you because my mother is from your tribe. They tell him no. He goes to Moshe, and Moshe says they are correct because your father, it all follows the father in terms of territory, and you have no place with them. There is a problem here. Even if they are correct, so where should he be? Where should he pitch his tent? He can't do it with the tribe of Dan. He's not a levy or a cohen, so where is he going to stay? What do we do with a person like that? So says our he went out. So first and foremost, the Orachim is bothered by something else. We will go back to my question later on. The Orachim is just amazed, he is in a way, he's even terrified of how something like that can happen. How can a Jew be a blasphemer? How can a Jew curse God, forbid the name of God? And therefore, he focused on the first word, Vayetze, and he went out. And he compares it to what? To another Vayetze, another time that it says Vayetzeh, I again as they when it came to the golden calf, it says, when Aaron threw the gold into the fire, the gold, the calf just came out. Which basically says it was not intentional, it just came out like that. So therefore, he says, I want you to know first and foremost, his mother didn't marry that Egyptian, but rather he follows what the sages says. Says the Oheim, I just want you to know his mother was raped by this Egyptian that liked her, and he basically enslaved her husband. And when the husband was at work, he came home. She did not know, and that's how this child came out, which means it was not her intentions. Now, why the Oheim must say it? So, first and foremost, he wanted to say that he basically shifted the blame from his mother. To whom? To this Egyptian person. Basically saying that no Jew would, God forbid, curse God like that. It must be that it's because of that Egyptian father. That's the first thing he says. And then he says, And he says that why the Torah says, and omitting the Egyptian father slash husband, which means we try to avoid, meaning the entire thing, it's because of that Egyptian husband. So the Orachim says, really, this story at the end, which brings so many questions, is that if you look at the mother of that person and the parents of the other child, the other person that were fighting, this is the way you compare them. But leave alone the Egyptian husband, because because of him, this entire story took place. He's the one to be blamed. So that's how the Oaha'i tried to clean up, quote unquote, the mess here, and basically says, okay, you know what? Just shift the blame on this Egyptian person. Shadal, Shlomo David Lutzato, in his interpretation, says the following. He ended with the punishment of the blasphemer. Because he is basically the sign, the symbol of someone who is totally anti-everything we said until now. You see what's going on here? Shadal basically says, he says, there is really no warning not to curse the name of God, because no one would even think that someone can do it, that a Jew can do something like that. And when you have the verse Elohim lotek that you should not curse God, it doesn't mean God like the omnipresent, but rather it talks about judges. So therefore there was no warning about it, because no one would imagine that something like that can happen. And the Torah will never talk about it unless something like that happened. And it happened why? Because this person, his father was an Egyptian person, and this is why he did it. And after this case took place, after this story took place, so the Torah came up with a warning. And it comes exactly in this place at the end of Parashatimor to teach you that there are obviously certain mitzvot that help you to sanctify God's name, and then you have a warning against something that basically defies everything that you did before. So let's pause here. We see something very similar between the Orachim and Shadal, both of them, unlike what we saw with the sages. The sages in Vaikar Rabba in the Midrash in the 5th or 6th century, they were bothered not so much with the Egyptian father. But what bothered this person that pushed him to be a blasphemer? So did he just lost his comfort zone, or he questioned one of the mitzvot, or perhaps he basically couldn't find his place among the Jewish nation. That's where the opinions that were presented to us by our sages. So that's fifth, fourth, fifth, sixth century. When you move to the 19th century, you see a tremendous shift. It's not so much about what bothered him, but how can we have something like that? A Jew that will curse the name of God. Oh, obviously, says the Orachai Manchad, it's not really him, it's because of the bad DNA from this Egyptian father. You can see a tremendous change, a deviation, total deviation from what is the case, what is the issue that we need to deal with. And obviously there are reasons for that. But I just wanted to highlight the difference, the major difference between the what I will call the ancient perception and understanding of the text versus the 19th century, 1920th century. So now let's complete the story. So this son, this person of that his mother was Jewish and his father was Egyptian, he cursed the name of God, God forbid. And they brought him to Moshe. And they kept him in prison, like a temporary prison, until God will tell them what to do. And then Hashem spoke to Moses, saying, Take this blasphemer outside of the camp. So everyone who heard the curse needs to lean their hands on his head, and then they need to stone him. And then if you curse God, you obviously will be put to death. Now there is something interesting. If you look at the verses, it says, that this person who is mother or was Jewish, he cursed God, and then they brought him to Moshe. And only after that the narrative reveals to us what was her name. Why just not to say Vaikov, ben shlomit, badivri matedan, et Hashem? And then they brought him to Moshe. Why to mention her name only after they brought him to Moshe? Says the Orachheim. Why the Torah reveals her name only after he was brought to Moshe? Says the Orachim. You can explain it in two ways. One, I had the Shevach. Which means, that's the first interpretation, where it says, and they brought him, you would say probably his mother didn't do that, because she didn't want to bring him to trial. So says the O'Haim, one interpretation is that she, his mother, was included in the people who brought him, which means she herself also knew that he didn't do, he did something wrong. And she understood that she needs to be part of the people who bring him, because she might even, she might even, you know, heard him saying that. So she felt obligation to bring him to Moshe. So that's a praise to her. But the second interpretation is not exactly as a praise, it's more of a dismissive interpretation. They brought him to Moshe. She didn't want her name to be published, but because he was brought to trial, so they start investigating who is this guy? Who is his parents? And then her name came up. So he says probably she had mercy on him. She knew that if he's going to trial, he's going to lose. And therefore, she wanted to hide. Comes the Torah and says, No, I'm going to reveal your name in order to show everyone that in this case he needs to be punished. There is something very interesting here. You have a person who did something that no one will even fathom, that someone can do, curse the name of God. And this complicated family dynamic that he has caused so many problems here. But what is missing here is how society really needs to approach such a case. Just think about it. This person, his mother is Jewish, his father is an Egyptian that was already killed by Moshe, he was born as a part of this really false relationship. What do we do with him? Take a look what the Rebbe says. The Rebbe Luvau says the following The Torah does not forbid incarceration, which means to put someone in prison. The court is allowed to imprison criminals or suspected criminals when they find it necessary. But it never prescribes prison as a punishment. I want us to think about it for a second. If I would ask the audience, do we think that prison is a good punishment? I think we're going to find different opinions. Some people will say yes, you take the freedom from that person, it teaches us, teaches him or her a lesson. Some people say no, it's not good, you put him in prison, you don't really become a better person there. Mostly he's involved with other people, maybe it's not a good thing. The third person will say it's not fair for his family. Everyone will come with a valid opinion. In Judaism, really, there is no proper prison. Yes, there are certain things that look like prison. Here is the first one, but it was temporary. Yes, we have things that look like prison, but we don't have this punishment. Even when someone is a thief and he stole, we don't put him in prison. We sell him to the family that he stole from. Here we put this blasphemer in prison for a temporary. It was just for a short time until God will clarify it. Which obviously brings us to, and that's what I think the Rabbi Melubavic is trying to hint us that really society did not know what to do with it. Meaning, on one hand, everyone understood that what he did was not only wrong, it was terribly wrong. And probably most people assumed that he is going to be put to death. But at the same time, it was not that simple. And I think that's what the Rabbi Mirubavic said. There was hesitation. And that's why they put him in prison because I think they asked themselves two questions. What did we do with him? How did we behave towards him? And really, what is the solution for his problem? If he has no territory, because his father is not Jewish, what are we going to do with him? He will be ownerless, he will be landless, he will be homeless, or perhaps maybe we can somehow give him a little bit of land so he can be part of us? This is a main question. What do you do with people who are not exactly like you, who do not have the same background like you? Do you reject them and that's it? And they need to deal with that? Or you try to assist them? Raf Salovechik says the Torah considered blasphemy to be a very severe violation, considering the irreverent remark a grave sin. Yet, do we punish? An insect that bites us? Does it arouse our wrath? Do we feel hurt by the barking of a dog? Certainly not. Why then is the omnipresent, eternal creator and sustainer of the universe, whose will is the source of all cosmic dynamics, concerned with a nonsense indignity uttered by a stupid, weak, transient being here today, tomorrow in the grave? Raf Salovechik used a very harsh sentence basically saying, why God does care? This guy cursed the name of God. Wow. If you go and you walk on the street and there is a dog barking at you, do you get hurt? And if you like dogs, you're not even afraid. So why God cares that this guy said whatever he says? Move on to punish him so severely? If we are not angry at the mosquito, why should God punish the blasphemer with death? It says Rav Salaitchik. God punishes the blasphemer not because of the indignity to him, but because by making such a statement, man destroys his own Tselem Elohim, the image of God, his godly image. He destroys not only his own Telem Elochim, but the Tselem Elochim reflected in the universe. Nature, the universe, is such a moral being. My maladies in his guide for the perplexed refers to the cosmos as a macro etomorphos. One large individuality, a personality. Blasphemy destroys the Tselem Elochim, not only of the individual himself, but of the macro. The universe reflects the glory, the image of God, the Nasakheto, the blasphemer is burdened with sin. He has brought about a destructive change in his personality. The moment that he makes the sacrilegious statement, he is no longer rooted in the Almighty. But the destructive effect is not limited to him, it is destructive for the entire universe. Raf Salovechik obviously is expanding the idea. He answered a very good question in the beginning. Why would God care about something like that? Now, before that, we need to, I think, ask a question on this question, which means the basic assumption is God does not care about it. Like we don't care that a mosquito bite us, we're not going to try to kill it. If a dog boxes us, we're not going to try to kill this dog. So why God cares? The problem with that is that when we commit a sin, we also need to sometimes bring a sacrifice, we need to atone for our sins. But God cares what we do. The answer is obviously God cares. But here I think the question of Ravsalovechik is why God cared so much? To put him to death, this is a very severe punishment. And therefore, Rafsalovechik try to find the reason. Not in the micro, but rather in the macro. When a person cursed the name of God, he's a blasphemer. Besides the fact that he obviously cut himself from God, he cut himself from the image of God. When you curse someone, you basically dismiss him. You diminish him. You say he does not exist. You make him kal, light, nothingness. When this person cursed the name of God, he showed that he has no lot, no share, no part in the Almighty. And in a way, that will be his entire perception on the entire universe. Therefore, says Raf Salovichik, this Mekalel made everything that we believe in, that's what we'd call sacrilegious. Basically, he took something that it's holy and made it not only mundane, made it nothing. And that was the problem of this Mekalel. And this is why probably no one even thought that something like that can happen. But he said it did. Whatever the reason was, he made a tremendous sin that caused him to lose his telemelokim. The rabbe Milubavich again focus on the word for pronounce. Failure to observe any given commandment drills a hole, so to speak in God's name, draining it of its divine energy. Instead of sustained and spiritually invigorating all the spiritual and physical worlds, this divine energy is wasted and may even bolster negativity. Such an act warrants death penalty, for it too has drained the lifeblood of existence. You can see how the commentators are trying to basically really explode this sin. Basically saying that this blasphemer, when you curse the name of God, you take the name of God and you basically say, This is not holy. There is nothing holy in it, it's mundane, it's nothing, it's air. By doing so, you show that you don't have life, that you don't have holiness. You basically drained yourself from anything spiritual, and therefore, quote-unquote measure against measure, the life of this blasphemer will be taken. But now, after we, in a way, made a survey of so many explanations and interpretations, let's ask ourselves a question. You have a person who has in a way dual nationalities, dual identities. His mother is from the tribe of then, like any other mother from that tribe. His father is Egyptian, not by choice, but by force, according to our sages. He walks in the midst of Mahane Israel. And I would like to add my interpretation to it. I think he was looking for himself. He was looking to where can he belong? And what does he do? The first thing he does is he goes to his own tribe, to his mother's tribe, trying to find a place to pitch his tent, perhaps even support friends. And then you have a guy who comes, who comes from a good lineage or a regular lineage, and he says to him, like, what are you doing here? You don't belong. And perhaps that's what the meaning of the midrash me'olamoyatza. It was a shock to that person. Like, what do you mean? I'm looking, I'm searching for my identity, and I'm trying to find myself maybe with the tribe of then, and now you tell me that I don't belong anywhere. Perhaps, and it's not to justify what he did, but it's to try to perhaps explain the sequence of events in Parashatimore. You are talking to me about Shabbat, about Mu'adim, about taking care of the needy and the people who are not the best in society, and here I am. I'm with you, and you tell me that I don't belong. And perhaps because he felt so much that he does not belong, he did what he did. Again, not to justify what he did, to try to explain in our mind what led him to do something so horrific. And I think that really speaks to us. When we approach someone who is looking for his or her identity, they might be confused, they might have questions about lineage. That story happened once, and that's it. It should not happen again. Even if alakically we might not find all the solutions, the approach, the behavior for someone to try to give him or her a place to give them some kind of comfort, some kind of assistance, support, is something that we need to do. So besides the fact that the simple lesson is don't be a blasphemer, perhaps there is a deeper meaning here, a deeper lesson. Don't create an environment or condition for people to become blasphemers. When you see in society people who are looking for their identity, people who are confused, people who are looking for a derig, for a path, people who don't know exactly what to do, people who come from different backgrounds, people who went through different traumas. Include them. Try to bring them as much as you can. Again, sometimes halachically we cannot find solutions for every challenge. But we can definitely see the Tselem elokim, the image of God in each one of us. Thank you.