Some problems in the text of the Parshah.
1) Why does the Torah discuss the oil for the menorah, candelabra, in this Parshah, and not in Tetzaveh where the fashioning of the menorah is commanded?
2) Why is the making of the showbreads discussed in this Parshah instead of in Tetzaveh where construction of the table is discussed?
3) What does the mekallel, blasphemer, have to do with the two previous subjects in the Parshah? If he is mentioned in this Parshah already, why is he not lumped together with the mekoshesh, the person who desecrated the Sabbath flagrantly by collecting firewood on the Sabbath?
4) Since the blasphemer was sentenced only for having cursed, why does the Torah introduce the report with the quarrel between two men? (24,1)
5) Since the death penalty had not yet been decreed for that offence, why was the man brought to be tried by Moses?
6) Why does the Torah in this instance require that all witnesses have to place their hands on the condemned man, in contrast with other offences for which the death penalty is applied? (Maimonides hilchot avodah zarah chapter 2)
7) Why is this legislation introduced with the words "any person," when later on it says anyways "anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord etc.?"
8) What is the conceptual connection with the legislation following about "anyone who strikes someone with fatal results?"
9) Why is there an apparent contradiction between "anyone who slays an animal must make financial restitution," and "life for life?"
10) Why is the legislation dealing with bodily injuries repeated, when it has already been dealt with at length in Parshat Mishpatim?
11) Why, after the sentence had been carried out, does the Torah have to write "the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded?"
1) After completing the legislation about the various offerings that have to be brought in the tabernacle at various times of the day or year, and a list of whose function it was to bring these sacrifices, the Torah concludes by giving details of a fundamental service, i.e. the preparation of the menorah mornings and evenings by the priest. In Parshat Tetzaveh the service of the menorah is mentioned only to account for the need of priestly garments. We are told there that one does not appear in the tabernacle without proper garments for the service.
2) Similarly, once the menorah service has been mentioned, the service of the shulchan, table, is mentioned also. This is in line with what our sages mention on frequent occasions, "the menorah is in the South, the Table in the North," i.e. these two furnishings of the tabernacle perform functions which are mutually complementary, on opposite sides of the sanctuary. They are like opposite sides of a human being, one is unthinkable without the other. Or, as Solomon says in Proverbs 3,16, "long life on its right, glory and riches on its left."
3) Since the book of Leviticus deals with the superior character of the Jewish people, the way we have to refrain from contact with impurities more than any other nation, culminating in the special laws about foods, physical purity, holy days etc., the story of the blasphemer explains what could be the background of a person who does not fit the mould of the Jew, as envisioned by the whole book of Leviticus. If a Jewish woman forms a liaison with a gentile, such results as the blasphemer are possible. The Torah wishes to teach the functional wisdom of being selective in the choice of one's life partner. In other words, if we preserve Gods light, we need worry less about the results of our marriages.
4) The quarrel between the two men concerned their rights of inheritance based on their respective ancestry. We find Yiphtach being chased away by his half brothers for similar reasons. (
Judges 11,1-3) It is reasonable to assume that the blasphemer, having lost his claim before the tribunal of Moses, was not content to curse his antagonist or the judge, but vented his rage against the system, i.e. against God the legislator. Thus we get an insight into the background of the sin.
5) Since cursing God is certainly worse than cursing one's parents, a sin which carries the death penalty, there was a prima facie case for the death penalty. Since however, mere logic is not sufficient reason to impose a death penalty, and such a penalty must be stated in the Torah explicitly, they had to bring the blasphemer before Moses to enquire what precisely his penalty should be. Possibly, since he was a proselyte, being the issue of an Egyptian father and a Jewish mother, there had been some question whether Jewish law applied to him in every respect. This is the reason it is emphasized later, that the penalty is identical for both stranger and natural born citizen.
6) The placing of the witnesses' hands on the victim, expresses their conviction that not the witnesses cause the death of the victim but his own sin has caused it. (Rashi) The major reason however, is that since the witnesses had perforce to repeat the exact words used by the blasphemer when they gave their testimony, something extremely distasteful to them but required by
halachah,
(Sanhedrin 56) they symbolically return that utterance to the head of the accused. In this way they can feel free of the sin of having themselves uttered the words of the blasphemer.
7) Since it is a cardinal sin in any religion or nation to curse its deity, ish ish, anyone, wherever, whenever, it follows that for a Jew to do so when it involves the only true deity, the perpetrator will be executed, etc. The emphasis "the stranger and the natural born citizen alike," is to underline that someone should not think that this man had been so severely dealt with only because he was a stranger.
8) Our sages stipulate that murder is less serious than causing someone to commit a sin. (Sifrey Ki Teytze 31, section 872) In the former case, one only kills the body; in the latter one causes death to both body and soul.
9) The juxtaposition in our Parshah of killing a person, and killing an animal, emphasizes that causing death may involve more than killing the animalistic soul in man; one may terminate one's nefesh, soul. The Torah is thus talking about someone who causes the other person to sin, thus leading him to this dual death. Since it is inconceivable that the killer should wind up in olam haba, the world to come, whereas his victim should be condemned to eternal oblivion, the penalty for such cases is mot yumat, execution of the machti, the one who caused the death through having caused the victim to sin, as well as the simultaneous loss of olam haba of the machti, the one who caused the sin. However, when an act of murder is merely like that of killing an animal which has no olam haba to lose in any event, then the payment exacted is only nefesh tachat nefesh, animalistic life in return for animalistic life. In other words, only the body of the killer is executed, since his victim has not lost his share in the hereafter through the deed of the killer. The sequence of the verses is clear then. The blasphemer is a machti, since those who hear him and do not react are grossly guilty themselves, both in body and in soul. They have to remove that guilt by testifying and placing their hands on the sinner. Once we deal with the levels of punishment that fit the level of the crime, the remaining verses also fit into the picture.
10) In Mishpatim, the personal injury legislation deals only with material losses sustained, i.e. earning capacity, loss of dignity etc. Here we deal with loss of stature of a person due to injury inflicted. A priest, for instance, cannot perform service in the temple once his body has become blemished. Therefore, considerations such as pain due to burning and other personal injuries are not mentioned in this context. The payment for an animal includes not only the value of the meat, but must include replacing the animal with one of comparable work capacity. The words "you shall have one law," refer to a comparison for restitution purposes between killing an animal and killing a human being. The equality before the law of both stranger and natural born citizen, extends both in regard of capital offences and in respect of offences involving financial or property damages.
11) The verse "and the children of Israel did as the Lord had commanded them," refers to the acceptance by Israel of the newly enacted legislation from that time onwards.