English translation — אמור ג

A.

At the conclusion of the series

(In the verse "And Moses spoke etc. And they brought out the blasphemer etc. And they stoned him with stones, and the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses"),

Rashi stands on "And the children of Israel did" and says: "All the commandment mentioned regarding stoning elsewhere includes pushing off and hanging."

Learning at first glance it turns out,

that Rashi is troubled by "And the children of Israel did"

(Because of which he needs to explain "All the commandment etc.")

: The verse already says "And they stoned him with stones",

so what does it add with "And the children of Israel did"¹?

And on this he answers,

that with these words the verse intends to tell,

that they

(not only stoned,

but also)

did the other commandments which are associated with stoning: "pushing off"

(Which Rashi already says in an earlier series²

"From here [we learn] that those stoned are pushed off etc.")

and "hanging"

(Which Rashi says in a later series³

"All those stoned are hanged").

According to this, however, it is difficult: since Rashi explains that the words "ובנ״י עשו" are <b>adding</b> to "וירגמו אותו אבן",

he should have said only rejection and hanging but <b>not</b> stoning — stoning apparently should not be included in "ובנ״י עשו",

since it already states earlier explicitly "וירגמו אותו אבן"?

The question is even stronger: Rashi's explanation that "ובני ישראל עשו" means the other commandments mentioned in stoning,

is

(apparently)

taken from Toras Kohanim.

And there,

he enumerates all matters that need to be at the punishment of stoning — semichah,

rejection,

hanging and "לא תלין נבלתו על העץ"<sup>4</sup>

— but stoning is there<sup>5</sup>

indeed <b>not</b> mentioned.

Why does Rashi <b>change</b> and add also stoning?

B.

Just as it is not understood why Rashi <b>adds</b> stoning,

so too is it difficult; why does he <b>omit</b> semikhah and “do not leave overnight”?

Regarding semikhah one can answer,

that Rashi lists only “the commandment stated in stoning <b>in another place</b>”,

and therefore he does not mention semikhah,

because that is stated earlier in the parshah itself: “And all the hearers shall lay their hands upon his head”⁷.

But why does he omit “do not leave his corpse overnight on the tree”?

Seemingly one could say,

that since by the verse "Do not leave overnight etc." it says "and do not defile your &lt;b&gt;land&lt;/b&gt; etc.",

the law is

(according to the simple meaning)

only in the Land of Israel.

And consequently,

since the incident with the blasphemer from the portion was in the desert and not in the Land of Israel,

therefore Rashi here omits the "Do not leave overnight".

One cannot, however, learn thus,

because the reason for "Do not leave overnight etc." is

(&lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; "and do not defile your land etc.",

but)

&lt;b&gt;as explained&lt;/b&gt; in the verse

(&lt;b&gt;before&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;it&lt;/b&gt;)

"&lt;b&gt;for&lt;/b&gt; a curse of God is hanged",

and as &lt;b&gt;Rashi&lt;/b&gt; explains there "it is a degradation of the King etc.".

And according to this it is indeed understandable,

that the law of "Do not leave overnight etc." is also in other places

(not only in the Land of Israel)&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;.

Now why does Rashi omit it in our portion?

In addition to the difficulties regarding the details that Rashi enumerates in "every commandment that is said regarding stoning etc.,"

it is also not understood the <b>general</b> explanation of his:

Earlier in the parshah it says that the Almighty said to Moses that one should do with the blasphemer three things: a)

"Take out etc. outside the camp."

b)

"And they shall lay etc. their hands upon his head."

c)

3.

"And they shall stone him etc."

But at the end of the parshah,

where it is told about the <b>fulfillment</b> of the command,

there stand explicitly only two things: "And they took out the blasphemer outside the camp" and "and they stoned him with a stone."

But "and they laid their hands" is not mentioned at the fulfillment of the command.

Is not understandable,

what compels Rashi to learn that with "And the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses" the verse means "all the commandment stated in stoning in another place"

(not as in most places⁹

where "as the Lord commanded" means the command of the relevant portion itself)?

At first glance one would have to say,

that with "And the children of Israel did etc." the verse means,

that they laid their hands upon his head!

The question is even stronger: according to Rashi that "And the children of Israel did" means the commands which stand in another place,

it comes out,

that the verse relates about the fulfillment of the command of "Bring out the blasphemer"; "And stone him"; and also "all the commandment etc. in another place"

(a forced explanation

(stoning)

and hanging),

but about the fulfillment of the command "And they shall lay etc." which is in our portion, in this entire verse is not mentioned at all — even not in a hint!

4.

As already spoken many times,

in Rashi are precise not only the words of his commentary,

but also the words of the verse that he quotes

(before the commentary).

It is not understood: the commentary "all &lt;b&gt;the commandment&lt;/b&gt; etc." Rashi takes indeed from the words "as the L-rd commanded",

so why does he quote only "And the children of Israel did" and not the words "as the L-rd commanded"&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;,

and

(even more:)

he does not even hint to them by adding "etc."?

Also it is not understood: Rashi is indeed here explaining the word "עשו" — what the Jews &lt;b&gt;did&lt;/b&gt; besides "ויוציאו" and "וירגמו".

Why does he need to copy also "ובני ישראל"?

ה.

Is the explanation in all the above:

The difficulty that Rashi has here is

(<b>not</b> only¹¹

what did they do in addition to "and they brought out" and "and they stoned",

but also¹¹)

the wording "<b>And the children</b> <b>of Israel</b> did": also "and they brought out" and "and they stoned" were indeed done by the Jews,

why then does it say "and the children of Israel" specifically by "did": or it should not have needed to say "children of Israel" at all regarding the <b>fulfillment</b> of the command,

because at the beginning of the verse it says "And Moses spoke to the children of Israel" so it is understood that all these subsequent matters were done by the Jews,

therefore it could have said "and they did as the Lord commanded Moses"; and if the verse already wants to mention "children of Israel" also <b>in the fulfillment</b> of the command,

should it have said it at the beginning of the matter — "and the children of Israel brought out etc. and stoned etc. and did as commanded etc."?

From the fact that it does not say "and they did etc." simply,

but "<b>And the children</b> <b>of Israel</b> did",

it is compelled,

that before this — in the first half of the verse it speaks

(<b>not</b> about all the Jews,

but)

about "all who heard"

(witnesses and judges)

; and in the other half of the verse "and the children of Israel did" it speaks about all the other Jews — just as <b>earlier</b><b>⁶</b>

he distinguishes "all who heard" from "all the congregation".

And therefore Rashi cannot learn — &lt;b&gt;in its plain sense&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

of Scripture — that "and the children of Israel did" refers to semichah,

because regarding semichah it says "and all &lt;b&gt;the hearers&lt;/b&gt; shall lay their hands etc."; and since here it says "&lt;b&gt;and the children&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;of Israel&lt;/b&gt; did",

therefore Rashi learns that this means the commandments which are stated elsewhere — stoning&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;

(stoning)

and hanging which are performed by all Jews.

6.

According to this, however, it becomes difficult: Why is it not related in the verse that they also fulfilled the commandment "and they shall lay their hands"?

Therefore Rashi learns that "as the Lord commanded etc." does not refer only to "and the children of Israel did",

but to the entire verse — also to "and they stoned" which was done by "all the hearers",

that they stoned him exactly "as the Lord commanded Moses".

4.

5.

Or before they stoned him,

they laid their hands upon his head&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;

as the Most High said to Moses "and they shall lay their hands etc. and they shall stone etc."

And therefore Rashi brings only the words "ובני ישראל עשו" and he separates

(and omits)

"כאשר צוה גו'",

to inform us that "כאשר צוה" refers also to "וירגמו",

7.

According to the above

(section 5),

that "ויוציאו גו׳ וירגמו גו'" refers to the witnesses

(and judges)

and "ובני ישראל עשו" — to the other Jews,

it is understandable that in "ובני ישראל עשו" can be included

(not only throwing and hanging,

but)

also stoning which is not included in "וירגמו אותו אבן" which is stated here earlier — because after the stone that the witnesses threw upon him,

the other Jews threw upon him additional stones.

As the law regarding stoning: "יד העדים תהי׳ בו בראשונה להמיתו ויד כל העם באחרונה"¹⁵

— that if from the stone that the witnesses threw he was not killed,

"כל העם" had to throw upon him additional stones¹⁶.

It is still however difficult: the aforementioned is only an explanation that in "And the children of Israel did" &lt;b&gt;can&lt;/b&gt; also include stoning.

From where however does Rashi know that with the stone that the witnesses threw upon him he was indeed &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; killed?&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;

And "the children of Israel" threw upon him additional stones — it could be that he was killed from the stone that the witnesses stoned him with and "And the children of Israel did" means only — pushing and hanging

(not stoning)?

And on the contrary — according to this Rashi would avoid a dispute between his explanation according to the plain meaning and the explanation according to the halachah — as brought in Toras Kohanim — which does not include stoning,

as above.

as above.

And especially since,

apparently,

Rashi takes his commentary here &lt;b&gt;from&lt;/b&gt; Toras Kohanim only and

(Mishnah 6)

adds "stoning"!

8.

So the explanation of this is:

At the beginning of the verse,

Before it is told what was done to the blasphemer — "And they brought out etc. and they stoned etc. and the children of Israel did etc." — it says "And Moses spoke to the children of Israel."

What did Moses speak to the Jews?

— It is understood simply,

that he conveyed to them the statement of the Holy One, blessed be He, "Any man who curses etc."¹⁸

— concerning a blasphemer in <b>general</b>

(and not only the command "Take out the blasphemer etc. and stone him etc." — what should be done with <b>this</b> blasphemer).

And on the contrary: since in the command of the Above "Take out the blasphemer etc." is <b>not</b> mentioned that Moses should say it to the Jews,

in contrast, the speech "Any man if he blasphemes etc." <b>begins</b> with "And to the children of Israel you shall speak saying",

it is understood that with "And Moses spoke to the children of Israel" is meant

(mainly,

at least)

that Moses conveyed to them the laws of a blasphemer <b>in general</b>.

Thus the question arises: what is the connection of "And Moses spoke to the children of Israel" from the beginning of this verse

(with which are meant <b>mainly</b> the laws of a blasphemer <b>in general</b>)

to the continuation of the verse — "And they brought out the blasphemer etc." — which tells what they did with <b>that</b> blasphemer?

And the answer: from that which before "And they brought out etc. and they stoned etc. and the children of Israel did etc." the verse precedes the words "And Moses spoke to the children of Israel",

it is logical to say that the Jews also performed such actions to the blasphemer which they derived

(not from the command "Bring out the blasphemer etc." and not from the laws of stoning which stand in another place,

from the section "And to the children of Israel you shall speak saying etc. Any man who curses etc.".

And therefore Rashi explains that with "And the children of Israel did" is meant

(not only the execution and hanging which stand in another place,

but)

but)

also stoning.

That

is

that after the stoning by the witnesses — "And they stoned him with a stone" — also the children of Israel stoned him,

because this matter

(stoning by all the Jews)

they derived from the verse "Stoning they shall stone him, all the congregation"

which is stated in the section of "Any man who curses etc.".

9.

One must, however, still understand:

a)

Also regarding the command "Take out the blasphemer"

(which is stated concerning the first blasphemer)

it says "and let all the congregation stone him",

and yet Rashi teaches on this that it means "&lt;b&gt;in the presence&lt;/b&gt; of all the congregation".

Now what is the compulsion that the explanation of "they shall surely stone him, all the congregation"

(which is stated regarding &lt;b&gt;every&lt;/b&gt; blasphemer)

means &lt;b&gt;differently&lt;/b&gt; than "and let them stone etc. all the congregation" which is stated two verses earlier?

And although regarding the command "Take out the blasphemer" it is earlier

(before "And all the congregation shall stone him")

mentioned in the verse "all who heard",

and regarding the command "They shall surely stone him, all the congregation" which is stated regarding a blasphemer in general,

it does <b>not</b> state before that "all who heard" — but this is no proof to say,

that the meaning of "all the congregation" regarding <b>every</b> blasphemer should be different than regarding the <b>first</b> blasphemer²⁰

b)

When Rashi already has a compulsion that "They shall surely stone him, all the congregation" means that <b>all</b> Jews must stone him — from where does he take that by "And the children of Israel did" is also meant the stoning and hanging which are stated <b>in</b> <b>another</b> <b>place</b>,

it could be that by this is meant <b>only</b> "stoning"

(by all the congregation)²¹?

Yud.

And the explanation in this:

By no capital offender do we find²²

that the witnesses and judges should need to lean their hands upon his head and say to him "Your blood be upon your head, and we are not punished for your death"

(And it is understood simply: From where would there be a presumption that they should indeed be punished for his death — he is, after all, a capital offender <b>according to</b> <b>law</b>).

Why then by the blasphemer did they indeed need to lean and say "And we are not punished for your death"²³?

Another change in the matter of "and they shall stone him" which is stated by the blasphemer regarding the obligation of stoning in other places:

Where the obligation of stoning is stated,

the verse does not say only the term stoning or stoning,

but also the term death.

As by "Molech",

that before the words "they shall stone him with stones" it says "he shall surely be put to death"²⁴.

So too by Ov and Yidoni it says "they shall surely be put to death, they shall stone them with stones"²⁵

But in the command of the first blasphemer it says only "and they shall stone him",

but the term death is not mentioned.

11.

What is the reason for the two changes?

Liability of death is specifically with warning²⁶.

And since by the first curser there was <b>no</b> warning

(because as soon as "they did not know if he was liable to death or not"²⁷

they could not warn him²⁸),

and the command "and you shall stone him" was a temporary ruling²⁹,

therefore one can say,

that <b>the</b> stoning is different from every liability of stoning:

By all other obligated of stoning

(that all are with warning)

; one must stone him until "he shall surely be put to death",

i.e.

that

that if he did not die from the first stone,

one must throw upon him more stones until he will be killed; but not so here,

that he was not warned — is a lesser punishment: one must throw upon him only <b>one</b> stone,

and if he will not die through that stone,

there is no obligation to throw upon him more stones,

and consequently <b>one</b> <b>may</b> <b>not</b> throw more.

And by way of example like lashes that it can be death by lashes*²⁶,

but one may not do it"³⁰.

And therefore specifically here one must warn "and we are not punished by your death",

because since that he is <b>not</b> obligated <b>death</b>

(it is only a law of stoning),

can consequently be a possibility that they should be punished by his death,

if he will from this stone be killed³¹.

And according to this it is understandable,

that the explanation of "they shall surely stone him, all the congregation" that is stated by the blasphemer in general means

(<b>not</b> that only the "hearers" need to stone him "<b>in the presence of</b> all the congregation" — like the explanation of "and they shall stone him, all the congregation" that is stated by the first blasphemer — but)

as it is stated before that "he shall surely be put to death",

that upon <b>all</b> Jews lies an obligation to stone him until he dies.

Because since that "and he who blasphemes the name of the Lord" comes

(<b>with warning</b>),

there is the obligation "he shall <b>surely</b> be <b>put to death</b>",

it is <b>understandable</b> that if he was not killed by the stone that the witnesses threw at him,

"all the congregation" must throw at him additional stones,

until "he shall surely be put to death"³².

12.

Even though that from the verse "bring forth the blasphemer etc. and they shall stone him etc." one knows only the law of stoning,

d.

h.

that the hearers must throw at him <b>one</b> stone

(and if he will not be killed by that stone,

one need not throw at him additional stones so that he be killed by them),

However, since the command "And he who blasphemes the name of the Lord &lt;b&gt;shall surely be put to death &lt;/b&gt;the entire congregation shall surely stone him" was said in connection with the first blasphemer,

and before "And they brought out the blasphemer etc." the verse relates "And Moses spoke to &lt;b&gt;the children of Israel&lt;/b&gt;"

(that Moses conveyed to Jews also

(and primarily)

the section "And to the children of Israel you shall speak etc. And he who blasphemes etc. shall surely be put to death etc.",

as above section 8),

therefore it suggests itself to say,

that the command "shall surely be put to death etc." was said also regarding the first blasphemer.

4.

That is,

that in addition to the command "And all who heard shall lay their hands etc. and the congregation shall stone him etc." which was said &lt;b&gt;specifically&lt;/b&gt; regarding the first blasphemer,

and only to "all who heard",

there was with it &lt;b&gt;another&lt;/b&gt; command as a hora'as sha'ah,

to "the entire congregation" directly,

that although he committed the sin without warning,

nevertheless "shall surely be put to death, the entire congregation shall surely stone him",

as "he who blasphemes the name of the Lord with warning &lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;.

And since from the continuation of the verses it is understood that by "&lt;b&gt;And the children&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;of Israel&lt;/b&gt; did" is meant such a matter that was said in the portion "And to &lt;b&gt;the children&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;of Israel&lt;/b&gt; you shall speak, etc.',

therefore Rashi learns,

that through this "and they stoned him with a stone"

(singular form)

through the witnesses,

he did &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; die,

and the children of Israel stoned him with additional stones.

13.

According to the above one will also understand,

what Rashi explains,

that "And the children of Israel did" means

(not only stoning,

which is derived from the verse "they shall surely stone him, the entire congregation" that is stated here,

but also)

"&lt;b&gt;All&lt;/b&gt; the commandment stated regarding stoning",

including also pushing and hanging:

The command "and they shall stone him" etc. which was said <b>specifically</b> regarding the first blasphemer,

since regarding him there is not the obligation "he shall surely be put to death"

(like the command "they shall stone" regarding one liable for stoning,

that one must stone him until "he shall surely be put to death"),

it is <b>not</b> a matter of stoning.

But since from this "And Moses spoke to the children of Israel" the Jews understood that regarding this blasphemer there is also the law of "<b>he shall surely be put to death</b>, <b>all the congregation</b> shall surely stone him",

which the stoning is already a matter of <b>stoning</b>,

It is therefore understandable,

that they not only stoned him,

but they also did "all the commandment stated concerning stoning" — also pushing and hanging.

13.

Although from the introduction "And Moses spoke to the children of Israel" one knows,

that by "And the children of Israel did" is meant "all the commandment stated concerning stoning elsewhere",

nevertheless Rashi lists only "pushing, stoning, and hanging" and omits "you shall not leave overnight".

The explanation in this: because the reason of the law "You shall not leave his corpse overnight on the tree" is,

as explained in the verse⁴,

"for a hanging person is a curse of God" and as Rashi explains "it is a disgrace of the King",

it follows then that "You shall not leave overnight" is <b>not</b> a restriction in <b>stoning</b>,

but in safeguarding "the honor of the King" — to protect the honor of the one stoned who is made in the image of the likeness of the Most High.

And although in the prohibition "You shall not leave overnight" it says "You shall not leave his corpse overnight on <b>the tree</b>",

from which it is proven that the prohibition comes in continuation of the previous verse "and you shall hang him <b>on a tree</b>" which is stated specifically regarding those stoned³⁴,

and especially since the reason of "You shall not leave overnight" — "for <b>a curse of God</b> is hanged",

means

(also)

"one who blesses the Name"³⁴

to whom stoning applies

(but not on an ordinary corpse³⁵)

— it is however

(<b>not</b> because "You shall not leave overnight" is a restriction in stoning,

but)

because "disgrace of the King",

is specifically in a case when they have hanged the sinner because of that which "he was caught <b>for banditry</b>",

that he committed a most severe transgression for which one is liable for stoning.

15.

It requires, however, further explanation: from the aspect of the matter "the curse of God is hung — it is a degradation of the King, etc.,"

has,

apparently,

the Torah should not have allowed him to be hung even for a short while — even for one moment³⁶

may one not be degrading, heaven forbid, the "King"³⁷?

But in this there is a matter of "the wine of Torah":

On the verse "And you shall hang him on a tree",

the Arizal explains that "on &lt;b&gt;tree&lt;/b&gt;" means on the

(sin of)

Tree of Knowledge&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;.

And accordingly, one can also explain in the plain sense of this verse,

And with an introduction:

A)

It is known&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;,

that the first sin,

the sin of the Tree of Knowledge of Adam the first

(which includes all human beings&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;)

is the source and gives a possibility that there can be a sin at all.

After the possibility for the existence of sin came about,

there can also come forth — through multiple descents etc.,

as Rashi says&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;

"The first draws the second etc.",

until it comes to a severe sin,

until "sin of judgment of death" — until the prohibition of stoning

(the most severe of all the death penalties&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;),

until a blasphemer, may G-d spare us&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;.

According to this one can say

(a hint)

in the verse:

b)

And if there will be in a man

(which indicates even importance — as Rashi explains⁴⁴

master,

mighty)

a sin

(simple — can mean no more than unintentional⁴⁵.

Afterwards comes more severe)

judgment of death

(simple — until the most severe)

and he shall be put to death

(by the court⁴⁶.

How can it be without a “<b>man</b>”?

— The answer is: the possibility for it and the source <b>and cause</b>)

and you shall hang him on a tree

(the knowledge).

16.

This is also the explanation of that which it must be specifically "and you shall hang him on a tree" after "and he is put to death"⁴⁷

— the reason simply is: Even though those executed by the court confess "may my death be an atonement for all my sins"⁴⁸,

and the atonement is so great that it atones for <b>all</b> my sins⁴⁹

— one must nevertheless have for this⁵⁰

death and burial and consumption of flesh

(or the pain of the beating of the grave)

which then is atoned for through his death and his disgrace.

So too can one explain the obligation of "and you shall hang him" — "because there is in it disgrace",

as it also states the reason that "they would not mourn for them"⁵¹

— there must be an additional disgrace,

and especially regarding a most severe sin like those stoned etc.

It still needs, however, explanation: burial and consumption of flesh are

(details and)

related⁵²

to death

(for to dust you shall return)

that "<b>my</b><b>⁵³</b>

death atonement"

— But what obligated specifically this disgrace of hanging on a tree — the Gemara brings there⁵⁴

several types of disgrace of dragging bones,

to speak without reason,

(rains)

they sprinkle on his bed etc.?

And according to the above it is understood: In this "sin of judgment of death" there are two matters: the <b>general</b> existence of the sin,

as it comes from its source — the sin of the Tree of Knowledge; and how it became harder and harder until it came to "sin of <b>judgment</b> of <b>death</b>".

And therefore after "and he was put to death" which atones for the "sin

(as it had descended to the matter of)

judgment of death",

the completion of atonement is specifically when one atones

(wipes away)

also its source,

whose source "and you shall hang him" — is "on a tree"

(the knowledge)

— therefore also the additional disgrace "and you shall hang him on a <b>tree</b>" — literally.

And this also has a connection to “&lt;b&gt;my death&lt;/b&gt; atones” — because the sin of the Tree of Knowledge is the root and source of the entirety of the matter of sin and — of the entirety of the matter of death&lt;sup&gt;55&lt;/sup&gt;.

17.

And according to this, it will also be answered why first one must hang him,

and only afterwards comes the command “&lt;b&gt;Do not&lt;/b&gt; leave overnight etc.”

— Although from the perspective of the matter "Cursed of God is hung — it is a degradation of the King etc." the Torah seemingly should not have allowed him to be hung even for a short while

(as above section 15)

Because specifically through "and you shall hang him on a tree"

(which shows that the sin which he committed is from the aspect of the sin of the Tree of Knowledge,

and this was also erased through the hanging)

there is revealed the "image of the likeness of the King",

and therefore is <b>immediately</b><b>⁵⁶</b>

after the "hanging" — one must take him down from the hanging,

because "Man is made in the image of His likeness and Israel are His children"⁵⁷.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Emor 5725)