Parashot Emor (Leviticus 21:1 - 24:23)

by Rabbi Frank Dabba Smith

Summary

This sidrah begins with further laws regarding the priesthood and ritual offerings.  Following this material, comes a calendar with laws about religious festivals.  This section is important for us to understand the origins of the festivals and how they were observed during priestly times.  Towards the end of Emor, there are laws about the kindling of the lamps in the tabernacle and the rows of bread laid out in the sanctuary.  Both the oil for the lamps and the flour used for the showbread must be pure.   Towards the very end of Emor, however, some laws concerning blasphemy and capital crimes are discussed.  Here, the Torah contains, as an illustrative example of blasphemy, a strange incident in the Israelite camp: 

‘There came out among the Israelites one whose mother was Israelite and whose father was Egyptian.  And a fight broke out in the camp between the half-Israelite and a certain Israelite.  The son of the Israelite woman pronounced the Name [the name of God] in blasphemy, and he was brought to Moses  --now his mother’s name was Shelomit the daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan—and he was placed in custody, until the decision of the Lord should be made clear to them.  And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: “Take the blasphemer outside the camp;  and let all who were within hearing lay their hands upon his head”.’  (Leviticus  24:10-15).

Commentary

The point is made in this sad and violent story that the blasphemer was not a ‘pure’ Israelite.  In the heat of a physical altercation, the ‘impure’ man apparently blasphemed. 

It is interesting to note that the man’s mother, Shelomit, comes from the tribe of Dan.  It seems that the tribe of Dan, in the north, had its own temple and cultic practices which the Jerusalemite priesthood regarded to be illegitimate.  Was the story intended to be a scathing condemnation of the women of this tribe as being prone to ‘marrying out’, even to Egyptians?  And., moreover, might it also be a polemic concerning the possibility that ‘impure unions’ might produce violent and blaspheming offspring who don’t ‘fit in’ with Israelites and the ‘pure’ way of conducting ritual?  Rashi cites a Midrash that heaps shame on the half-Israelite:

‘Rabbi Berachya said that the blasphemer’s cynical argument went as follows as he scoffed at the preceding laws related to the preparation of the bread offered to God, ‘Why is the bread offered cold and at least a week old?  Doesn’t a real king eat fresh, warm bread every day?  What kind of king can God be?’

But, then, on the other hand Rashi offers a Midrash explaining that the young man was ‘lost’ because of his impure status: 

‘He went to pitch his tent in the camp of the tribe of Dan, to whom his mother belonged.  There is a command, however, in Numbers chapter two that can be translated to read that he should settle in his father’s camp.  But the young man’s father was an Egyptian.  He was challenged by the tribe of Dan.  He appeared before Moses to seek residency with the tribe of Dan.  After Moses’ refusal, he blasphemed out of frustration for not having anywhere to go.’

The character of the mother of this unnamed blasphemer, Shelomit daughter of Divri, is also attacked by the sages who claimed that her name is mentioned because there was no other such specific example to be found in the entire camp of Israelites of a liaison between an Israelite and a non-Israelite.  Furthermore, it is noted that her name reveals her to be a ‘loose’ woman for she said ‘hello’ to everyone [shalom/Shelumit] and she was given to idle chatter.  (A ‘chatterbox’ being a ‘dabranit’ which puns with ‘Divri’, the name of her father.)

As Liberal Jews we may well look upon this incident as a sad and tragic one and we recognise that our ‘lens’ for viewing such episodes is very different than that of the redactors of the Torah text and the medieval sages.  Our concerns reflect a contemporary fusion of the values of inclusion and compassion.

While as Liberal Jews we do not view blasphemy or Jewish descent or the death penalty in the same way, we do have our ‘sacred cows’.   Issues such as security and the State of Israel evoke bitter exchanges, even in our movement.  Perhaps, this sidrah is a perverse reminder that we should be concerned about how we behave towards those in our midst who may hold less than mainstream views, even if such persons are considered awkward personalities?  Shouldn’t inclusiveness mean that, while controversial ideas may be contested, persons may not be attacked and that we must be very careful about prejudice when it comes to any individual’s perceived marginal status?

Rabbi Frank Dabba Smith

Harrow and Wembley Progressive Synagogue