Class 001 – “Regarding the Blasphemer at the End of the Parsha: When Did This Occur?”
In Parshas Emor, we read about the story of the Mekalel—the blasphemer. There was a ben ish Mitzri—the son of an Egyptian man—who cursed, and Moshe Rabbeinu placed him in custody because they did not know what to do with him. Then, the Torah says he was stoned. That is the story. What is striking is how this episode suddenly appears in the middle of Parshas Emor, right after the discussions about the moedim—the festivals—and the arrangement of the lechem hapanim—the showbread. Suddenly, in Perek Chaf-Daled, Pasuk Yud, the Torah introduces this story out of nowhere: “Vayetze ben ish Yisrael v’hu ben ish Mitzri”—the son of an Israelite woman and an Egyptian man went out. When did this happen? Where do we place it in the timeline? What was going on at the time? Understanding this helps make the story more real. So, the question is: when did the story of the Mekalel take place?
One clue comes from Pasuk Yud-Beis, which says: “Vayanichuhu bamishmar lifrosh lahem al pi Hashem”—they placed him in custody to clarify for them by the word of Hashem. Rashi comments on “vayanichuhu”—they placed him by himself, “v’lo hinichu mekosheish imo”—they did not place the mekosheish (the wood gatherer) with him. Rashi says, “sheh shneim hayu b’perik echad”—they were both in the same period. So, Rashi gives us a clue: the story of the Mekalel took place at the same time as the story of the mekosheish. The story of the mekosheish is in Parshas Shlach, where it says, “vayehi ish mekosheish etzim”—a man was gathering wood on Shabbos. If we can determine when the mekosheish story happened, we will know when the Mekalel story happened, since Rashi says they were contemporaneous.
But how does Rashi know this? After all, the Mekalel is in Parshas Emor and the mekosheish is in Parshas Shlach. Rashi seems to deduce it from the wording “vayanichuhu”—they placed him, as an exclusion, by himself, not with the mekosheish. The only other person in Chumash who was placed in custody was the mekosheish. The Torah’s language implies that the Mekalel was placed in custody by himself, not with the mekosheish, which would only be necessary if both incidents occurred at the same time. Rashi further explains that there was a difference between their cases: they knew the mekosheish was liable for death, as it says “mechaleleha mos yumos,” but they did not know which form of death. For the Mekalel, they did not know at all what to do. This distinction may also explain why they were not held together; one does not place someone awaiting a death sentence together with someone whose fate is still undetermined.
So, the main point of bringing this Rashi is to determine: when did the story of the Mekalel—the son of the Egyptian man—take place? Let us look in Parshas Shlach (Bamidbar, end of Shvi’i, Perek Tezvav, Pasuk Lamed Beis): “Vayehi b’nei Yisrael bamidbar, v’yimtzu ish mekosheish etzim b’yom haShabbos”—the Israelites were in the desert, and they found a man gathering wood on Shabbos. Rashi comments on “bamidbar”—the Torah is speaking critically of Israel, “she’lo shomru ela Shabbos rishona, u’bishniya boze v’chilila”—they only kept the first Shabbos, and on the second, this one came and desecrated it. Rashi is quoting the Sifri: the first Shabbos was kept, and the second was violated by the mekosheish.
This raises a question: what does it mean, “the first Shabbos”? When was this? To clarify, let us look at the Gemara in Shabbos 118b (Kuf Yud Ches Amud Beis): “Ilmalei shomru Yisrael Shabbos rishona”—had the Jews kept the first Shabbos, no nation could have harmed them. The Gemara bases this on the episode with the mon—the manna—in Shemos 16:27, where Moshe told them not to go out on Shabbos, but some did anyway. The next parsha is the attack of Amalek, which the Gemara connects to their failure to keep Shabbos. This was before Matan Torah—the giving of the Torah.
Rashi in Shemos 16:4 also quotes this: Hashem gave them the mitzvah of Shabbos with the mon, testing whether they would keep it by not collecting on Shabbos. Later, in Pasuk Chaf Tes, after some went out to collect on Shabbos, Hashem rebukes them: “How long will you refuse to keep My commandments?” Rashi explains that this refers to the mitzvah of Shabbos, and that they failed to keep it. So, both the Gemara and Rashi say that the first Shabbos—meaning the Shabbos of the mon—was not kept.
This seems to contradict Rashi in Parshas Shlach, who says they kept the first Shabbos and violated the second. How can Rashi say they kept the first Shabbos if the Gemara and Rashi elsewhere say they did not? The pasuk in B’shalach (16:30) says, “Vayishbesu ha’am bayom hashvi’i”—the people rested on the seventh day—immediately after Hashem’s rebuke. How do we reconcile this with the earlier statement that they did not keep the first Shabbos?
One possible answer is to look earlier, at Moro, right after Kriyas Yam Suf. In Shemos 15:26, Rashi says that at Moro they were given some mitzvos, including Shabbos. In the repetition of the Aseres Hadibros in Devarim 5:12, it says, “Kasher tzivcha Hashem Elokecha”—as Hashem commanded you. Rashi explains that this refers to the command at Moro. So, the command for Shabbos was already given at Moro, before the mon episode.
This is based on the Gemara in Shabbos 87b, which says, “Kasher tzivcha b’Moro”—the command for Shabbos was given at Moro. But if so, why does the Gemara in Shabbos 118b call the Shabbos of the mon the “first Shabbos”? Tosafos asks this question: if they were already commanded at Moro, why is the Shabbos of the mon called the first? Tosafos leaves this question unresolved.
This leads to a deeper analysis of Rashi. When Rashi says “Shabbos rishona,” is he referring to the Shabbos after Moro, or the Shabbos of the mon? The Rebbe, in a Sicha from Tov Shin Chof Ches on Parshas B’shalach, explains that when Rashi says “Kasher tzivcha,” it does not mean they were actually obligated in Shabbos at Moro; rather, they were only learning about it. The actual obligation began later, with the mon. The Rebbe points out that the language “she’yis’asku bahem”—that they should be involved in them—means learning, not full obligation. This is similar to kibud av v’eim—honoring parents—which was also introduced at Moro but only became a full obligation later.
Therefore, according to the Rebbe’s reading of Rashi, the “first Shabbos” refers to the Shabbos of the mon, not Moro. This answers Tosafos’ question: the “first Shabbos” is the first one with full obligation, which is with the mon. However, this creates another problem: Rashi in Parshas Shlach says they kept the first Shabbos and violated the second, but the pesukim indicate they violated the first and kept the second. If so, when did the mekosheish happen? It must have been on the third Shabbos, which does not fit the plain reading of Rashi.
The Rebbe further explains that the “first Shabbos” with full force is after Matan Torah. There is a special quality to the Shabbos that follows Matan Torah, because mitzvos before Matan Torah did not have the same status as after. The mitzvos we keep today are because Hashem commanded them at Matan Torah, not because of earlier commands. So perhaps “Shabbos rishona” means the first Shabbos after Matan Torah, and “Shabbos shniya” is the second after Matan Torah. This would resolve the contradiction in Rashi, but it raises other issues: the Gemara refers to pre-Matan Torah Shabbos, and the pesukim seem to refer to the earlier period as well.
Another complication is that Rashi says they knew the mekosheish was liable for death because of the pasuk “mechaleleha mos yumos.” But that pasuk was only said later, in connection with the building of the Mishkan, after Yom Kippur. How could they have known this pasuk earlier? Even if Moshe Rabbeinu heard it on the mountain, he could not judge them until after Yom Kippur, when the system of din and mishpat was established. So how could the mekosheish have been judged earlier?
There is also the issue of the machanos—the encampments. Rashi in Parshas Naso says that the encampments and the laws governing who could dwell where were only established in the second year, in Nisan. The dispute involving the ben Mitzri was about his place in the camp, but there were no formal camps yet. How could this have happened before the camps were established?
Tosafos in Bava Basra 119b offers a different view: the story of the mekosheish happened in the second year, after the sin of the meraglim (the spies). The mekosheish wanted to demonstrate that the Torah’s laws still applied even though they would not enter Eretz Yisrael. This fits better with the timeline of the camps and the laws of the machanos. According to Tosafos, the mekosheish and the ben Mitzri could have been contemporaries in the second year, after the camps were set up.
However, Rashi seems to say the mekosheish was in the first year, before the mislonenim (the complainers), who appeared in the second year. The Rebbe, in Likkutei Sichos Chelek 13, writes that the mekosheish was before Matan Torah. But if so, how could they have known the pasuk “mechaleleha mos yumos,” which was only given later? How could there have been disputes about the camps before the camps existed?
In summary, there are many questions and apparent contradictions in the sources: how could the mekosheish and the ben Mitzri have been judged before the relevant pesukim and laws were given? How do we reconcile Rashi’s statements about which Shabbos was kept or violated? How do the timelines of the camps and the giving of the Torah align with these stories? Tosafos’ approach avoids some of these issues by placing the events in the second year, after the camps were established, but Rashi’s approach raises many difficulties. There are more questions than answers at this stage, and further study is needed to clarify these issues.