Parshat Emor primarily teaches law: Laws concerning the Kohanim, and laws regarding the various festivals, make up the majority of the Parsha. The end of the Parsha introduces a short narrative, which itself introduces more law, then returns to narrative:

And the son of an Israelite woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the people of Israel; and this son of the Israelite woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp. And the Israelite woman\u2019s son blasphemed the name of the Lord, and cursed. And they brought him to Moshe; and his mother\u2019s name was Shlomit, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan. And they put him in custody, that the mind of the Lord might be shown to them.

And the Lord spoke to Moshe, saying: \u2018Bring forth him who has cursed outside the camp; and let all who heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him. And you shall speak to the People of Israel, saying, \u201cWhoever curses his G-d shall bear his sin.\u201d And he who blasphemes the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him; as well the stranger, as he who is born in the land, when he blasphemes the name of the Lord, shall be put to death. \u2026You shall have one kind of law for the stranger, as for one of your own country; for I am the Lord your G-d.\u2019 And Moshe spoke to the People of Israel, that they should bring forth him who had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the People of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moshe. (Vayikra 24:10-23)

While the law of the \u201cblasphemer\u201d is certainly important, it seems strange that the law is told in the form of a narrative, rather than recorded in dispassionate legalistic form, as are so many other laws in this Parsha and elsewhere in the Torah.

Regarding the narrative itself a number of questions arise: Why is this story told here? Why is the person\u2019s identity revealed?1 Why was it necessary for Moshe to seek consultation with G-d in order to clarify the law? In order to understand the sequence and discern why the story is told at this juncture we must first resolve the other questions raised.

The man who blasphemes is described as the son of an Egyptian man and an Israelite woman. By making this identification the Torah seems to be pointing out that the severity of this crime \u2013 cursing G- d - is not something which a Jew would be suspected of: The origin of this curse is his Egyptian ancestry.2 Echoes of Paroh\u2019s impudent question, \u201cWho is the Lord, that I should obey his voice to let Israel

heard in this curse. While his Egyptian identity is crucial to the understanding of the text, and especially the emphasis in the ensuing stricture \u201cas well as the stranger who is born in your land\u201d, the Rabbis go one step farther, and identify the specific Egyptian who was the father of the blasphemer.

\u2018Whose father was an Egyptian\u2019 (24, 10). Our Rabbis and R. Levi differ on the interpretation. Our Rabbis say: Although there were no bastards among them at that time, he was [like] a bastard. R. Levi says: He was definitely a bastard. How is this to be understood? The taskmasters were Egyptians and the officers were Israelites. One taskmaster was in charge of ten officers and one officer was in charge of ten men. Thus a taskmaster had charge of a hundred men. On one occasion a taskmaster paid an early visit to an officer and said to him: \u2018Go and assemble me your group.\u2019 When he came in the other's wife smiled at him. Thought he: 'She is mine!' So he went out and hid behind a ladder. No sooner had her husband gone out than he entered and misconducted himself with her. The other turned round and saw him coming out of the house. When the taskmaster realized that he had seen him, he went to him and kept beating him all that day, saying to him: 'Work hard, work hard!' The reason was that he wanted to kill him. Thereupon the Holy Spirit began to stir in Moshe; hence it is written, \u2018And he looked this way and that\u2019 (Shmot 2, 12). What is the significance of the expression \u2018this way and that\u2019?--That he saw what the taskmaster had done to the officer in the house and in the field. He thought: Not enough that he has misconducted himself with his wife but he must seek to kill him! Instantly, When he saw that there was no man, he smote the Egyptian (ib.). (Midrash Rabbah - Vayikra 32:4)

The father of this man was none other than the abusive taskmaster whom Moshe saw beating the Jewish slave.3 According to the Midrash, the Egyptian first abused the wife and then attempted to kill the husband. In the course of the abuse of the wife a child was conceived. This child joined the Jewish People and left Egypt with his mother. Now, he has an altercation with another man, and curses G- d.

also was motivated by a woman who was not \u201chis\u201d. See my comments to Bereishit 5758. Moshe was a reincarnation of Hevel: Rather than seeking to kill his brother, Moshe attempts to help his brother, and kills in defense of his brother, in stark contrast to the heinous crime of Cain. According to the Midrash, Moshe merited prophesy due to this gesture. \u201cG-d then said to him: \u2018You have put aside your work and have gone to share the sorrow of Israel, behaving to them like a brother; well, I will also leave those on high and below and only speak with you.\u2019 Hence it is written: \u2018And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see\u2019 (Shmot 3, 4); because G-d saw that Moshe turned aside from his duties to look upon their burdens, He called unto him out of the midst of the bush.\u2019 (ib.).\u201d(Shmot Rabba 1:27)

It is interesting that the husband is described as an officer of his fellow slaves; given his abusive position, it is unlikely that he was beloved by his people. Nonetheless, even this officer is seen by Moshe as a brother, and he proceeds to save him by killing the Egyptian. Later, when Moshe again intercedes to try to stop an altercation between two Jews, his previous meritorious action is thrown in his face:

And when he went out the second day, behold, two men of the Hebrews struggled together; and he said to the one who did the wrong, \u2018Why do you strike your fellow?\u2019 And he said, \u2018Who made you a prince and a judge over us? Do you intend to kill me, as you killed the Egyptian?\u2019 And Moshe feared, and said, \u2018Certainly this thing is known.\u2019 (Sh\u2019mot 2:13,14)

According to the Midrash, the two who were fighting on the second day were Datan and Aviram, two provocateurs known primarily for their activities in the desert.

And he went out the second day, and behold, two men of the Hebrews were striving together (ib. 13). This refers to Datan and Aviram, whom he calls \u2019striving\u2019 on account of their subsequent record; for it was they who said this thing; it was they who left over of the Manna; they it was who said: \u2018Let us make a captain and return to Egypt\u2019 (Bamidbar 14, 4). It was they who rebelled at the Red Sea. (Midrash Rabba 1:29)

At almost every turn in the desert, whenever trouble brewed, Datan was not far behind. Perhaps the old \u201cKapo\u201d had a difficult time following Moshe and the Torah. This resentment is especially ironic, if we consider the debt which Datan owed Moshe \u2013 his very life. According to the Midrash, the reason Datan knew of Moshe having killed the Egyptian in order to save a Jew, was because Datan was that Jew. The Midrash explains that Datan was the husband of

When Moshe saw this, he knew by means of the Holy Spirit what had happened in the house and what the Egyptian was about to do in the field; so he said: 'This man certainly deserves his death, as it is written: \u2018And he that smiteth any man mortally shall surely be put to death\u2019. Moreover, since he cohabited with the wife of Datan he deserves slaying, as it is said: Both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death\u2019. Hence does it say: \u201cAnd he looked this way and that way\u2019(2, 12); namely, he saw what he did to him [Datan] in the house and what he intended to do to him in the field. (Shmot Rabba 1:28)