Shuvu Banim International - Rabbi Eliezer Berland

WHY IS IT WRITTEN “VAYIKOV” (PIERCED) INSTEAD OF “VAYKALEL (CURSED/BLASPHEMED)”? WHAT WOULD THE BLASPHEMER HAVE MERITED TO IF HE HAD RECEIVED THE HUMILIATION WITH LOVE. WERE THE BLASPHEMER AND WOOD GATHERER DURING THE SAME SHABBAT, AND WHAT IS THE EXACT CALCULATION WHICH PROVES THE TIMETABLE? ALL OF THIS AND MORE IN MOREINU HARAV ELIEZER BERLAND’S CHIDUSHIM ON PARSHAT EMOR: “AND THE SON OF THE ISRAELITE WOMAN PIERCED THE NAME” What is the story with the blasphemer? Why did the blasphemer suddenly start to curse? The Midrash Rabbah says that Shelomit’s [the mother the blasphemer] husband was Datan. She had a husband who was holy of holies, [but] he only disputed the Tzaddik… That was his problem. However, besides this, he was a good, devoted husband. He washed the dishes, washed the floor, would cook all the food. She would rest, say Tehilim. He would do everything for her. He did only one thing [that wasn’t good] – dispute the Tzaddik. This was Datan; he was Shelomit’s husband. Of course, this child wasn’t his. Suddenly, everyone was swallowed up in the ground – Datan, Aviram, Korach, the children, the grandchildren, the great-grandchildren. Even the great-grandchildren were swallowed up in the ground with the women, with the babies. The [only] one who wasn’t swallowed up in the ground was the blasphemer. The blasphemer wasn’t swallowed in the ground! Everyone asked him, “Why weren’t you swallowed up in the ground? Why? The ground didn’t swallow you – why?! He answered, “I am holy of holies! I am a Tzaddik! [They said to him:] “No, no. You have another reason! Something… Let’s go to Moshe [and] ask him. They went to Moshe. He told the whole truth [that the Egyptian is his father and not Datan, and therefore he’s not a member of the tribe of Reuven]. Immediately, he began to blaspheme. Really, he thought that he was the son of Datan. He thought that he was a member of the tribe of Reuven. He didn’t know what the story was at all. Suddenly, the story was revealed. Immediately, he cursed Moshe, cursed the Tzaddik, was driven from the Tzaddik. This was the moment that he needed to do teshuva (repentance). This was the moment that he could have been so holy, so great, like Moshe. If he had withstood [this test], then he would have ascended to the level of Moshe. If he had accepted the humiliation with love, he would have ascended to the level of Moshe. He could have been Moshe. Therefore, it’s written, “Vayikov -- He pierced” (Vayikra 24). It’s not written, “He cursed/blasphemed.” “Cursed” is [written] afterwards. “He pierced” – that he made a hole between [the supernal] worlds of Yetzirah and Asiyah – he drew lights from the world of Atzilut – he was that great. "AND THEY PLACED HIM UNDER GUARD” – WERE THE BLASPHEMER AND WOOD GATHERER DURING THE SAME SHABBAT? “And they placed him under guard” – Rashi comments, “By himself, and they did not place the wood gatherer with him, and both of them were in one episode” – at one time. They knew that the wood gatherer was liable to death, only they didn’t know if the prohibition of Shabbat desecration is [punishable] with stoning or strangulation, burning or stoning. Moshe said, “Its desecrator shall surely die” – he didn’t say which death. They didn’t know at all how he was liable to death, how to kill those who are liable to death. However, here with the blasphemer, they didn’t know if he was even liable to death, and therefore, they put him under guard by himself. Rashi says, “Shelomit bat Divri,” “Vayikov – pierced or pronounced” – that he pierced/pronounced the unique Name. Because he was at the giving of the Torah, and there he heard the explicit Name. Here it is written, “Vayikov.” What is Vayikov? The Zohar says that he made a hole between the worlds of Asiyah and Yetzirah, between Yetzirah and Beriyah, between Beriyah and Atzilut. He wanted to see the Merkava (Divine “chariot,” a type of prophet experience) in the world of Atzilut. Therefore, Bat Divri left the camp of Israel, as is explained. “To the camp of Dan,” because Dan went with the idolatrous image of Micah. And now, this is the end of the forty years that Israel were in the desert; that now, they are already reaching the Land of Israel; that now, they divided up the Land to all the tribes. We are after 1 Nisan; every tribe received its inheritance, its place. The children of Dan said to the blasphemer, “Leave the camp.” He came to set up his tent in the midst of the camp of Dan. The blasphemer really did convert. He went, immersed, made a conversion, took a drop of the blood of the covenant. In any case, the children of Dan said to him at the time that he sought to dwell amongst them, “Leave the camp.” They were saying, “The children of the tribe of Dan isn’t your place. It’s written, ‘Each man by his banner, according to the insignias of their fathers’ household.‘ You don’t have a Jewish father,” because his father was an Egyptian. “It’s written, ‘of their fathers’ household,’ and you are without a Jewish father. Therefore, despite your having converted, you cannot dwell in the camp of Dan, because your father isn’t from this tribe.” What did the blasphemer laugh about? About the warm bread, the Lechem HaPanim, which was baked and remained nine days until the next Shabbat. Why? Because this is the way that cold bread is eaten, all the more so, the King, that this isn’t His way. And why don’t they bake the Lechem HaPanim every day? However, really the Lechem HaPanim remained warm for nine days. Because he was by Moshe; the blasphemer came out with a guilty verdict. Because the blasphemer went to Moshe to ask him if it was true that he was the son of an Egyptian, because the blasphemer didn’t know anything about the story of Shelomit bat Divri, whom the Egyptian caused to sin. By chance, the Israelite, who argued with the blasphemer and told him this, knew of the story. It was a secret. No one in the world knew of the story; it wasn’t revealed to anyone. Only Moshe knew about it through Ruach HaKodesh. And that Jew who argued with the blasphemer knew of the story. Then the blasphemer went to Moshe to ask him what was the law, if he really was unfit to dwell in the camp of Dan. Is it possible to rely on just a story?! Moshe said, “Yes – ‘Each man by his banner, according to the insignias of their fathers’ household.’ You do not have a Jewish father, and it is written, ‘of their fathers’ household.’” Rashi writes here that the wood gatherer and the blasphemer were at the same time. He asks, that according to the calculation, it comes out that the blasphemer was in Iyar of the second year, because, here, the blasphemer argued about the place of his tent, the he wanted to dwell in the camp of Dan, and it must be that this was after the division of the camps, which was in Iyar in the second year. According to what Rashi writes in Parshat Shelach Lecha, that the wood gatherer desecrated the first Shabbat, it comes out that this was in Iyar of the first year. If so, how could it be what he says, that the blasphemer and wood gatherer were imprisoned in the same episode. It comes out that the story of the blasphemer was after 1 Nisan, on 1 Iyar, after 1 Iyar of the second year. Now it’s Iyar, the month of Ziv [its name in Hebrew], in the second month, on the first of the month, in the second year. Then they divided up the camps. Exactly now, on 1 Iyar, was the dividing up of the camps. And since the argument of the blasphemer was over the place of his tent, it must be that this was after the division of the camps, after 1 Iyar of the second year. Now, when they accompanied Yaakov to his grave in the Land of Israel, they already accompanied him according to the order of their [encampment during their] journey [that would be later in the desert], and when they encamped around the Tabernacle, they already encamped according to the order of their journey [that was throughout the period in the desert]. How can you say that the wood gatherer and the blasphemer were together on the same Shabbat, on the same day? The [Shabbat] desecrator – Rashi in “Shelach Lecha” says that he –- the wood gatherer desecrated the first Shabbat that was in the desert. This comes out on 1 Iyar of the first year. The wood gatherer desecrated the first Shabbat; Datan and Aviram desecrated the second Shabbat. Because on 15 Iyar of the first year, the manna began to descend. Now, in the portion of the wood gatherer, we are found on 1 Iyar of the first year. On 1 Iyar, the wood gatherer already died, before the story with the manna when Datan and Aviram went to gather the manna on Shabbat. There is a contradiction here. Here in the portion of the blasphemer, it’s written that this was on 1 Iyar in the second year, since this was after the division of the camps. And Rashi says in “Shelach Lecha,” in the portion of the wood gatherer, that if Israel had only kept the first Shabbat – the first Shabbat which falls in Iyar of the first year – the wood gatherer violated; the second Shabbat was violated by Datan and Aviram. Then how can it be that the wood gatherer and the blasphemer were at the same time? Here, the wood gatherer was during the first year, and the blasphemer was during the second year. The wood gatherer had needed to do teshuva (repentance), to learn the law of stoning. But in reality on the first Shabbat that Israel was in the desert, a Temple of fire was supposed to descend. Because at a Brit, a Temple of fire descends, at every Brit. It is written in Zohar Lech Lecha, that it was surrounded by fire all night. Because the Brit is surrounded by fire, the Sandak is surrounded by fire, the father is surround by father, all the guests are surrounded by fire. At every Brit, a Temple of fire needs to descend. Then, on the first Shabbat, a Temple of fire was supposed to descend, if the wood gatherer had not violated the Shabbat. He didn’t need to learn the laws of stoning through his violating the Shabbat, because Moshe didn’t tell him to learn the laws of stoning. He didn’t appoint him over this; he gave over his soul by himself. However, if they had kept Shabbat then, certainly a Temple of fire would have descended!!! THE SHIUR UNDERWENT EDITING AND IF AN ERROR OCCURRED, IT SHOULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE WRITER, AND NOT, CHAS V’SHALOM, TO MOREINU HARAV SHLIT”A. PAINTING COURTESY OF R’ YEHOSHUA WISEMAN: WWW.YEHOSHUAWISEMAN.COM