[Who is the “native-born” and who is the “sojourner”?
Since the Torah was given in the context of a Covenant between the people of Israel and YHWH, there should be no question that the “native-born” is the Israelite while the “sojourner” is the non-Israelite. It was a mixed multitude of slaves who left Egypt and it was a mixed multitude who stood at the foot of the mountain of Sinai. Israel is the Covenant partner but among Israelites were non-Israelites.
The Torah Giver made sure that the sojourner would not be treated any differently from the Israelite; the commandments give the “stranger among you” kind consideration, making sure they would not be mistreated nor become second class citizens among Israelites. They were obliged to observe the same laws. Surprised? Christians should be, since the teaching to them is that the law is passé and intended only for the Jews.
The running commentary is from our resource book: Pentateuch and Haftorah, ed. Dr. J.H. Hertz, C.H. Late Chief Rabbi of the British Empire. We have chosen to use it because much of its information is helpful in understanding words, phrases, verses and images; we are selective in what to include. Notice a discrepancy, however, in the translation used by P&H and EF/Everett Fox, The Five Books of Moses which is our version of choice for this website; despite the difference, the words and phrases are still identifiable.—Admin1.]
Leviticus/Wayyiqrah 24
The Torah, before leaving the subject of the Sanctuary alludes to the constant duty of the priests to see that the lamp is kept perpetually alight and the shewbread regularly arranged. These are outstanding obligations of the priesthood, which must not be relaxed even at the special seasons of the year, when the attention and energies of the Temple-servants were otherwise taxed to the full.
1 YHVH spoke to Moshe, saying:
2 Command the Children of Israel, that they take you oil of olives, clear, beaten, for lighting, to draw up lampwicks, regularly.
3 Outside the Curtain of the Testimony, in the Tent of Appointment, Aharon is to arrange it, from sunset to daybreak, before the presence of YHVH, regularly- a law for the ages, throughout your generations.
In Exod. the phrase ‘and his sons’ is added after ‘Aaron’. In the first instance, the lamp is kindled by Aaron (Num. VIII,3).
The menorah of 3 lamps on each side and a servant candle at the center is the one of the symbolic furniture in the Sanctuary, providing the only source of indoor lighting. Menorah’s today are designed to hold candles but the Sanctuary menorah had cups designed to hold pure olive oil to fuel the wick.
5 You are to take flour and are to bake it (into) twelve loaves, two tenth-measures shall be the one loaf;6 you are to put them (into) two arranged-rows, six per row, on the pure table, before the presence of YHVH.
7 And you are to place on (each) row clear frankincense, it shall be for the bread as a reminder-portion, a fire-offering to YHVH.
8 Sabbath day (by) Sabbath day he is to arrange it before the presence of YHVH, regularly, from the Children of Israel as a covenant for the ages.
memorial. The incense was put in two small golden cups, and one placed near each row of cakes. It symbolized prayer, and thus gave expression to the petition that God continue to grant food to the people of His covenant (Koenig).
every sabbath day. The bread remained on the table for a week, and was renewed each Sabbath.
9 They are to be Aharon’s and his sons’, they are to eat them in a holy place, for they are a holiest holy-portion for him, from the fire-offerings of YHVH-an allotment for the ages.an everlasting covenant. This phrase is applied to the Sabbath itself (Exod. XXXI, 16); and this weekly offering from the Children of Israel typified the regular renewal of the covenant between God and His people, of which the Sabbath was ‘a sign’.
10-23. THE PENALTY OF BLASPHEMY
The sole aim of all that is enjoyed in the Book of Leviticus is to sanctify Israel, individually and collectively. When, therefore, anyone presumes to desecrate the Divine Name, the penalty must be ruthless.
10 Now the son of an Israelite woman went out -he was (also) the son of an Egyptian man- amid the Children of Israel; and they scuffled in the camp, the son of the Israelite-woman and a (fully) Israelite man.went out. Or, ‘had come forth’ from Egypt, among the children of Israel (Erlich). The cause of the quarrel is not stated, because it is not of material importance. Note that the blasphemer is not ‘an Israelite’ but the ‘son of the Israelitish woman’. Only one of the mixed multitude (Exod. XII,38) could be guilty of so heinous an offence.
11 Now the son of the Israelite woman reviled the Name, and insulted (it), so they brought him to Moshe -now the name of his mother (was) Shelomit daughter of Divri, of the tribe of Dan-lit., to indicate by name here with unholy contempt and dishonour.
the Name. The Divine Name of the four letters Y H W H, which is never pronounced, but read as Adonay.
his mother’s name. Rashi remarks that his genealogy is recorded to impress upon the Israelite that a man’s life is not his own to do with as he pleased. His disgrace is also that of his parents, of his tribe, of his people.
12 and they put him under guard, to clarify it for them by order of YHVH.that it might be declared (to indicate for themselves). The Torah had ordained, ‘Thou shalt not revile God’ (Exod. XXII,27); but no penalty had been mentioned in that connection.
13 And YHVH spoke to Moshe, saying:14 Take-out the insulter, outside the camp, let all those who heard (the curse) lean their hands on his head and let the entire community pelt him!
without the camp. Where all executions took place, so as not to defile its holiness.
lay their hands. They thereby signified that they were personally concerned in the offence, inasmuch as the blasphemous words had fallen upon their ears. They were, therefore, discharging their duty by bringing the culprit to justice.
15 And to the Children of Israel you are to speak, saying: Any-man, any-man that insults his god- he shall bear his sin!and thou shalt speak. The incident became the opportunity of presenting to the Israelites a law on this and kindred offences.
16 But whoever reviles the name of YHVH is to be put-to-death, yes, death, the entire community is to pelt, yes, pelt him; as the sojourner, so the native, when he reviles the Name, he is to be put-to-death!the stranger. Although he is not subject to the precepts of the Torah and is to be allowed a large degree of tolerance, he yet may not be permitted to desecrate the holiness of the camp. If he does not wish to worship the God of Israel, he is not to be compelled to do so; but should he publicly revile the Holy Name, the offence is as serious with him as with the Israelite.
17 Now a man-when he strikes-down any human life, he is to be put-to-death, yes, death! 18 One who strikes the life of an animal is to pay for it, life in place of life.life for life. This phrase is a legal term equivalent to ‘fair compensation’; for it cannot mean that anyone who slew an animal should forfeit his own life in return! In the same way, the phrase, ‘as he hath done, so shall it be done to him’ in v. 19, and ‘eye for eye’ and ‘tooth for tooth‘ in v/ 20, are merely technical phrases for the demand that adequate and equitable compensation, after due and judicial appraisement of the injury inflicted, is to be paid for the injury. There is in Jewish history no instance of the law of retaliation ever having been carried out literally—eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. To the Talmudists the Biblical words eye for eye had become a mere expression of the law of equality. ‘None of the later (Rabbinic) law books even suggest retaliation as a proper remedy, the example of contemporary Europe and Asiatic systems of jurisprudence to the contrary notwithstanding’ (D.W. Amram). The last clause reminds us of one of the paradoxes of history.
- On the one hand, Judaism, the so-called religion of ‘strict justice’, rejected the literal application of the law of retaliation, and knew neither torture in legal procedure nor mutilation as a legal punishment.
- In Christian lands, on the other hand, mutilation and torture are well-nigh the indispensable accompaniments of justice from the middle of the 13th century down to the end of the 18th, and in some countries to the middle of the19th century and beyond.
20 break in place of break, eye in place of eye, tooth in place of tooth;
21 Whoever strikes-down an animal is to pay for it,
22 One standard-of-judgment shall there be for you;
ye shall have one manner of law . . . homeborn. One of the great texts of Scripture . . . Though in this connection the application of the law may be, so to speak, disadvantageous to the alien, the general principle of equality between alien and native is only strengthened thereby. In no other code was there one and the same law for native-born and alien alike. Even in Roman law, every alien was originally classed as an enemy, and therefore devoid of any rights. Only gradually was the protection of the law in a limited degree extended to him. It is not so very long ago that aliens in European states were incapable of owning landed property. In many countries, the denial by the dominant race of civic and political rights to ‘aliens’, though these may have lived for generations in the land of their sojourn, is a matter of contemporary history.
for I am the LORD your God. The reason given is noteworthy: show equal justice to all men, for I am your God, the God of Israel, the Father of all mankind. Once again, monotheism is the basis for the brotherhood of man (Hermann Cohen).
23 Thus spoke Moshe to the Children of Israel. They took out the insulter, outside the camp and they pelted him with stones; so the Children of Israel did as YHVH had commanded Moshe.stoned him. For a later historical application of the law of blasphemy, see the story of Naboth in I Kings XXI.