parshat Emor and parshat Matot: No Punishment For Cursing? And Excusing The Woman Who Vows

The following is just a creative endeavor without the bounds of halachic and narrative drash. Not to be taken halacha lemaaseh. The story of the meqallel - Vayikra 24:10-12:

י וַיֵּצֵא, בֶּן-אִשָּׁה יִשְׂרְאֵלִית, וְהוּא בֶּן-אִישׁ מִצְרִי, בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; וַיִּנָּצוּ, בַּמַּחֲנֶה, בֶּן הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִית, וְאִישׁ הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי.	10 And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel; and the son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp.
יא וַיִּקֹּב בֶּן-הָאִשָּׁה הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִית אֶת-הַשֵּׁם, וַיְקַלֵּל, וַיָּבִיאוּ אֹתוֹ, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה; וְשֵׁם אִמּוֹ שְׁלֹמִית בַּת-דִּבְרִי, לְמַטֵּה-דָן.	11 And the son of the Israelitish woman blasphemed the Name, and cursed; and they brought him unto Moses. And his mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.
יב וַיַּנִּיחֻהוּ, בַּמִּשְׁמָר, לִפְרֹשׁ לָהֶם, עַל-פִּי יְהוָה. {פ}	12 And they put him in ward, that it might be declared unto them at the mouth of the LORD. {P}

First off, two salient ambiguities.

The first is what is the meaning of וַיִּקֹּב, and how does it differ from וַיְקַלֵּל? Ibn Ezra gives two possibilities for וַיִּקֹּב. It can mean "specify." Thus, Bemidbar 1:17:

יז וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה, וְאַהֲרֹן, אֵת הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה, אֲשֶׁר נִקְּבוּ בְּשֵׁמֹת.

17 And Moses and Aaron took these men that are pointed out by name.

or it can mean "curse," as we see by Bilaam, in Bemidbar 23:7-8:

ז וַיִּשָּׂא מְשָׁלוֹ, וַיֹּאמַר: מִן-אֲרָם יַנְחֵנִי בָלָק מֶלֶךְ-מוֹאָב, מֵהַרְרֵי-קֶדֶם--לְכָה אָרָה-לִּי יַעֲקֹב, וּלְכָה זֹעֲמָה יִשְׂרָאֵל.	7 And he took up his parable, and said: From Aram Balak bringeth me, the king of Moab from the mountains of the East: 'Come, curse me Jacob, and come, execrate Israel.'
ח מָה אֶקֹּב, לֹא קַבֹּה אֵל; וּמָה אֶזְעֹם, לֹא זָעַם יְהוָה.	8 How shall I curse, whom God hath not cursed? And how shall I execrate, whom the LORD hath not execrated?

where it stands in place of אָרָה matching זֹעֲמָה in Biblical parallelism.

My personal opinion is that it means both and the verse in deliberately multivalent. However, disregarding that option, it either means to specify the name of God or to curse. The JPS translation chooses the "curse option." Thus, "And the son of the Israelitish woman blasphemed the Name, and cursed." There seems to be repetition between וַיִּקֹּב and וַיְקַלֵּל, but perhaps there are shades of difference. The "specify" option works well because of immediate context -- וַיִּקֹּב בֶּן-הָאִשָּׁה הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִית אֶת-הַשֵּׁם -- thus, he specifies the Name of God, and then curses. Ibn Ezra suggests both but prefers the "specify" option.

The second salient ambiguity is in the punishment God lays out for cursers and blasphemers. A short while later:

יג וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר.	13 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:
יד הוֹצֵא אֶת-הַמְקַלֵּל, אֶל-מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה, וְסָמְכוּ כָל-הַשֹּׁמְעִים אֶת-יְדֵיהֶם, עַל-רֹאשׁוֹ; וְרָגְמוּ אֹתוֹ, כָּל-הָעֵדָה.	14 'Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.
טו וְאֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, תְּדַבֵּר לֵאמֹר: אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי-יְקַלֵּל אֱלֹהָיו, וְנָשָׂא חֶטְאוֹ.	15 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying: Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin.
טז וְנֹקֵב שֵׁם-יְהוָה מוֹת יוּמָת, רָגוֹם יִרְגְּמוּ-בוֹ כָּל-הָעֵדָה: כַּגֵּר, כָּאֶזְרָח--בְּנָקְבוֹ-שֵׁם, יוּמָת.	16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him; as well the stranger, as the home-born, when he blasphemeth the Name, shall be put to death.

What is the meaning of וְנָשָׂא חֶטְאוֹ? The translation given above is that he shall bear his sin -- meaning that he shall suffer the consequences. Yet it is unclear that this is what this actually means. It can also mean that the sin shall be borne, in the passive. That is, he shall not suffer the consequences. This is the case for other parallel cases in Torah, with similar constructions which are taken in different ways.

nasa is clearly ambiguous, and the Torah makes delicious use of this ambiguity in the narrative of the butler and the baker who related their dreams to Yosef. (See Bereishit 40). To the butler Yosef says:

יג בְּעוֹד שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים, יִשָּׂא פַרְעֹה אֶת-רֹאשֶׁךָ, וַהֲשִׁיבְךָ, עַל-כַּנֶּךָ; וְנָתַתָּ כוֹס-פַּרְעֹה, בְּיָדוֹ, כַּמִּשְׁפָּט הָרִאשׁוֹן, אֲשֶׁר הָיִיתָ מַשְׁקֵהוּ.

13 within yet three days shall Pharaoh lift up thy head, and restore thee unto thine office; and thou shalt give Pharaoh's cup into his hand, after the former manner when thou wast his butler.

while to the butler he says:

יט בְּעוֹד שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים, יִשָּׂא פַרְעֹה אֶת-רֹאשְׁךָ מֵעָלֶיךָ, וְתָלָה אוֹתְךָ, עַל-עֵץ; וְאָכַל הָעוֹף אֶת-בְּשָׂרְךָ, מֵעָלֶיךָ.

19 within yet three days shall Pharaoh lift up thy head from off thee, and shall hang thee on a tree; and the birds shall eat thy flesh from off thee.'

so it is clear that the Author is well aware of the nasa ambiguity, and thus not only ambiguity but deliberate ambiguity and multivalence are possible.

Indeed, by the woman whose husband excuses her vow, we read וְנָשָׂא אֶת-עֲו‍ֹנָהּ. Rashi explains this means the he - the husband - will bear her iniquity. Yet we could also render (as here) that he removes/suspends her iniquity. Or, I would say, reading as a passive, we could render that her iniquity is removed.

Indeed, this is a great place to digress, to parshat Matot. Let us look at the verse in context, in Bamidbar 30:16. The context:

ג אִישׁ כִּי-יִדֹּר נֶדֶר לַיהוָה, אוֹ-הִשָּׁבַע שְׁבֻעָה לֶאְסֹר אִסָּר עַל-נַפְשׁוֹ--לֹא יַחֵל, דְּבָרוֹ: כְּכָל-הַיֹּצֵא מִפִּיו, יַעֲשֶׂה.	3 When a man voweth a vow unto the LORD, or sweareth an oath to bind his soul with a bond, he shall not break his word; he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.
ד וְאִשָּׁה, כִּי-תִדֹּר נֶדֶר לַיהוָה, וְאָסְרָה אִסָּר בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ, בִּנְעֻרֶיהָ.	4 Also when a woman voweth a vow unto the LORD, and bindeth herself by a bond, being in her father's house, in her youth,
ה וְשָׁמַע אָבִיהָ אֶת-נִדְרָהּ, וֶאֱסָרָהּ אֲשֶׁר אָסְרָה עַל-נַפְשָׁהּ, וְהֶחֱרִישׁ לָהּ, אָבִיהָ--וְקָמוּ, כָּל-נְדָרֶיהָ, וְכָל-אִסָּר אֲשֶׁר-אָסְרָה עַל-נַפְשָׁהּ, יָקוּם.	5 and her father heareth her vow, or her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father holdeth his peace at her, then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand.
ו וְאִם-הֵנִיא אָבִיהָ אֹתָהּ, בְּיוֹם שָׁמְעוֹ--כָּל-נְדָרֶיהָ וֶאֱסָרֶיהָ אֲשֶׁר-אָסְרָה עַל-נַפְשָׁהּ, לֹא יָקוּם; וַיהוָה, יִסְלַח-לָהּ, כִּי-הֵנִיא אָבִיהָ, אֹתָהּ.	6 But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth, none of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand; and the LORD will forgive her, because her father disallowed her.
ז וְאִם-הָיוֹ תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ, וּנְדָרֶיהָ עָלֶיהָ, אוֹ מִבְטָא שְׂפָתֶיהָ, אֲשֶׁר אָסְרָה עַל-נַפְשָׁהּ.	7 And if she be married to a husband, while her vows are upon her, or the clear utterance of her lips, wherewith she hath bound her soul;
ח וְשָׁמַע אִישָׁהּ בְּיוֹם שָׁמְעוֹ, וְהֶחֱרִישׁ לָהּ: וְקָמוּ נְדָרֶיהָ, וֶאֱסָרֶהָ אֲשֶׁר-אָסְרָה עַל-נַפְשָׁהּ--יָקֻמוּ.	8 and her husband hear it, whatsoever day it be that he heareth it, and hold his peace at her; then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand.
ט וְאִם בְּיוֹם שְׁמֹעַ אִישָׁהּ, יָנִיא אוֹתָהּ, וְהֵפֵר אֶת-נִדְרָהּ אֲשֶׁר עָלֶיהָ, וְאֵת מִבְטָא שְׂפָתֶיהָ אֲשֶׁר אָסְרָה עַל-נַפְשָׁהּ--וַיהוָה, יִסְלַח-לָהּ.	9 But if her husband disallow her in the day that he heareth it, then he shall make void her vow which is upon her, and the clear utterance of her lips, wherewith she hath bound her soul; and the LORD will forgive her.
י וְנֵדֶר אַלְמָנָה, וּגְרוּשָׁה--כֹּל אֲשֶׁר-אָסְרָה עַל-נַפְשָׁהּ, יָקוּם עָלֶיהָ.	10 But the vow of a widow, or of her that is divorced, even every thing wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand against her.
יא וְאִם-בֵּית אִישָׁהּ, נָדָרָה, אוֹ-אָסְרָה אִסָּר עַל-נַפְשָׁהּ, בִּשְׁבֻעָה.	11 And if a woman vowed in her husband's house, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath,
יב וְשָׁמַע אִישָׁהּ וְהֶחֱרִשׁ לָהּ, לֹא הֵנִיא אֹתָהּ--וְקָמוּ, כָּל-נְדָרֶיהָ, וְכָל-אִסָּר אֲשֶׁר-אָסְרָה עַל-נַפְשָׁהּ, יָקוּם.	12 and her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and disallowed her not, then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand.
יג וְאִם-הָפֵר יָפֵר אֹתָם אִישָׁהּ, בְּיוֹם שָׁמְעוֹ--כָּל-מוֹצָא שְׂפָתֶיהָ לִנְדָרֶיהָ וּלְאִסַּר נַפְשָׁהּ, לֹא יָקוּם: אִישָׁהּ הֲפֵרָם, וַיהוָה יִסְלַח-לָהּ.	13 But if her husband make them null and void in the day that he heareth them, then whatsoever proceeded out of her lips, whether it were her vows, or the bond of her soul, shall not stand: her husband hath made them void; and the LORD will forgive her.
יד כָּל-נֵדֶר וְכָל-שְׁבֻעַת אִסָּר, לְעַנֹּת נָפֶשׁ--אִישָׁהּ יְקִימֶנּוּ, וְאִישָׁהּ יְפֵרֶנּוּ.	14 Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may let it stand, or her husband may make it void.
טו וְאִם-הַחֲרֵשׁ יַחֲרִישׁ לָהּ אִישָׁהּ, מִיּוֹם אֶל-יוֹם, וְהֵקִים אֶת-כָּל-נְדָרֶיהָ, אוֹ אֶת-כָּל-אֱסָרֶיהָ אֲשֶׁר עָלֶיהָ--הֵקִים אֹתָם, כִּי-הֶחֱרִשׁ לָהּ בְּיוֹם שָׁמְעוֹ.	15 But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day, then he causeth all her vows to stand, or all her bonds, which are upon her; he hath let them stand, because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard them.
טז וְאִם-הָפֵר יָפֵר אֹתָם, אַחֲרֵי שָׁמְעוֹ--וְנָשָׂא, אֶת-עֲו‍ֹנָהּ.	16 But if he shall make them null and void after that he hath heard them, then he shall bear her iniquity.

Note the repeated use of וַה' יִסְלַח-לָהּ after every vow the husband or father is able to cancel. There is a change at the end to וְנָשָׂא, אֶת-עֲו‍ֹנָהּ which may parallel or oppose the other refrain.

On the most literal level, we might arrange this as follows. In general, the father or husband may cancel the vow if he hears it and cancels it the same day. Pasuk 16, "after he has heard them," means after that day. Taking it to mean "he shall bear her iniquity," the implication is that he still has the power to make them null and void, such that she does not violate and bears no guilt, but he does for her violations. I do not think that this is what we assume lehalacha, but rather that he does not have the power to cancel after the first day, and therefore, as Rashi, quoting Sifrei on Matot, helpfully explains:

He takes her place. We learn from here that if someone causes his fellow to stumble, he bears his punishments in his place. — [Sifrei Mattoth 30]

As some explain, he causes her to sin, or because she is in his reshut (see commentaries for more details).

We might read it, though, as a summary, and as an opposition. That is, perhaps it should be read, even on a peshat level, entirely differently. There are two levels to this law. The original statement of facts, and the revision of this law to reflect a new aspect of it that was previously undiscussed.

Looking at the first section of law as literature, we see that there is no mention of 1st day/second day variation in terms of her father. Indeed, there is no mention of 1st day/2nd day in terms of her husband, up to and including verse 9.

Verse 10 begins a new segment, which is one of compare and contrast. We discussed a woman in her father's house or married. Verse 10 shows that a woman who is divorced or widowed is under no-one's domain. She does not return to the domain of her father, and thus her vow stands.
In contrast, we have verses 11 through 13, the case of the woman who is married (as opposed to widowed/divorced). Here, her husband can sustain or cancel the vow. But we already said this, in verses 8 and 9! Well we need this here for contrast to the widow/divorcee.
We introduced twice the idea of the husband sustaining or nullifying.
The end of this second section, I would argue, is at the end of verse 13: אִישָׁהּ הֲפֵרָם, וַה יִסְלַח-לָהּ.

A new, third section, begins in verse 14:

יד כָּל-נֵדֶר וְכָל-שְׁבֻעַת אִסָּר, לְעַנֹּת נָפֶשׁ--אִישָׁהּ יְקִימֶנּוּ, וְאִישָׁהּ יְפֵרֶנּוּ.	14 Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may let it stand, or her husband may make it void.
טו וְאִם-הַחֲרֵשׁ יַחֲרִישׁ לָהּ אִישָׁהּ, מִיּוֹם אֶל-יוֹם, וְהֵקִים אֶת-כָּל-נְדָרֶיהָ, אוֹ אֶת-כָּל-אֱסָרֶיהָ אֲשֶׁר עָלֶיהָ--הֵקִים אֹתָם, כִּי-הֶחֱרִשׁ לָהּ בְּיוֹם שָׁמְעוֹ.	15 But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day, then he causeth all her vows to stand, or all her bonds, which are upon her; he hath let them stand, because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard them.
טז וְאִם-הָפֵר יָפֵר אֹתָם, אַחֲרֵי שָׁמְעוֹ--וְנָשָׂא, אֶת-עֲו‍ֹנָהּ.	16 But if he shall make them null and void after that he hath heard them, then he shall bear her iniquity.

We are discussing subcases of the married woman. This is a new section, and we are specifying the meaning of the ability of the husband to sustain or nullify. Thus, verse 14 says that the husband has the ability to sustain and he has the ability to make it void. We will expect an explanation in that order. First, how he can sustain, and second, how he can make it void.

The Torah does not disappoint. There are two subsections, each beginning with וְאִם. The first, in verse 15, is how he sustains. If he waits from day to day. The second, how he nullifies, is in verse 16! If he makes them null - and the verse is telling us explicitly that he has the ability and succeeds in making them null - after he hears them - this does not mean after as in the next day, but immediately after -- then, וְנָשָׂא אֶת-עֲו‍ֹנָהּ, her iniquity shall be sustained (in the passive). This is in direct parallel to וַיהוָה יִסְלַח-לָהּ and means the same thing.

The only reason for the change in terminology is that this twist on the law was perhaps said to Moshe at a different times. Note that these levels are not contradictory, but rather supplementary. It makes overt what was previously implicit. And make no mistake that this was once implicit. Namely, בְּיוֹם שָׁמְעוֹ which was repeated earlier means that immediately after hearing it -- that is, the same day -- which is exactly equal to אַחֲרֵי שָׁמְעוֹ at the end. I would argue that this is in fact the simple meaning of the verse, and actually accords 100% with practiced halacha.

At any rate, we see here the nasa can be ambiguous.

A famous other ambiguity of nasa is in Kayin (Cain)'s plea to God after hearing his sentence. He states: (Bereishit 4:13):

יג וַיֹּאמֶר קַיִן, אֶל-יְהוָה: גָּדוֹל עֲו‍ֹנִי, מִנְּשֹׂא.

13 And Cain said unto the LORD: 'My punishment is greater than I can bear.

A midrash interprets this as a question - "is my sin too great to bear?"

Similarly locally in Emor, we see:

טו וְאֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, תְּדַבֵּר לֵאמֹר: אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי-יְקַלֵּל אֱלֹהָיו, וְנָשָׂא חֶטְאוֹ.	15 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying: Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin.
טז וְנֹקֵב שֵׁם-יְהוָה מוֹת יוּמָת, רָגוֹם יִרְגְּמוּ-בוֹ כָּל-הָעֵדָה: כַּגֵּר, כָּאֶזְרָח--בְּנָקְבוֹ-שֵׁם, יוּמָת.	16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him; as well the stranger, as the home-born, when he blasphemeth the Name, shall be put to death.

In this instance, the interpretation of "he shall suffer the consequences" is immediately understandable - it is elaborated upon in the next verse - he shall be put to death.

Can we understand it as "his sin shall be borne" such that he receives no punishment? I would suggest yes. We can once again take verses 15 and 16 (though in sefer Vayikra rather than Bemidbar) as opposites. And we can take the יְקַלֵּל vs. וְנֹקֵב distinction as key. One who just does kelala - cursing - his sin shall be borne and he will not be but to death. However, וְנֹקֵב שֵׁם-יְהוָה מוֹת יוּמָת - one who is nokev the name of God will surely be put to death.

If we assume that such a distinction exists, how to explain it? See Sanhedrin daf 56 and 60, with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha and Rav Acha bar Yaakov. It is entirely possible that the punishment is only meted out to one who specifies a specific Name of God and curses. Thus, "yakkeh Yossi et Yossi." Taking nokev to mean "specify" a la Ibn Ezra (and the Targumim, etc.), a regular mekallel would not get the death penalty (verse 15). However, if he was nokev -- specified - the Name of God in the process of such cursing, then he would be put to death (verse 16).

Alternatively, there are two forms of cursing, and kelala does not get it but the nokev does get it.

Alternatively - and I love this the best as narrative neo-midrash, though I will be the first to tell
it is not true -- the mekalel was upset at Hashem and at Moshe. (Cue midrashim about losing the court case in Moshe's court, and of Moshe killing his father with the Ineffable Name.) I would posit that in verse 11, וַיִּקֹּב בֶּן-הָאִשָּׁה הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִית אֶת-הַשֵּׁם means that he blasphemed the Name of God. וַיְקַלֵּל means that he cursed Moshe.

Thus, he was brought to court to find out the appropriate punishment for each of these crimes.

אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי-יְקַלֵּל אֱלֹהָיו, וְנָשָׂא חֶטְאוֹ.
One who curses Elohav - perhaps this is Chol rather than Kodesh. In other words, Elohav means his judges. (And perhaps this was yet another influence on the midrash of the court case about a establishing a tent amongst Dan - see previous post.)

Meanwhile:
וְנֹקֵב שֵׁם-ה מוֹת יוּמָת
the punishment for blaspheming the Name of God was death.

Thus, it is a contrast.

And how do I know that Elohav in the context of kelala can mean judges? Well, from parshat Mishpatim, with another beautiful multivalent verse. Shemot 22:27:

כז אֱלֹהִים, לֹא תְקַלֵּל; וְנָשִׂיא בְעַמְּךָ, לֹא תָאֹר.

27 Thou shalt not revile God, nor curse a ruler of thy people.

Chazal understand this to simultaneously be an injunction against cursing (or reviling) God, and against cursing a judge. This is among a few pesukim showing that Elohim can mean judges (e.g. beKerev Elohim yishpot). There is a Biblical parallelism to the end of the pasuk, and so we expect them to mean similar things, and a judge is similar to a ruler.