28 Apr PARSHAS EMOR: OH, IS THAT THE REASON WHY? EMOR – “OH, IS THAT THE REASON WHY?”

In the beginning of
Parshas Emor, HaShem
told Moshe to “Speak to
the Kohanim, the sons
of Aharon” [Vayikra
21:1]. The Medrash
comments on that pasuk
that this teaches that HaShem showed to
Moshe “each generation and its judges, each
generation and its kings, each generation and
its wise men, each generation and its robbers,
and he showed him King Shaul and his sons
falling by the sword in battle” against the
Plishtim. The Medrash then quotes Moshe’s
query to G-d: “The very first king who took
charge of your children should be stabbed by
the sword?” G-d responded, “Why are you
complaining to me? — Instead, you should
speak to the Kohanim who he (Shaul) killed
(in the priestly city of Nov), for they are
prosecuting him.” “That”, the Medrash
concludes, “is why it says ‘Speak to the
Kohanim.’”
This is an amazing Medrash that, on the
surface, appears to be merely playing with
words. Among other difficulties, the prime
sin of King Shaul was not killing the Kohanim
in the city of Nov. The pasukim tell us
[Shmuel I, Chapter 15] that King Shaul was
given an explicit command to kill out the

entire nation of Amalek — men, women, and
children. King Shaul had mercy on Amalek
and spared their king, thereby violating this
command. Shmuel came to Shaul and told
him that as a result of this sin, Shaul was
unworthy of the monarchy and HaShem
would tear the Kingdom of Israel from him.
We continue to suffer until this very day, as a
result of this unfortunate incident. Haman,
and most likely many of the oppressors of the
Jewish people, are descendents of this
Amalekite.
So why does this Medrash say that the reason
why King Shaul was killed in such a horrible
fashion was because of the incident with the
Kohanim in Nov? How do we reconcile this
Medrash with the explicit words of the
pasukim?
The Reishe Rav gives a beautiful
interpretation of this Medrash in his sefer
HaDerash V’haIyun. King Shaul’s primary
sin was, in fact, his refusal to kill all of
Amalek. But, had it been for that sin alone,
Shaul would not have been killed in such a
fashion. Why? Because he could have
excused himself by saying, “I am a
compassionate person. I could not bring
myself to kill innocent men, women, and
children.” That would have been a human

emotion, which is understandable.
Sometimes a person may have
trouble controlling his emotions.
However, the refutation of such an
argument was the incident with Nov,
the city of priests, where Shaul was
not compassionate. He wiped out an
entire city of Jewish priests. Where
was the compassionate person then?
Had it only been for the crime of not
killing all of Amalek, there could
have perhaps been an excuse.
However, Shaul’s action in Nov
slammed the door in the face of any
such excuse. Nov remained as a
prosecutor pointing to the evidence.
“No, Shaul, you are not a
compassionate individual.”
As the Beis HaLevi and other
commentaries in Chumash say, that
same phenomenon will be the source of our
own judgement at the hands of Heaven.
When we “go upstairs”, after 120 years, and
try to give excuses for what we did or did not
do, G-d will look at our lives and ask, “Oh, is
that the reason why?”
“You didn’t have any money? But for X, Y,
and Z you had money!”
“You didn’t have any time? But for A, B,
and C you had time!”
“You were not smart enough? But you
were smart enough for that other thing that
you wanted to do.”
Our own deeds and our own lives will be
the biggest indictment against us. When
we will try to say that we were too “this”
or too “that”, HaShem, who has all the
events of our lives written in a Book, will
be able to call our bluff. “What about this,
and what about that, and what about here”.
That is what the Medrash is saying, “Speak
to the Kohanim.” — try giving that
argument to the Kohanim in the city of
Nov, whom you mercilessly eradicated.
For The System To Work We Need Not
Just One Kind of Law
The end of the parsha contains the incident
of the Blasphemer – the person who cursed
HaShem. This was the first time that such
a thing ever occurred. The people did not
know what to do with this person.
Immediately after the incident, the Torah
explicitly tells us what to do with such a
person: He is put to death.
The Torah then mentions several laws
[Vayikra 24: 17-21] that appear to be
totally unrelated to the law of the
Blasphemer:
1) One who kills another person deserves
the death penalty.
2) One who kills someone’s animal must
pay a monetary fine.
3) If one injures another person receives a

monetary punishment.
4) One who injures an animal must pay a
monetary fine.
5) One who strikes his father or mother
deserves the death penalty.
Only then does the Torah return to the story
of the Blasphemer and relate that the people
actually put the Blasphemer to death.
This does not seem to be a smooth flow of
narration. Why does the Torah digress from
the discussion of the Blasphemer by inserting
these seemingly unrelated laws?
The Sefer Darchei Mussar suggests that this
sequence of the pasukim contains a
tremendous lesson. Some people feel that a
dichotomy exists among Jewish laws. There
are laws that relate to the relationship
between man and G-d, and there are laws that
relate to the relationship between man and
his fellow man. And never the twain need
meet. “I can be the perfect gentlemen and
citizen, and yet deny the existence of
HaShem. I can be the most ethical and upright
of individuals without a G-d.”
The Torah is telling us that this is not true. If
the whole system of laws is legislated by
man, then just as man can create laws, man
can change laws. Man can legislate one thing
today and can legislate the complete opposite
tomorrow. [That which is considered a crime
today (even murder!), can be considered a
righteous act tomorrow.] Without a higher
authority, there are no laws that cannot be
changed. If man is the creator of the system
of laws, then there really are not any laws
between man and man either.
Therefore, after the Torah tells us the laws of
the Blasphemer, the Torah begins to establish
laws relating to man’s relationship with his
fellow man. Without that first category of law
(relating to man — G-d interaction), there
can be no true laws of the second category
(man — man interactions). That is the only
way that the system can work.