A fight breaks out in the Israelite camp. An Israelite man and a half-Israelite, half-Egyptian man face off against one another. In the midst of the fight, the half-Israelite man utters God’s true name. His punishment: to be pelted with stones. The only thing we know about this man: his mother’s name was Shelomit bat Dibri from the tribe of Dan.
In the past, I’ve turned my attention to Shelomit, the man’s mother, the only named character in the story. You can read a taste of my explorations here. This year, I’d like to spend some time with the man himself.
Whenever I teach this story, people inevitably ask, “What was the fight about?” The Torah doesn’t provide these details, but several midrashim do, and they’re all variations on a theme. Here’s the version from Leviticus Rabbah:
He [Shelomit’s son] came to pitch his tent in the camp of Dan. They said to him, “What right have you to pitch your tent within the camp of Dan?” He said to them, “I am from the daughters of Dan.” They said to him, “Scripture says, ‘Each man under his standard; by the signs of the house of their fathers, the Children of Israel will make camp’ (Numbers 2:2) and not ‘by the house of their mothers.”’
Shelomit’s son wants one thing: belonging. He is both Egyptian and Israelite; he is neither fully Egyptian nor fully Israelite. His identity is multiple, mixed and fluid, he defies fixed categories. And yet, Shelomit’s son has made his choice. He has followed his mother’s people into the wilderness. We don’t know why: perhaps he felt more of a connection with his mother and/or with his Israelite identity; perhaps Egypt became a dangerous place for people with any Israelite heritage. In any case, Shelomit’s son has decided that he belongs with the Israelites. That he belongs with the tribe of Dan.
The response of the tribe of Dan is repugnant. They cannot cope with Shelomit’s son’s mixed identity. They don’t see his Israelite side, only his Egyptian one. They meet his desire for belonging with suspicion and exclusion. We might excuse the tribe’s behaviour as an outcome of their trauma at the hands of the Egyptians, but truly, this is no excuse. It is precisely because of our experience in Egypt that the Torah enjoins us multiple times not to mistreat the most vulnerable people in our society. In fact, we must actively take care of them. Who are these vulnerable people? The ger (foreigner, convert or newcomer), the yatom (fatherless) and the almanah (widow) (see Deuteronomy 24:20-22). I dispute that Shelomit’s son was a foreigner (though the tribe of Dan might have seen him that way and he is referred to as such in our text) – he is the son of an Israelite woman and he has thrown in his lot with the Israelites, so he’s Israelite enough for me. Again, I’m not sure that he is a convert (though the tribe of Dan might also have seen him that way), but he most certainly has chosen to pursue the Israelite side of his identity. He is perhaps a newcomer, since Shelomit’s son’s decision to pitch his tent with the tribe of Dan seems to have taken the tribe by surprise. However, it is plausible that Shelomit’s son always lived with his mother’s people, not being fully Egyptian either, and that the Danites have simply picked this moment to act cruelly. What is clear is that the Danites see him as not being one of them. In their minds, even if not in our minds, he is a ger. We might also consider Shelomit’s son a yatom; presumably his father did not follow his son into the desert. The tribe of Dan deliberately violates the Torah’s ethical imperative of welcome and care. As such, we might expect Moses to set things to rights. Only, he doesn’t.
The story continues: “He [Shelomit’s son] went into the Beit Din of Moses and came out declared guilty and he arose and blasphemed.” Moses rules with the tribe of Dan. Shelomit’s son may not pitch his tent with the tribe of Dan. Moses does not acknowledge the Israelite side of Shelomit’s son’s identity. Moses does not acknowledge the choice that Shelomit’s son has made. Instead, his ruling is exclusionary and callous.
So, Shelomit’s son utters God’s true name. This is more than an act of anger. It is a cry for belonging. Shelomit’s son calls upon the God that he has chosen, calling out for justice. Presumably Shelomit’s son also understands the taboo around the Divine Name; only the High Priest may utter it, once, on Yom Kippur. And so, in speaking the Divine Name, Shelomit’s son also decries the hierarchies and rigid categories that the Israelites have gone on to establish after their liberation. The Exodus from Egypt provided a whole new opportunity to refashion a society from the ground up; the former Israelite slaves could have chosen to create a more inclusive, egalitarian society. Instead, they – steered along by Moses, his brother, Aaron, and the priestly class, no doubt – created and solidified their own hierarchical, often exclusionary society. Shelomit’s son protests his exclusion. And he protests exclusion full stop.
Moses rules that Shelomit’s son should be executed by stoning. The Torah states that the lesson of the story is that “you shall have one standard for ger and citizen alike” (Leviticus 24:22). The Torah believes that it has made its case because of what has happened in the story: whether ger or citizen, a blasphemer should be executed. I argue, however, that the Torah has in fact made its case because of what has not happened. Shelomit’s son was treated differently because of his parentage. A person with two Israelite parents would never have been treated like the son of an Israelite and an Egyptian. The most important takeaway of this story is that Shelomit’s son should have been allowed to pitch his tent within the tribe of Dan, like any other descendent of Dan. Instead, there was a different standard for him. Therein lies the story’s injustice and its tragedy. Parashot Emor calls upon us to hear the cry of Shelomit’s son, to make space for him within our camp and to truly have one standard for all.
Yael Tischler, LBC rabbinical student
The views expressed in this D’var Torah do not necessarily reflect the position of Leo Baeck College.