A the end of this week’s parsha, a blasphemer is heard, caught and brought to Moshe; ignorant as to the proper punishment, he places the transgressor in jail until God responds to the judiciary query. The sentence: death by stoning. But, strangely, along with the specific response concerning the blasphemer, God adds in some more halachot that Moshe is required to convey to Bnei Yisrael. This, in itself, is not strange; often God has taken advantage of an opportunity to teach many laws at one time. However, what makes this ‘halachik piggyback’ unique is that these ‘additional’ laws have already been taught in Shemot!

Let’s list the laws enumerated along with that of the blasphemer:

1) If man blasphemes God, he receives death (24:15, 16)

And the additional ones…

2) If a man kills another man, he is killed (17)

3) If a man kills his neighbor’s animal, he must make monetary restitution (18)

4) If a man wounds his neighbor, he must receive the same injury in return (although, due to technical problems, i.e. can’t truly be exact in this process – see also Merchant of Venice – Chazal say a hefty penalty of five different payments is imposed) (19,20)

5) If a man wounds an animal, he must pay (21)

6) If a man wounds another man (but, because this is an obvious repetition of #4, this is understood as a reference to wounding someone’s parents), he must die (21)

And then the Torah reports that Moshe conveyed all these laws and the blasphemer was brought out and stoned to death – end of parsha. So, our questions again are: if all these halachot are previously found in Parshat Mishpatim, why do we need them again and why specifically add them to the newly instituted rule for the blasphemer?

This following answer is based on an idea in Sforno. Formulated as they are in the above list, it is very easy to see a textual pattern to the added halachot, for after the blasphemer law, the next two verses concern the killing of a man and an animal and the subsequent three deal with the wounding of a man, animal, and parents respectively. What is even more interesting to note is that while the actions of the crimes are similar, the penalties are vastly different: you can commit the ‘same’ action of killing, but you may either die (man) or just ‘pay’ restitution (animal) as a result of your crime; you can affect the same wound, but you may die (parents), pay handily (man) or minimally (animal) because of it. The mitigating factor, of course, is the victim – if you kill an animal, God says, you just pay; you kill a person, however, you die; you can wound an animal and just pay, but if you wound your parents you die! What the repetition of the laws here facilitates is not the mere teaching of the rules, that we already have from Shemot; rather, it’s the unique presentation of these laws that provides us with a deeper insight (they weren’t taught with this pattern in Shemot – there they were listed only to inform us of the newly delivered laws). And, realizing that God specifically chooses to attach this list to His new law of the blasphemer, we can logically assume that the insight learned from the unique presentation of these laws will be employed towards a better understanding of the newly instituted blasphemer law. So, what is the insight and how does it elucidate this newest of punishments?

Having recognized that the action can be the same and yet the penalty for the crime nonetheless differs, we can then deduce that the varying punishments must be determined by the only changing variable within the equation: the victim. For, one can wound, but if he wounds his father and mother, he deserves death; if he wounds another person, he pays heavy fines, etc. In other words, the distinct presentation of these previously recorded laws allows us to glean an important underlying concept within the realm of religious adherence: the physical action may remain constant, but its significance can vary drastically depending on its specific implementation.

And this insight is then critical to our understanding of the blasphemer’s punishment (for, as we have said many times, God teaches even through His punishments): merely using one’s words in a hurtful manner is hardly a physical act (compared to hitting and killing) and surely, against God, a curse from a man means absolutely nothing – so why is the punishment death? Because perpetuating this seemingly minimal of actions against God is unforgivable. We must understand that God is the Elevated of Elevated, and even the most minor, supposedly innocuous actions, assume an incredibly awesome weight when directed towards God, the Greatest ‘victim’.

And I would take this one step further. For it is not only the negative actions that have the ability to be this powerfully effective, but one also has the opportunity to elevate his positive actions beyond their minimal technical performance. One can simply eat and be satiated, or he can simply eat and be spiritually fulfilled as well! This is an understanding of ‘kavana’ – the meaningful addition of a directed, higher focus to a naturally ‘mundane’ action. And just like with any wounding (animal, man or parents), for example, there is still some penalty incurred, (although as the level of the victim’s ‘seriousness’ heightens, so does the harshness of the penalty), regarding positive actions too, by merely performing the action, you have certainly gained something; however, as the level of intention towards God increases, so does the quality and power of the resulting effects.