What are the implications of "Vayanichuhu ba'Mishmar"?
Rashi (citing the Sifra): It implies that he was incarcerated alone, 1 even though this occurred at the same time as the Mekoshesh Eitzim on Shabbos, who was also incarcerated until Moshe was told what to do with him. 2
Rashi: This was because, as opposed to the Mekoshesh, whom Moshe knew was Chayav Misah, he did not know which Misah the he deserved (See Sifsei Chachamim), he did not know whether the Mekalel was due to receive Misah at all.
Oznayim la'Torah: And the reason that Moshe did not place the Mekalel together with the Mekoshesh is because if he would turn out to be Patur from Misah it would inevitably cause the Mekoshesh, who was already known to be Chayav Misah, to become jealous. See Oznayim la'Torah.
Why does the Torah not add "Lifrosh lahem Mah Ye'aseh lo" - like it did by the Mekoshesh Eitzim (in Beha'aloscha Bamidbar, 15:33)?
Rashi: Refer to 24:12:1:1*
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes that Moshe did not know whether the Mekalel was due to receive Misah at all. Surely this is worse than one who curses a parent; Beis Din kills him?
Da'as Zekenim, Moshav Zekenim and Riva: Because it is more stringent, perhaps he does not get Misas Beis Din, so he will not get a Kaparah. This is why Beis Din does not kill one who hands over all his children to Molech.
Rosh - Hashem pardoned His honor, and said that this will be no more stringent than one who curses a parent.
Hadar Zekenim: Ein Onshin Min ha'Din (we do not punish based on a Kal va'Chomer). Why do we need another Pasuk to teach that Ein Onshin Min ha'Din? That Pasuk was said before this Parshah. 1
The Riva (refer to 24:10:151:1) proved that this was before Matan Torah. In Makos 5b we infered that Ein Onshin Min ha'Din from the Onesh for a full sister (20:17). I did not find anyone who says that Parshas Arayos was given before Matan Torah. (PF)
Rashi writes that Moshe did not know whether the Mekalel was due to receive Misah, and did not know how the Mekoshesh should be killed. How will we reoncile this with R. Yehudah, who holds that Beis Din can kill only if he was warned which death he will receive?
Da'as Zekenim: Perhaps they warned them for all four Misos Beis Din; each accepted, and said 'I do so with intent to be killed via stoning, burning, the sword or choking!" However, this is difficult for the opinion that Safek warning is invalid. Must we say that there were four pairs of witnesses, and each gave Vadai warning for one of the Misos (e.g. one pair said 'you will surely be stoned for this?')?! Indeed, the Pasuks imply that many were present, It says "ha'Shom'im", and not 'the witnesses.' "Va'Yimtze'u" implies that many found him. Alternatively, the Mekalel and Mekoshesh were Chachamim, and R. Yehudah holds that a Chacham need not be warned. 1
Riva (in Bamidbar 15:36, citing R. Efrayim, citing Sanhedrin 80b): R. Yehudah holds that it was a Hora'as Sha'ah to kill the Mekoshesh (he can say the same about the blasphemer).
Moshav Zekenim: They warned him for stoning 2 , for one who curses a parent is stoned (the harshest Misah), and all the more so one who curses Hashem!
Moshav Zekenim (citing R. Eliezer of Garmaiza): Moshe was unsure, for Hashem commanded to honor parents, and the Mekalel intended for his father's honor, but he did not realize that he and his father are obligated to honor Hashem; perhaps he is like Shogeg. (The witnesses gave Vadai warning; they did not have such a Safek. - PF)
Rashi writes that the blasphemer sinned at the same time as the Mekoshesh Etzim, which was before Matan Torah. How can he say that he scoffed about Lechem ha'Panim, which did not exist until they built the Mishkan almost a year after Matan Torah?
Riva and Moshav Zekenim: The Mitzvah of Lechem ha'Panim was already taught, even though they did not make it until the Mishkan was built.
Moshav Zekenim citing the Ri: The text [in Sifra] said that the Mekoshesh was b'Shabbos Shel Shanah Sheniyah; the scribe erred and wrote 'Shabbos Sheniyah. 1
If so, we must also change the Beraisa to say that had Yisrael observed Shabbos the entire first year?' And why would the Beraisa say b'Shabbos of the second year? The Pasuk explicitly says that it was on Shabbos; this is why he was stoned! (PF)
