1. At the end our Parsha (Lev. 24:10-11) it states:

 “The son of an Israelite woman went out and he was the son of an Egyptian etc. And the son of the Israelite woman pronounced the Divine Name and cursed. So they brought him to Moses. His mother's name was Shelomit bat Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.”

Our Sages state that this verse teaches us that “they (Yisroel) were not suspected of illicit relations (Arayot/עריות)” – (and it is stated here) “to publicize the praise of Yisroel, for she alone among all the women of Yisroel was involved in an illicit relation, and Scripture publicizes and points it out. Concerning them it states in Kaballah: “A locked up garden is my sister, my bride; a locked up spring, a sealed fountain. (Shir Hashirim 4:12)”.

This is also mentioned in Rashi (ibid):

“His mother’s name was Shelomit bat Dibri: Why is her name mentioned? This teaches us the praise of Yisroel, for Scripture publicizes this one, effectively telling us that she alone among all the women of Yisroel was involved in an illicit relation” etc.

Also, according to this Midrash, the faltering of Shelomit bat Dibri was not premeditated. As the Mizrachi proves from Rashi in Parshat Shmot (Exod. 2:11):

“Since Rashi states…concerning the striking of the Hebrew man:

“The Hebrew man was the husband of Shelomit bat Dibri, and he the taskmaster laid his eyes on her. So he woke him (the Hebrew) at night and took him out of his house, and he (the taskmaster) returned and entered the house and was intimate with his wife while she thought that he was her husband. The man returned home and became aware of the matter. When that Egyptian saw that he had become aware of the matter, he struck him and drove him all day”.

 - This implies that she was fooled (unwitting) and that it was not of her own volition.

Accordingly, the great praise of Yisroel that is learned from here is understood. For no other Israelite women faltered in this (illicit relations), even in a manner of being coerced or unwitting.

Therefore the verse publicizes: “His mother's name was Shelomit bat Dibri”, even though it is not the style of Torah to publicize and to make known the faults of Yisroel, and certainly in our case, where it is speaking of an – unintentional act (בשגגה). For the purpose is not to publicize the faults of a Jewish woman (G-d forbid), but on the contrary, to publicize the praise of Yisroel, that the faltering of illicit relations was completely foreign to them (even unintentionally or coerced).

The reason Rashi additionally explains:

“Shelomit: Her name denotes that she was a chatterbox, always going about saying “Peace be with you! Peace be with you! Peace be with you men!” She would chatter about with words, greeting everyone.” and

“The daughter of Dibri: This denotes that she was very talkative, talking with every person”.

is, as the commentators have explained, that Rashi’s intention is to explain that she herself is not depicted negatively in this verse. For this is not her “real” name (Shaim HaEtzem) but rather an alias depicting her actions (and therefore it is not publicized who this woman actually was).

Yet, we still need to understand why the Torah essentially speaks disparagingly of a Jewish woman, whoever she is. (even if the outcome is publicizing the praise of Yisroel). For “the Torah does not speak disparagingly even regarding an unclean animal”.

2. According to the simple reading the verse, one could explain this by prefacing that which is written in the commentaries, that the reason Scripture elaborates on the lineage of the Blasphemer, is in order to explain how it is possible for a Jewish person to come to curse G-d (G-d save us), for in truth, this is not possible for a Jewish person. Rather, it is because his father was an Egyptian and his mother was coerced, as a result of her chattiness. Therefore, since this was not ideal progeny, it caused him to descend to such a state where he, “blasphemously pronounced the Divine Name and cursed”.

According to this, one could say, that just as the essence of the story of the Blasphemer is not an aspect of this, for the Torah does not speak and publicize the faults of Yisroel. For it is not the intent of Scripture to speak disparagingly. Rather the purpose is to make known the Halacha and a major event (מעשה רב), for example, the law of the Blasphemer, his penalty of death and the specific laws related to him.

(And also the specific laws in conjunction and related to this law: as the verse continues “And to the children of Yisroel, you shall speak, saying”).

So too, one could say that the same applies to the lineage and conduct of his mother. That it is in order to acutely warn, concerning the conduct and modesty of a Jewish daughter, from becoming a chatterbox (פטפטנית) (even in a manner of inquiring the welfare of everyone) and from becoming very talkative (דברנית), since the behavior could result not only in a corruption (קלקול) for her etc., but that she could bear a son who would curse etc., (G-d forbid).

Moreover, it is perplexing that as the result of this, a son was born who cursed G-d. For she did not intentionally falter here (במזיד), but was unwitting (מוטעת). And her act of “inquiring of everyone’s welfare” was not an act of licentiousness (פריצות) but rather an act of friendliness (בסבר פנים יפות) toward everyone. Nevertheless, the outcome of this was a son who cursed G-d (G-d save us). This is a unique sign to utterly warn each person concerning the great adherence (זהירות) of Tziniyut (modesty) etc.

According to this one could say even more than this. Since Scripture publicizes her – there exists an element of praise for her, for through her, Yisroel learned the great diligence regarding Tziniyut.

(This is similar to what was said in another place (לקו"ש חכ"ה ע' 19) regarding Noach, that the statement (Rashi beginning of Gen. 6:9, regarding the word “in his generations/בְּדֹרֹתָיו):

"Some interpret it derogatorily/יש דורשין אותו לגנאי",

is not an aspect of "denigration"(גנות). For although Noach himself, being in a great declined and degraded generation, did not pray for the people of his generation like Avraham and Moshe (since he did not have anyone whose merits he could depend on, like Moshe had) and therefore, there was no aspect of fault in him.

Nevertheless, in order that no calamity come about from this (G-d forbid) in the coming generations, namely to claim that there is no fault if one does not pray for his generation- therefore there are those who say that we are forced to say that this was an aspect of “fault” (גנאי). For this itself, that they interpret action such as this as a fault, is actually a “praise” of Noach. For Noach, himself, would want that they stress that one needs to pray for his generation, in order to ensure that no deficiency comes about in another generation, because of this.

Similarly in our subject. The rectification of Shelomit bat Dibri is precisely because the Scripture publicizes it (and in such a manner as this). For from this comes the lesson and utmost diligence to Jewish women regarding the greatness of Tziniyut even in speech etc. And this itself is the merit of Shelomit).

3. Yet, seemingly, the subject of the aforementioned explanation of the Sages, that the verse here informs us,

“The praise of Yisroel, for she alone among all the women of Yisroel was involved in this and Scripture publicizes and points it out”,

is not that the praise is the teaching (the informing of the Halacha) regarding the aspect of Tziniyut. Rather, its explanation is that the verse publicizes and tells the praise of Yisroel (that they were not suspect of illicit relations), precisely by publicizing the derogation of Shelomit.

This aspect (the story of the praise of Yisroel by publicizing the derogation of Shelomit) requires understanding.

How is it possible that the praise of Yisroel is revealed through the story and publicizing of the derogation of one of Bnei Yisroel – for just as it is cited in Halacha that – one does not nullify the standing of an individual for the good and welfare of the public, similarly the same seemingly applies regarding the telling of the praises and faults.

Thus, it is difficult to say that the praise of Yisroel would be revealed specifically through the derogation of a Jewish person. And specifically, since one of the aspects that was innovated at Matan Torah, regarding the Jewish people, is learned from the verse: “I am the L-rd, your G-d” – (ךאלקי - in the singular tense) – namely that each person as an individual has an importance and quality. They are not nullified and subservient to the whole (Klal). And as the Sages state: “Each and every person is required to say that the world was created for my sake”. 

(This is one of the distinctions between other creations and Bnei Yisroel. For all the other creations do not have a purpose, in and of themselves, for they were created only for Yisroel and for the Torah. And just as their general existence is not for their sake, so too is it concerning their particulars (בפרטיהם), for it is possible that each particular (individual) is secondary to the whole (klal). Whereas, regarding the Jewish people, just as the entire Jewish people are not an “intermediary” for something else, but the complete intent is themself, so too it is regarding each of them in particular. For one cannot say that a Jewish person serves only as an “intermediary” to another Yisroel, his friend, and also not for the whole and the community. Rather the epitome of intent is also in each one- individually).

Therefore, one must say that through the publicizing of her, Scripture reveals the praise of Yisroel, it is not considered a denigration to her. On the contrary, this itself is her praise. For through her, the Torah makes known the praise of Yisroel that they were not suspected of illicit relations, “A locked up garden is my sister, my bride; a locked up spring, a sealed fountain”.

An example of this – is the prohibition of Bal Tashchis (בל תשחית - needlessly destroying anything of value):

The prohibition is only when the act is done in a destructive and ruinous manner. However, if a benefit (constructive purpose) comes from destroying it, there is no prohibition of Bal Tashchis.

The same law applies to the prohibition of forbidden labor (Malacha) on Shabbat:

“Whenever a forbidden labor is performed in a destructive manner, one is not held liable” (כל המקלקלין פטורין). (What is implied? one who rips or burns garments, or one who breaks utensils with a destructive intent is not held liable." (רמב"ם הל' שבת פ"א הי"ז)

However, “A person who tears in a fit of rage . . . is liable, for by doing so he settles his mind and calms his natural inclination. Since his anger is soothed through this act, it is considered to be constructive in nature and he is liable” (ibid 10:10).

4. One could also say, and by preface, that we find a debate whether one is obligated to place oneself in a situation where there is a doubt of danger in order to save one’s fellow from certain danger.
 
Some say that this debate is not concerning saving one of the Jewish people (Klal Yisroel), for in that situation an individual is certainly required to place oneself in danger in order to save the Jewish people (Klal Yisroel). One could say that, that this is not because the saving of the Jewish people (Klal Yisroel) overrides (דוחה) the life of the individual, but rather because each individual is a portion of the whole (Klal), a portion of the community. Therefore, the saving of the Jewish people is also a saving of the individual.

And if these words are stated regarding the saving of lives (סכנת נפשות), how much more so are they stated regarding the telling and publicizing of an aspect of denigration. Moreover, there exists in this not just a saving, but a depiction of the “praise of Yisroel” which concerns the foundation of the entire Jewish people (Klal Yisroel).

For the beginning of the choosing and creation of the Jewish People, was in a manner of: “A locked up garden is my sister, my bride; a locked up spring, a sealed fountain” - that they were not suspected of illicit relations. For this is not just a denigration for the purpose of praise, but rather the praise (of Klal Yisroel) is the praise (also) of Shelomit herself.

5. In the Pnimiyut of the matter, one could say:

It is known that all things in this world are categorized into three levels:

a) Things that are holy
b) Things that are permissible
c) Things that are forbidden 

And the difference between them is:

The explanation of “permissible” (מותר) is that “it is not tied and bound to the extraneous forces (bidei chitzonim). In other words, a person can refine the thing from Kelipat Nogah (literally Kelipah that can be illuminated) and elevate the good within it to holiness.

For instance, "if one eats fat beef and drinks spiced wine (not out of physical desire), but in order to broaden his mind for the service of G‑d and for His Torah, etc. or in order to fulfill the commandment to enjoy the Sabbath and the festivals. Then the vitality of the meat and the wine which was enlivened from Kelipat Nogah ascends to G‑d like a burnt offering and sacrifice” as is explained in Tanya (Chapter-7).

Whereas the explanation of “Forbidden” (אסור) is that which is bound and tied to the extraneous forces (bidei Klipot): “Forbidden foods etc. that derive their vitality from the three entirely unclean Kelipot. These are tied and bound by the extraneous forces (chitzonim) forever. They (the vitality of these prohibited acts) are not elevated from the Kelipot until “their day comes and death will be swallowed up i.e., eradicated forever. (The time when evil, the Kelipot, called ”death“ because they oppose G-dliness, which is life, will totally disappear from the world).

However, even now, it is possible to elevate them to holiness as the Alter Rebbe writes there: “Or, when he (the sinner) repents so earnestly that his premeditated sins become transmuted into veritable merits. This is achieved through “repentance out of love (of G‑d),” coming from the depths of the heart etc. since through this he attains this great love (of G‑d)”. Therefore, even the premeditated sins become transmuted into veritable merits.

Accordingly it is understood in our case regarding Shelomit. For since: “No one banished from Him (by his sins} will remain banished”( שלא ידח ממנו נדח) - the rectification of this that was the opposite of Tzniyut and holiness – is when this episode brings one to observe Tzniyut and the epitome of Tzniyut – the publicizing of the “praise of Yisroel”, that they were not “suspected of illicit relations” and on all them it is stated: “A locked up garden is my sister my bride; a locked up spring, a sealed fountain”.

And like the aforementioned words of the Alter Rebbe, that through Teshuva, premeditated sins become transmuted into veritable merits “for through this he attains this great love (of G‑d)”.

(m’Sichas Shabbat Parshat Emor 5725
Shabbat Parshat Bamidbar 5747)