Parshas Emor is addressed primarily to detailing the special halachos of Kohanim and Yomim Tovim. It would seem that these two themes form the bulk of the parshah due to their similarity. Kehunah (Priesthood) and Yomim Tovim are compared insofar as they are endowed with legal kedushah status. That is to say, unlike personal kedushah elaborated upon in Parshas Kedoshim, which is an individualized state attainable by one's actions and closeness to Hashem, the kedushah of Parshas Emor is an objective status regardless of the merits. Thus, a Kohen has the kedushah of Kehunah even if he does not rise to spiritual heights, and the Yom Tov days are likewise endowed with holiness, even if they are not observed. It follows that the Torah places the kedushah of Parshas Emor after that of Parshas Kedoshim as part of its overview of the varied dimensions and types of holiness.

However, Parshas Emor features a very unusual story (per Rashi, from Midrash Vayikra Rabbah), in which a man whose father was Egyptian and whose mother was Jewish (from Shevet Dan) wished to set up his residence as part of the tribal formation of Dan. When the man was instructed that he may not do so, as tribal relationship goes according to patrilineal descent, he blasphemed. (Vayikra 24:10-23) Why is this event contained in this week's parshah?

It would seem that the blasphemer acted not out of sheer anger. Rather, he was frustrated about his status and its ramifications. He argued that it was not fair that he, by no fault of his own, was penalized by not being able to join what he felt should be his proper tribal formation. To put it in broader terms, the blasphemer objected to God's endowment of objective halachic statuses, whether they be those of kedushah (such as in the case of Kohanim, etc.) or yichus (lineage). He argued that only subjective, personal attainment should count. This is the connection in the parshah between the story of the blasphemer and the theme of objective kedushah, as exemplified by Kehunah and Yom Tov.

It is noteworthy that when Hashem taught Moshe the punishment due the blasphemer, He included the penalties for harming people and animals. (Vayikra 24:17-22) Why is this?

As explained, the blasphemer objected to God's rules. On a deeper level, the blasphemer was judging God, and the curse uttered was thus not merely a harsh reaction of rage, but a verbal assault, as if the blasphemer wished to harm or punish God, so to say, for ordaining Torah laws as they stand. "Gidduf" (blasphemy) is the most intense form of verbal assault, and the halachos of assaulting person and animal are thus taught alongside it.

Right before the story of the blasphemer, the Torah presents the halachos of the Menorah and Lechem Ha-Panim (Showbread). Chazal understood the Menorah to represent God's Presence, and the Shulchan (Table) which held Lechem Ha-Panim as reflective of God's sustenance. (V. Rashi at beginning of Parshas Terumah.) These two themes are the Torah's reply to the blasphemer. We are told that God is with us, supervising us and providing all that we have. Despite whatever status situation we are in, it is Hashem's will, and it is just. Hashem's personal care for us, and our ability to be close to Him, are always the same, regardless of whatever situation we find ourselves in. He is always with us, and upon realization of this will we find peace and contentment. This is the Torah's reply to the blasphemer.