Kommentar zu Bamidbar 19:2

וזאת חקת התורה THIS IS THE ORDINANCE OF THE LAW — Because Satan and the nations of the world taunt Israel, saying, “What is this command and what reason is there for it”, on this account it (Scripture) writes (uses) the term חקה about it, implying: It is an enactment from before Me; you have no right to criticize it (Yoma 67b; cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 7).

This is ‘chukath’ (the statute of) the law. “Since Satan¹Here understood as “the hinderer” or “the disturber” who tries to dissuade people from keeping commandments which they do not fully understand. and the nations of the world ridicule Israel, saying, ‘What is [the meaning of] this commandment [of the Red Heifer]?’ therefore the Torah uses the term chukah (statute) in connection with it, [meaning]: ‘It is a decree from before Me, and you have no permission to question it.’” This is Rashi’s language, taken from the words of our Rabbis.²Tanchuma, Chukath 7; Yoma 67b. See also Vol. II, p. 208, Note 236. Now I have already written in connection with the goat that is sent away [to Azazel³Leviticus 16:8. the reason] why the nations of the world should taunt us about this [commandment] more than [they taunt us about] the rest of the offerings which effect atonement, and some of which bring about purification — such as the offerings of a man [or woman] who suffered a flux,⁴Ibid., 15:13-15; 25-31. or of a woman after childbirth.⁵Ibid., 12:6-8. [The reason is] that since [the procedure of the Red Heifer] is performed outside [the Sanctuary], it appears to the nations that it is slaughtered to the satyrs which are in the open field.⁶See ibid., 17:5-7. But the truth is that [the Red Heifer] is brought to remove the spirit of impurity, and the burning thereof outside [the Sanctuary Court] is like the sweet savor⁷Ibid., 1:9 etc. — In other words, as long as the observance is in accordance with the word of G-d, it does not matter if it is done within the Sanctuary Court or outside thereof, for both were equally commanded by Him. [of the offerings brought within the Sanctuary Court].
The reason for the impurity conveyed by a corpse is [due to man’s sin committed through] the instigation of the serpent,⁸See Vol. I, p. 75: “But in the opinion of our Rabbis, if Adam had not sinned he would have never died, etc.” See also my Hebrew commentary, pp. 267-268. for those who die by “the Divine Kiss” do not [in fact] convey impurity according to the law, this being the [sense of the] saying of the Rabbis:⁹Tosafoth Baba Metzia 114b. See my Hebrew commentary p. 268, for further sources of this statement. “The righteous do not convey impurity [when dead].” It is for this reason that Scripture states, This is ‘chukath’ of the law, meaning: [this is] that which is “hollowed out”¹⁰From the root: chakak — “to engrave, hollow out.” from the [Written] Torah, namely, the Oral Torah.¹¹See Abusaula and other Cabalistic commentators on Ramban. Therefore it is a [female] heifer and must be red, [symbolic] of the attribute of justice.¹¹See Abusaula and other Cabalistic commentators on Ramban. It is given to Eleazar¹²Verse 3. inasmuch as it must be slaughtered before him, even [though it may actually be slaughtered] by a non-priest, because the deputy High Priest [i.e., Eleazar] supervises the performance thereof, so that it should be done in accordance with his intentions, and so that they should not entertain any improper thoughts about it, as do the nations [of the world] and Satan¹Here understood as “the hinderer” or “the disturber” who tries to dissuade people from keeping commandments which they do not fully understand. [as mentioned above].
Now this section [of the Red Heifer] completes the laws of the priests [and as such belongs in the Book of Leviticus]. However, it is written here after [the preceding section dealing with] the gifts to the priests, in order to declare that the purification of Israel must also be effected through the priest [just as atonement for sin is effected through the offerings which are offered on the altar by the priests].
THIS IS THE STATUTE OF THE LAW WHICH THE ETERNAL COMMANDED. The reason for this expression [when it should have said “that I commanded,” since G-d is the Speaker of these words], is similar to the verse, And unto Moses He said: ‘Come up unto the Eternal’¹³Exodus 24:1. See Vol. II, pp. 422-424. [where it should likewise have said: “Come up unto Me”]. Or it may be that this verse must be re-arranged [in order to be interpreted properly], its sense being: “Speak unto the children of Israel: This is the statute of the law which the Eternal hath commanded, saying etc.”¹⁴The order of the expressions [in Hebrew] is as follows: And the Eternal spoke unto Moses and unto Aaron saying: This is the statute of the law which the Eternal hath commanded saying: Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring … With the sense of the verse being as Ramban transposes it, we can understand the use of the phrase which ‘the Eternal’ hath commanded, because this is part of the statement which Moses is to make to the people, when conveying G-d’s command. Hence it cannot say: “which I have commanded.”

'זאת חקת התורה אשר צוה ה, when the Torah in Nuimbers 8,7 had spoken of the need to sprinkle the waters of “chatat” on the Levites in order to purify them before they would begin their function newly assigned to them, our sages (Yuma 16) had already referred to the procedure as a chukkah, a statute, adding that these kinds of statute must not be questioned and probed as they are in the nature of a decree issued by G’d. The wise King Solomon, when mentioning that he had striven to unravel the wisdom in this legislation admitted that he had failed, that it was beyond him. (Kohelet 7,23). The thing which is most baffling in the red heifer legislation is that most who is ritually pure becomes ritually contaminated by direct contact with it, although the whole purpose of the red heifer, its ash, etc., is to purify the people who had been ritually contaminated prior to being sprinkled with spring water containing its ashes.
However, when we examine the entire commandment in detail we find that some of the people concerned with that red heifer from the moment it has been burned after having been slaughtered become ritually contaminated, i.e. the person burning its carcass, the person collecting its ashes, as well as the ones throwing the cedar wood as well as the one using the hyssop and crimson thread. into its burnt ashes. The same applies to all those either touching the remains or carrying them.
By contrast, the person performing the sprinkling with the mixture of the ash and water as well as the one sanctifying the location where the red heifer is to be burned and the one lighting the fire prior to burning the slaughtered red heifer are not contaminated by their activities.
One of the principal conditions concerning the red heifer is the requirement that it must not even have 2 hairs that are white or black. The symbolism of the colour red is supplied by the prophet Isaiah 1,18 who writes that even if your sins are as red as certain type or wool dyed red they can become white as snow under certain conditions of remorse.
Our sages considered this line so important that they used to tie a red string to the entrance of the Sanctuary when the scapegoat was thrown down on the Day of Atonement. This string would turn white as proof that the people’s sins had been forgiven. When this happened the people would rejoice for the remainder of that day, whereas when it failed to turn white they would be greatly saddened. (Yuma 67)
We must remember that seeing that in the words of Solomon (Proverbs 30,5) אמרת ה' צרופה, “everything G’d has said is absolutely pure, refined,” He has no doubt kept in mind that all extremes are looked upon with disfavour so that His legislation must represent what Maimonides called the “golden mean.” Solomon himself described any perversion as something deserving total failure. (compare Proverbs 28,18).
Furthermore, we must remember that when attempting to rectify something that has become bent out of shape by merely bending it in the opposite direction partially this will not restore it to its previous condition, but that it must be reversed completely in order to eventually be straight again. This is a principle applied by physicians in healing physical ailments, a principle described in Proverbs 20,30 as חבורות פצע תמריק ברע, “you must eradicate wounds and injuries by using (what appear to be) harmful remedies.” In other words, although the application of such remedies appears to run counter to the goal of preserving the golden mean, in such situations anything less drastic would never rectify the harm that had been caused by the injury. If similar means were to be applied to a completely healthy person they would, of course, be harmful instead of helpful.
A fifth consideration when contemplating the legislation in front of us is that the ash of the red heifer is effective in the context of ritual impurity only when the ritual impurity was caused by direct or indirect contact with a dead person’s body. Any other kind of ritual contamination, such as blood of menstruation, dead creeping things, and a number of other causes of such ritual defilements are not affected at all by the treatment here described.
We know that Torah by definition is designed to improve the quality of life of the people observing its laws. The Torah spells this out in Deuteronomy 32,47 by writing: כי היא חייכם, “for it is your very life.” Anyone deviating from the laws of the Torah either is on the way to spiritual and physical death or is already at the point where, although he is walking around he is legally considered as dead. This is what the sages meant when they said that “the wicked are considered as dead although to all intents and purposes masquerading as alive.” (B’rachot 18).
A sixth consideration we must bear in mind in connection with this statute is that our sages consider the cedar wood as a symbol of haughtiness, arrogance, whereas they consider the hyssop herb as a symbol of humility (Erchin 16). When the two are paired with the red wool known as תולעת שני, each alludes to something sinful. [the subject in the Talmud there is that a Torah scholar, though he needs to practice humility, nevertheless must maintain a certain amount of dignity so that people dealing with him do not get the impression that he is merely a “wimp,” a feeble ineffective personality. [Compare Sotah 5, discussing a saying by Rabbi Hunna son of Rabbi Joshua and the M’iri on that saying. Ed.] Excessive humility in a person charged with leadership is as counterproductive as arrogance in an individual who has not been called upon to serve as a model to anyone.
Our sages quote as an example of excessive humility by a person in public life the humility of Israel’s first King, King Sha-ul, who was punished by G’d for not displaying authority when it needed to be displayed and allowed the common people to get away with making insulting remarks about him without disciplining them. (compare Yuma 22, reference to Samuel I 10,27- 11,13). Even later on in his reign when he excused himself for not having killed the best livestock of the Amalekites, Sha-ul cited his “fear” of the people a the reason why he did not protest the people’s taking these as loot, something which had been forbidden (Samuel I 15,17). The prophet upraided him for behaving with his customary humility in public life, in the discharge of his duties as King.
Having said all this we come to the conclusion that although the whole red heifer legislation is a statute, a decree by G’d which must not be questioned, and we must not, G’d forbid, arrogate to ourselves to judge this legislation as suitable or not, seeing that everything G’d has said is pure and refined, it does teach some exceptionally valuable lessons even when looked at superficially as we have done. Although people like Moses and others on a high level of wisdom may have had an insight into the deeper meaning of this statute, we must learn what we can from what meets the eye.
An important lesson of value to every penitent for every sin committed appears to be the one that in trying to rectify one’s error, one must not content oneself to bend the “bent iron” back with the same amount of force it took to bend it out of shape in the first place, but one must strive to bend it beyond that so that in the future the likelihood of committing the same sin again will be reduced. {We encounter many בעלי תשובה in our daily lives who appear to relate to certain commandments with what appears to be exaggerated stringency. No doubt they have taken to heart what our author just explained about how to straighten out what has been bent out of shape. Ed.]
The red heifer legislation and its details appears among other objectives to indicate a path for the penitents how to make their repentance effective and lasting. The principal element is a complete reversal of the path in life which led him to commit the sins he became guilty of in the first place.
One of the lessons we learn from the details of this legislation is that whereas the method described in our portion is effective for the sinner who wishes to cleanse himself of his sins, i.e. to address himself to his problem by using extreme measures, such extremism when used by anyone other than a repentant sinner would have the opposite effect, i.e. it would make out the previously unblemished, pure, ritually clean person the very reverse, would contaminate him with ritual impurity (a euphemism for his sins.) The sinner is permitted, nay encouraged, commanded to use extreme measures in order to eventually achieve the balance represented by Maimonides’ ideal, the golden mean.
The Talmud Taanit, 11 in describing the procedure of the Nazir terminating his vow (Numbers 6,11) questions the line וכפר עליו מאשד חטא על הנפש, “he will thereby atone for the sin against his soul,” wanting to know what sin such a Nazir could possibly have been guilty of? The answer given is that during the period of his abstinence from wine the Nazir experienced great distress over having to abstain from wine etc. It is reasoned that if the Torah describes a person who causes himself unnecessary distress in one small area of life as a sinner, how much more so will it consider a person who abstains from all food and drink a sinner? [the paragraph commenced with the sage Sh’muel describing people who voluntarily practice fasts as sinners. Ed.]
Consider the fact that the instrument the Torah provides for ritually cleansing the person who had become defiled through contact with a deceased person as a mixture of spring water and ash from the red heifer. This mixture is composed of two extremes, i.e. residues of pure water and fire. Merging these two extremes appears (symbolically) is an excellent way of regaining the path known as the golden mean. Using this combination teaches us that this golden mean is what G’d considers as טהרה, ritual purity, as spelled out in the Torah’s description of the function of the Day of Atonement, מכל חטאתיכם לפני ה' תטהרו “you will become purified from all your sins before (against) the Lord,” (Leviticus 16,30).
We have to contemplate the fact that the Torah decrees that a person who has been defiled by contact with a dead person must not touch the Tabernacle of the Lord, (verse 13) and that he must not enter the airspace of the Tabernacle on pain of contaminating it, (verse 20). I believe the hidden meaning of this regulation is that anyone who has been in too close contact with the vanities of the terrestrial universe (to use the phraseology employed by Solomon in Kohelet again and again) automatically will confer some of the pollution represented by these vanities to sacred things he comes into contact with. He will therefore taint the צלם אלוקים, the Divine image in which he has been created. As a result, he must repair, remove such a taint in order to regain his former stature as an אדם.
Contact with the dead, results in an awareness of the transience of the lives of all of us, makes us aware of the negative aspects of our lives in this world; this is bound to leave a mark on our personality, one that may even border on considering life on earth as an exercise in futility, as indicated by Solomon when he speaks of such matters in Kohelet. The “world” Kohelet describes, i.e.תחת השמש, as if it exists only beneath the sun, a material world only, would indeed lead its inhabitants to such conclusions.
We who believe in a world מעבר לשמש, beyond that serviced by the sun, fortunately have something better to look forward to if we prepare ourselves for this. [I have added remarks of my own to the words of the author but I am certain that these remarks reflect his message. Ed.]
When the Torah speaks of וכל הבא אל האהל, “anyone entering the tent wherein the deceased is kept,” this may be understood allegorically as anyone coming under the influence of the הבלי העולם, the vanities of this terrestrial world, the ultimate uselessness of an existence premised on this being all there is to life.
Our chapter, when read as a simile, reminds the reader of what the task of an עם קדוש, a “holy nation” is, that it cannot be combined with the pursuit of merely secularly oriented pursuits, they are literally a “dead alley.” The expression משכן ה' in verse 13 would be the human body, whereas the expression מקדש ה' would refer to our soul. The author, following the view that gentile corpses do not confer ritual impurity when merely in the same airspace with a Jew, understands this halachah as reflecting the fact that only the body, the physical raw material is called upon to perform the commandments.
Seeing that even being in the same airspace as a dead person confers ritual impurity, it is not difficult to understand that people who engage in sprinkling the waters of the red cow and its ash on a person so contaminated, will in turn be affected by such contact with him, and will themselves absorb a degree of impurity, though much less severe, one that can be cleansed by immersion on a ritual bath the same evening.
People engaged in indirect procedures preparing the מי נדה will not become ritually impure as they were not in contact with the party to be purified at all. We see that there are many aspects of this commandment which yield valuable lessons for us the readers even if we do not penetrate to the innermost meaning of the legislation.

זאת חקת התורה, This is the statute of the Torah, etc. Why did the Torah call this single commandment "Torah?" The Torah should have written simply: זאת חקה, וגו "this is a statute, etc." Alternatively, the commandment could have commenced with the words: "this is the law of ritual impurity, etc." We have such examples in Exodus 12,43 where the Torah wrote: זאת חקת הפסח וגו. We cannot answer the question we raised by saying that the Torah wanted to tell us that in order to be able to study Torah one first had to purify oneself with the ash of the red heifer. This is not only not so, but we have learned in Berachot 22 that "words of Torah are not susceptible to ritual impurity at all." All the opinions offered in the Talmud, including the ones that are most stringent when it comes to the purification rites needed for people who have experienced seminal discharges, agree that it is permissible for people who are ritually impure due to contact with the dead to study Torah while in that state of ritual impurity.

זאת חקת התורה, in verse 14 the Torah already explains the purpose of the red heifer, i.e. which statute of the Torah is being introduced here.

"And take to you" - [This means "bring".] Like (Genesis 48:9), "Take them to me", (Numbers 23:27) "I will take you to another place", (I Samuel 20:31) "Send and take him to me."

זאת חוקת התורה, “This is the decree of the Torah, etc.” According to Rashi the reason that this legislation is preceded by the word חוק, decree, statute, is that what follows defies reason in the eyes of the nations of the world and they ridiculed the Jewish Torah. [The Torah, by prefacing the legislation in such a manner reminds us that the Creator does not need to justify Himself all the time. Ed.] Nachmanides adds that there is a reason that the nations of the world zero in with their criticism on the red heifer legislation more than on the other animal sacrifices some of which also achieve ritual purity for the person bringing the sacrifice, such as people suffering from zav, seminal discharge of a certain type, or the sacrifice brought by a mother who recently gave birth which resulted in her becoming ritually impure is purified as a result of her sacrifice. They argue: how could the ashes of a heifer that had not even been a sacrifice and was slaughtered outside consecrated grounds, confer ritual purity for someone stricken with the most severe kind of impurity? Actually, this paragraph was revealed to the people at the end of the legislation in the Book of Leviticus, concluding the legislation pertaining to sacrificial offerings. The reason why it had not been inserted in the written Torah until this point is that after having heard about the gifts the Israelite has to give to the priests, this concludes a further stage in how the average Israelite obtains his atonement. With the laws about purification from impurity incurred through contact with the dead, especially when burying one’s near and dear ones, the entire subject of ritual impurity is concluded.

Because Satan. Rashi is answering the question: Why are both the words “statute” and “Torah” written [for surely one of them would suffice]? Rashi is not asking why either term is used altogether, for in many instances it is written in the Torah [only] “statute,” for example, “This is the statute of the Pesach offering” (Shemos 12:43) and “If you follow my statutes” (Vayikra 26:3). Also “Torah” appears in, “This is the Torah for the burnt-offering, the meal offering, the sin-offering” (Ibid., 7:37) and, “This is the Torah for the sin-offering” (Vayikra 6:2). But here it is written, “This is the statute of the Torah” so why are both [terms] necessary? Furthermore, “statute” is juxtaposed to “Torah” implying that one term defines the other. It is as if Scripture said that the Torah of the [red] cow is a statute. And it is not similar to, “My statutes and My Torah” (Bereishis 26:5) for there “statutes” is an independent term, not modifying [the word] “Torah.” Now, even though the entire Torah is the King’s edict [and we cannot know the reasons for the mitzvot], nonetheless here it serves to notify that there is no reason at all [for this commandment], rather it is an [absolute] edict and it is worthy of acceptance by Yisroel without any known reason for it. This is what Rashi explains [when he says], “Because Satan, etc.” You might [challenge this and] note that in the episode dealing with Midyan’s utensils it is [also] written, “This is the statute of the Torah” (Bamidbar 31:21). The answer is that there too it is referring to the ashes of the [red] cow for it is written, “However, it must be purified with sprinkling water” (Ibid. v. 23). According to the Midrash (see Rashi there) that the verse, “However, it must be purified with sprinkling water” refers to immersion, for the Torah requires the immersion of metal utensils to purify them from the forbidden [foods absorbed within], one must say that the [act of] immersion itself is among those [statutes] that have no reason. [For one may wonder] why one thousand seah of non-mikvah water cannot accomplish [i.e., purify] what forty seah of mikvah water accomplishes. Re”m

V. 2. זאת חקת התורה. Der Ausdruck kommt nur noch Kapitel 31, 22 als Einleitung zu הכשר וטבילת כלי מדין vor. Diese Institutionen und die hier folgende פרה אדמה-Institution haben das Gemeinsame, dass jene ebenso Herstellung und Wiederherstellung von Speisegeräten für טהרת גויות bezwecken, wie פרה אדמה die Wiederherstellung der Menschen für טהרת קדושות zu bewirken bestimmt ist. Beide sind wesentliche Grundbestimmungen des ganzen Gesetzes und die sie betreffenden Bestimmungen bedingen inי unumgänglicher Weise dessen Ausführung. Ohne Mittel zur Wiederherstellung des כשרות unserer כלים und der טהרה unserer Personen von der unvermeidlichen טומאת מת wäre das Gesetz nicht ausführbar. Beide sind daher חוקות התורה: durch das Gesetz bedingte Anordnungen. Und wenn nun, wie wir sehen werden und wie sich ja auf den ersten Blick darstellt, פרה אדמה die ausgesprochenste öffentlichste Proklamierung der טהרה, dieses in der Tat das ganze Gesetz bedingenden Grundgedankens der sittlichen Freiheit ist, so begreift sich umsomehr das Diktatorische der einleitenden Worte: זאת חקת חתורה! — Menachot 19a wird ferner an dem Ausdruck חוקה gelehrt, dass jeder einzelne Teil der hier folgenden Vorschriften für die פרה אדומה-Institution für die Gültigkeit des Ganzen bedingend sei: מרתומת הלשכה :ויקחו אליך — כל מקום שנאמר חוקה אינו אלא לעכב ., aus der von den jährlichen מחצית .Spenden sich bildenden nationalen Opferkasse (Schekalim 17; siehe Schmot-השקל 30, 16). — בת שלש :פרה, vom angetretenen dritten Jahr und weiter (Para 1, 1). nach erlangter Mutterfähigkeit, פחותה מבת ג׳ שנים מי קא ילדה (Aboda Sara 24b). פרה אדמה תמימה: das Erfordernis der מום-losigkeit wird sofort durch אשר אין בה מום ausgesprochen, תמימה ist daher nur als Prädikat in bezug zu der geforderten roten Farbe תמימה לאדמימות zu begreifen, vollkommen in Röte (Sifri). Auch nur zwei schwarze oder weiße Haare machen sie zu dem beabsichtigten Zweck untauglich (Para 2, 5). — אשר אין בה מום: obgleich פרה אדמה nur den Charakter von קדשי בדק הבית und nicht von קדשי מזבח trägt, so hindern doch alle מומין und sonstigen Mängel, wie רובע ונרבע מוקצה ונעבד אתנן ומחיר und auch יוצא דופן וטריפה, die ein Tier zum Opfer untauglich machen (siehe Wajikra 1, 2), auch die Tauglichkeit des Tieres zur פרה אדומה; heißt diese doch חטאת (V. 9) und steht somit, obgleich קדשי בדק תיבה, im חאטת-Charakter (Aboda Sara 23b und Para 2, 3). — אשר לא עלה עליה על: es heißt nicht אשר לא עלה עול עליה, in welchem Falle die Aussage nur auf עול beschränkt bliebe, es heißt vielmehr אשר לא עלה עליה עול, es ist nichts auf das Tier gekommen, was als Joch zu begreifen wäre, es ist also nicht nur עול, sondern auch עבודה für die Brauchbarkeit störend, und wird damit Sota 46 a die Bestimmung hier ähnlich gefasst, wie dies in עגלה ערופה (Dewarim 21, 3: אשר לא עבד בה אשר לא משכה בעול (siehe daselbst), jedoch wird hier, für פרה, die Bestimmung präzisiert: על פוסל בין בשעת עבודה, בין שלא בשעת עבודה, שאר עבודות אין פוסלות אלא בשעת עבודה, d.h. die Auflegung eines wirklichen Joches, des Zeichens der Dienstbarkeit, hindert die Tauglichkeit, selbst wenn sie ohne augenblicklichen Arbeitszweck geschieht, das Inanspruchnehmen der Dienstkraft des Tieres aber auf andere Weise jedoch nur, wenn dabei ein wirklicher Leistungszweck vorwaltet. Das Auflegen eines Joches wäre daher פוסל, selbst wenn das Tier nicht jetzt ziehen soll, das Auflegen eines anderen Objektes aber nur, wenn das Tier die Last tragen soll.

זאת חקת התורה, “This is the statute of the law of the Torah;” The “statute” referred to here are the laws of ritual defilement and subsequent rites of purification. They were communicated to the people on the first day of Nissan, on the day the Tabernacle was erected ready for service. (Talmud, tractate Gittin folio 60). It had to be communicated on that day, as on the following day the red heifer, the instrument without which purification could not take place, was burned. Without knowledge of these procedures, the Passover, which would be offered on the fourteenth day of that month could not have been offered. The Torah had stipulated in verse 4 of our chapter that the location for the sprinkling of the waters containing the ash of that red heifer was opposite, i.e. facing the Tabernacle. It had to be inserted here as there were people, who as a result of the rebellion of Korach had become ritually contaminated.

This is the statute of the Torah. Rashi’s explanation is that a statute connotes commandments for which one does not need to know the reason for doing them. In these cases the commandment depends on doing and not on study. The language of ‘statute’ is not appropriate in conjunction with Torah, though, because study is a part of the Torah. Here, however, Moshe was told that even concerning Torah there would be a statute — the statute of the Torah — and he should not question the Torah of the red heifer. Regarding the instructions about the vessels taken in the war on Midyan it also says, “the statute of the Torah,” because there was no need to provide a reason in that situation. Furthermore, in that case it was Elozor speaking, and he did not need to provide a reason, but here it was the Holy One speaking. When Rashi writes that this commandment is a decree, he does not mean a decree without any reason, as the view of the Rambam. Rashi only means that we should not say the commandments are due to Hashem’s mercy on His creatures, and this is because the entire Torah is the Attribute of Judgment. All the commandments are for the benefit of the people who keep them, and not, for example, for the benefit of the poor. Hashem commanded us to go in His ways, which are merciful, and that is because of His decrees on mankind and not out of His mercy on creation.

ויקחו אליך THEY SHALL TAKE UNTO THEE — It will always be called by thy name: people will speak of the cow which Moses prepared in the wilderness (Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 8).

Scripture states dabeir [— in the singular — dabeir (speak) unto the children of Israel] and not dabru [in the plural, although the section begins: And the Eternal spoke unto Moses and unto Aaron], because Moses was the main [person who spoke to the people, “or it may mean that G-d spoke to Moses that he should tell it to Aaron, as our Rabbis have explained” (see a similar case in Leviticus 13:1) and in this sense Moses was the main person involved in the Divine communication].

פרה אדומה; this animal is required so that its ashes can be used to purify people who had become ritually defiled through direct or indirect contact with the body of a deceased human being.

"Perfect, without blemish in it" - The language is repetitious, like (Leviticus 22:21) "It must be perfect to be acceptable, it should have no blemish in it."

זאת חוקת התורה אשר צוה ה', “This is the decree of the Torah that Hashem has commanded;” There are a few other instances where someone is reported as speaking in the third person, “he,” although clearly the quote shows that “he” or “He” was speaking in the first person. The examples coming to mind are Exodus 24,1 עלה אל ה', “ascend to Hashem” or in Genesis 4,23 נשי למך האזינה, “wives of Lemech listen!” Lemech himself was speaking.

“What is this commandment? What is the reason for it?” You might ask: Why does Rashi seemingly repeat [the same idea] “What is this commandment? What is the reason for it?” Also, why do the nations taunt Israel regarding this commandment more than with other commandments? There are many commandments that seemingly have no reason, such as [the prohibition of] mixing different seeds, or other such similar commandments. And furthermore, why do Satan and the nations of the world taunt Israel particularly regarding this commandment? It seems to me that there are three categories or commandments. First, there are commandments dealing with proper behavior such as prohibitions against theft, murder, and the like, [necessary] for the preservation of the world. Then there is a [second] category of commandments whose purpose is to remove and annul evil spirits and accusations. [These commandments] are the [blasting of the] shofar and [eating] matzos. And being that these commandments have a reason, the nations of the world do not taunt Israel regarding them because the commandments have a reason, in that they serve to remember a miracle. But Satan, which is the evil spirit, seeks to nullify the [reason by saying] "Why can the commandment only be fulfilled by blowing a shofar [i.e., ram’s horn] or only by eating matza and burning the chometz, etc.?" And a third category is commandments whose reason is not revealed, yet the nations of the world do not taunt Israel, such as lulav, tzitzis, or forbidden food. However, this commandment is not related to any miracle, and it has the [power of] removing of impurity. And also it has similarities to witchcraft in its preparation and burning. Therefore Satan, along with the nations of the world, taunts [Israel] by saying, “What is this commandment which is similar to witchcraft? And also, what reason is there for this Commandment? For it is self-contradictory: The ashes of the [red] cow purify the impure, yet it causes the one who carries the ashes to become impure! And furthermore what reason is there for it to purify the impure?” R. Yaakov Taryesh

We may be able to answer our question by referring to something we have learned in Nazir 61 and which has been ruled on by Maimonides in the first chapter of his treatise on Tumat Met. It is stated there that the concept of ritual purity originating from a dead body and conferring ritual impurity does not apply to the type of Gentile known in the Talmud as a Kuti. Here is the wording of Maimonides' ruling: "If a Kuti touches a dead body or carries same or forms a tent over such a dead body it is as if he had never touched the dead body. The situation is analogous to an animal having touched a dead body. Just as the animal does not become ritually impure thereby, neither does the Kuti." Thus far Maimonides. The Jewish people have been elevated above other nations in that they have received the Torah without which the Jews would not be different from any other nation. The wording of our verse then reminds us of the distinction of the Jewish people in that contact with the dead confers ritual impurity on a people who have been given the Torah. Lesser spirits yearn to attach themselves to the Jewish people inasmuch as the latter represent a high level of spirituality not only while alive but even while they are dead. The sanctity Jews experience during their lives is evident due to the fact that contact with the dead, or even being under the same roof with a dead body confers ritual impurity on the bodies of living Jews. This reflects how the Gentiles even while dead aspire to attach themselves to Jews, somehow. Were it not for the power of the ash of the red heifer with which this legislative act of the Torah has endowed us to help counteract the pull of the impurity associated with a dead body, we would not be able to shake off this attachment by the spiritual residue of the dead.

'אשר צוה ה, “which the Lord had commanded;” we do not find where the Lord had commanded this previously, a phenomenon we referred to already in our commentary on Exodus 10,3.

אדמה תמימה [A COW] RED, PERFECT — This means that it should be perfect in respect to its redness (Sifrei Bamidbar 123:1), — so that if there are two black hairs in it (or two of any color other than red) it is unfitted for the rite here described (Mishnah Parah 2:5).

THEY SHALL TAKE UNTO THEE. The reason [why the verse says] “unto thee” [Moses] is [because G-d first commanded] that they should do this in the wilderness for that particular time, and afterwards He commanded that it shall be unto the children of Israel, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among them for a statute for ever,¹⁵Verse 10. meaning that they should do so throughout their generations. Similarly [we find the expression unto thee in the following verses]: that they bring ‘unto thee’ pure olive oil,¹⁶Exodus 27:20. and afterwards it says, it shall be a statute for ever throughout their generations.¹⁷Ibid., Verse 21. Here too, the original command was for Moses’ lifetime [hence “unto thee”], and afterwards it was repeated to make it obligatory throughout the generations.
Scripture states: And ‘ye’ shall give,¹²Verse 3. and not “and ‘thou’ shalt give,” in order to include Aaron together with Moses and thereby to honor him [Aaron], for both of them were to command Eleazar to have it slaughtered before him. Or it may be that He said and ‘ye’ shall give [because it refers] to many [givers] — those now and those of subsequent generations, and the meaning is that Eleazar who [was in charge of it being] slaughtered [although it could actually be slaughtered by anybody, as explained above] was to take it from the possession of the court, and they were to give it to him so that it should be done properly and in accordance with their intention; in a similar manner to that which we have been taught [in a Mishnah]:¹⁸Parah 3:5. “And who prepared them [the ashes of the Red Heifer]? The first one was prepared by Moses our teacher;¹⁹Moses himself did not prepare the Red Heifer, as is stated here in Scripture. But as the leader of the Sanhedrin, he directed that it should be prepared in accordance with his intention. Similarly it was prepared throughout the subsequent generations under the guidance and in accordance with the intention of the Great Court. Thus all possible vigilant care was taken to assure against anything adverse to the proper preparation of the ashes of the Red Heifer. the second one was prepared by Ezra, and seven were prepared after Ezra’s time. And who prepared them? Simon the Just²⁰See Vol. II, p. 477, Note 52. and Jochanan the High Priest prepared two each etc.”²¹The Mishnah concludes: “And Elihu Einai the son of Hakof, and Chanamel the Egyptian, and Ishmael the son of Piabi prepared one each.” — “Thus there were altogether nine Red Heifers prepared from the time [of Moses] when they were given this commandment until the destruction of the Second Temple … The tenth one will be prepared by the Messianic King, may he speedily reveal himself” (Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Parah Adumah, 3:4).

דבר אל בני ישראל, ”speak to the Children of Israel.” Although we would have expected the word for ”speak” to be in the plural mode, i.e. דברו, seeing that Moses was the more important one of the two, the Torah used the singular mode.

זאת חקת התורה אשר צוה ה’ לאמור, דבר אל בני ישראל ויקחו אליך פרה אדומה תמימה וגו’, “this is the statute of the Torah which the Lord has commanded to say: ‘tell the Children of Israel that they shall take an unblemished red cow, etc.’” The paragraph dealing with the red heifer has been appended to the one detailing the gifts the Israelites have to give to the priests because the red heifer is the “instrument which purifies the Jewish people.” The paragraph teaches that the priests are not only the recipients of gifts from the Israelites but that they are the ones who can confer ritual purity on the Israelites.

It will always be called. Rashi is answering why Scripture writes ךילא? For ךילא ("to you") implies that Moshe is to be involved with the [red] cow, and below it is written, “Give it to Elozor [the kohein]” (v. 3). However, when it is written, “To take to you pure olive oil” (Vayikra 24:2), and Scripture does not clarify who should be involved with it, one might say that Moshe was to be involved, and therefore it is written, “To take to you pure olive oil.”

I have already illustrated this relationship between Israel and ritual impurity by means of a parable. Let us assume that we have two containers inside a house, one full of honey, the other full of refuse. If you take both these containers outside it will be observed that the container full of honey attracts swarms of flies whereas the number of flies which are attracted to the container full of refuse is insignificant by comparison. Similarly, when a Jew dies, the fact that he was full of holiness while alive -i.e. sweet as honey,- now attracts all kinds of spiritually negative elements seeing the soul has departed from that body. These are the forces of impurity which always attempt to attach themselves to anything sacred as they wish to benefit from the physical sweetness of holiness. This is the reason that the body of a dead Jew confers impurity on any other Jew who is under the same roof. This is so even if 1000 houses attached to each other surround the room in which the dead body is kept. As long as one door opens into those houses the impurity is spread throughout the airspace in all these houses. The same does not occur if the dead body is not that of a Jew. This is because the Gentile never possessed holiness while alive so that the spiritually negative elements have no reason to think they would benefit by attaching themselves to it. The body of a dead Gentile confers ritual impurity on a Jew only if the Jew touches it, etc., not if he merely shares the same roofed-over airspace with it. The only impurity which does cling to the body of a dead Gentile is that which is capable of killing on contact. The root cause for all these rules is the Torah (which was given to the Jewish people).

ויקחו אליך, “they shall bring to you;” seeing that the priests had been charged with ensuring that the Tabernacle precincts would not be breached by unauthorised Israelites, they had to be provided with the means to purify people who had violated these rules through ignorance or carelessness. This is also what is meant in verse 3, where G-d includes Elazar, Aaron’s, son as a recipient of this red heifer who is to attend to the ritual involving it. It is a gift to the priests from the community.

אליך, “to you,” the meaning of this word in this context is that at this time such a red heifer should be burned for the needs of the people; in the future, this should be done only as and when the need arose. The reason that the Torah wrote the word ונתתם in the plural mode instead of ונתת in the singular mode, in verse 3, is to give Aaron a share in the performance of this commandment so that both Moses and Aaron commanded Eleazar to carry out this commandment by slaughtering the heifer in his presence. Alternatively, the meaning of the word ונתתם in the plural mode is simply that the instruction issued here applies also to future generations. Eleazar, by slaughtering the red heifer acted as the person designated to do so on behalf of the Jewish Supreme Court.

The cow which Moshe prepared in the wilderness. Because when Moshe prepared this [red] cow in the wilderness, they left over some [ashes] for [future] Kohanim Gedolim for the Mount of Olives and for other cows that will be sanctified from these ashes, as Rashi explains below (v. 9). That is to say that all [future] cows would need to mix in [ashes] from Moshe’s cow and that is how they became sanctified. Otherwise, it would be disqualified as being ashes of the [red] cow. That is why they are all referred to as Moshe’s.

With the help of this explanation I have been able to understand why G'd was so particular about only two aspects of the Passover legislation in Egypt. The first aspect is G'd's insistence that only Jews who had been circumcised were allowed to offer and eat the Passover lamb. Our sages in Shemot Rabbah 17,3 understand Ezekiel 16,6 and 8 as referring to the blood of circumcision and the blood of the Passover sacrifice respectively. The second aspect G'd was so concerned with at the time was the prohibition of a בן נכר (normally translated as a Gentile) eating from that sacrifice. The sages in Shemot Rabbah 16,3 explain Exodus 12,21 משכו וקחו לכם צאן, "draw out and take for yourselves lambs, etc." to refer to people who had withdrawn from worshiping idols. The visible evidence of abandoning idol worship consisted of slaughtering the very animal which served the Egyptians as a major deity. When a Jew did this he ceased to be a בן נכר, a Gentile. It is strange that the third major stricture which the Torah warned the Jews of regarding the observance of the Passover ritual, namely, that it must not be eaten by people who are ritually impure did not feature in the legislation as it applied to the Jews in Egypt. Why did G'd not care about this at that time? It is true, of course, as you are all aware, that if the majority of the Jewish people were to find themselves in a state of ritual impurity due to contact with the dead the rule about eating the Passover while in a state of impurity is relaxed, as we know from Pessachim 67. Nonetheless, G'd could have at least commanded that the Jews in Egypt should endeavour to be ritually pure before eating the Passover? Moses could have prepared the ash of a red heifer to facilitate the process of a Jew cleansing himself of such impurity! Even the whole Passover legislation for future observance as detailed in Exodus 12,42-49 does not mention the need to be ritually pure! While one can come up with various excuses as to why ritual purity inside Egypt was not feasible, the Torah should have at least mentioned this as part of the requirements for the Passover observance forthwith! When you reflect on what we have written above you will find that there was a perfectly good reason why the Torah ignored the requirement of ritual purity in Exodus. The Israelites did not need to purify themselves because they had not been defiled through contact with the dead in the first place. As long as they had not been Jews in the legal sense of the word, i.e. through circumcision and the affirmation of their monotheism through the act of slaughtering an Egyptian deity, i.e. the lamb, they were no better than the Kutim discussed in Nazir 61 and the rule laid down for who is subject to such ritual impurity by Maimonides. As long as the Israelites had not received the Torah they would not contract ritual impurity even after they had circumcised themselves and prepared the Passover lamb for ritual slaughter. Moreover, even assuming that Jews could contract ritual impurity as soon as they had converted by circumcision and the denial of idol worship, such a conversion took place only on the 14th of Nissan as they prepared to slaughter the lamb. Any so-called ritual impurity which was contracted before that date would be automatically cancelled as it had been contracted by a different person, a Gentile instead of a Jew. Even nowadays, if a Gentile converts on the 14th of Nissan, any impurity he had contracted prior to that date is ignored for the purpose of including him in the people who may eat of the Passover, provided he meets all the other requirements. Having written this we are faced with the problem mentioned in Pessachim 92 where it states that a proselyte who converted on the 14th of Nissan may not participate in that year's Passover although he had ritually immersed himself [a requirement for all proselytes. Ed.], the reason being that in the event he would be impure due to contact with the dead in the following year he would think that all he had to do was to immerse himself in a ritual bath. Maimonides also rules this way in chapter 6 of his Hilchot Pessach. The reason both the Talmud and Maimonides had to explain the reason for this prohibition teaches that in actual fact such a proselyte had not been ritually impure at all at the time of his conversion. The same applied to the Jews in Egypt. This then is the meaning of the Torah writing זאת חקת התורה.

לא עלה עליה עול, “it had never borne a yoke.” The word “Ol,” yoke, is spelled here without the letter ו in the middle, to indicate that even if that heifer had only very briefly had a yoke placed on it without performing any kind of task for man, it would be disqualified from serving as the red heifer required. [in other words, the spelling of the word is the same as על, ”on.”

It must be perfectly red. Meaning, why is it written “perfect”? For you cannot say that it means without a blemish for it is specifically stated, “Without a blemish.”

On a moral/ethical plane we may see in the words חקת התורה a message telling us that whosoever observes this commandment although it is labelled as a statute lacking rationale, is considered as if he had observed the whole range of commandments contained in the Torah. The reason is that when we observe a commandment which is completely beyond our understanding this is equivalent to a declaration of faith in G'd and in His Torah. It is as if one declared one's preparedness to observe all the commandments given the opportunity to do so. Who knows if G'd did not present this commandment as a חקה in order to enable us to make such a declaration by means of observing it.

אשר צוה ה', “which the Lord has commanded.” The Torah really should have written: “which I commanded.” However our syntax here is comparable to Exodus 24,1 where the Torah wrote: ואל משה אמר עלה אל ה', instead of עלה אלי, ascend to Me.”

Two black hairs, it was disqualified. You might ask: Perhaps even one hair [would disqualify it]? The answer is that had Scripture not written “perfect” but only “red,” I would know that it has to be entirely red, and that even if it had only one black hair it would be disqualified. Now that Scripture writes “perfect” it is to teach that it must be completely red, implying that were it to have even only one black hair it is disqualified. Thus we have a situation of an exclusion following an exclusion, and in such a situation we derive an inclusion, that one black hair does not disqualify, but two back hairs disqualify. However, Re”m explains that [the law that] two hairs [disqualify] is a law [given] to Moshe at Sinai.

אשר צוה ה׳ לאמר, which G'd commanded to convey. Why was this half-sentence necessary at all? We have already learned from verse one that G'd was the One Who instructed Moses and Aaron to convey this commandment to the Israelites! Besides, why did the Torah employ the third person i.e. אשר צוה instead of the usual אשר אנכי מצוך, "which I command you, etc.?" Why did the Torah have to repeat the word לאמר once more in our verse? The Torah already wrote לאמר in verse one! We must also analyse why the words דבר אל בני ישראל do not appear at the very beginning of our verse instead of after the words זאת חקת התורה.

דבר אל בני ישראל, speak to the Children of Israel, etc.” Although the paragraph commences with G’d addressing both Moses and Aaron, He uses the singular דבר, instead of דברו when formulating what precisely it is that the Children of Israel are to be told. The reason is that even when G’d addresses Moses and Aaron simultaneously, Moses is considered the principal.

Most commandments are either based on reason or on traditions which have to be symbolised. The author calls the former מצות שכליות and the latter מצות שמעיות. An example of the former is the commandment to honour father and mother, whereas the commandment to rest on the seventh day is an example of the latter. Observance of the Sabbath is a symbolic form of acknowledging that G'd rested on that day when He created the universe. We observe certain festivals as commemorations of miracles which the Jewish people experienced on those dates. We do not worship idols to testify that G'd is our deity, that He took us out of Egypt. The examples mentioned are, however, only the apparent, i.e. the visible reason for those commandments. There is not a single commandment that does not contain mystical dimensions, unknown to most people but whose meaning had been revealed to Moses. It behooves each one of us to acquire as much insight into the meaning of the Torah as the 48 methods described in the last chapter of "Ethics of our Fathers" have revealed to us. If one pursues Torah study by taking advantage of all the various tools mentioned there one will be able to gain insights similar to those that G'd revealed to Moses at Mount Sinai and which Moses in turn communicated to the Jewish people. The members of Moses' generation were informed about all the mystical dimensions of the various commandments.

ויקחו אליך, “and they shall take to you.” The reason for the additional word “to you” at this point is to teach that the commandment was of immediate importance at this time in the desert, whereas later on (verse 10) G’d gives instructions as to future applicability of this commandment. We find a similar pattern in the legislation of the oil for anointing (Exodus 27,20) as I commented there.

In our instance, G'd decided to legislate a commandment which did not fit either of the two categories we mentioned before. He decided to withhold the reasons which prompted Him to formulate this legislation. The first time the Torah writes the word לאמר in verse one was to tell Moses to convey this commandment without elaborating on its meaning. This is why the Torah told Moses to say "זאת חקת התורה" as if to say: "do not ask me any questions about the meaning of this law." The second time the Torah writes אשר צוה ה׳ לאמר is equivalent to Moses telling the people: "this is all I am allowed to tell you." He implied that he himself had received further insights into the meaning of this law although he had to keep this a secret.

This solves all the questions we had posed about the peculiar wording employed here. It explains why the commandment did not commence with the words דבר אל בני ישראל before saying זאת חקת התורה. The reason was that these words were precisely what made this commandment different from all the other commandments which Moses was meant not merely to convey to the people but also to explain to them. The word דבר referred to the substance of the commandment to be conveyed to the Israelites. The Israelites might counter that anyone who observes a commandment without knowing both the visible and the hidden reason for that commandment was like a person performing a commandment which had a body but no soul. In order to counter such an argument the Torah wrote דבר אל בני ישראל ויקחו אליך פרה אדומה, "they shall perform the commandment because you know the reason behind it." The Torah meant that seeing that Moses was familiar with even the hidden reason for this commandment the people could observe it in a perfect manner although G'd had not taken them into His confidence in this instance. When looking at the paragraph in this way we can even understand the conjunctive letter ו at the beginning of the word ויקחו. It means that in addition to the actual taking of the red heifer the people should be conscious at that time that Moses was aware of the reason for this commandment.

One could have reasoned that granted that there was a reason for the red heifer of the generation Moses led in the desert not to have been revealed; what was the situation with the red heifers during all subsequent generations? It is possible that G'd had not withheld the meaning from everybody but had revealed it to selected individuals in each generation such as to Aaron. It is reasonable to assume that such selected individuals in turn would reveal it to selected individuals of the next generation. Alternatively, the Torah expects that all successive generations have to be content with the fact that Moses had known the meaning of this commandment. I have found a comment in Midrash Rabbah according to which the words ויקחו אליך mean that all future red heifers would be named as the "red heifer of Moses." We have to understand why G'd departed from His custom when He formulated this commandment. When you review our explanation you will come to the conclusion that the verses make good sense without recourse to any other commentaries.

You may also look at our text in light of the Midrash Rabbah where it is claimed that the Gentile nations would approach Israel demanding to know the rationale of this commandment. The Torah said זאת חקת התורה in order for the Israelites to be able to respond to the enquiries of the Gentiles by pointing out that the nature of this legislation is such that we cannot explain it. We do not make an attempt to second guess G'd on the subject or to question it and by inference doubt Him. If we accept the Midrash, Moses was permitted to reveal his insights to the people on the understanding that the people in turn would keep their secret and not reveal it to the Gentiles even under provocation.

פרה אדומה, a red heifer, etc. I believe that all the details described by the Torah here are references to a variety of rules to be observed in connection with this red heifer. 1) אדומה; this is a reference to the ascendancy of the attribute of Justice; (a reminder of blood) 2) תמימה; it must not have black hair. We have learned in Parah 2 that two black hairs disqualify a red heifer from being used as such. Not only must it not have black hairs, but even the horns and the hooves must be coloured red. The colour black, and most certainly the colour white, disqualify such a heifer. 3) אשר לא עלה עליה עול, "upon which there never has been a yoke." The yoke reduces the impact of the power of the attribute of Justice. This is the mystical dimension of Berachot 5 that if a person experiences afflictions this cleanses away all the sins of a person. In other words, afflictions are an aspect of the attribute of Justice in action. 5) The burning of the red heifer is also symbolic of the attribute of Justice being in action. Once these various aspects of G'd's judgments have been reduced to ashes, these ashes enable the accumulated impurity which cleaves to man to escape, seeing that the impurity (טומאה) itself is only like a painful whip employed by the attribute of Justice in subjecting us to justice and retribution.

I have seen in Sifri Zuta that it is part of the rules of the red heifer that a person must not buy a calf and raise it because the Torah wrote ויקחו פרה, "they shall buy a (fully grown) cow and not a calf." Maimonides also rules like this in chapter 1 of his Hilchot Parah. In light of what we said that all the details the Torah wrote about the red heifer are related to its connection with the attribute of Justice, there is a deeper meaning to the last mentioned halachah. The very name פרה reminds us of a certain number (known to Kabbalists) connected to the process of judgments and retribution. If one were to use a calf and raise it this would throw this connection out of balance. Even though such a calf would eventually become a cow=פרה and as such would symbolise the number 285 which is the number of judgments G'd has in store for man, G'd insisted that the red heifer be of age at the time it is designated as such.

ויקחו אליך AND THEY SHALL TAKE UNTO THEE — They shall take from that which is their own: just as they divested themselves of their golden earrings for making of the calf — i.e., of that which was their own, so shall they bring this calf-like animal as an atonement from that which is their own.

פרה אדמה A RED COW — Why this rite was performed with a cow may be exemplified by a parable it may be compared to the case of a handmaid’s child that defiled the king’s palace. They said: Let the mother come and wipe up the excrement. Similarly here: since they became defiled by a calf, let its mother (a cow) come and atone for the calf (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 8).

תמימה PERFECT — in allusion to the Israelites who were perfect but through it (the calf) became morally maimed: let this perfect animal come and atone for them so that they may regain their state of perfection.

אדמה RED — It had to be red in allusion to the idea contained in the text (Isaiah 1:18): “Though they (your sins) be red as scarlet [they shall become as white as snow]” — so you see that sin is termed red.

לא עלה עליה על [A COW] UPON WHICH NEVER CAME A YOKE — just as they cast off themselves the yoke of Heaven.